Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4486) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4487) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes.

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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 557 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the first two appropriations bills that the House will consider for fiscal year 2015: H.R. 4486, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act; and H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.

The resolution provides an open rule for consideration of H.R. 4486 so that all Members have the opportunity to come to the floor and offer amendments on this important piece of legislation.

The resolution also provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, which is customarily considered in this manner. This structured rule makes in order eight amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to this House the first of what I hope are many appropriations bills for fiscal year 2015. Because of the Ryan-Murray budget agreement late last year, the Appropriations Committee has been able to move expeditiously and report these two bills for consideration by the whole House. In fact, this is the earliest that appropriations bills have been considered in this House since 1974.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, both of these bills enjoy strong bipartisan support. Both were reported out of committee by voice vote and take into account updated priorities for the coming fiscal year.

I am proud, for example, that we were able to provide additional funding for our veterans, who have given so much in service to our country. I am also proud that these bills maintain the fiscal discipline this country so desperately needs.

The MilCon-VA bill actually spends $1.8 billion less than fiscal year 2014, and the Legislative Branch bill provides for level funding.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Rogers for beginning this process in earnest, and look forward to consideration of additional appropriations measures at the appropriate time.

I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend for putting an emphasis and a spotlight on an area of bipartisan cooperation in the veterans area. He is precisely right in the concern that both sides of the aisle have for the men and women in uniform that have fought this Nation's battles.

While the wars themselves have been contentious, I actually don't think the funding of veterans has ever been contentious, regardless of who was President and regardless of who was in control of this Chamber.

Quite frankly, as I recall, during the Bush years, we increased veterans expenditures by about 100 percent over an 8-year period. That has continued under President Obama.

Again, you can never do enough, but I think the Congress actually, over an extended period, has really tried in this area and has worked together quite well in a bipartisan sense.

My friend also referred a little bit to the legislative branch, and there, again, we probably have some areas of agreement, maybe some areas of disagreement, but not profound ones.

The reality is we are in a difficult time financially. My friend is absolutely correct when he points to some of the reductions in House expenditures. We have reduced, by about 14 percent, House expenditures over the last 3 or 4 years.

I would suggest, while those changes have been difficult, they have been appropriate, given the size of the deficit and the fiscal difficulties we had.

It is important to note, in this budget, we make no further reductions. As a matter of fact, we actually increase expenditures in some important institutions that actually support Congress and its work.

We have not done it again, as my friend has correctly stated, for Members' offices or for committees. We did do a little bit of that last year in raising so-called MRAs and committee budgets.

This year, because of the allocation we had, frankly, I have chosen, as chairman of that committee, to focus on things like the Government Accountability Office, the Government Printing Office, the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, areas that are absolutely indispensable in the operation of this institution. The Library of Congress, another one where the Congressional Research Service is housed, again, is very important to what we do.

Hopefully, as we go forward, we will be able to do more in some of these areas, but I think, given what we had, we have done reasonably well; and again, while these have been tough decisions, they have been made in a bipartisan manner with the cooperation between majority and minority on the appropriate Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

Finally, my friend did point to the Senate, and I suppose we always have a little bit of envy of the other body in terms of its funding. I would suggest, while their expenditures have gone up, they have not been particularly dynamic in their legislative performance.

Frankly, far be it from me to offer a definitive opinion. We normally let each institution do what they want to do, but I am always happy for the contrast in the budget of a Republican House and a Democratic Senate because I think it is abundantly clear which one is serious about fiscal responsibility and which one is not, and I suspect we will have that debate going forward.

Again, I thank my friend for his remarks and his focus on what is genuinely important, and I know, when he talks about this institution and its staff and its functions, he does so with genuine respect and genuine concern.

Again, some of those concerns, I certainly share, and perhaps, going forward, as we did last year and we tried to do in some of the supportive institutions this year, we can restore some of that capability that I know he and I would both like to see us have.

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

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

First, I want to begin by extending the same regard and personal affection to my friend that he was kind enough to display toward me. I have had the privilege of serving with him on the Appropriations Committee, obviously, ever since I arrived at that committee; and we currently serve on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee together, the Legislative Branch Subcommittee together, and Interior Subcommittee together. And on that committee, Interior, of course he was an absolutely superb chairman. I happen to think he is an even better ranking member. But he was a superb chairman, and we have worked together on many items. And I, like my friend from Florida, am going to miss my friend from Virginia, who I think has rendered distinguished service in this Chamber, and certainly to our committee.

In terms of his suggested amendment, I will make two points. First, we are advised this is a clause 2 violation to be legislating on an appropriations bill; and I thought there was a reasonable chance, secondly, that we would have a chance to discuss this and he would have a chance to make his point.

And I am glad that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) did make the point that he made because I think it is a very important point to be made. I particularly share your concerns about the long-term character of the body, and I think those were well stated. I don't think we are in any danger right now of reaching that point, but I think my friend does point out a trend that could occur.

I would also be quick to add, there are about as many different styles of Members as there are Members themselves. Some people come here with the idea of being here for a long time. Other people come here for shorter periods of time, not with the idea of cashing out, but because they believe that is the appropriate way to serve.

In my State, my good friend Senator Coburn has always lived by term limits. He did when he was in this Chamber. He has, again, in the Senate. So not every Member that comes here and serves 6 or 8 years is trying to cash out. They just think that is the appropriate length of time, and that is a judgment that is quite often shared by their constituents. And again, I think either one is appropriate. I think Members and districts make that decision for themselves.

But I also think, in consideration of the decisions we have made in the last several years--by both parties, by the way. Again, my friends, when they were in the majority, had some concerns about increases in salaries as well, and I think that was because they saw the fiscal problems of the country.

We have had to make some tough decisions around here in the last few years. We are going to have to make, I think, some more tough decisions. And I think sometimes, to add legitimacy to those decisions, you have to lead by example. I think that is what we have tried to do. I think that is what my friends tried to do as well during the period that they were in the majority. So as long as we are preaching fiscal austerity, we have got to practice a little fiscal austerity.

But I want to conclude by saying, I still think my friend's point is a very important one to be heard. I am glad he made the remarks that he did and has raised it.

I am sorry for your staff because I am sure the incoming mail and calls have been extraordinary.

But again, one of the things I like about my friend, even when I disagree with him--because on occasion, we do--he is never afraid to articulate a position and present a point of view. And if there is a little fire associated with that, so much the better. I think he enjoys the give-and-take of that. And that is one of the things I am going to miss the most about him when he departs this Chamber.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to thank my friend from California for working so closely with Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop on what is a genuinely important contribution to the legislation; and I think, frankly, it is pretty exemplary of the manner in which Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop worked together throughout this process. I saw it myself during our full committee markup where, literally, they were working together to make changes to try and respond to Members' legitimate concerns in this area and did it right to the last minute of the bill.

So I know we are going to have contentious moments in the appropriations process; we always do as we go forward. But in this particular case, in this legislation, and certainly between the chairman and ranking member, I think we have an example of how to work together in a bipartisan fashion that most Americans, if they had a chance to learn about it, would be genuinely pleased with.

So again, I thank my friend from California for participating outside the committee in that. I think she made a very valuable contribution, and I am pleased that she made that point. And again, I recognize the wonderful work of Mr. Culberson and Mr. Bishop.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to begin by thanking my friend from New Jersey and again recognize his very special and very distinguished service in this body. This is a typical example of the good sense and the compassion he brings to the floor on a regular basis, and I know I appreciate that. And while we are in different parties, he is one of the people, like my friend from Virginia (Mr. Moran) who spoke earlier, that I most admire and I think is generally admired on both sides of the aisle. So I associate myself with the remarks he made and appreciate that very, very much, and I wish him well in whatever he chooses to do next because he has certainly distinguished himself here, as

he had in his academic career before he came here. And whatever he does next, I know he will be equally distinguished in that field, but we will miss him very much in this body.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate what my friend from California had to say, the reality is this legislation doesn't have anything to do with the minimum wage, and frankly, it would be inappropriate to consider the minimum wage here. It would be legislating on an appropriations bill, something that as a rule we do not do around here.

Second, while not wishing to engage in a long debate about the minimum wage, I will say this. Remember, the people of this country and the people of individual States have the opportunity to move on this issue when they choose. Indeed, 19 States, if I recall correctly, actually have minimum wages above the Federal minimum wage.

There is serious concern that the one-size-fits-all minimum wage doesn't make a lot of sense. I can tell my friend I don't pretend to be an expert on what the cost of living in California or New York is, but I am sure it is considerably higher than it is in the State of Oklahoma, and at the end of the day, I actually trust the Oklahoma Legislature, the Oklahoma Governor, and the Oklahoma electorate to make this decision for themselves. I don't think imposing a national solution or national standard in this case is necessary or desirable.

So, again, I think you leave this to the wisdom of the States and localities. I think that is what our Founders generally envisioned we should do when we had questions of this nature.

Again, I am sure we will have this debate another time and on other occasions. It is a perfectly appropriate debate to have. It is not an appropriate debate, it would not be something we could do legislatively on this particular rule or the underlying legislation. So it seems to me not a strong reason to vote against either one because this vehicle could not carry the legislation that my friend from California would like to see enacted.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

In closing, I would like to say that one of the basic functions of Congress is to fund the government, and this rule would begin the process for consideration for fiscal year 2015 of actually doing that function and doing it in an orderly way and appropriate way.

I am particularly pleased that the appropriations process has moved as well and as quickly as it has so far this year. To that, I give credit to my

friend, Chairman Rogers, and my great friend, Ranking Member Lowey. They have worked well in a bipartisan manner.

I want to also commend the chairman of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee. Mr. Bishop is the ranking member, and Mr. Culberson is the chairman. I think they have done a wonderful job.

Frankly, I have had the opportunity to work with my good friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the legislative branch as the ranking member, and I am currently privileged to be the chairman. I think that has been a very productive relationship. I have no doubt we are going to have some contention in other bills, but these bills have really moved together in a bipartisan fashion, and I think given the allocations that we had, have been worked through in a very professional, workmanlike way.

Now, my friend from Florida did mention the syrupy debate, and I know that is not his style. I have had the privilege of serving with him on the Rules Committee not just in this Congress but in a previous Congress, and he is one of the best debaters on the floor, and I have no doubt on every occasion I have seen he always gives as good as he gets and makes his case quite well. But I have appreciated having the opportunity to have this exchange with him. Obviously, I would urge that my colleagues actually support the rule and the underlying legislation.

While the rule vote is a procedural vote, and it is not uncommon for us to basically have a partisan division, I suspect that when the underlying legislation actually reaches this floor on the MilCon bill, the VA bill, and on the legislative branch bill, we will have a great deal of bipartisanship. Certainly, I look forward to that vote. I look forward to the debate and discussion over those. But the first thing we have to do is pass the rule, so, again, I urge my colleagues to pass this.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 557 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

sections:

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare

the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on

the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.

1010) to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage.

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and

the Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All

points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At

the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports

that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the

next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the

third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,

resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further

consideration of the bill.

Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 1010.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to thank my friend from Oklahoma for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4486, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015 provides for $165 billion in appropriations for veterans programs, military construction projects, and other agencies and programs. H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, provides for $3.3 billion for legislative branch activities.

Clearly, the parties working on this matter worked together, and we need more of that in this institution. This bipartisan effort brought Democrats and Republicans together to draft legislation that appropriates funds to military construction projects, improves quality of life for veterans and military families, and allows for the continued operation of the essential functions of our Nation's governing body.

Included within these measures is an increase of $8.8 billion for veterans benefits programs, guaranteeing those who have dedicated themselves to defending our Nation will receive the benefits they earned.

I am very proud of the fact that Mike Sykes is sitting with me today, who is one of those veterans that is working in my office and prepared me for this particular day. I would like to thank him, Tom, and all of the people that work with us with reference to this particular part of the responsibilities that we have on the Rules Committee.

H.R. 4486 provides for significant reductions to Defense Department construction spending, which is in line with the President's fiscal 2015 request, but uses those savings to increase total funding for the Veterans Affairs Department by 7 percent.

This shift represents the growing awareness that as we wind down the costly wars that we have been engaged in for over a decade, we must now turn our full attention to supporting those who will bear the cost of those wars for decades to come.

Last week, I participated in a ceremony for World War II, Vietnam, and Korean war veterans where we were honoring a gentleman that has spent a large portion of his career in making sure that veterans receive their proper due.

It was telling to me that we had not done all that they anticipated that we could, and, therefore, I am hopeful that we will take cognizance of the fact that the veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan will have tremendous needs, and, hopefully, this small advance will allow for us to attend them properly.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is provided a total of $158.2 billion in budget authority, an increase of almost 7 percent over last year. This legislation ensures full funding for essential VA compensation and benefits programs in areas like education, vocational training, and housing assistance.

This measure also includes $58.7 billion in advance funding for the VA, ensuring that veterans will continue to have full access to their medical care needs, regardless of where Congress stands in the annual appropriations process.

The underlying legislation includes funding for important national programs and activities, such as the Medical and Prosthetic Research account, Post-9/11 GI Bill authorities, and encouragement for the department to maximize the availability of mental health services to veteran victims of sexual trauma while serving in the military.

H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, while a bipartisan effort--and for the most part, noncontroversial--still falls short of restoring funding levels for Member offices and committee staffs.

As with their fixation on cutting spending on any investment in our Nation's infrastructure, education, and scientific research, my friends on the Republican side continue to believe that you can reduce the budget indefinitely and still get the same product.

What they fail to acknowledge is that, eventually, there comes a breaking point where the lack of investment produces tangible reductions in the quality of the product rendered, and unfortunately, that time is fast approaching for Members' offices and committee staffs.

Two reports mentioned by the minority members on the Legislative Branch Subcommittee bring into stark relief the consequences of ongoing funding shortfalls.

The first, by the Congressional Management Foundation and the Society for Human Resource Management, shows that over 50 percent of congressional staff cite salaries as a major factor in their decision to leave their positions.

The second, by the Congressional Research Service, found that, between 1977 and 2010, House committee staff levels dropped by 28 percent, while Senate committee staff levels have increased by almost 15 percent over the same time.

Either the Senate is doing a lot more work than we are, or we are seriously hamstringing our ability to conduct thorough research and debate on the critical issues before us today.

We cannot continue to decimate our staffs and committees, while asking for more and more from them. As we must be responsible stewards of the resources that the American people have entrusted us with, so too must we be responsible to those who have chosen public service.

Just as we cannot continue to allow companies to pay nonliving wages, we cannot continue to pay our staffs in the same manner that we have. We can and must do better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Mr. Moran is leaving us after this session, and he will be sorely missed, but he takes it upon himself to address an issue that is of vital concern to all Members of the House of Representatives.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the next speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, just in response to my friend from Oklahoma, what Mr. Moran pointed to was the fact that moderate rent in this metropolitan area is $27,000 a year. I don't think it is unreasonable for us to not only have a discussion, but to do something about the fact that there are Members that are here that can't afford that on the salary that they make. Now, it may be that the constituency is unsympathetic. It may be that these are tough times.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

It may be that these are tough times, but the simple fact of the matter is we have at least 20 Members of the House of Representatives living in their offices, and I don't think that that is right. And I think that the public needs to know that, and I think once the public understands that a lot of that is attributed not only to that Member's idea about how to serve, but the fact that he or she cannot serve in a proper manner living in accommodations that I think they deserve by getting to this high station.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Hahn), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my good friend.

I yield the gentleman from New Jersey an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1010, our bill to raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) to discuss the importance of raising the minimum wage.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Oklahoma that I am the last speaker, and I am prepared to close if he is prepared to close.

Thank you very kindly.

Mr. Speaker, it has been one of our more syrupy debates around here, and it is because of the bipartisan nature that allowed for this legislation to come to the Rules Committee and then to be put here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that we can be pleased by the level of support provided in this legislation for essential veterans programs. America's veterans deserve the very best support our Nation has to offer, and I am pleased to note that Democrats and Republicans came together to craft legislation that provides the necessary resources for veterans and their families.

At the same time, though, we must realize that if we continue to strangle the support for the offices that are tasked with creating the legislation and programs to support those very veterans, we will eventually begin to fail them, as well.

We must break free from the false logic that all spending is bad spending and realize that investments in our country, our infrastructure, our education, our medical research, or even our legislature is a sound one.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1010, our bill to raise the Federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. And while my friend from Oklahoma makes very salient commentary regarding what might very well be a view of some note in our body politic, I don't deem it unwise or unnecessary to talk about lifting people out of poverty at any time during the course of our legislative business, understanding the rules and the fact that this would not have been a rule germane to the specific issue.

But it is germane to the families out there in America. It is germane to the people that are working and are still in poverty that may be lifted out of poverty if we were to have a $10.10-an-hour minimum wage.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question, and I now yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.