[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 16, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7581-H7585]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VA CONSTRUCTION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2014
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3593) to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the
construction of major medical facilities, and for other purposes, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3593
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[[Page H7582]]
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``VA Construction Assistance
Act of 2014''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; SENSE OF CONGRESS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) According to testimony by the Director of Physical
Infrastructure of the General Accountability Office before
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives in May 2013, schedule delays of major medical
center construction projects of the Department of Veterans
Affairs have averaged 35 months, with the delays ranging from
14 months to 74 months.
(2) The average cost increase attributed to such delays has
been $336,000,000 per project.
(3) Management of the major medical facility projects
currently underway as of the date of the enactment of this
Act in Denver, Colorado, Orlando, Florida, and New Orleans,
Louisiana, should be subject to the oversight of a special
project manager of the Army Corps of Engineers that is
independent of the Department of Veterans Affairs because,
according to the Comptroller General of the United States,
such projects have experienced continuous delays and a total
cost increase of nearly $1,000,000,000.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the management of the major medical center construction
projects of the Department of Veterans Affairs has been an
abysmal failure; and
(2) in order to minimize repeated delays and cost increases
to such projects, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs should
fully implement all recommendations made by the Comptroller
General of the United States in an April 2013 report to
improve construction procedures and practices of the
Department.
SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION OF MAJOR MEDICAL FACILITY CONSTRUCTION
REFORMS.
Section 8104 of title 38, United States Code, is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(i)(1) With respect to each project described in
paragraph (2), the Secretary shall--
``(A) use the services of a medical equipment planner as
part of the architectural and engineering firm for the
project;
``(B) develop and use a project management plan to ensure
clear and consistent communication among all parties;
``(C) subject the project to construction peer excellence
review;
``(D) develop--
``(i) a metrics program to enable the monitoring of change-
order processing time; and
``(ii) goals for the change-order process consistent with
the best practices of other departments and agencies of the
Federal Government; and
``(E) to the extent practicable, use design-build processes
to minimize multiple change orders.
``(2) A project described in this paragraph is a
construction or alteration project that is a major medical
facility project.''.
SEC. 4. SPECIAL PROJECT MANAGER FOR CERTAIN MEDICAL CENTER
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
(a) Appointment of Special Project Manager.--Not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall enter into an agreement
with the Army Corps of Engineers to procure, on a
reimbursable basis, the services of the Army Corps of
Engineers with respect to appointing not less than one
special project manager who has experience in managing
construction projects that exceed $60,000,000 to oversee
covered projects until the date on which the project is
completed.
(b) Duties.--A special project manager appointed under
subsection (a) to oversee a covered project shall--
(1) conduct oversight of all construction-related
operations at the project, including with respect to--
(A) the performance of the Department of Veterans Affairs
involving the prime contractors; and
(B) the compliance of the Department with the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, including the VA Acquisition
Regulation;
(2) advise and assist the Department in any construction-
related activity at the project, including the approval of
change-order requests for the purpose of achieving a timely
completion of the project; and
(3) conduct independent technical reviews and recommend to
the Department best construction practices to improve
operations for the project.
(c) Plans and Report.--
(1) Completion plans.--Not later than 90 days after being
appointed under subsection (a), a special project manager
shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the
House of Representatives and the Senate detailed plans of the
covered project for which the special project manager is so
appointed.
(2) Progress reports.--Not later than 180 days after being
appointed under subsection (a), and each 180-day period
thereafter until the date on which the covered project is
completed, a special project manager shall submit to the
Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives and the Senate a report detailing the
progress of the covered project for which the special project
manager is so appointed. Each report shall include--
(A) an analysis of all advice and assistance provided to
the Department under subsection (b);
(B) an analysis of all changes ordered by the Department
with respect to the project, or claimed to have been made by
contract between the Department and the prime contractor,
including the extent to which such changes comply with the
Federal Acquisition Regulation, including the VA Acquisition
Regulation;
(C) an analysis of the communication and working
relationship between the Department and the prime contractor,
including any recommendations made by the prime contractor to
aid in the completion of the project; and
(D) identification of opportunities and recommendations
with respect to improving the operation of any construction-
related activity to reduce costs or complete the project in a
more timely manner.
(d) Cooperation.--
(1) Information.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
provide a special project manager appointed under subsection
(a) with any necessary documents or information necessary for
the special project manager to carry out subsections (b) and
(c).
(2) Assistance.--Upon request by the special project
manager, the Secretary shall provide to the special project
manager administrative assistance necessary for the special
project manager to carry out subsections (b) and (c).
(e) Covered Projects Defined.--In this section, the term
``covered projects'' means each construction project that is
a major medical facility project (as defined in section
8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United States Code) that--
(1) was the subject of a report by the Comptroller General
of the United States titled ``Additional Actions Needed to
Decrease Delays and Lower Costs of Major Medical-Facility
Projects'', numbered GAO-13-302, and published in April 2013;
and
(2) has not been activated to accept patients as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON NEW APPROPRIATIONS.
No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and
this Act and such amendments shall be carried out using
amounts otherwise made available for such purposes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) and the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs.
Kirkpatrick) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
General Leave
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
H.R. 3593, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
In a moment I will yield to the bill's sponsor, Mr. Coffman, for a
more detailed description.
The goal of this legislation is to improve the way VA manages its
major construction projects.
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that VA has a poor track record in
managing major medical facility projects. Major construction projects
are routinely completed years late and tens of millions of dollars over
budget. Unfortunately, the critically needed VA hospital being
constructed in Aurora, Colorado, for instance, has run into major
problems, as have a handful of others around the country.
This legislation would direct the inclusion of an outside entity, the
Army Corps of Engineers, which has a record of on-time, on-budget
completion of projects, to assist in the management of VA's major
facility construction efforts.
No longer can veterans afford to wait years for needed facilities to
open. This bill finally would move VA away from the status quo, which
clearly has not served veterans or the taxpayers well at all.
{time} 1915
I would like to commend my colleague and friend, Representative Mike
Coffman, and applaud his leadership on this important issue.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am pleased that we are bringing up a bill that I introduced, along
with the chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee,
Representative Coffman.
This bill takes aim at two of the VA's most chronic problems:
accountability and efficiency. It is also an attempt to make real
reforms in the VA construction process.
[[Page H7583]]
This bill may not have all the answers, but it is a step forward in a
discussion we must have on addressing the facility needs of the VA and
ensuring that we are addressing the access requirements in a timely and
cost-effective manner.
We have seen time and again how VA has underperformed in the
management of its multibillion-dollar construction budgets.
Last year, the Government Accountability Office testified to the
committee on a number of significant cost overruns and completion
delays.
There may be some disagreement on the metrics and the magnitude of VA
shortcomings in this area--and I do wish to note that VA has made steps
in the right direction--but in the end, we are faced with a very real
issue that VA needs additional expertise with construction management
and the acquisition of major medical facilities.
I believe that asking the Army Corps of Engineers to provide the
expertise they have to the VA is a step we should explore. I am hopeful
that we will pass this bill today and continue the discussion with the
members of this committee, the VA, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
This legislation shows what we can do by working across the aisle. It
would codify some of the GAO recommendations from 2013, as well as
other industry best practices.
H.R. 3593 would also provide technical assistance to the VA in the
form of special project managers and design construction evaluations
on, particularly, troubled major construction projects.
While I recognize the Corps of Engineers and VA have some
reservations with the bill, I believe we can work within the confines
of the legislative language to ensure a positive outcome for all
parties.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3593 as part of our role as
watchdogs on behalf of veterans and taxpayers.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from
Arizona for her support of this good piece of legislation.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), who
is a member of the VA committee, a subcommittee chairman of the
committee, and the sponsor of this bill.
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee's Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee, I introduced H.R. 3593, the VA
Construction Assistance Act, along with my friend and ranking member,
Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona, to address significant problems with the
VA's construction practices, problems which became public knowledge
through our subcommittee's work.
My proposed reforms are designed to speed construction and rein in
the out-of-control costs of three major VA regional projects under
development in Aurora, Colorado; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Orlando,
Florida.
We introduced this legislation late last year based on the
investigative work of our subcommittee and in response to a Government
Accountability Office report that found that VA's major construction
projects had been mired in mismanagement. The report concluded early
last year that these projects are more than $360 million each over
budget and almost 3 years on average behind schedule.
The VA Construction Assistance Act implements GAO-recommended reforms
by assigning medical equipment planners to these construction projects
and streamlining the change order process. The proposal also goes a
step further by requiring the assignment of an emergency manager from
the Army Corps of Engineers, independent of the VA, to oversee these
projects, and only these three major medical facility projects,
currently under construction.
The GAO specifically singled out the Army Corps of Engineers as an
organization with a record of building similar projects within budget
and on schedule for the Department of Defense.
Our veterans cannot simply hope that the situation improves. We must
get these construction projects delivered so our Nation's veterans
receive the health care services that they have earned while at the
same time protecting the taxpayers from massive cost overruns. Notably,
this bill is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American
Legion.
As such, I urge each of my colleagues to support this commonsense
bipartisan legislation.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Kirkpatrick
for yielding time to me.
I rise in opposition to this legislation. Let me just say, I
understand I am the longest-serving member on the VA--23 years--and I
understand--don't confuse me with too many facts--that this bill only
includes three projects: Denver, Colorado; Orlando, Florida, one that
we have been working on for over 25 years; and New Orleans, Louisiana.
These projects, all of them, are far too along in the process to inject
a special project manager. The Orlando VA Medical Center is currently
94 percent complete and construction is planned to be completed by the
end of this year.
New Orleans is 52 percent complete and completion is scheduled for
February 2016. The VA and the contractor have signed an agreement on a
firm fixed price and are working closely together on the delivery of
this project.
I understand that the gentleman from Colorado is concerned about the
Denver VA Medical Center. However, the project is 55 percent complete,
and any efforts to change the leadership midstream would only delay
things further and cost our veterans time and money that could be
better spent on their health care.
As a senior member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, I know firsthand the amount of critical infrastructure
work that the Corps of Engineers have accomplished around the country.
With nearly $6 billion in backlog of authorized civil works projects
for the Corps of Engineers and with new, critical port-related projects
included in the recent passage of the Water Resources Development Act,
there are grave concerns by the Army Corps about their ability to
participate in this project, especially the costs that it would relate
to the Army Corps.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to put the letter in the Record
from the Army Corps.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Department of the Army,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC, Sept. 12 2014.
Hon. Corrine Brown,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Brown: I am writing in response to your
letter to Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick dated
September 11, 2014, requesting the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers views on H.R. 3593, The VA Construction Assistance
Act of 2013, the best way to resolve projects covered under
H.R. 3593 and how the Corps is currently working with the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on other projects. H.R.
3593 concerns appointment, duties and reporting of an
independent Corps special project manager (PM) to oversee
completion of certain covered VA major medical facility
construction projects in Denver, Colorado, Orlando, Florida
and New Orleans, Louisiana.
The Corps prior experience in use of a special PM with
another federal agency was not found to be beneficial. In
2011, the Corps and the Department of Energy (DOE--
Environmental Management) conducted a one-year pilot study
known as the ``Project Management Partnership''. Three senior
`level positions for Corps persons were established: one at
DOE HQ, one at Savannah River, and one at Oak Ridge, to
support specific DOE missions and projects. DOE and the Corps
agreed to terminate the pilot, as the agencies processes and
cultures were found not well aligned It was also found that
inserting a Corps special PM into ongoing DOE projects,
especially those experiencing delays and cost growth was not
feasible, since the special PM did not have clearly delegated
authority responsibility by which to act within DOE.
The appointment of an independent special PM in the case of
H.R. 3593 would present a number of problems. A special PM
would not have authority with the VA project delivery team or
VA contracting officer. A special PM would also not have
links to VA's project or agency automatic information
systems. The covered projects' direct contractual
relationship and fiduciary responsibility are between the VA
and construction contractor. The Corps is not a party to
those contracts. The VA is better situated than the Corps to
submit the detailed completion plans and progress reports to
the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs due to
its direct relationship with the construction contractor.
Finally, the proposed legislation, as written, is unclear
towards which agency must bear the administrative costs
resulting
[[Page H7584]]
from the special PM's Congressional reporting requirements.
The Corps does not have appropriated funding sources that
would be legally available to satisfy reporting requirements
on the VA's behalf.
H.R. 3953 effectively establishes a governance mechanism
for the covered projects. However, this does not appear to be
the matter at hand; project development, acquisition, and
execution appear to be the issues for these projects. An
alternative approach would be more appropriate to address
these matters. An independent review and examination of the
covered projects by multi-disciplined Corps design-
construction evaluation teams would enjoy both independence
and the depth of necessary Corps enterprise support that
could recommend an effective path forward for the projects'
completion. Existing authorities coupled with an interagency
agreement in a willing partnership between the Corps and VA
would provide both parties sufficient authority to enable
them to work collaboratively, on a cost reimbursable basis,
towards resolving project delays and cost escalation. An
interagency agreement could be arrived at reasonably quickly
between VA and the Corps, upon formal request by VA for Corps
technical services, for such an evaluation of a covered
project.
The Corps, as part of its interagency capabilities, has an
established relationship with the VA, providing support for a
broad range of facility construction and maintenance
requirements. Authority for the Corps' work with VA is based
on the Economy Act, which, coupled with an interagency
agreement, provides sufficient authorities to work
collaboratively. During 2007, the Corps of Engineers and the
VA formalized its relationship through a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) for the Corps to provide the VA support in
the execution of their minor construction and non-recurring
maintenance needs.
Prior to fiscal year 2007, Corps execution support to VA
was at or below $2 million annually for work for the Veterans
National Cemetery Administration. In 2007, as a result of the
MOA, the workload grew to $7 million and rose to $377 million
by the turn of the decade through the expansion of the Corps
work for the VA. Over the last several years, the Corps
managed work at 74 different VA facilities nationwide.
The Corps also is supporting the VA with the development of
its project governance processes. Two Corps personnel are
currently assigned to VA headquarters to assist with the VA's
development of a VA Program Review Board (PRB) framework that
is modeled on the PRB process used by the Corps. The PRB
framework will support senior VA leadership in their
oversight of construction programs including monitoring of
project performance and challenges.
As execution funds have grown over the years so has the
collaborative relationship between the Corps and VA. The
Corps regional and local offices have developed relationships
with each of the 23 Veterans Integrated Service Network
(VISN) offices around the country. Whether and how a VISN
incorporates the Corps services into its projects is at the
discretion of each VISN.
I hope this response has adequately addressed your
questions and concerns related to this matter. If you have
additional questions or concerns, please contact me or your
staff may contact Mr. Kurt Conrad, Military Programs Liaison
at (202) 761-0630.
Sincerely,
Lloyd O. Caldwell, P.E.,
Director of Military Programs.
____
Ms. Stella S. Fiotes, Executive Director, Office of Construction and
Facilities Management, Office of Acquisition, Logistics and
Construction, Department of Veterans Affairs Witness Testimony 03/25/
2014: Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3593, the VA Construction Assistance
Act of 2013
Section three of the bill would institute certain
requirements for VA major medical facility projects,
including mandates for the use of a medical equipment
planner, use of a project management plan, and use of a
construction peer excellence review. It would also require
development of a metrics program to enable the monitoring of
change-order processing time and goals for the change order
process consistent with the ``best practices'' of other
federal agencies.
Section four of the bill would mandate that within 180 days
VA enter into an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) to procure a ``special project manage'' on
a reimbursable basis to oversee three named current VA major
construction projects for facilities in Denver, Colorado,
Orlando, Florida, and New Orleans, Louisiana. The bill
enumerates the duties of the special project manager and
requires that plans and progress reports be provided to the
House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs. It also
establishes that VA provide the special project manager with
the requisite information and administrative assistance
necessary to carry out their tasks.
VA has a strong history of delivering facilities to serve
Veterans. In the past 5 years, VA has delivered 75 major
construction projects valued at over $3 billion that include
the new medical center complex in Las Vegas, cemeteries,
polytrauma rehabilitation centers, spinal cord injury
centers, a blind rehabilitation center, and community living
centers.
VA appreciates the strong interest and support from the
Subcommittee to ensure that our major construction projects,
and more specifically the Denver, Colorado, New Orleans,
Louisiana, and Orlando, Florida facilities, are delivered
successfully. While there have been challenges with these
projects, we have taken numerous actions to strengthen and
improve our execution of all VA's ongoing major construction
projects, including the three projects that H.R. 3593
addresses. For the reasons expressed below, VA does not
believe that the approach outlined in the bill will achieve
the desired results, and thus does not support it.
VA believes the creation of a special project manager would
be problematic in the management and supervision of these
projects. Specifically, the special project manager adds more
levels of management and may complicate, if not confuse, the
project delivery process. The bill raises serious questions
about the contractual relationship between the VA and its
contractor, the lines of authority the special project
manager will have vis-a-vis VA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), and the effect upon the independent
exercise of discretion by the VA contracting officer, who is
ultimately responsible for managing the contract on behalf of
the Government. The legislation we believe will also lead to
increased management and overhead costs associated with
funding the special project manager and support team.
VA continuously evaluates its processes and delivery
methods for each lease and construction project on its
merits, and we benchmark industry best practices with several
agencies including the National Institute of Building
Sciences, General Services Administration and the USACE. When
VA determines that the best delivery strategy is to employ
another agency such as the USACE, this strategy is used. VA
and the USACE have a long history of working together to
advance VA facility construction and share best practices,
and our current discussions are a logical evolution of that
relationship.
Since 2008, VA has engaged USACE to support maintenance and
minor construction projects at more than 70 of our medical
facilities. VA engaged USACE to review the contracts for the
New Orleans and Denver projects, and they continue to assist
in schedule evaluation in Orlando. More recently, USACE is
supporting VA in establishing a Project Review Board process,
similar to the process used by USACE districts, and
supporting the VA National Cemetery Administration in its
maintenance and minor construction program.
As outlined in the cited Government Accountability Office
(GAO) testimony and April 2013 report, the delays and cost
increases on the Denver, New Orleans and Orlando projects
occurred in the planning and design phases; each of these
projects is now in the construction phase. Last year, VA took
aggressive action on the recommendations in the April 2013
GAO report and all recommendations were closed as of
September 2013. Their recommendations included the addition
of medical planners, the streamlining of the change order
process, and clearer definition of roles and responsibilities
in the project management.
In addition to closing the GAO recommendations, VA has
worked diligently to address and close all of the
recommendations identified through the VA's Construction
Review Council (CRC), which was established in 2012 and is
chaired by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to serve as the
single point of oversight and performance accountability for
the VA real property capital asset program. With the personal
commitment of the Secretary, and the diligent efforts of
senior staff and management, all CRC recommendations have
been implemented since October 2013. These recommendations
include improvements in the development of requirements,
measures aimed at improving design quality, better
coordination of funding across the Department to support VA's
major construction program, and advances in program
management and automation. Through the CRC and the VA
Acquisition Program Management Framework that provides for
continual project review throughout the project's acquisition
life-cycle, VA will continue to drive improvements in the
management of VA's real property capital programs.
Our focus across the spectrum of construction project
management has led to advancements in our overall
construction program. Areas of increased effort include
improving requirements definition and acquisition strategies,
assessing project risk, assuring timely project and contract
administration, partnering with our construction and design
contractors, early involvement of the medical equipment
planning and procurement teams, and engaging in executive
level on-site project reviews. Additionally, the monthly
updates provided to the Committees on key projects have
increased the transparency in our program.
The way the Department is doing business today has changed
significantly since the Orlando, Denver and New Orleans
projects were undertaken. The lessons learned and the
improvements made have resulted in positive changes and are
being applied to help ensure the Department's capital program
is delivered on time and within budget.
The costs associated with enactment of this legislation
cannot be predicted with specificity, as they will depend on
the scope
[[Page H7585]]
and details of the arrangement mandated to be concluded with
the USACE under the bill.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, with prior experience, the Army
Corps has indicated that this kind of agreement does not work. They
presently have all of the authorization they need to work with VA. And,
in fact, they--the VA--spent $377 million at 74 projects they already
participate in nationwide, so they don't need an additional
authorization.
What this bill would do would only slow down the project in Orlando.
I have spent--and all of the Members from the Orlando area and from
Florida--we have spent years on this problem, and it is not just the
VA's problem. For years, we did not have any construction going on with
the VA. These projects, these last projects, we hadn't done any
construction in the VA in 15 years, so certainly a lot of the expertise
was gone.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional
2 minutes.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. But now it is not a benefit to have additional
responsibilities placed particularly in Orlando at this time. We have a
project that is close to completion. We want to bring this project in
on time. By the time this bill is ever passed and signed into law, I am
hoping that the veterans will be in the VA facility in Orlando,
Florida.
In addition, we have worked with them--and the people who are
handling it are not just the VA--the construction people. It has been a
problem all along. I am not saying that the Army Corps could not be
helpful, but at this time they absolutely cannot be helpful in this
project.
So as we move forward, take Orlando out of what you are proposing. It
is too late. We are ready for our VA facility to open up in Orlando,
Florida, and to serve the veterans of the central Florida area. May God
continue to bless America, and certainly the veterans deserve to be
able to move into the VA facility in the Orlando, central Florida,
area.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Coffman for bringing this
bill. I think it is extremely important, and it directly affects the
Omaha VA in-patient facility, as well as veterans all around the
Midwest area.
The cost overruns of the Denver, or the Aurora hospital, as well as
Orlando and others, have been noted in the GAO report showing that
these hospitals on average are 35 months delayed and somewhere between
300 and $400 million over budget. It shows a serious inability of the
VA's construction and management subagency to manage and run these
projects.
I am pleased that this legislation would require the VA to employ at
least one special project manager from the Corps of Engineers. It has
been noted by every speaker here today that the Corps of Engineers has
a specialty, a somewhat amazing ability to get projects done on time
and on budget, so having their level of expertise injected into this,
even if it is just an advisory or a consulting role, I think is an
important first step.
I would prefer that we just turned it all over, the VA hospital
construction, to something like the Corps of Engineers, but this is a
legitimate good first step in this process.
Now, our Omaha facility remains number 23. It has been in that area
now for 6 years, and it looks like unless we improve this process and
get their spending under control that it could be more than a decade
before our new VA in-patient replaces an over 60-year-old building
where they had no water for one 24-hour period because of the poor
infrastructure. So that is how we are harming our veterans by not
getting these projects done on time and within budget.
Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for taking charge
of this issue and all of the conversations you and I have had about
this over the last couple of years.
{time} 1930
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
Mr. COFFMAN. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
I think, again, going back to this Government Accountability report,
it says that, on average, these projects are $366 million over budget;
on average, these projects are 35 months behind schedule. There are a
number of recommendations that are taken right from this report that
are part of this bill.
One recommendation that wasn't specifically in the bill, but it was
mentioned in the bill by referencing that the Army Corps of Engineers
basically builds the same projects for the Department of Defense--the
hospitals--on schedule and within budget.
We are talking about, again, hundreds of millions of dollars wasted
in every single facility that is not going to the health care our
veterans have earned; so I think it is only right that we move forward
with this, not only to be fair to the men and women who have served us
in uniform and sacrificed so much in defense of this country and giving
them the benefits that they have earned through their service, but also
out of respect to the taxpayers of the United States who have basically
had their hard-earned dollars wasted in building these projects with
these incredible and massive cost overruns.
I have had countless meetings with the Corps of Engineers, and they
said that they could not publicly state their support for this, but I
have given this legislation to them and said, ``Come back to me if you
have any issues with it.''
They did not other than to say they feel prospectively they should be
the ones managing these projects, period. My bill does not address that
prospectively.
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues support H.R. 3593
and work with our partners in the executive branch to improve the
delivery of facilities for our veterans.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, I too thank the gentlewoman from Arizona
once again for her bipartisan support of this good piece of
legislation.
I urge all of my colleagues in the U.S. House to support H.R. 3593,
as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3593, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________