Contempt Act

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on consideration of H.R. 4486, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is a real honor and a privilege for me to present the Veterans Affairs and Military Construction Appropriations bill to the House of Representatives with my good friend from Georgia, Sanford Bishop.

This is a bipartisan bill that we produced together with unanimous support of the committee and the subcommittee to ensure that our veterans and our men and women in uniform have everything that they need to do their job with complete peace of mind.

In fact, I often think of the job of this subcommittee as the peace of mind subcommittee, to be sure that our men and women in uniform have everything they need when it comes to their physical infrastructure and that, when they leave the services and go into the VA system, they have everything they need.

Making sure that our men and women in uniform have everything that they need and making sure that our veterans when they leave the service have the best possible medical care this country can provide is one of those fundamental functions of the government. We have an obligation as guardians of the Treasury and as good stewards of taxpayers' hard- earned dollars to ensure that this vital, core function of our Federal Government is fulfilled to our veterans and to our men and women in uniform.

In this appropriations bill, we have included $71.5 billion in discretionary funding, which is $1.8 billion less than last year and $398 million less than the budget request. We have provided the full budget request number of $6.6 billion for military construction projects, and while we have provided $1.8 billion less in fiscal year '14, we have included $64.7 billion in discretionary funding for the VA, which is about $1.5 billion more than last year. We have included an additional $20 million to get at the claims backlog and $17 million more than was requested for electronic medical records.

In this legislation, we are ensuring that we have continued strict oversight of the VA in their reporting requirements on the claims backlog. The length of time it takes veterans to receive the disability benefits that they have earned is just unacceptable, so Mr. Bishop and I have included language in this bill to have very strict reporting requirements over which we will continue to exercise vigorous oversight in the months ahead at the VA to ensure that the claims backlog is reduced.

We are also introducing a mechanism here that we have found to be very, very effective in the case of electronic

health records. The VA and the Department of Defense are operating two completely different medical record systems that don't talk to each other. So, when you are in uniform in the Armed Forces and leave and go into the private sector and when the VA picks you up, the VA can't read your medical records. This is unacceptable. Since 2008, the Congress has had laws on the books that require the VA and the Department of Defense to have transparent, interoperable medical records that would be easily and quickly readable when a servicemember leaves the active service and goes into the VA system. Yet they are still not there, so we have in this bill a mechanism that says you are only going to get 25 percent of your money up front on implementing electronic health records until you come back to the committee and show us that you are meeting your obligation under the law to provide an immediate, seamless, and transparent transfer of your medical records from the Department of Defense to the VA.

In particular, I want to thank Chairman Rogers for his support in this effort. He had a constituent of whom I am confident he will talk about in a minute--a young man in his district who really struck a chord with me. It is a tragic example of how unacceptable this is, that one agency can't read the medical records of the other. He is a young man who was injured. He lost his eyesight, I believe, Mr. Chairman, in Afghanistan. He had the vision in one eye lost, but had damage in the other eye. He still had some vision in the other eye, so when he left the service to go into the VA and when the VA needed to work on his other eye immediately in order to save his vision, the VA could not read the medical records provided to them by the Department of Defense. The doctors at the VA, understandably being cautious and concerned and being unable to read the records, didn't operate as quickly as they should have, and the young man lost his eyesight as a result of the medical records being unreadable by the VA. It is tragic, unacceptable, and utterly outrageous.

I am working closely with the chairman of the armed services Appropriations subcommittee. Chairman Rogers has been terrifically helpful in this as has Ranking Member Lowey and my good friend Mr. Bishop from Georgia. We are working with the armed services subcommittee in Appropriations to put identical language in the bill so that the DOD is in the same boat.

You are going to have to earn your money. Prove to us that you are obeying the law, that you are fulfilling your obligation to our veterans and to our men and women in uniform, and then we will release the money. Follow the law and you will get your money. It works every time in the private sector. Certainly, I am confident that it is going to work here. I often think of the fact that I have been using an Apple Macintosh computer since they first came out in 1985. I never dreamed that you would be able to use a Windows operating system on a Macintosh computer, but, today, you can run Microsoft Word and other Windows programs on a Macintosh operating system. Surely, if Apple and Windows can work it out, the VA and the Department of Defense can as well. This bill ensures that that is going to happen. If they want to see the rest of their money, they are going to have to obey the law and get an interoperable, transparent medical records system in place.

Mr. Chairman, we have also limited the availability of construction funds in this bill to 5 years for hospitals that the VA builds so that the veterans don't have to wait endlessly for the completion of a hospital. I will never forget when I first got this marvelous assignment--I was assigned by Chairman Rogers to handle this important bill--that the Denver hospital had $900 million, I believe, set aside, squirreled away in a hole. I don't think they had signed a contract or turned a spade of dirt, but they had $900 million squirreled away for years--that they had not used--in order to build that sorely needed hospital in Denver. That is just unacceptable.

This money that we are privileged to be stewards of was earned by our constituents by the sweat of their brow and their hard work, and it is our responsibility to ensure that the money is wisely spent, that it is spent to ensure that the law is enforced and, above all, that we do not spend any more than is absolutely necessary to fulfill the fundamental obligations of the United States Government. At the top of that list is to ensure that our veterans receive the medical care they have earned, that they receive the disability benefits in a timely fashion that they have earned, and that our men and women in uniform have all of the physical facilities they need to do their jobs with the peace of mind and the assurance that the United States Congress and the American taxpayers are right there with them, looking over their shoulders, to take care of them.

That is why this is the ``peace of mind'' committee, and it is a privilege for me to serve with my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). So that my good friend Mr. Bishop can address the House, I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP14.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP14.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP14.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30AP14.004

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, the distinguished chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, if I could ask how much time do we have remaining in this part of the debate?

Mr. Chairman, I have the pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee.

I yield the gentleman such time as he may consume.

Mr. Chairman, at this time it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Mrs. Roby), a member of our subcommittee who does a superb job representing her constituents.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask how much time we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure to acknowledge and thank my friend, Mr. Cuellar, from Laredo. We have been good friends and served together in the Texas House. I am sure he remembers the appropriations committee in the Texas House. And we understand the value of the power of the purse.

We are indeed using the power of the purse to achieve the goals that Mr. Cuellar has just mentioned, that is, ensuring the claims backlog is dealt with and that the Department of Defense and the VA have an interoperable medical record.

There really is no more powerful check and balance that the legislative branch has over the executive branch than the power of the purse, which originates in the House.

Article 1, section 9 says that no money may be drawn from the Treasury, except by appropriations.

We are working together arm-in-arm, just as we did in the Texas House, in support of our veterans and military.

In fact, we also have found great common ground when it comes to law enforcement on the border, something that his folks in Laredo have a keen interest in: safe streets, good schools, a strong economy. And that all begins with law enforcement.

I want to thank the gentleman from Laredo because it has been a pleasure working with him on so many of these good issues.

We could have not gotten to this spot, Mr. Chairman, without the help of the committee staff. We have got an extraordinary group of people who have made this possible. The Appropriations Committee is blessed to have had professionals here who have helped us for years.

I want to particularly thank Donna Shabazz, Sue Quantius, and Sarah Young, and make sure that we also recognize the extraordinary contributions by Matt Washington and Tracey Russell.

This has really been a team effort. It is an extraordinary complex piece of legislation to ensure that not only the money that our taxpayers have worked so hard to earn is wisely spent, but that the agencies that are the beneficiaries of these hard-earned tax dollars understand that with the receipt of this money comes the obligation to ensure that it is spent wisely. We are going to continue with aggressive oversight.

When it comes to oversight, Mr. Chairman, I also want to mention that

we are going to have an amendment later today by the Congresswoman from Phoenix to deal with this really deeply concerning situation that we have seen arise in the Phoenix VA where you have got a doctor claiming that folks have lost their lives. They were unable to get access to the medical care they have earned from their medical service at the Phoenix hospital.

That is another way to enforce the law. With additional funding, we are going to use the inspector general's office to investigate this and find out what is actually going on. In that case, if there has been deliberate or intentional refusal to admit veterans to the VA hospital in Phoenix, there are going to be criminal charges.

Certainly, our heart goes out to those families in Phoenix. We are all committed to make sure that any veteran, any member of the military who has served this country, has immediate access to the best medical care in the world.

And that is why this is such a bipartisan bill and one that we offer to the House today, arm-in-arm. Both the gentleman from Georgia and the people of Texas that I represent were pleased to present this to the House and encourage the Members to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I join Mr. Bishop in urging the House to approve this legislation, and I agree with him wholeheartedly about making sure that any check--any check that our veterans have earned doesn't ever come back with insufficient funds.

It is one of the fundamental obligations of the Federal Government to ensure that our veterans are taken care of, they are given everything they need while they serve and they are in uniform, but then also that they are given access to the best medical care the country can provide to them once they enter into the private sector.

We have, in this legislation, given everything that the veterans have asked us for. We have made sure that the VA is fully funded, but we are using the power of the purse to ensure that the law is obeyed. We are making sure that our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars are spent wisely and frugally and carefully and that they actually reach the veterans who need them the most.

We are in an extraordinary era, Mr. Chairman. Survival rates are higher than they have ever been for our men and women in uniform. If they are lucky enough to survive their initial injury and make it to an aid station, the survival rate is in excess of 98, 99 percent.

It is absolutely extraordinary, the blessings of modern medicine. The work that the VA has been doing in prosthetics and helping these young men and women recover from their injuries is extraordinary.

This is our first obligation as a government, is to ensure that the men and women who make it possible for us to be here in a free society and debate legislation like this, that they are given everything that they have earned by their service to the country.

An important part of this is to be sure that we are also talking to our constituents about the budget problems that lie ahead of us and the importance of making sure that the social safety net, the social safety net that is out there--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--those programs remain solvent.

They are, right now, headed into bankruptcy, and we have got to make sure that we deal with those bigger problems for the longer term, so that we can continue to fully fund the needs of our veterans and our men and women in uniform.

It truly has been a privilege for me to work on this subcommittee with my friend from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). The State of Georgia and the State of Texas--I feel a special kinship with the people of Georgia because they have a commitment to the military that is commensurate to that of the people of Texas.

We both admire our men and women in uniform immensely, and this is a piece of legislation that our folks back home, Mr. Chairman, may not see much disagreement, but that is because we are, all of us, so strongly in support of making sure that our men and women in uniform can focus on their mission and protect this Nation with complete peace of mind.

I urge all the Members of the House to support this legislation which is presented to them by the unanimous vote of the subcommittee and the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in strong support of this amendment, and I thank my colleague from Georgia for working with us and making sure that we get this done.

We are long overdue for an antiballistic missile site in the continental United States, here on the east coast in particular.

My good friend from Ohio (Mr. Turner) is absolutely right. We face an increased threat environment. That is putting it mildly.

The North Koreans, who are still at war with us--we are only under an armistice in North Korea. The North Koreans have demonstrated that they actually have a nuclear weapon in hand.

Visual satellite observers--I am an amateur astronomer, and as a member of a group of amateur observers of artificial satellites, one of the members of our network actually observed and tracked the North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile overflying the United States December 12 of 2012.

That is the first time the North Koreans had demonstrated the ability to actually fly an intercontinental ballistic missile payload over the United States. That missile flew over Pensacola, Florida, Mr. Chairman. It came up from the south and flew over the southeastern United States and exited the United States over Michigan. So the North Koreans have already demonstrated they have got the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon to the United States. So it is imperative that we move immediately to design and build an antiballistic missile site on the east coast of the United States.

I want to compliment my good friend from Ohio for bringing us this amendment, and it is my privilege to support it. I urge the adoption of the amendment and urge the Department of Defense to build this antiballistic missile site as fast as humanly possible.

I yield back the balance of my time.

It would be my privilege.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to assure my good friend from Florida, Chairman Mica, that I look forward to working with you to ensure that the VA does complete its independent study of this facility, and I hope that report is going to come back and show the continued need for the Baldwin Park facility.

I will work closely with you, sir, to make certain that the Veterans Administration does everything in its power to support the results of the independent study and work to keep that facility open.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Yes, of course, I completely agree with you that one of the fundamental obligations of the United States of America is to ensure that these men and women who have served their country have earned that piece of earth as a convenient and dignified final resting place.

I completely agree with you, Mr. Lamborn, that this project is too far along, and it is important that we fund it in fiscal year 2016, and I will work with you and your colleagues from Colorado to ensure it is funded.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and urge my colleagues to adopt it. I am, as we all are, appalled, mortified, and heartsick over these reports out of the Phoenix VA. It is appalling to think that any veteran who has served our country would be denied access to medical care, much less lose their life or have permanent damage to their health.

I cannot imagine the agony these families are going through, so therefore the amendment is a good idea to give an additional $1 million to the inspector general, who is capable of conducting the type of investigation necessary to determine what actually happened here. In the instant, if there does, indeed, appear to be deliberate, intentional refusal to put these folks into the VA system, there will be criminal charges, and we will make sure of that. We will make sure that if anyone has been denied service, they are held accountable for it.

It is an appalling set of circumstances genuinely. It is a terrible reflection on all the good men and women, the doctors, and the health care professionals that work throughout the VA system do, do their best to provide top quality medical care to our veterans as they come out of Active Duty service to the country.

So we are anxious to see what the facts are and criminal charges be pressed if, indeed, it turns out to be as we have seen in the press, so I strongly support the amendment and urge Members to adopt it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Along with the electronic medical records, there is no more important thing this committee and this Congress can do to help our veterans to ensure the rapid disposal of this terrible backlog in disability claims.

I fully support the amendment. It builds on the $20 million increase we have already provided in the bill. I assure my colleagues that Mr. Bishop and I will continue to exercise aggressive oversight to ensure the money is

spent wisely and carefully to reduce the backlog and that the VA meet their deadlines to get the backlog disposed of as quickly as humanly possible.

I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

This is something that we have all worked together arm in arm and welcome the additional resources with the assurance to our employers-- the taxpayers--that we will provide aggressive oversight and ensure that the money is actually used to reduce the backlog as fast as humanly possible and, above all, to enforce the law because the greatest check and balance we have as guardians of the Treasury and good stewards of our taxpayers' hard-earned tax dollars is the power of the purse.

I welcome the gentleman's amendment and look forward to supporting it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Yes, I have. It is an ongoing problem trying to get any of the agencies to tell you what their administrative costs are. It is extraordinarily important. I really appreciate you bringing it to our attention. We are going to continue to work on this with you and other Members to ensure that our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars are spent wisely.

Mr. Chair, if the gentleman will yield, I would point out I have a software application on here called Dragon Naturally Speaking. You just talk into it and it transcribes it instantly. As we used to say, ``Get with the nineties,'' get with the modern era and just download a few apps on the computers.

We will bird-dog them relentlessly. That is absurd.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

We have presented this piece of legislation to the House in a bipartisan fashion. We have got unanimous support for it. This is one of those areas where we have an honest but earnest philosophical disagreement.

This is something my good friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran), has been pursuing over the years, but it is, again, something the constituents I represent, the folks of Texas, I know oppose the idea of giving constitutional rights to enemy soldiers captured on foreign battlefields, especially these cowardly terrorists who hide behind women and children and launch sneak attacks against our men and women in uniform.

We have asked the Congressional Research Service to attempt to tell us when, if ever, constitutional rights have been granted to enemy soldiers captured on foreign battlefields. The Congressional Research Service tells us the only example they can find is Manuel Noriega, the dictator of Panama, who was captured during the Bush 41 administration and brought to trial in Florida.

The individuals at Guantanamo Bay are the most dangerous, radical individuals that have been captured during the war on terror. These folks are extremely dangerous.

Any evidence that has been gathered, for example, even if they were to be transferred to the United States and given a criminal trial under the Constitution, which I strenuously object to, but even if they were brought to the United States and put on trial, how would any of the evidence gathered against them in Guantanamo be used to convict them?

So this presents unsurmountable problems and is a divisive issue that is going to cause a tremendous amount of disagreement among the Members of Congress on a bill that has enjoyed unanimous and enthusiastic support from everyone in this body to make sure that our veterans and our men and women in uniform are taken care of.

It is essential that this amendment be defeated in order to make sure that enemy soldiers are not given the protections of the United States Constitution. It is fundamentally something I strenuously disagree with, as do my constituents, and I urge the Members of this House to reject this amendment. And I hope to also have the support of the people of Georgia in opposing this amendment as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Many Members have also requested language that would ban performance bonuses for senior-level executives at the VA in response to the concerns Mr. Rothfus has just mentioned.

I join him in grieving for those veterans who lost their lives as a result of the Legionnaires' disease outbreak. My heart goes out to them and their families.

The authorizing committees have, indeed, as Mr. Rothfus says, taken action on this issue. The GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013 that passed in February contains a 5-year ban on performance bonuses for VA Senior Executive Service employees.

In February, the Chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee introduced legislation that would give the VA Secretary complete authority to fire or demote Veterans Affairs senior executive employees based on performance. That is a sorely needed performance tool that the VA Secretary, I know, will use.

Mr. Chairman, we have also included language in our report reiterating that the Secretary of the VA already has all the authority they need to reward employees for good performance and withhold rewards for poor performance, just like the private sector.

That is a question I specifically asked during our hearing with the VA Secretary, and we have established that from the Secretary's own testimony, reaffirmed that in our bill itself.

The Secretary demonstrated his commitment to linking awards to performance when he withheld awards for everyone in the Veterans Benefit Administration last year because the claims backlog targets have not been met.

This is, I believe, an important amendment. I support it and urge the Members of the House to support it to send a clear signal to the VA that the Members of the United States Congress are unhappy with their performance, and they need to step it up.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part, Mr. Chairman, that an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law, and the amendment in this case requires a new determination.

I would ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment because, even though I am a strong believer in the 10th Amendment and public health and public safety is reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment, here we are talking about Federal facilities.

Marijuana is prohibited under Federal law. Any Federal facility funded with Federal dollars--I think it is entirely appropriate that it continue to be prohibited on a Federal facility. This is an issue that should be left to the States.

Nothing is prohibiting a veteran from seeking medical attention in a State where this is legal or where medical marijuana is permitted. They can certainly go to a private physician. Frankly, in the States where it is legal, in some of these States, I think they are even working on vending machines for them.

I understand the gentleman's position, but again, these are Federal facilities funded with Federal dollars. It is prohibited under Federal law, and it is an issue best left to the States.

I think we would all do better as a Congress to honor the 10th Amendment and leave those issues involving public health and public safety to the States. We ought to focus on the issues specifically delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution and leave the vast majority of issues in the hands of voters, their local elected officials, and State officials. This is certainly one of them.

When it comes to a federally-funded facility, I think it is appropriate that

the VA has a policy against their doctors prescribing or recommending the use of a substance that is prohibited under Federal law. If they need it, they can go to States where it is permitted. I urge Members to oppose the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Very quickly, we are talking about those States where it is already permitted--either medical marijuana is in Colorado, and I think Washington State has already permitted it.

It is a 10th Amendment issue. It is something that is left up to the States, but we are talking about federally-funded facilities, and that is the concern here, in a federally-funded facility, where it is illegal under Federal law, that is the problem.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I have listened over the years to my good friend from Virginia, my friend from New York, and Mr. Smith from Washington advance this issue. I think maybe now is the time for us to address this, if only as a going-away present. Because this is the last time Mr. Moran is going to be able to offer this. Since he has decided to leave us for greener pastures someplace else, I think it would be fitting for us to address this directly.

I have great respect for my dear friend from the State of Texas who talks about what the people he represents feel about this issue; and I, with all due respect, wonder if the conversations with his constituents in Texas were like the conversations I have with my constituents in Oregon, if people knew that we are spending eight times as much to incarcerate these people as if they were in other Federal facilities.

The gentleman from Virginia talks about the space that is available now in terms of Federal facilities. Do people know that we have convicted hundreds of people suspected of terrorists acts and, under the provisions of the military tribunal, none? What do our constituents really want if they knew that fact?

The sad truth is that Americans are at greater risk because of our reckless behavior failing to close this sad chapter. The vast majority of these people probably don't pose a risk, and they certainly wouldn't pose a risk incarcerated in our maximum security facilities in the United States.

It is time to close this facility, to honor the rule of law. It strengthens our position internationally, it saves money, and it allows us to actually get some of these people who may be bad guys actually convicted.

Military tribunal doesn't work. Our courts do.

I hope that we will step up, do the right thing, approve this amendment, and give Mr. Moran a going-away present as he leaves Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I deeply appreciate the hard work of the committee to make sure that our veterans are properly cared for. They deserve our best.

Too many are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with obvious wounds--missing limbs. But over 2.3 million are returning suffering from wounds that are not visible. They are suffering from depression and PTSD. That is why we lose 22 veterans per day who take their lives, long since outnumbering the battlefield deaths. They deserve our best.

Over 100 million people reside in the 21 States, including your home State of California, which was the first to legalize medical marijuana. Twenty-one States and the District of Columbia passed laws that provide for legal access to medical marijuana. As a result, as I say, over 1 million people now have access to it, including many of our veterans who use medical marijuana at the recommendation of their physician to treat conditions ranging from seizures, glaucoma, anxiety, chronic pain, and the symptoms associated with chemotherapy. There are also nine States, including my home State of Oregon, that now allow physicians to recommend medical marijuana for the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder.

I have heard those stories myself. I will enter into the Record one story that was in the NBC News on April 1 about marine veteran Logan Edwards, who describes how access to medical marijuana may have saved his life.

`Out of Options': Veterans With PTSD Hit Pot Underground

(By Bill Briggs)

[From NBC News, Apr. 1, 2014]

Marine veteran Logan Edwards worried he could become one of

the 22 former members of the armed services who, on average,

commit suicide every day.

Then, he says, he tried marijuana.

Edwards, who served eight months in Iraq, is one of an

unknown number of veterans who have turned to marijuana to

manage Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which may afflict as

much as 20 percent of veterans from the wars in Iraq and

Afghanistan, according to experts. The Department of Veterans

Affairs doesn't let its doctors prescribe weed, so the former

service members buy it illegally, fib to their doctors,

accept it as a gift, or grow it themselves.

In Edwards' case, he says the drug may have saved his life.

``The first time I used it, I wanted to cry. Because it

took away my anxiety. Because it did everything for me that

the Oxycontin, benzodiazepines and anti-depressants the VA

prescribed me for three years did not do,'' said Edwards, 26,

a resident of Davenport, Iowa. His symptoms--an unrelenting

``hyper-vigilance,'' insomnia and nightmares--emerged ``the

moment we walked off the plane'' in 2008.

``I can function completely fine all day just by using

cannabis. I'm back in school. My attendance is good. My

grades are good. My relationships have healed,'' added the

former Marine. ``It allowed me to get my life back.''

In a March 12 letter, federal health officials approved a

long-delayed study to explore if pot relieves PTSD. But

doctors employed by the VA are banned from prescribing

medical marijuana--and from completing forms that allow

veterans to enroll in medical-marijuana programs. While

medical weed is legal in 20 states, only eight states

recognize PTSD as a qualifying condition for which physicians

can write cannabis prescriptions.

``. . .Due to the way the federal government and the state

want to handle this medical marijuana issue, I still am

forced to spend time away from family, treating these wounds

of war.''

Across that tangled post-war legal landscape, thousands of

combat veterans are tapping underground sources to buy

bootleg marijuana to self-treat PTSD. And in 12 states where

the drug is legal but prohibited for PTSD, many are lying to

doctors that they need medical weed for allowable conditions

like chronic pain, advocates assert. Meantime, vast numbers

of other veterans can't find it, can't afford it, abuse

alcohol to self-medicate, or rely on conventional VA drugs.

``My brothers are killing themselves because they're out of

options,'' Edwards said. ``These VA pharmaceuticals only

exacerbate the problem. The listed side effects on (some) of

the bottles say: `Will increase suicidal ideation.' So the

suicide rate is really what this comes down to.''

U.S. Army veteran Tom Studley, 28, served as a machine

gunner in Iraq for 15-months. He returned to civilian life

with chronic back pain and was diagnosed with PTSD. Studley

was prescribed numerous pharmaceuticals, but he said that by

inhaling marijuana with a vaporizer, he's been able to stop

using those drugs. Here, Studley stands in the shed where he

grows some of the 15 plants he's legally allowed as a medical

marijuana patient in Washington state in Nov. 2011.

With marijuana federally classified as a Schedule I

controlled substance (like heroin and LSD), VA physicians

``will not provide

for use,'' said Gina Jackson, a VA public affairs officer. At

the same time, veterans who participate in legal, medical-

marijuana programs ``will not be denied access to care for VA

clinical programs but should be assessed for misuse, adverse

effects, and withdrawal.''

The possibility of federal drug monitoring--plus fears of

losing VA benefits and the threat of legal trouble--has

driven scores of veterans to secretly use marijuana for

decades to address their PTSD symptoms, several veterans

said.

``Us veterans have already conducted tests on pot and

PTSD--and it works!'' said Vietnam veteran Bob Walker, 69.

``It's nice to see the feds playing catch up.''

PTSD expert Dr. Harry Croft, a San Antonio-based

psychiatrist who has treated veterans for combat-related

anxiety and substance abuse, applauds the federally approved

investigation.

``We owe it to our veterans with this condition,'' Croft

said. ``Unfortunately, present treatment options are not

helpful to many veterans and, therefore, other newer options

should be scientifically explored, including medical

marijuana.''

At Walker's home in Northern California, he ingests pot via

a vaporizer each night before bed. A Marine veteran grows

that marijuana and supplies it free to Walker and a local

network of other Vietnam vets. Diagnosed with PTSD, Walker

tried VA-prescribed Xanax and anti-depressants but found he

could not function on the pharmaceuticals. About 15 years

ago, he said, a VA counselor quietly suggested Walker use

cannabis to relieve his insomnia, anxiety, stuttering and

cold sweats.

``It solved a big problem for me. You feel, well,

lighter,'' said Walker, a former Army aircraft mechanic who

served in Vietnam in 1965 and 1966, watching his best friend

die in a chopper crash. ``Probably 60 to 70 percent of the

vets I know use marijuana for stress reduction and sleep.

It's their baseline medication.''

``I'm back in school. My attendance is good. My grades are

good. My relationships have healed. It allowed me to get my

life back.''

Near Denver, retired Marine and Iraq veteran Sean Azzariti,

32, sees roughly the same rate of pot use among ex-service

members with PTSD. He, too, was diagnosed with the disorder.

But in Colorado, PTSD is not a qualifying condition under

which private doctors can prescribe cannabis to veterans. So,

for four years, Azzariti could not tell his physician the

real reason he needed cannabis and instead said the

prescription would help treat chronic nausea.

Simply because of that forced ruse, pro-marijuana advocates

ensured Azzarti was the first customer in Colorado to buy

legal weed on Jan. 1 when the state began allowing anyone 21

and older to purchase pot. He paid $70 for a strain called

Bubba Kush and pot-infused candy truffles.

``If veterans had another avenue (to treat PTSD), most

would take that and it would save lives. I wouldn't be

talking to you if I didn't have cannabis,'' said Azzariti,

who smokes daily to manage his symptoms. ``Veterans have been

ignored for 30 years, denied what they truly need to heal.

Vietnam veterans could have told us this stuff works.

``That's why I'm open about using it. Sure, there's a

chance I'll lose my $120-a-month (VA) disability benefits.

But that's a small sacrifice to save one life and potentially

change the world,'' Azzariti said. ``With all of these people

coming home from war, (the PTSD and veteran-suicide crises)

are only going to get worse. How are we going to treat that?

We can't just keep throwing pills at people.''

Near Seattle, Iraq veteran Tom Studley, 28, stopped

swallowing pharmaceuticals for his PTSD symptoms four years

ago and instead, he said, gained inner peace by smoking,

vaporizing and eating marijuana.

`The anxiety begins to go away pretty quick and stays away

for a while,'' said Studley, who served as an Army machine

gunner.

After returning, he was prescribed muscle relaxants,

Percocet and methadone for chronic back pain plus Trazodone,

Celexa and hydroxyzine pamoate for sleep and anxiety. On his

property, Studley now grows, harvests and uses cannabis from

his 15 marijuana plants--a legal crop in Washington State.

``I feel,'' he said, ``less out of control.''

In Iowa, Marine veteran Edwards is taking control--but with

a painful plan.

In May, he will move to Colorado, away from his girlfriend

and 3-year-old daughter. He's relocating and transferring

colleges, he said, for one reason: to legally access medical

marijuana to continue managing his PTSD. He's tired of

breaking the law.

``I thought my deployment days, being away from my family,

ended when I got out of the Marine Corps. But due to the way

the federal government and the state want to handle this

medical marijuana issue, I still am forced to spend time away

from family, treating these wounds of war,'' Edwards said.

``I never thought I would have to leave the state and

community I grew up in to get access to medicine that's

working and is better for me than the FDA-approved stuff. I

never thought I would end up being a medical refugee.''

Mr. Chairman, any of my colleagues, whether they are in the State that has legalized medical marijuana or not, can find examples of veterans who are benefiting from this treatment, yet the Veterans Administration specifically prohibits its medical providers from completing forms brought by their patients seeking recommendations or opinions regarding a veteran's participation in a legal State marijuana program.

The amendment which I am offering today with Representatives Farr, Rohrabacher, and Polis is simple. It ensures that no funds be made available to the VA to implement this prohibition. The amendment would not authorize the possession or use of marijuana at VA facilities. It would simply free up VA providers to recommend medical marijuana or to provide advice upon it in accordance with State laws if they choose.

Over 20 percent of those 2.3 million American veterans suffer from PTSD or depression. While there is no single approach to aiding our veterans with PTSD, we should not use an outmoded policy to serve as a roadblock to the path to recovery. We found that there are nearly 1 million veterans who receive opiates to treat chronic painful conditions. More than half of them continue to use it chronically after the treatment regimen.

Another study found that the death rate from opiate overdoses among VA patients is twice the national average. In States where patients can legally access medical marijuana for painful conditions as an alternative, we shouldn't tie the hands of that primary provider or prevent our veterans from talking to their primary care physicians. They should not be forced outside the VA system to seek a simple recommendation or to get information about these conditions or eligible conditions granted to them by State law. Our VA physicians should not be denied the ability to offer recommendations and advice that they think meets the needs of their patients.

This shouldn't be controversial. According to a poll published in the New England Journal of Medicine, over 70 percent of physicians said they would, when appropriate, recommend the use of medical marijuana to their patients.

We all know of people with violent nausea as a result of chemotherapy. Why would you deny that to our veterans or at least being able to discuss it? Physicians who support legalizing medical marijuana nationally have exceeded 70 percent in major national polls.

This amendment simply allows veterans to consult with their primary provider, the same right enjoyed by over 100 million Americans today. I urge you to treat our veterans fairly and approve this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I listened to my good friend from Texas. I am troubled here. Why would we force veterans who are entitled to veterans' health and have a primary physician that meets their needs say, sorry, you don't get it in this case, go out on your own nickel, go out and find a new doctor?

We are not talking about prescribing it. We are not talking about using it on Federal facilities. We are talking about giving access to information and having that conversation.

I dare say there is no other medical condition, if it were polio or cancer, that you would say: nope, go someplace else. Go on your own dime. Find somebody--build a relationship with someone who doesn't know your history, who hasn't seen you regularly. You are out of here.

I think that is a disservice to our veterans. I don't think it is anything that--if you talk to veterans' groups, if you talk to the people who benefit from it, that they think that they ought to be denied the ability to consult with their trusted medical provider.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As you all know, this bill has a strong reputation for finding bipartisan common ground as members work together to fund the construction of military facilities and strive to improve the quality of life and the care afforded to our veterans and our military families. Once again, Chairman Culberson has continued this tradition. The bill before us provides funding levels that, I think, most Members on both sides of the aisle agree are appropriate while avoiding the contentious legislative riders that complicate passage.

I am pleased to join Chairman Culberson as the House takes up the fiscal year 2015 appropriations bill for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies. The MilCon-VA bill is critically important to the strength and well-being of our military, our veterans, and the families who sacrifice so much to defend our country.

In working with Chairman Culberson and the members of the 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 for 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, this bill will also impact military spouses, their children, and every veteran who participates in VA programs.

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

Chairman Culberson has already provided the funding highlights in the bill, so I won't repeat them all, but I will say this: In my opinion, the FY '15 bill adequately provides for the Department's priorities in military construction for each of the services. If the Department needed something, it is in the bill, and if it didn't need it, it is not in the bill. The Department of Veterans Affairs is funded at $64.7 billion, which is $1.8 billion above the '14 enacted level. Overall, the bill meets the discretionary budget request in all areas of administrative expenses, research, and facilities. In addition, the bill includes $58.7 billion in advances, which is the same as the budget request.

While I am pleased with the healthy funding increase for the VA, many constituents from my district are still extremely frustrated with the claims backlog. Frankly, I would have to agree. Now, while the VA has made some progress on lessening the backlog, there are still over 300,000 claims considered as backlogged, so I was pleased that an additional $20 million was included in the bill to assist the VA in making even more progress on the backlog. In addition, Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that coupling the Veterans Claims Intake Program with continued rigorous reporting requirements, while fully funding the Veterans Benefit Management System, will help the VA reach its goal to end this backlog in 2015.

On the issue of electronic medical records, you all know my frustration, and I could spend all of the time yielded to me just on this one topic, but I will say this: We have finally gotten the two Departments' attention, and I expect to see some real progress on this soon. The bill continues the practice of fencing money for this endeavor to make sure that when it is completed we have a system that works, and works well.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we have a strong bipartisan bill that supports our military, their families, and our veterans, and I would hate to see the hard work of our committee upended by contentious, partisan riders intended to serve in scoring political points instead of those that serve our Nation. I also believe the most important things of this bill are the resources and accountability provided to assist the VA in tackling the claims backlog. So I say to my colleagues that our committee strongly shares the deep commitment of this body in fixing the claims backlog issue. We have looked at numerous approaches and firmly believe our bill has found the optimal approach in dealing with this pressing concern for our veterans.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, a very, very, very eloquent and hardworking lady, and who is committed to the support of our veterans and their families.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has offered invaluable help on the committee in crafting the bill and who has a particular interest in the Defense Language School in Monterey and on maintaining our commitment to previous BRAC rounds in the State of California that they not be forgotten.

I yield the gentleman 10 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a strong member of the Appropriations Committee and a tireless fighter for our military veterans and their families.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of our Legislative Branch Subcommittee on Appropriations and a strong voice for the needs of our Nation's veterans, with a unique interest in the needs of our female servicemembers and veterans.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill, and it is a bill that, I think, meets the needs of our services for their military construction, as well as for our veterans and our military families.

As far as our military construction, if our services needed it, it is in the bill. If they didn't need it, it is not in the bill.

I am so happy that we have taken very strong steps to address the claims backlog at the Veterans Administration. We have taken strong steps to ensure that we will soon have coordinated, interoperable electronic health records between the Veterans Affairs Department and the Department of Defense; and I am happy that in this bill, together, we will assure accountability for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Chairman, when our men and women took the oath to serve our

country as part of our Nation's military, they took an oath to serve and defend; and when they completed that service, our Nation has, in fact, figuratively, written a check assuring that they will have the benefits that they need when they come back following their service.

It is our duty as a Nation, our duty as a Congress, and certainly our duty as a part of this committee, to make sure that that check that we figuratively wrote to those veterans never, ever comes back marked ``insufficient funds'' and to make sure that that check--the benefits of that check don't come back redeemed in a delayed fashion.

So we have done what is necessary to make sure that they get their benefits, that they get them in a timely manner, that the claims backlog is eliminated, and that we facilitate whatever it takes to make sure that they are rewarded for their service to our country because the price of freedom, it is not free.

Somebody had to pay that price, and the people who paid the price are the men and women who served our Nation in uniform and are now veterans and their families who also sacrificed as the servicemembers went to war.

I urge the adoption of this bill and ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would just like to commend the gentlelady for raising a very, very important issue to the health, safety, and welfare of airmen and those who go to MacDill; and I want to assure the gentlelady that the chairman and I will work very closely to make sure that that issue is addressed.

It is our hope that the gentlelady will withdraw her amendment and that we can work on it together, but I assure the gentlelady that we will work together to make sure that that is a safe environment, a healthy environment, so that no one will be exposed to the consequences of black mold.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I join the chairman in accepting this amendment. I commend the gentleman for offering it, and I think that our national defense will certainly be enhanced by the adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, when I learned of the allegations of intentional misrepresentation of wait times, which may have caused some 40 deaths at the Phoenix VA, I was deeply disappointed and downright disgusted.

I am pleased to see a bipartisan approach, and I believe this amendment will provide additional resources to the VA Office of Inspector General to improve oversight and accountability at the VA.

I agree with my colleagues from Arizona that this situation requires answers and a thorough investigation. I believe Congress should allow the VA IG to complete its investigation, so the Congress can take appropriate action, if needed. The last thing I want is a knee-jerk reaction that could cause additional problems.

I believe this amendment is the right approach, and I fully support it, and I urge all Members to do the same. I believe that a thorough investigation of the matter is the only way to restore our veterans' trust and the public trust in the VA health care system.

We owe it to our veterans to ensure that the VA is providing the best possible care and that care is timely and accessible. I think this amendment will help achieve that goal.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Washington for bringing this issue to our attention. I will certainly work with you, as well I am sure the chairman will and the members of our subcommittee, as we go forward to find a meaningful solution to this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 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 interest to do so.

Guantanamo has become a rallying cry. It serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists and increases the will of our enemies to fight, while reducing 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 that has been soundly rejected by the Supreme Court. As a result, continued operation of this facility creates the impression in the eyes of our allies and our enemies that the United States selectively observes the rule of law.

There is no reason that we should impose on ourselves the legal and moral problems arising from the prospects of indefinite detentions at Guantanamo.

Working through civil courts since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses and are now serving long sentences in Federal prison. Not one single person has ever escaped custody.

For these reasons, I believe that the time has come to take the actions needed to initiate closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo. I think this amendment sends that strong message.

I support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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, indeed, unacceptable.

There is no question that the VA has struggled to successfully deliver one of its key missions: to provide timely ratings of disability. 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 have these failures 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 fact, may have the 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 it needs to solve the problems it faces today, like the claims backlog and the health care 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 the VA would then also apply to all other Federal agencies.

Attempting an across-the-board, one-size-fits-all fix will penalize those who are dedicated VA executives who are working hard and doing a good job to find solutions to the VA problems.

I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment. We are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This is not a good amendment, and I urge this House to defeat it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank my colleagues on the VA-MilCon Subcommittee--in particular, Mr. Fortenberry and Mr. Culberson and their staff--for their excellent work on this legislation in helping me facilitate this amendment and discussion.

I also want to thank, of course, the committee staff, who has just been wonderful.

My amendment would require that no funds in this appropriations bill shall be used for the administrative expenses until the Secretary meets with the Nebraska delegation. The Secretary's calendar should never be so busy that he cannot meet with an entire delegation.

Mr. Chairman, on June 6 of 2013--almost 11 months ago--our delegation asked for a meeting with Secretary Shinseki. When I say ``delegation,'' I mean all of the House Members and both Senators signed on to this letter, which I will submit for the Record.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, June 6, 2013.

Hon. Eric K. Shinseki,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs,

Washington, DC.

Dear Secretary Shinseki: We respectfully ask for a personal

meeting with you to discuss the current state of the Veterans

Affairs (VA) hospital in Omaha, Nebraska.

We are pleased that Omaha is on the VA's construction list

and as such will someday have a new facility built. However,

as number 18 out of 20 on the VA's major construction

projects list, the reality seems to indicate that there is a

small chance a new facility will be built by the end of the

decade. As the condition of the current facility continues to

deteriorate and the new hospital's timeline continues to

slide, veterans in the Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care

System will be placed at risk of not receiving the proper

health care that they have come to know and deserve.

The situation with the Omaha VA hospital is dire. The

management and staff are doing their best, but unforeseen

circumstances have provided obstacles to ensuring our

veterans receive quality care. For example, operating rooms

were closed in March 2013 due to failing humidifiers. Though

the situation is being addressed, we are concerned that the

aging facility will only continue to face operational

challenges and will continue to require significant

maintenance in order to keep it functioning until a new

facility can be built. Another major issue is the condition

of the boilers, air conditioners, and emergency generators.

Without replacement soon the Omaha VA Hospital could face

major shutdowns for complex and costly replacements of this

equipment.

The veterans of Nebraska and western Iowa, who rely on this

declining facility, need to know that the VA has valid and

viable plans in place to continue the excellent care they

receive without avoidable interruptions or endangerment to

their health and welfare. We ask that you meet with us to

discuss these items so we, as the Nebraska delegation, can

communicate to and alleviate the concerns of our veteran

constituents.

Several questions we would like to discuss with you

include:

How does the VA establish funding priorities for

construction of new VA hospitals and whether or not the major

construction list will be re-evaluated based on the current

status of existing facilities?

When is Omaha's facility reasonably expected to begin

physical construction?

What is the VA's plan to fund unexpected and required

repairs to continue Omaha's operations until a new facility

is completed?

What is preventing the VA from placing higher priority on

seriously degrading facilities such as the Omaha VA hospital?

What are other possible solutions/options for a new

hospital and is the VA open to exploring these possibilities?

Please let us know as soon as possible as to your

availability to meet in June. Time is of the essence. Please

ask your staff to coordinate with Katie Amacio, scheduler for

Senator Johanns, at kathleen_amacio@johanns

.senate.gov. Ms. Amacio will coordinate with the rest of the

delegation.

We look forward to working with you to best serve our

nation's cherished heroes, our veterans.

Sincerely,

Lee Terry,

Member of Congress,

Adrian Smith,

Member of Congress,

Jeff Fortenberry,

Member of Congress,

Mike Johanns,

United States Senator,

Deb Fischer,

United States Senator.

Now, the purpose of this inquiry was to discuss some health care alternatives for the VA Nebraska-Western Iowa Health Care System. Our hospital for 170,000 area veterans is in serious disrepair--boilers, HVAC, emergency generators. The very sewer and water pipes are literally duct-taped together. We have heard that it is the second worst hospital infrastructure in all of their hospital inventory. Even last March, the operating rooms had to be closed down due to failing humidifiers. We are talking about the basic functioning of this hospital that is out of date.

Without replacement soon, the hospital could face additional major shutdowns for the complex and costly replacements of this infrastructure. Currently, we are on the list to be built somewhere around '18-'20, but the reality is, for years now, the list hasn't moved. Now our VA employees are being told that it will be somewhere in the 2021-2022 range. I fear it will be even later than that before the new inpatient tower can be built.

Why do we need to talk to the general, or to Secretary Shinseki, about this hospital?

It is that there are alternatives available in our community that we need to discuss with the decision maker.

I will tell you that, even though we made the request in June of 2013--as we head into May of 2014 now--they did get back to us in November of '13 when they said that we could meet with a low-level employee. So the entire delegation rewrote a letter in November, rejecting a meeting with the low-level employee. We need to meet with the Secretary, the decision maker, on these types of alternatives that would be available and that are, frankly, much cheaper than the $600 million budgeted.

The Secretary then did call back in December when the House was out of session and when the Senate was wrapping up, I think it was, the debt resolution issue for Friday, but even the Senators left on Wednesday. They at late notice scheduled a meeting, but that was when no one was here. We have made numerous requests for additional meetings to discuss these great options that would be available. Some of them would involve a leaseback type of provision by which people would put up the money, build the hospital, and then lease it back, reducing the burdens on the VA's budget, but we have no one to talk to. That is why I am saying let's hold back the administrative budget until the head of the administration for the VA meets with the Nebraska delegation on this really important safety and health issue for our veterans.

I yield to my colleague, Jeff Fortenberry, from Lincoln, Nebraska.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry.

I think the language is innovative and absolutely necessary, and I compliment you on your perseverance on this issue as well and on the insertion of this language into the bill.

Mr. Chairman, the lend-lease or the leaseback provisions could be helpful. There are at least two community options that, I think, are highly credible options. One of them would be a leaseback type of option. The VA does that on clinics, but they refuse to do it on hospitals.

The Secretary mentioned he was open to the language that you have inserted, which is a great step forward. Was he open to actually meeting with the delegation on the options that our community is putting forward?

I am intending, Mr. Chairman, to withdraw this amendment at the end of the gentleman's 5 minutes; but I do want to encourage General, Secretary Shinseki to actually sit down and listen to these options. We are not there to berate him or the VA but to simply say that our community is serious about finding solutions in working with the VA, and Mr. Fortenberry has now inserted language that would encourage that.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike section 411, which specifically restricts the Defense Department from transferring Guantanamo detainees to the United States.

Striking section 411 would enable the U.S. military to be able to make the most responsible decisions on transferring the 77 detainees who have been cleared by our intelligence community and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be able to go to their home countries and bring those not cleared for release to the United States to be charged, tried, and sentenced.

The Obama administration has made some real progress on this issue over the last year, but it is still the case that Guantanamo is a rallying cry for extremists around the world, and until we transfer and try these detainees, there is no denying that Guantanamo is in fact hurting our national security.

We need to reevaluate our response to the long-term threat of terrorism and realize that policies that mock the rule of law make it more likely, rather than less likely, that we will be attacked again.

How can we expect Americans who are captured abroad to be accorded the right to be sentenced and brought to trial when we hold 154 prisoners in Guantanamo without charge and without trial?

Some of my colleagues are going to argue that detaining or trying suspected terrorists in the United States would endanger national security, but it is not the case. More than 400 defendants charged with crimes related to international terrorism have been successfully convicted in the United States since 9/11. That includes the Times Square bomber; the shoe bomber; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was tried and convicted in my congressional district for his role in the 9/11 attack.

All of them are in our prisons here in the United States. Most Americans don't know that because there haven't been any security incidents. In fact, more than 300 individuals convicted of crimes related to international terrorism are currently incarcerated in 98 Federal prisons within the United States, with no escapes and no attempts to free them.

There are six Defense Department facilities less than half full where Guantanamo detainees could be held here in the United States.

The current approach of military commissions has proven unworkable because many of these prisoners merit a trial, but they are not getting the kind of trial that can withstand scrutiny. In fact, the only two guilty verdicts these commissions issued were both overturned.

Keeping Guantanamo open is expensive. We are currently spending $2.67 million per detainee each year at Guantanamo, compared to $34,046 per

inmate at a high security Federal prison here in the United States.

This year alone, the Defense Department estimates that it will spend $443 million in operations and personnel costs to operate this detention facility.

When we are facing the negative effects of sequestration, it just does not make sense to continue what is in effect a permanent scar on our judicial system.

In conclusion, the political and legal expediency of the detention center at Guantanamo has not been worth the cost to America's reputation around the world, nor to the erosion of our own legal and ethical standards here at home.

I support the President in his recent statements, and I encourage the Members of this body to support this amendment. It is the right thing to do morally, ethically, and legally.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us reflects the concerns that Congress has had over senior executives at the Department of Veterans Affairs receiving performance bonuses when VA hospital standards were not up to par and when we continue to see a backlog of disability claims.

I share those concerns that VA truly does need to tackle. But recent actions taken by this Congress through the good work of the MilCon Appropriations Subcommittee and the Veterans Administration have, in fact, improved the operational efficiency of those hospitals and reduced the backlog.

The VA has also instituted much greater transparency in the process of awarding bonuses for its Senior Executive Service. In fact, VA has centralized senior executive award decisions. They have added an additional level of review in consideration of those awards. And the VA has significantly reduced the value of those awards compared to prior years. Most importantly, the Secretary has already demonstrated his willingness to use the bonus system as a way to reward and penalize staff based on their performance. As it stands, the Secretary has all the authority he needs to use bonuses to influence performance.

I think this amendment is something of a political ploy, Mr. Chairman. It is designed to misdirect our frustrations to the good men and women who have chosen to serve their government in the civilian workforce. I take serious issue with this very popular practice of continuing to punish a workforce that is predominantly composed of hardworking Federal servants that have already suffered a disproportionate amount.

If we want to retain the individuals that make up what is, in fact, the best large Federal civil service in the world, we need to change this culture very quickly. After 3 years of pay freezes, pension cuts, pay cuts, and furloughs, our Senior Executive Service, which is largely composed of the best of the best in the Federal workforce, has, at the very least, earned these bonuses.

The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that Federal employees in highly skilled professions could be earning much more in the private sector. Why do they choose public service? Not for monetary gain but for love of country and the opportunity to make people's lives better, particularly our veterans. But they have families to feed and mortgages to pay and children to send to college. Where does it end?

No matter how many times this House majority says the government can't solve problems, can't create jobs, can't help the American people, it will never be the case. The fact is this government does help the American people. We should be proud of our government, not punish our civil servants. And the fact is that you can find far more veterans who are appreciative of the good work that the people in the Veterans Administration do than those who disparage it.

So I would urge rejection of this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.