[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 47 (Tuesday, April 26, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. MONTGOMERY. 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 matter, on H.R. 4013, the bill now 
under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4013 is a bill designed to give the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs the tools he needs to manage Veterans' 
Administration's health care system. It would postpone unsound and 
devastating personnel reductions in Veterans' Administration hospitals, 
outpatient clinics, and nursing homes.
  The administration has promised us that the Veterans' Administration 
will be able to compete under health reform. But the Office of 
Management and Budget has told the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that 
during the next fiscal year the Veterans' Administration will have to 
cut 5,000 health care employees and slash another 20,000 people by 
1999.
  I have yet to hear any logical explanation for the policy of applying 
a Governmentwide reduction in personnel to Veterans' Administration's 
hospitals system. It is a mistaken policy, one which even the Vice 
President's report on ``Reinventing Government'' condemns. Let me read 
from that report:

       Federal managers often cite FTE controls as the single most 
     oppressive restriction on their ability to manage. Under the 
     existing system, FTC controls are the only way to make good 
     on the President's commitment to reduce the Federal 
     bureaucracy by 100,000 positions through attrition. But as we 
     redesign the Government for greater accountability, we need 
     to use budgets, rather than FTE controls, to drive our 
     downsizing. FTE ceilings are usually imposed independently 
     of--and often conflict with--budget allocations. They are 
     frequently arbitrary, rarely account for changing 
     circumstances, and are normally imposed as across-the-
     board percentage cuts in FTEs for all of an agency's 
     units--regardless of changing circumstances. Organizations 
     that face new regulations or a greater workload don't get 
     new FTE ceilings. Consequently, they must contract out 
     work that could be done better and cheaper inhouse. . . . 
     The President should direct OMB and agency heads to stop 
     setting FTE ceilings in fiscal year 1995.

  The Vice President is right on target. I only wish he had discussed 
his feelings with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
  H.R. 4013, as amended, provides that during the 5-year period 
beginning October 1 of this year there shall be no reduction other than 
as specifically required by law or by the availability of funds 
provided by the appropriations committees and the Congress. If Congress 
provides funds to support a certain personnel level in Veterans' 
Administration, OMB will not be able to impose arbitrary cuts on 
Veterans' Administration hospitals.
  I want my colleagues to know that the bill does not prohibit the 
Secretary of Veterans' Administration from reducing personnel through 
reorganization, consolidation, or otherwise. I also want to share with 
my colleagues the views of the many organizations that testified at a 
March 16 hearing on this measure.

                   Organizations Supporting H.R. 4013

       National Association of VA Physicians & Dentists--``We 
     strongly support (H.R. 4013) to provide VA flexibility in 
     meeting the workforce needs of its health care system.''
       Paralyzed Veterans of America--``PVA strongly supports 
     (H.R. 4013). This bill would prevent a devastating loss of 
     personnel from the Veterans Health Administration at the very 
     time VA is attempting to marshall all its resources to 
     compete and survive in a reformed national health care 
     system.''
       Disabled American Veterans--``DAV applauds the recognition 
     of gross contradictions between H.R. 3600--the Health 
     Security Act--and the seemingly mindless requested reduction 
     of some 25,000 full-time employee positions over a five year 
     period.''
       AMVETS--``* * * we enthusiastically support the bill 
     because VA faces sufficient challenges without significantly 
     downsizing the workforce. * * * AMVETS hopes that Congress 
     will provide VA the ability to choose a scalpel, not a 
     cleaver to cut personnel.''
       American Legion--``* * * wholeheartedly supports the 
     provisions contained in (H.R. 4013). At a time when VA 
     anticipates implementing the greatest health care delivery 
     changes in its history, the next several years will require 
     VHA to consolidate and reinforce its present capabilities, 
     and not be required to incur debilitating personnel or 
     funding reductions.''
       Blinded Veterans Association--``* * * strongly supports 
     adoption of this vital legislative initiative.''
       Nurses Organization of VA (NOVA)--``* * * applauds the 
     introduction of bill (H.R. 4013), legislation that would put 
     off any health care staff reductions until the DVA Secretary 
     can more realistically determine its workforce needs * * * 
     Now, more than ever, is the time to recognize the need for 
     adequate staffing numbers and use budget dollars for official 
     FTE positions. Health and life-saving care cannot be ignored, 
     postponed or sacrificed.''
       Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA)--``(H.R. 4013) would 
     appropriately insulate the Veterans Health Administration 
     from cuts contemplated in the Fiscal Year 1995 budget, as 
     well as the federal workforce reduction associated with the 
     National Performance Review. Currently, eligible veterans are 
     either turned away from many VHA facilities or simply become 
     frustrated by excessive wait times and forego needed health 
     services because staffing doesn't allow VHA to meet demand. 
     Further cuts would exacerbate this problem and threaten the 
     survival of the veterans' health system with passage of 
     national health reform legislation.''

  If Veterans' Administration is to compete under any health care 
reform plan, State or Federal, we need to pass this bill right away. I 
urge the adoption of the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Rowland], the distinguished chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  Mr. ROWLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4013.
  H.R. 4013 is an important bill that addresses a very immediate 
challenge confronting the VA health care system--devastating OMB work 
force cuts.
  Under the fiscal year 1995 budget, VA health care staffing must 
shrink by some 5,700 positions. While Administration officials 
testified at a recent hearing that such significant personnel cuts 
could be absorbed without serious impact, those charged with operating 
VA medical centers, and the veterans dependent on timely access to 
care, describe a very different reality.
  Personnel cuts in the VA health care system mean one thing for sure--
diminished service to its patients. While Administration officials hope 
to minimize the impact on direct patient care for the short term, they 
have no formula for avoiding severe problems over the next 4 years when 
they must shrink the work force by another 20,000.
  In February, the committee conducted a survey of all VA medical 
centers to gauge the impact of such cuts. The survey made it clear that 
at a minimum these reductions will mean sweeping bed closures, program 
cuts, and ever longer waiting times. They could well mean facility 
closures.
  Clearly, VA cannot absorb cuts of this magnitude. Just to achieve 
mandated reductions in fiscal year 1995, VA plans to let go many of the 
technicians, software developers, and managers who would be needed to 
help transform this system to carry out an expanded role under national 
health care reform.
  We have found no way to reconcile an OMB plan to slash more than 
25,000 health care jobs with an administration proposal that VA play a 
major role under national health reform. The Administration certainly 
has had no answer to the question--how can a long-underfunded health 
care system gear up for an expanded role under health reform while 
under orders to dramatically shrink its work force.
  H.R. 4013 would answer that question. It would exempt the Veterans 
Health Administration from these proposed staffing cuts over the next 5 
years. As the testimony at our recent hearing and the results of the 
committee survey point out, this legislation is critically needed.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4013, as amended, the 
Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 1994.
  H.R. 4013, as amended, contains important provisions to curb the 
potential disastrous impact on VA health care caused by the 
administration's mandated workforce reduction plan.
  Such a mandate will bring to a grinding halt any effort to assist VA 
in positioning itself to compete in a national health reform scenario.
  Nobody should misunderstand the thrust of this bill, though, and 
think it freezes current VA staffing levels.
  VA still has the authority to reduce personnel levels subject to the 
availability of funds and Congress could still direct VA to cut 
staffing levels by law.
  The practical impact of this legislation is not to allow OMB to force 
personnel reductions that the VA has the appropriated dollars to 
maintain.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee Sonny Montgomery, the distinguished ranking member, Bob 
Stump, and ranking minority members of the subcommittee on hospitals 
and health care, Roy Rowland and Chris Smith for their leadership and 
expertise on these important issues.
  I urge the support of my colleagues.

                              {time}  1220

  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] the ranking minority member of the 
Subcommittee on Education, Training and Employment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4013, 
the Veterans' Health Programs Improvements Act of 1994. This bill would 
provide the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with greatly needed 
flexibility in staffing the Veterans Health Administration.
  When the administration submitted its budget proposal, they requested 
a level of funding substantially below what it had previously stated 
would maintain ``current services'' to veterans. On top of that, the 
Veterans Health Administration was required to absorb an unprecedented 
reduction in total employment as part of the government-wide FTE 
reductions. These reductions will not only undermine the VA's ability 
to position itself for an era of health care reform, but will foster 
inefficiency. Without a restoration of FTE, the VA will have to cut 
services or delay provision of services at the very time when efforts 
should be made to expand services and improve their quality.
  Perhaps the most important justification for our attempts to improve 
the VA health care system, however, is our commitment to our Nation's 
veterans who risked their lives fighting for our country. The very 
least we can do in return is to offer them a decent standard of health 
care through a strong VA health care system, capable of providing high 
quality services responsive to veterans and their special needs.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Everett] for handling this bill today. The gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Stump], the ranking minority member, is totally supportive of this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that the veterans of America 
have no better friend in America than the gentleman from Mississippi, 
Sonny Montgomery.
  General Montgomery, who has served in this body long and with great 
distinction, is my very close friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the objective of this bill, which is to 
ensure that the veterans of America continue to have the kind of health 
care that we have said that they would have and that we ought to 
deliver to them. That is the objective.
  Mr. Speaker, everybody in this body obviously has a program that they 
believe is particularly important, but let me say on February 10, 1994, 
the four proponents who have spoken on this bill voted to cut 252,000 
people from the Federal work force and they said we were going to save 
money. I voted for that bill, the Vice President recommended it, but 
very frankly, folks, what we did was we took a number. We did not make 
an analogy between the programs that we wanted accomplished and the 
level of personnel that would be required to accomplish those 
objectives. No, we took a number. It sounded politically good, it gets 
us below 1.9 million civilian employees. And it was not targeted, so it 
was an easy vote. Reduce 252,000 people.
  Mr. Speaker, in my own Subcommittee on Treasury-Postal Service-
General Government, and Senator DeConcini feels very strongly, crime is 
a big problem in America, Americans concerned about the safety in their 
communities. We are going to dedicate $22 plus billion dollars of this 
reduction to crime. But that $22 billion will be reduced by 10 percent, 
$2.2 billion dedicated to crime if we reduce by 10 percent the number 
of employees we reduce.
  Mr. Speaker, this does not do that, however.

       Get it someplace else, but not in my backyard. Do not take 
     from me. It is good to cut, but cut someplace else.

  Mr. Speaker, I understand my chairman's view, for whom I have 
unlimited respect and whom I support and will continue to support for 
this chairmanship next year, I announce to all my colleagues. Why? 
Because he has brought vision and commitment; and there is no finer 
Member of this body, and I lament his leaving, than the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Rowland], and although I do not know them as well, I am 
sure the proponents on the Republican side are equally sincere.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure my veterans have adequate, good, 
sound health care. I was responsible in main for the building with my 
chairman's help of a new VA hospital in Baltimore. But I do not delude 
myself that if we are going to cut funds in discretionary funding that 
everybody wants to do, $26 billion the Senate wanted to do, it was for 
free, not targeted, do not have to take any personal responsibility for 
cutting anything. But come in later, come in later and add on, come in 
later and fence off, come in later and protect after having said that 
we are going to make those reductions.
  Mr. Speaker, every agency is to participate in these reductions that 
we passed and share the pain caused by these cuts. Let us look the 
American public in the eye and say, ``There is not a free lunch.'' If 
we are going to cut 252,000 people, unlike the perception of some that 
these folks are not delivering services that the American public want, 
say, ``Yes, we will cut but there is a cost,'' and this is the cost.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill says, yes, there is a cut but it will not be 
here. Yes, this is important, law enforcement is important, NIH 
research is important, space research by the votes of this Congress is 
important, delivering of public Health Services is important, education 
of our young people is important, fighting drugs is important, 
protecting our borders with Customs is important. All of these 
objectives are important.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill raises a very fundamental question: Do we 
continue to make broad conclusions that sound politically good and 
fiscally responsible and then do what we do all the time, come in and 
say, ``Yes, but don't take mine. Don't take mine.''
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, not because I oppose its objective, 
and I will not ask for a vote on this bill, but I want all of my 
colleagues to know, and, yes, my veteran supporters that I cannot 
pretend that there is a free lunch. And, yes, I may support and urge 
the administration to organize this reduction in force so that we can 
hold harmless.
  Mr. Speaker, I have told my good friend, the gentleman from New York, 
Jerry Solomon, that I will work with him, and I have told my chairman 
that I will work with him to try to accomplish this objective. But not 
by fencing off, not by saying that everybody else is subject to risk 
the consequences of the votes of everybody who is talking on this issue 
on either side but by consequences of making the tough decisions, not 
exempting ourselves from those tough decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his generosity in yielding me 
the time.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. EVERETT. I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules and former ranking member of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I really do want to commend my good 
friend, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], the gentleman 
from Georgia [Mr. Rowland], and my successor, the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Stump], the ranking Republican, as well as the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Everett], for bringing this bill to the floor. I 
thank all the other committee members, because I think this is a vital 
piece of legislation.
  Let me say something to the previous speaker, the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], for whom I have the greatest respect and with 
whom I quite often agree on many of his observations. He spoke 
eloquently about the serious problems in Bosnia and he really did tell 
it like it is. We will not get into that right now, but let me say that 
I concur with almost everything that the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Hoyer] said in the well.
  It is true that we have very, very valuable Federal employees in very 
many vital departments and agencies across this Government, and we do 
not want to single them out. We do not want to say it is a question of 
getting it from somebody else's backyard.
  But let me tell you why we are not really doing that in this 
particular case. I agree with the gentleman, because in many cases we 
would be cutting out vital, necessary jobs in drug enforcement or 
wherever it might be. But in this particular case, on this particular 
bill, what we are saying is that we cannot have these jobs cut from the 
medical delivery system of the Veterans' Administration. We can still 
have those cuts throughout the entire Department of Veterans Affairs, 
and I think that there is room; cuts could be made there. But the 
medical people are vital. A growing number of World War II veterans are 
reaching an age when they need medical care. We have to make sure that 
care is available to them at VA hospitals.
  The problem, and I will be critical of previous Republican 
administrations as well as the present Democrat administration, is that 
we went through a period, and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
Montgomery] and the other members of the committee remember it so well, 
when we had forced down the throats of the veterans' hospitals 
throughout this Nation a 1-percent productivity savings. All that did 
was to squeeze out the quality of medical care, and it hurt the 
veterans' hospitals. This was done by Republicans and by Democrats 
alike, and it was wrong. We ought to keep that in mind, incidentally, 
ladies and gentlemen, when we get into the national health care debate 
and we start talking about price controls; that is exactly what price 
controls will do in the civilian sector as well. Price controls will 
squeeze out the quality of medical care.
  We had previous a speaker talking about my good friend, and someone I 
deeply admired as the President of the United States of America. You 
know, he experimented with price controls, and it was perhaps the one 
major failing of Richard Nixon. He was talked into it by a former 
Democrat turned Republican named John Connally. That goes back a little 
ways beyond some of your time, but many of us remember it.
  But the point I want to make is that this bill does not take it out 
of somebody else's backyard. It allows the cuts to continue to be made 
in the Veterans' Administration, but not out of that vital area of 
delivering life-saving care for our veterans.
  Remember one thing, ladies and gentlemen, the veterans of World War 
II, which make up the vast majority of veterans today, are now turning 
70 years old. Many of them are in their mid-seventies. Some of them are 
even in their eighties. They need more and more care.
  There are to be some jumping exercises at the Normandy invasion 
reenactment, which the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] is 
going to be attending. Some of those guys who were in the Airborne are 
now 83 years old, and they are going to be jumping there in June.
  Sonny, you will be there to watch it, and hopefully I will be, too.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear, I am not jumping.
  Mr. SOLOMON. You will be there to watch them though, Sonny.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. First of all, the gentleman makes a good point, and I 
understand that point.
  I am not going to ask for a vote on this, because the objective, I 
think, is broadly shared, and I do not want any implication by asking 
for a vote that folks trying to make a determination whether or not we 
guarantee and make sure we have quality health care for our veterans; 
we want to do that. The way to do that is to work within the framework 
of that which we have enacted.
  Fencing off, I think, in this area simply leads, as I said, to 
fencing off in other areas and takes the heat off getting the most 
efficient reduction.
  But I agree with the gentleman's objective and want to support that 
and want to work with him to ensure that that end in fact occurs.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I think we are all 
arguing the same point here.
  But I do hope we all support this vital piece of legislation. I would 
hope that it is enacted.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for his kind remarks and also to say to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] that he is certainly a strong advocate for 
veterans. We disagree on this issue, but I have had the privilege of 
going into his congressional district and working with his veterans' 
organizations. I certainly look forward to going back to Maryland, 
which is the home of many of our stronger veterans' advocates.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my intention on final passage to ask for a 
recorded vote on this measure.
  It seems to me that we have set the country on the course of a 10-
percent work force reduction in Federal Government personnel over the 
next 5 years. Even though I share with my colleagues on the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs a strong desire that this Department be allowed 
the resources and the ability to respond adequately to the needs of 
America's veterans through the health care system, I think it is ill-
advised that this Congress tie the hands of the administration in 
implementing a very difficult work force reduction policy.
  One exemption leads to another exemption and another and another. We 
have seen this repeatedly over the past. I do not think we want to 
start down that road again on this particular issue.
  I trust that this administration, particularly with the leadership of 
Jesse Brown as Secretary of Veterans Affairs, that he is going to be 
extremely sensitive to the needs of our VA patients and they will be as 
careful as possible in implementing any cuts that are required of that 
Department in a way that will not negatively impact quality health care 
for the veterans of America.
  But I do not believe that we in the Congress, by a vote today, ought 
to restrict the administration, limit its flexibility, restrict its 
discretion on this particular issue. This is a management decision on 
the part of the administration. I do not believe that it is a decision 
that we ought to micromanage with this legislation, and for that reason 
I do intend to call for a rollcall vote.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Rowland].
  Mr. ROWLAND. Mr. Speaker, we had hearings, just to answer the 
gentleman and certainly not in any way to try to cause him not to ask 
for a recorded vote, but just by way of explanation, we had a hearing 
on this very issue recently in the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health 
Care, and while those people from the VA and the administration said 
that we can streamline to the extent that we will be able to deal with 
this, that was not what we heard from the people who will be working to 
provide care for those veterans who need the care.
  They came and said we cannot streamline to that extent. We heard from 
the veterans' service organizations as well that it is not possible to 
streamline to the extent that the administration had said, and if in 
fact this cut does take place, we can expect there to be decreased 
service to veterans in the hospital and health care delivery system.
  Now, the administration is saying we want the VA to be competitive. 
The VA must be competitive. How can it be competitive if the 
administration is cutting the personnel that will be necessary to make 
that system competitive? It just does not add up.
  So I would say to the gentleman that if these cuts do not take place 
in the way that we have indicated that they ought to, that veterans 
will suffer.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

                              {time}  1240

  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say something to my friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota, Tim Penny--he may be the one I respect the most in this body 
because he is one Member who really has the guts to stand up here and 
tell it like it is about the sea of red ink that this Congress and 
several administrations, the current and the previous Presidents, have 
been drowning in.
  But he made the point that the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs, Jesse 
Brown, would not stand for unnecessary cuts in the medical delivery 
system. Well, I can say to the gentleman, ``Tim, I will just say to you 
that it isn't a question of Jesse Brown.'' He is doing an outstanding 
job. It is a question of OMB. We all know who OMB is. OMB calls all the 
shots. It does not matter which administration it is, they give orders 
to the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs where to make those cuts.
  They have been insensitive in the past, and they will continue to be 
insensitive in the future. That is why we cannot allow cuts to be made 
in the medical delivery system of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. 
If we were preventing cuts from being made anywhere in the Department 
of Veterans' Affairs, I would be the first one up here fighting against 
this bill. But the fact is that the bill does not do that. We still are 
allowing cuts to be made equitably throughout the rest of the 
Department of Veterans' Affairs, and that is why we really ought to be 
supporting this piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge its support.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. McCloskey].
  Mr. McCLOSKEY. I thank the chairman for yielding this time to me.
  I really appreciate this time and would just like to briefly and very 
regretfully speak against the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs' legislation here. The simple fact is that the entire Federal 
work force has to be reconsidered, the entire work force is being 
considered, and to arbitrarily get into the exemption of one agency, a 
very major agency, of the Federal Government I would say casts real 
problems and irregularities on the entire process. Obviously, the 
administration is going to have to have discretion as to how many 
personnel cuts are going to be achieved in the various agencies and the 
various functions of those agencies. But if we get into totally 
exempting one area of this program, we really do major damage to the 
entire program, and I regretfully oppose the chairman's initiative.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
in order to point out that if this bill should fail, a recent committee 
survey of the VA medical center directors reveals 74 percent projected 
they would be forced to close beds, 62 percent projected that they 
would have to reduce outpatient care workload, and 59 percent projected 
that they would need to close specific programs.
  Mr. Speaker, National Association of VA Physicians & Dentists--``I 
see no way that we can sustain such a loss without having a direct 
affect on the quality of patient care. And for this reason, we strongly 
support (H.R. 4013) to provide VA flexibility in meeting the work force 
needs of its health care system.''
  Paralyzed Veterans of America--``PVA strongly supports (H.R. 4013). 
This bill would prevent a devastating loss of personnel from the 
Veterans Health Administration at the very time VA is attempting to 
marshall all its resources to compete and survive in a reformed 
national health care system.''
  Disabled American Veterans--``DAV applauds the recognition of gross 
contradictions between H.R. 3600--the Health Security Act--and the 
seemingly mindless requested reduction of some 25,000 full-time 
employee positions over a 5-year period.''
  AMVETS--``* * * we enthusiastically support the bill because VA faces 
sufficient challenges without significantly downsizing the work force. 
* * * AMVETS hopes that Congress will provide VA the ability to choose 
a scalpel, not a cleaver to cut personnel.''
  American Legion--``* * * wholeheartedly supports the provisions 
contained in (H.R. 4013). At a time when VA anticipates implementing 
the greatest health care delivery changes in its history, the next 
several years will require VHA to consolidate and reinforce its present 
capabilities, and not be required to incur debilitating personnel or 
funding reductions.''
  Blinded Veterans Association--``* * * strongly supports adoption of 
this vital legislative initiative * * * Ironically, several initiatives 
eagerly pursued by the administration are complicating VA's efforts to 
position itself for health care reform. The President's fiscal year 
1995 budget request for DVA is totally inadequate, severely limiting 
VHA's ability to even meet current services levels of fiscal year 1994. 
* * * Further, the administration's National Performance Review [NPR] 
requires a total Federal work force reduction of 252,000 FTEE over the 
next 5 years. * * * The budget shortfall and required reductions of 
over 3,600 FTEE contained in the VHA fiscal year 1995 budget will be 
absolutely devastating if enacted.''
  Nurses Organization of VA [NOVA]--``* * * applauds the introduction 
of bill (H.R. 4013), legislation that would put off any health care 
staff reductions until the DVA Secretary can more realistically 
determine its work force needs. * * * Now, more than ever, is the time 
to recognize the need for adequate staffing numbers and use budget 
dollars for official FTE positions. Health and lifesaving care cannot 
be ignored, postponed or sacrificed.''
  Vietnam Veterans of America [VVA]--``(H.R. 4013) would appropriately 
insulate the Veterans Health Administration from cuts contemplated in 
the fiscal year 1995 budget, as well as the Federal work force 
reduction associated with the National Performance Review. Currently, 
eligible veterans are either turned away from many VHA facilities or 
simply become frustrated by excessive wait times and forego needed 
health services because staffing doesn't allow VHA to meet demand. 
Further cuts would exacerbate this problem and threaten the survival of 
the veterans' health system with passage of national health reform 
legislation.''
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
this time to me.
  I compliment the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and 
the gentleman from Georgia [Dr. Rowland] for their efforts in this 
bill. I think we are missing the whole goal and the whole sight of the 
commitment of this Congress and the American people and the commitment 
we made to the veterans of America.
  Mr. Speaker, I have traveled and spoken to a great many veterans 
groups and also existing military branches, and the biggest concern 
they have is they feel we are forgetting them.
  Mr. Speaker, when our veterans went into service, they were told they 
would receive medical care. It was a contract made by this Government 
of ours and this Congress.
  All we are asking in this bill is not to exempt but to make sure that 
that commitment is fulfilled. We can streamline, we should do so, but 
not take away the ability to provide what we committed to these 
veterans. If we want to change the rules in the future, that is fine 
for those coming into the service now. We have veterans who have served 
their time.
  When I was in the service--that is more than I can say for some other 
people in this Government--but when I was in the service, I was told 
that if I served my 20 years, I would be given certain benefits. That 
is one of the reasons I was in the service.
  I chose not to stay there, but those people who did stay there 
expected to have appropriate medical services.
  Now, I have watched what happened in some of the veteran hospitals, 
in, yes, other administrations and even this administration, and I see 
where the veterans are not being considered equally or with the 
commitment we made to them when they enlisted.
  So, again, I compliment my chairman. I heard the comments a while ago 
that we all have to cut back and reform this Government. Yes, I happen 
to agree with that. But let us do it with due contract, do it with new 
contracts, new entries, with a new system, but let us not break the 
word that we gave the veterans when they enlisted in Korea, World War 
II, Vietnam, the Gulf, Grenada. These are our fighting men and women.
  The chairman and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs have done the 
right, the correct thing. They and the ranking member, all of them 
should be complimented.
  Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Every day I have Members come up to me and complain about the service 
that the veterans are receiving in their veterans hospitals, and every 
Member in this Chamber has a veterans hospital or an outpatient clinic 
or a nursing home that his or her veterans use. We just felt very 
strongly, both Democrats and Republicans, that we needed to look at 
this reinventing of Government and the effect of this reduction of 
employees in the different Government agencies. There was no opposition 
expressed to this measure by Veterans' Committee members when it was 
ordered reported.
  I want to point out that the Veterans' Administration is the second 
largest employer of civilians, and the military is first. So a cut of 
25,000 employees would be devastating to the veterans hospitals; 5,000 
jobs would be lost in 1995. We will have to close some more veterans 
wards. I hope we do not have to close any veterans hospitals.
  But we just cannot operate with that type of reduction. That is why 
we brought the bill up here today, trying to help out these old 
veterans.
  Again, I want to quote from Vice President Gore's ``Report of the 
National Performance Review,'' which includes statements that I think 
would be of interest.
  The Vice President's report says, and I quote, ``We need to use 
budgets rather than FTE controls to drive our downsizing. FTE ceilings 
are usually imposed independently and often conflict with budget 
allocations.'' Then it goes on further to say, ``The President should 
direct OMB and agency heads to stop setting FTE ceilings in fiscal 
1995.''
  This comes out of the Vice President's report.
  They say do it by budget, do not do it by personnel ceilings. So that 
is why we are here today, that is why we brought the bill up. I thank 
my colleagues for supporting this legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4013, 
as amended, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 1994. This 
legislation will ban an arbitrary reduction in full-time equivalent 
employees from the Veterans Health Administration unless specifically 
required by law or limited funds.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration has directed VA to cut up to 25,000 
FTE's, some 12 percent of its work force, over the next 5 years. At the 
same time, the administration has submitted legislation which fully 
expects VA to compete with private sector health plans to attract 
veteran patients under the Health Security Act. It would seem that the 
right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. Plain and simple, 
we are on the cusp of national health reform and it is not the time for 
arbitrary cuts in health care employees. This mandated cut in FTE would 
ensure that VA would be able to compete under whatever health plan is 
ultimately enacted.
  In the era of health reform, at a time when VA is attempting to 
prepare itself to meet the challenge of reforms, it is a sad commentary 
that the administration would make such nonsensical requests. 
Nonetheless, this legislation, if enacted, will once again protect the 
VA from OMB budget slashers.
  I want to commend the distinguished chairman and ranking minority 
member of the committee, Mr. Montgomery and Mr. Stump, for continuing 
to move legislation which protects our Nation's veterans. As always, 
they are valuable advocates. I also want to recognize the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, Dr. Rowland, for his 
hard work on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4013, as amended.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 
4013, the Veterans Health Programs Improvement Act of 1994. I commend 
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Rowland] for introducing 
this worthwhile legislation.
  H.R. 4013 will exempt the Veterans Health Administration [VHA] from 
the mandatory staffing reductions outlined in Vice President Gore's 
proposal for reinventing Government and the Federal Workforce 
Restructing Act of 1994, which is now known as Public Law 103-226.
  I voted in support of the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act. 
However, I believe these reductions must not jeopardize or diminish the 
health care services that our Nation's veterans receive. For this 
reason, Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4013.
  Our Nation needs to take the steps necessary to ensure that our 
veterans receive the finest medical treatment and care. This 
legislation, which exempts mandatory staffing reductions, is a step in 
the right direction.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor and an ardent 
supporter of H.R. 4013, the Veterans' Health Programs Improvements Act. 
This bill would exempt the Veterans' Health Administration from a White 
House proposal that would cut 25,000 VHA full-time positions.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, is intended to keep the VHA strong during a 
time of tremendous and unprecedented change. Once Congress passes 
health care reform legislation, the VHA will begin an era of 
reorganization. If the President's health care package passes, the VHA 
will be forced for the first time to compete for its patients. The VHA 
expects its workload to be enormous in the coming years as it tries to 
cope with the changes brought on by new health care reform laws.
  To propose a decrease in the VHA work force when it is certain to 
have an increase in its workload is unfair and illogical.
  As the medical arm of the Veterans' Administration, the VHA is 
charged with caring for many of the men and women who risked their 
lives for America and Democracy. For too many of these veterans, the 
VHA is the only medical care available. Let us not desert our veterans, 
Mr. Speaker, for they never retreated when we needed them. Health care 
is one of the few benefits we award veterans for their service--a 
benefit they earned with blood and sweat on the battlefield. We cannot 
strip them of this badge of honor.
  We owe it to our veterans, Mr. Speaker, to provide them with the best 
medical service they can be afforded.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, passed the Veterans Affairs Committee as it 
is not controversial and I urge its passage today by voice vote.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kreidler). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] that the 
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4013, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of order of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________