Norton's Request for Broader Language in Defense Bill Assures No Early Move of Walter Reed (5/23/08)

Washington, D.C. î º Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) spoke with House Armed Services Committee Chair Ike Skelton (D-MO) on the House floor last night to express her appreciation for comprehensive language she requested that Skelton wrote and included in the Defense Authorization bill, passed by the House last night. The language results from a Norton letter of May 5, 2008, originally sent to Defense Appropriations Chair John Murtha (D-PA), where Norton went further than her request to him last year for language that Murtha wrote and inserted into the 2007 Defense Appropriation prohibiting use of funds for closing Walter Reed. Norton's 2008 request went beyond annual appropriations funding because of evidence of active preparations by the Department of Defense in Bethesda to move Walter Reed. Norton wrote, "In addition to the need for the language you inserted last year, I want to bring to your attention an additional concern that I believe requires your attention. The Department of Defense continues to spend funds on preparation for a new hospital in Bethesda...[C]ontinuing Department of Defense spending inevitably carries with it a promise and congressional intention to build the new hospital by 2011. In the foreseeable future, however, there is no reasonable expectation that any administration or Congress will give bricks and mortar to construct a new hospital priority over soldiers, their families, and veterans." Norton wrote that she was requesting the language "to assure that premature and wasteful spending to open a new hospital in Bethesda has not taken place and does not continue."

Her request required comprehensive language from the authorizing committee, however, and the Skelton language requires an all-inclusive review before a new hospital can be built, including design, cost and timeline. The bill prohibits the closure of Walter Reed and bars the continued construction beyond the foundation in progress. Norton said she particularly appreciates Skelton's language requiring a cost analysis by an independent group for submission to Congress. "The Walter Reed building was opened in 1977 and may need updating and repairs, but is not in poor condition," Norton said. Her letter also cited the on-going wars, the needs of veterans and active military, the House "pay-go" deficit reduction requirement, and the cost of a new hospital to argue that construction of a new hospital should not be a congressional priority.

Norton's full letter follows:

The Honorable John Murtha, Chairman

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

U.S. House of Representatives

Room H-149 US Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Murtha:

I write to request language in the Defense Appropriations bill prohibiting the closing of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, an issue on which you have taken leadership ever since the hospital was first proposed to be closed and we first worked together on the hospital.

Your FY07 language prohibiting use of funds for the closure of Walter Reed was the first and most important step in stopping the proverbial bleeding of staff and talent from Walter Reed. You recognized that closing the nation's best and most essential military hospital in the middle of a shooting war and the war on terrorism was indefensible. You expressed great concern that considering the backlog of unattended needs of men and women in the military and of veterans, they should be the priority for spending, not bricks and mortar. As you know, Walter Reed continues to receive large numbers of the most seriously injured soldiers. The Washington Post has just won a Pulitzer Prize for its writing last year on shameful conditions, not at the hospital itself, but in outpatient care at Walter Reed. Your amendment and the funds you provided have helped to stabilize personnel who, as the generals testified before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, had begun to scatter or to seek other assignments because they believed the medical center would close.

In addition to the need for the language you inserted last year, I want to bring to your attention an additional concern that I believe requires your attention. The Department of Defense continues to spend funds on preparation for a new hospital in Bethesda, yet Congress is funding an ongoing war and will likely continue to need to spend great amounts in Iraq, even if troops are withdrawn. The House has put in place "pay-go" requirements and is very unlikely anytime soon to authorize or appropriate three billion dollars to build a new hospital in Bethesda, not to mention billions more in new equipment, moving costs and other related expenses. Yet, continuing Department of Defense spending inevitably carries with it a promise and congressional intention to build the new hospital by 2011. In the foreseeable future, however, there is no reasonable expectation that any administration or Congress will give bricks and mortar to construct a new hospital priority over soldiers, their families, and veterans.

Walter Reed may fall short of state-of-the-art, but it is not an old hospital (1977). The concern has been with outpatient care and not with the hospital itself, which remains preeminent, and an entirely new amputee care center has been built at Walter Reed and opened last year.

I ask that the Committee take steps and add language to assure that premature and wasteful spending to open a new hospital in Bethesda has not taken place and does not continue. If realistic prospects of funding for a new hospital develop in the future, there will be plenty of time to prepare and to spend funds in preparation on a timely basis.

I look forward to continuing to work with you on this matter. Please be in touch or have staff contact my Legislative Director, David Grosso at (202) 225-8050 if there are any questions or concerns with inserting the anti-closure language in this year's appropriations bill.

Sincerely,

Eleanor Holmes Norton