[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.
____________________