[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3107-H3114]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
IN OPPOSITION TO VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION RESCISSIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There being no designee of the majority
leader at this time, under the Speaker's announced policy of January 4,
1995, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown] is recognized for 60
minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the topic of my discussion will be
the rescission cuts. There have been many targeted, including children
and the elderly, but worst of all have been the veterans, and I rise
today in behalf of the veterans throughout this Nation.
There is a national disgrace in this country that must be addressed
now. We all know that American men and women in the prime of their
lives willingly go to remote parts of the world to defend their
country. Sometimes they do not return. Sometimes they return wounded.
Sometimes they return with wounds that do not surface until years
later. War is never without human cost, and for this reason we have a
longstanding contract with our brave warriors that goes something like
this: ``If you will stand in harm's way for me, I will care for you
later.''
On February 24, a day of disgrace, the House Appropriations Committee
with Republican leadership voted to rescind $206 million in fiscal year
1995 from the VA appropriations. During the full committee markup on
March 2, the Republicans voted to support those cuts.
This rescission money was intended to fund six VA ambulatory care
projects totaling $200 million. It is a national disgrace that
veterans' programs are a part of this rescission list, a list that was
quickly and thoughtlessly compiled. These canceled projects prevent us
from expanding our outpatient service, a national trend in health care
delivery and making our health care system more efficient and cost-
effective. These canceled projects are aimed at one of the most
deserving groups in our society, veterans after World War II and the
Korean conflict. These veterans and all veterans should expect and
receive good care. If we cannot protect them at this time in their time
of need, how can we ask them to stand in harm's way to protect us?
GOP says veterans health is not a priority.--The Republicans' message
is clear: the health of our Nation's veterans is not a priority.
Clearly, they feel that reducing vital medical services to needy
veterans is an appropriate way to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.
All these funds have been carefully considered.--The Department of
Veterans Affairs has ranked the six targeted ambulatory care projects
as priorities. In fiscal year 1995, the Department proposed to fund
these projects, all of which have been authorized, as part of the
veterans health care investment fund.
Ambulatory care saves taxpayer dollars.--The ambulatory care projects
are an integral part of the Department's plan to move away from costly
inpatient care and provide more accessible, cost effective and
efficient outpatient care. Ultimately, all of these projects will save
the VA medical system more money.
[[Page H3108]] These projects will provide better care.--The projects
will allow VA to better meet the workload experienced by the transfer
of expensive inpatient care to a less costly ambulatory setting.
These projects will allow VA to deliver managed outpatient care and
will greatly improve VA's ability to deliver primary care.
These projects will correct serious safety and space deficiencies in
ambulatory care areas of affiliated referral facilities or in
undersized leased satellite clinics.
Presently, the clinic space available at these proposed facilities
was designed for workloads of 50 to 60 percent of current workloads.
The lack of space results in appointment delays and overcrowding.
Veterans take the hit to pay for taxcuts for the wealthy.--These cuts
are not only ``penny-wise and pound-foolish,'' but also wrong. These
cuts are aimed at the most vulnerable groups in our society--aging
World War II and Korean conflict veterans and others who have
sacrificed so much for our Nation.
Members will have another chance to get their priorities straight.--
Support restoring this vital funding when this ill-conceived rescission
package is brought to the floor next week. Do not let our veterans
down. They deserve better.
Orlando Satellite Outpatient Clinic and Nursing Home.--The fiscal
year 1995 appropriation is $14 million. This project will allow the VA
to better provide primary and preventive care and address long-term
care needs in the Orlando area. It renovates the Orlando Naval Training
Center hospital for use as a VA satellite outpatient clinic and nursing
home care unit. It will replace the existing leased undersized clinic
which was sized to accommodate less than one-half of the visits
currently experienced in Orlando. The project will allow the VA to
provide excellent primary and preventive care and long-term care in the
Orlando area. Since June 1994, there have been 15,000 veteran patient
visits to the Orlando Satellite Outpatient Clinic--120,000 visits are
expected by the end of 1995.
The existing clinic is in three separate buildings approximately one-
half mile from each other and cannot be expanded further in present
location. Unsuccessful efforts have been made for the past 6 years to
obtain acceptable replacement lease space. Existing space lacks
sufficient examining rooms, waiting areas, and bathrooms with no
privacy for examining women veterans. This project will allow for 120
new beds without new construction by renovating an existing building.
Gainesville ambulatory care addition.--The ambulatory care addition
will be added to the main hospital building. Ambulatory surgery
facilities and an outpatient pharmacy will be included along with
clinic space. The addition will allow the VA medical center to provide
primary and preventive care in an ambulatory setting, as well as
correct severe space and functional deficiencies and add much needed
ambulatory care space.
The fiscal year 1995 appropriation is $17,812,000. The current
ambulatory care facility was constructed in 1966. Present ambulatory
care is 35 percent space deficient and handles over 133,000 visits a
year. Services are spread over several floors making it confusing and
physically difficult for many handicapped patients.
The emergency room is a converted hallway with treatment and support
spaces on either side of the hall. Administrative duties take place in
the hallway along with movement of patient, supply, staff, and visitor
traffic.
Mr. Speaker, I will now yield to my good friend, the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Sanford Bishop].
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to the men and women who have served in the Armed
Forces, we Americans live in the freest, the most bountiful, and the
most secure country in the world. All of us will agree, I am sure, that
we owe each and every one of our veterans a deep debt of gratitude. On
patriotic holidays we express our thanks in speeches and parades, and
well we should, because when our veterans signed up and answered the
call with their faithful service to our Nation, our Government in
essence issued a promissory note, a check assuring them certain basic
benefits, including education and job training opportunities, housing
assistance, and a health care system that specifically serves veterans,
the veterans' population, when they need it, for life.
It will be a tragic day, Mr. Speaker, if that check is ever returned
marked ``Insufficient Funds.'' In essence, that is exactly what will be
happening if Congress votes to support the more than $206 million in VA
rescissions the Appropriations Committee is recommending, rescissions
that will eliminate critically needed high-priority improvements in the
veterans' health care system that must sooner or later be implemented
if the system is to meet its needs in the immediate years ahead.
These funds are earmarked for six ambulatory care projects totaling
$156 million and medical equipment purchases totaling $50 million. The
ambulatory care projects are needed to carry out the projected transfer
of many inpatient-care patients to a more cost-effective outpatient
care. In the long run it will cost much more money to continue to
hospitalize many thousands of patients who could be treated on an
outpatient basis. Rescinding this investment makes no sense from either
a financial standpoint or a medical standpoint. It will prevent the
Veterans' Administration from moving to more cost-effective and
efficient operations. This means higher costs for current services and
fewer resources for meeting future needs.
The VA health care system must either move forward or it will
inevitably face decline, and that will be tantamount to breaking our
promise.
Mr. Speaker, veterans are already shouldering their share of the
burden of budget cuts in recent years, and then some. The Budget
Reconciliation Acts of 1990 and 1993 alone have cut VA benefits and
services by nearly $7 billion. Additional cuts can be expected in the
VA budget that Congress will consider for the next fiscal year, and now
on top of all this the House Appropriations Committee is proposing that
Congress slash VA health care funds already appropriated and included
in the current budget. Either we keep our promise to provide a quality
health care system for our veterans or we renege on that promise. This
is the fundamental issue that we will be debating when this ill-
conceived rescissions package is brought to the floor next week.
In addition to the personal sacrifices that veterans have made in the
defense of our country, we will be asking them to sacrifice benefits
and services that have been promised and approved.
Mr. Speaker, let us keep our word. Let us restore these funds. Vote
to build the VA health care system, not tear it down.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman respond to a
question?
Mr. BISHOP. Yes, I will, if the gentlewoman will yield further.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman serves on the
authorizing committee, and can he tell me whether or not anyone on the
authorizing committee was contacted by anyone from the administration
or anyone from the Secretary's office pertaining to these cuts or
whether it is politics the old-fashioned way, a group of good old boys
getting together and making these decisions?
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman is aware, we had hearings
in the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I think the Secretary
appeared and indicated that he had not been consulted, and I think that
the committee records would reveal that probably there were no
consultations from the authorizing committee. This was something that
happened sui sponte. There was no consultation at all, and I think, as
the gentlewoman alludes to it, this was the old-fashioned way of doing
things, and apparently that is what we are faced with.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have one followup question: What
does the gentleman think about the reverse Robin Hood procedure,
robbing from the poor to give to the rich?
Mr. BISHOP. I feel that it is a slap in the face to our Nation's
veterans. I feel that it is certainly a disservice to our Nation's
veterans, and it is tantamount, as I said earlier, to having the check
come back marked ``Insufficient Funds.''
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman think there is
a lot of waste as far as the dollars we spend on veterans?
Mr. BISHOP. No, no, they are cost-effective dollars, very cost-
effective.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to my friend, the
distinguished leader of the Black Caucus and
[[Page H3109]] the leader in the Appropriations Committee, the
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Louis Stokes.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the
distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, Ms. Corrine Brown, for
reserving this hour to discuss a very important issue, cuts in programs
which serve our Nation's veterans. I feel very strongly about the issue
and I am pleased to participate in this special order.
For a number of years, I have been privileged to serve on the House
Appropriations Subcommittee which funds the Veterans' Administration
and its programs. I am currently the ranking Democrat on that
subcommittee. As it relates to veterans issues, this important panel
oversees the $37 billion budget to provide medical care, compensation
and pension payments, educational training and vocational assistance,
and housing assistance for our Nation's veterans.
As a member of this subcommittee and as a veteran, I have been proud
of our legislative efforts to provide and care for those brave men and
women who have risked their lives in service to this country. It is for
this reason and in their defense that I rise today.
This Nation has been fortunate to have been defended by many men who
gave the last full measure of devotion for this country; namely their
lives. Others were wounded, crippled, and disabled, all in the name of
service to their country. Many who served are now in the twilight of
their lives. This is why the recent vote by the full Appropriations
Committee to drastically cut $206 million in funding for programs that
serve our Nation's veterans is unacceptable and unconscionable. That
these cuts come from funds earmarked for medical equipment and
ambulatory care facilities is an even greater disservice to this
Nation's veterans.
In hearings last week before the VA/HUD and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee on the fiscal year 1996 budget, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse Brown, gave moving testimony about
the proposed rescissions and the impact on our veterans. He told us
that these rescissions would prevent the Veterans' Administration from
providing quality care for our veterans. He told us that he was shocked
at this unprecedented departure from providing care for veterans.
I think it important that everyone understand and know that quality
health care for our veterans has always been a top priority in previous
Congresses. These rescissions supported by our Republican colleagues
are an unprecedented departure from this long-standing tradition of
supporting this Nation's veterans.
Furthermore, these actions come at a time when the Secretary himself
acknowledges the unacceptable conditions of many of the Nation's VA
hospitals. In fact, the Veterans' Administration currently has an unmet
need of necessary medical equipment exceeding three-quarters of a
billion dollars. The rescissions bill passed by the Appropriations
Committee would increase that unmet need by at least $50 million.
I would ask my colleagues how we can even consider such reductions
when information we hear daily tells us of new and emerging medical
conditions being experienced by veterans? At a time when veterans
medical centers and medical teams are recognizing and attempting to
address these problems, these cuts come from previously appropriated
funds which were to be used to purchase such types of equipment as CAT
scanners, x rays, EKG machines, and other vital items. Private
hospitals have access to this equipment, and can replace and improve
their inventory; so should the medical centers caring for our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, even more shocking is the $156 million reduction in
construction projects. These funds are targeted for ambulatory care
facilities. This represents a crucial aspect of the VA's medical care
agenda at a time when our aging World War II veterans are requiring
more medical assistance. Not only are they older, but these
veterans require more long-term care. Clearly, this is not the time to
cut back on ambulatory care facilities--especially in States such as
Florida which has the fastest growing and aging veterans population.
Our Republican counterparts argue that these rescissions are
necessary to offset the costs of the California earthquake and other
natural disasters. I would respond that these cuts will create an even
greater disaster for thousands of veterans. I would argue further that
if these actions are intended to offset the cost of future tax cuts--
including capital gains for middle-class families and affluent
investors--it is unconscionable. I cannot support legislation which
views tax cuts for the wealthy to be a higher priority than needed
veterans medical equipment and facilities.
We must stand up for our Nation's veterans. These brave men and women
have dutifully served this country. We owe them the same full measure
of devotion they gave in protecting this Nation with their lives. I
want to thank my distinguished colleague from Florida for the
opportunity to address this important issue, and commend her for the
fight she is waging to restore funds to these veterans projects.
{time} 1530
Many who served are now in the twilight of their lives. This is why
the recent vote by the full Appropriations Committee to drastically cut
$206 million in funding for programs that serve our Nation's veterans
is unacceptable and unconscionable. But these cuts come from funds
earmarked for medical equipment and ambulatory care facilities which is
an even greater disservice to this Nation's veterans.
In hearings last week before the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee on the fiscal year 1996 budget, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse Brown, gave moving testimony about
the proposed rescissions and the impact on our veterans. He told us
that these rescissions would prevent the Veterans' Administration from
providing quality care for our veterans. He told us that he was shocked
at this unprecedented departure from providing care for our veterans.
I think it is important that everyone understand and know that
quality health care for our veterans has always been a top priority in
previous Congresses. These rescissions, supported by our Republican
colleagues, are an unprecedented departure from this longstanding
tradition of supporting this Nation's veterans.
Furthermore, these actions come at a time when the Secretary himself
acknowledges the unacceptable conditions of many of the Nation's VA
hospitals. In fact, the Veterans' Administration currently has an unmet
need of necessary medical equipment exceeding three-quarters of a
billion dollars. The rescissions bill passed by the Appropriations
Committee would increase that unmet need by at least $50 million.
I would ask my colleagues, how can we even consider such reductions
when information we hear daily tells us of new and emerging medical
conditions being experienced by veterans at a time when veterans
medical centers and medical teams are recognizing and attempting to
address these problems?
These cuts come from previously appropriated funds which were to be
used to purchase such types of equipment as CAT scanners, x rays, EKG
machines, and other vital items. Private hospitals have access to this
equipment and can replace and improve their inventory. So should the
medical centers caring for our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, even more shocking is the $156
million reduction in construction projects. These funds are targeted
for ambulatory care facilities. This represents a crucial aspect of the
VA's medical care agenda at a time when our aging World War II veterans
are requiring more medical assistance. Not only are they older but
these veterans now require more long-term care.
Clearly this is not the time to cut back on ambulatory care
facilities, especially in States such as Florida, which has the fastest
growing and aging veterans population.
Our Republican counterparts argue that these rescissions are
necessary to offset the cost of the California earthquake and other
natural disasters. I would respond that these cuts will create an even
greater disaster for thousands of veterans.
I would argue further that if these actions are intended to offset
the cost of future tax cuts, including capital
[[Page H3110]] gains for middle-class families and influential
investors, it is unconscionable.
I cannot support legislation which views tax cuts for the wealthy to
be a higher priority than needed veterans medical equipment and
facilities. We must stand up for this Nation's veterans. These brave
men and women have dutifully served this country. We owe them the same
full measure of devotion they gave in protecting this Nation with their
lives.
I want to thank my distinguished colleague for Florida for the
opportunity to address this important issue and I commend her for the
fight she is waging to restore funds for these veterans' projects.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. You served on the Committee on Appropriations.
Can you give us a little insight as to the process, whether or not--how
this decision to attack the veterans came about? I know I serve on the
authorizing committee and we were not notified. I spoke with the
administration. They were not contacted, nor was the Secretary.
Is this politics the old-time way, back room, pizza, discovery and
decisions made in closed doors?
Mr. STOKES. I would be pleased to try to respond to the gentlewoman's
question. I could say to the gentlewoman that this particular
subcommittee took a greater hit than any other subcommittee on the
Appropriations Committee. The total in rescissions was about $17.3
billion. Of that amount, the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Subcommittee contributed about $9.3 billion. That is about 54 percent
of the total amount of those cuts. And of course veterans took a hit of
about $206 million, which was substantial in terms of this.
There was no scientific way of arriving at these figures. These were
the figures brought in in terms of the Chairman's mark, and of course
the subcommittee approved that mark. There is nothing logical, nothing
by way of formula. These were just figures that were reached up and
arrived at.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Not based on any need factor or----
Mr. STOKES. None that I am aware of and I participated fully in that
markup and at which time I opposed these cuts to our veterans programs.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Can you briefly just tell us about some of the
other cuts? One in particular, in the area of housing, I have a series
of town meetings, probably more than anyone else in Congress, and the
two areas that always come up, one is crime and two, housing,
affordable housing. There is a lot of concern as far as senior
citizens. Can you discuss housing and some of the other cuts briefly?
Mr. STOKES. I would be pleased to respond to the gentlewoman that the
Department of HUD, Housing and
Urban Development, took about 42 percent of the total rescission cuts
out of that $17.3 billion cut. The actual cuts from HUD alone were
about $7.3 billion. Programs were hit, such as operating subsidies, the
preservation funds, modernization funds, the assisted housing account.
Then the lead-based paint program, which enables us to be able to try
and repair some of the damage done to the Nation's youth, particularly
in our inner cities where these young children are subjected to paint
and, as a result of it, suffer and are impaired with brain damage,
which is often irreversible. Along with it, the Community Development
Block Grant Program also sustained a large hit in terms of the cuts,
and of course that affects almost every local and urban community
around the Nation.
So these are some of the major cuts that came out, and of course also
tomorrow I am hoping to have an amendment on the floor when the bill
comes up that would restore about $2 billion of the cuts from VA and
also from these housing programs.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. What about weatherization? That program, who
benefits from that program and was that program also targeted for cuts?
Mr. STOKES. I do not believe that the weatherization program was part
of that program.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. What about jobs, the summer jobs program?
Mr. STOKES. Summer jobs program is in the rescission cuts, comes out
of the Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Subcommittee on
Appropriations. All the summer jobs were cut. This is going to put an
enormous amount of young people on our streets, particularly at a time
when we are already encountering a great deal of unemployment in our
inner cities and where, within the next 2 months, the mayors of these
cities must get ready to provide these jobs for these young people
during the summer months, and that is one of the programs that is just
totally unconscionable to see that the youth of this Nation who
depended upon summer jobs will not be provided them this summer if
these rescissions prevail here in the House.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Can you explain for us--some of us, who are not
familiar with the process, tell us a little about the rescission?
Because it is my understanding we are talking about projects that have
gone through the House of Representatives hearings, gone through the
Senate, passed, the President has signed it into law, so we are talking
about breaking out of a contract that we have already signed in many
cases?
Mr. STOKES. These are from appropriated funds. They were in the
fiscal year 1995 bill and they were funds that were already
appropriated and signed into law, and of course this is a Congress
coming back again rescinding action that it had previously taken in the
last Congress where both the House and the Senate had passed on this
legislation, had sent it to the President for his signature.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Does this include the school lunch program?
Mr. STOKES. The school lunch program is not in our rescissions. That
is in some other legislation that will be coming to the floor and it
will not be in the $17.3 billion rescission bill.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Can you explain to us the difference between a
block grant and a program--you know, we have had block grants before.
In fact, I think when we had it, President Ronald Reagan stopped it
because the money was not going where it was intended.
Can you tell us a little bit about it? Because I am very supportive
of the present school lunch program that started in 1946 under
President Truman, and the reason why this program was started was
because it was in the national interest of this country to take care of
our young people and they couldn't pass the physical. So that is why we
invested in our young people.
Mr. STOKES. The gentlelady is certainly correct. One of the problems
in terms of block granting many of these types of programs is the fact
that each State has different regulations and standards with reference
to these programs.
Many of them adopt a different type of program and in the absence of
Federal standards, Federal guidelines, and Federal guidance to those
programs, you will find a diminution of many of the programs in many of
the States and you will find varied and different types of programs and
not those which have been directed under the Federal aegis.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I have been in this House for 2 years, which is
not a lot of time, but I spent 10 years in the Florida House of
Representatives. We passed a lot of bills out of this House, but I have
never seen the process so broken down. As a Member that has served in
the House, I have always been proud of the work, the deliberation of
the House. Now I thank God for the Senate.
Can you tell us or share your experience with us about the process
and how it has been working over these past how many days? It is not
100. We passed one bill to my knowledge.
Mr. STOKES. I think certainly for those of us who consider ourselves
as legislators and those of us who take pride in sponsoring legislation
and being able to create programs that help people, not only our own
constituency, but people throughout the Nation, and many of us have
taken great pride in the fact that over the years we were able to not
only craft those programs but able to put the proper amount of funding
into those kinds of programs and we have seen people benefit from it.
We have seen those who fall in the category of being low-income
people, the poor, the disadvantaged, minorities, those who are
dependent upon government, be able to survive in our society at a time
when they needed
[[Page H3111]] help in order to be able to move on to the next stage of
their lives, and to now see what is happening in terms of the kind of
cuts that are coming.
You earlier mentioned cuts in the food stamps, nutrition programs,
the WIC, which is the Women, Infants, and Children Program, to see cuts
now coming in programs such as summer jobs and Healthy Start, which is
for mothers and little children, and when you see the type of
rescissions that are in this bill that is coming out to the floor
tomorrow, as one who is interested in people and trying to provide for
the people in this country, you could just deem it totally
unconscionable that we are doing this to people at a time in this
country when all American are entitled to be represented by those who
serve in this body in a way where they show some degree of compassion
and understanding of our people's lives.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. The last question I must ask you, can you tell
me who was left out of these cuts?
Mr. STOKES. Well, I can tell you this, that the defense bill was
totally off the board. No cuts came in the defense program. Not a
single item was cut from defense. That was just untouchable. And so I
can tell you that, and the other thing I think everybody needs to
understand is that the President's request in terms of disaster relief
was in the amount of $6.7 billion.
{time} 1545
The subcommittee on which I serve actually cut it down to $5.3
billion. The difference between $5.3 and the $17.3 billion, which is
substantial, somewhere in the neighborhood of $11 billion, we have to
ask ourselves, what are these cuts for, since the total amount of the
rescission package is $5.3 billion. So the difference between $5.3 and
$17.3 then is what the Republicans call a savings. Of course, the
savings we all know obviously is going to go for the tax cut for the
rich, so the Republicans, as usual, are robbing from the poor to give
to the rich.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much for his insight, his
information, and for coming and taking the time to share with the
American people what has been going on in the 104th Congress.
Mr. STOKES. I thank the gentlewoman.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo].
As he is coming up, I would like to share with the House this
picture. It says ``Uncle Sam wants you.'' It is a commitment that we
made to our veterans: If you will support us, if you will go and fight
for us, we will be there for you.
I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, that was a contract that the Congress, back
when these veterans were coming home, had with our veterans that
preserved the freedoms that we have. To me, that contract is just as
important, if not more important, than the Contract With America.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is really important. I just returned from
Haiti. I talked to the commander down there. He talked about the fact
that we need to take care of our men and the missions will take care of
themselves. We are talking about people who have committed themselves,
have served this country, and now we are just tossing them out. They
are not important.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Speaker, last week the House Committee on
Appropriations voted to cut six Veterans' Administration ambulatory
projects totaling $156 million, and $50 million in medical equipment
purchases, which already face an $800 million backlog.
One of these projects happens to be the San Juan Veterans'
Administration Medical Center outpatient clinic addition, a project
designed to address a 15-year problem of severe overcrowding of the
facility. The area currently used for ambulatory care in the San Juan
VA Medical Center provides only 40 percent of the space required,
according to VA standards, and that is cutting it short.
Therefore, temporary measures, such as converting storage space and
corridors into clinical and office space, have been the mode of
addressing these chronic space deficiencies for many years. Currently,
some outpatient clinics and medical examinations are being performed in
the hallways and nursing stations of the facility, and exit corridors
have been converted into additional waiting areas, potentially
compromising the health and safety of both patients and visitors.
The Secretary of Veterans' Affairs came down to Puerto Rico. We
insisted he come down and see it for himself. He did not believe the
conditions that he saw there in the outpatient clinics.
The ambulatory care addition would allow the medical center to
relocate all outpatient functions into a one-story addition adjacent to
the existing main hospital. This will correct all our patient safety,
accreditation, functional and space deficiencies, and adapt space for
handicapped accessibility and for women veterans.
A parking garage is also scheduled to be constructed to replace the
parking lot, due to the siting of the ambulatory care addition. Land at
home is very scarce and very expensive. This is why a new parking
building is being built instead of buying additional land.
Further, San Juan is the only VA Medical Center for the entire
veteran population within Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Demand for care has consistently been much higher than on the mainland.
Mr. Speaker, approximately 35 percent of veterans in Puerto Rico and
the U.S. Virgin Islands use the VA facilities, compared to the 12
percent national average. Let me explain why.
Because Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are Territories, they do
not share or do not participate in the Medicaid Program. What does that
mean? That means that the poor veterans, the veterans that do not have
health insurance, the veterans that cannot afford
to pay a doctor or pay the hospital, when they go to a private
hospital they cannot afford it, so they have to go to the public
hospital or the Veterans' Administration facilities.
The public hospitals in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are not up
to par with the private hospitals and the private facilities, so the
veterans would be getting a second class type of health treatment, so
they insist on going to the Veterans' Administration. That is logical
and that is to be expected. That is where they can get the best
treatment.
This is why here in the Nation, in the 50 States where they have a
Medicaid Program, the poor veterans do not need to go necessarily to
the VA hospitals. They can go to private hospitals, to a private
clinic, to a private doctor, and Medicaid will pay for it, but in
Puerto Rico there is no Medicaid Program, so their only choice is the
Veterans' Administration facilities. This is why it is even more
imperative that these facilities be expanded.
After a 15-year struggle by the Puerto Rican veterans and the Virgin
Islands veterans, Congress has finally appropriated the necessary
funding, $34.8 million, to finalize construction of the vitally needed
outpatient clinics of the San Juan VA Medical Center last year. The
project had been authorized and $4 million had been appropriated for
its design a year earlier.
Puerto Rico's 145,000 veterans, particularly the sick and the
disabled, celebrated this long-awaited achievement. Only now, when they
were celebrating the achievement, waiting for the contract to be
signed, for the construction to start, all of a sudden the House
Committee on Appropriations decided to take away all of the funds a few
months later.
However, the fact that strikes me the most is that these proposed
cuts will be particularly devastating to the VA Medical system, because
the targeted facilities are all ambulatory care facilities. The
rescissions come at a time when the VA is involved in the effort of
shifting from hospital inpatient care to outpatient and
noninstitutional care settings, which is in keeping with the new
general trend in providing medical care throughout the Nation.
The Veterans' Administration has been called by Congress over and
over again to stop investing so much money in hospitals and to invest
more money in outpatient clinics. Now, the Veterans' Administration has
responded to
[[Page H3112]] the Congress, it is beginning to invest in outpatient
clinics, and all of a sudden Congress takes the money away. The money
spent on outpatient facilities to prevent a veteran from going into the
hospital is a savings for the Federal Government. It is a savings for
the Nation.
If you do not take care of the patient while he can still walk, is
still ambulatory, can live at home, then what happens is eventually
then he has to go into the hospital, and the medical and hospital care
is much, much more expensive, so instead of saving money we are
actually spending more money.
In the words of the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
the gentleman from Arizona, Bob Stump, I will quote from his February
28 letter to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the
gentleman from Louisiana, Bob Livingston:
The particular projects selected for rescission by the
subcommittee are, unfortunately, the type of projects that
the Veterans Affairs Committee has been encouraging the VA to
pursue. It is my strong belief, shared by veterans and their
service organizations, that giving greater priority to
ambulatory care projects is clearly the right approach to
improve service to veterans.
Mr. Stump went on to conclude: ``In striking contrast to the needs
the VA faces, these cuts move the VA in the wrong direction.''
The Department of Veterans' Affairs has consistently ranked the six
targeted ambulatory projects as one of its highest priorities. They are
an integral part of the department's effort to move away from costly
inpatient care and provide more accessible, cost-effective and
efficient outpatient care.
However, by proposing the rescission of these six projects, the
Republicans are sending a very clear message: The health of our
Nation's veterans is not a priority to this Congress.
However, we owe a great debt to our veterans. A reduction in hard-
earned medical services to deserving veterans is not the way to pay for
a tax cut for the wealthy. Cutting high-priority veterans' projects is
plain wrong.
I urge my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, but particularly
the Republicans, to set their priorities straight and support the
restoring of the vital funding when this ill-conceived rescissions
package is brought to the floor next week.
Mr. VOLKMER. Will the gentlewoman yield, Mr.
Speaker?
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Would the gentleman also, as the gentlewoman from
Florida, consider this a breach of the contract that Congress has with
our veterans, especially our World War II veterans?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. I definitely do, Mr. Speaker. I don't know if we
can really call this a Contract With America. It looks more like a
contract for the wealthy of America, and it is being performed on the
backs of the poor, the children and the elderly and the veterans.
Mr. VOLKMER. This money that they are taking from these outpatient
clinics, yours, mine, those of the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown]
and others, is going to go for tax cuts, and 75 percent of that money
goes to the wealthy?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. The gentleman is right. They quote the theory
that the less taxes the wealthy pay, the more money there will be, but
yet, they have to make cuts to meet those tax cuts. They have to cut
another project.
Mr. VOLKMER. I want to give another problem with what I call the
generational gap, Mr. Speaker. If you review and look at the age of the
Members of the majority party, many of them are too young to have
served, basically, in the armed services in time of war with Uncle
Sam's Army, our Army, our Marines, our Air Force.
As a result, I think this generational gap has led to the point where
they, perhaps, do not realize the importance of what those people that
fought in those wars did for us in preserving our freedoms.
I am afraid that you may see another part of what I call the
generational gap that is going to occur. I understand there may be an
amendment to restore these funds when we get into the bill by someone
from the majority side, but I have been told that the money is going to
come from further rescissions in the Americorps Program.
In other words, it will do away completely with Americorps, which is
a program for our youth, in order to help the veterans. Mr. Speaker, I
do not think that is necessary.
I have an amendment that I will be offering, if I am given the
opportunity, that does not perform that generational function and pit
one generation against another, but it does restore the money by taking
it out of funds under NAFTA for Mexico to do wastewater treatment, and
also from NASA, from some of their operational programs, so it does not
perform that generational problem that I see that the majority of
amendments are going to do.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. There are some of the programs in NASA, some of
the projects, that have not even been authorized. I think those are
very reasonable projects to take it away from.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Could the gentleman tell me how long this
project has been on the list, how long it has been authorized and been
going through the process? I know for 2 years we have discussed it.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Our project was authorized in 1993. We got the
funding for the planning and got the plans to get the construction
project going. Then the authorization came last year.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I remember in the testimony before our
committee, you discussed the fact that there were no facilities for
women, no waiting rooms. People were in the hall. It is just one mess.
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. That is correct. Not only that, but when the
veterans ask for an appointment, because of the crowding of the
facilities, instead of getting the appointment within a week, they will
get the appointment sometimes 3 months, 4 months, 5 months later. Maybe
before they get to the appointment their condition gets so much worse
that they have to be hospitalized, even before they got to the
appointment.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. That costs more money, Mr. Speaker.
I would ask the gentleman from Puerto Rico, what does he think about
this reverse Robin Hood, robbing from the poor to give to the rich?
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. That is what I call it. I have used that phrase
quite a bit, because Puerto Rico is like an Apartheid society. We are
U.S. citizens, 3,700,000 U.S. citizens, and we are not treated the
same, either economically or politically. We are still struggling for
our equality, at the end of the 20th century.
Definitely, this is also part of that Apartheid mentality, treating
people differently, and also taking away from the poor to keep the
rich.
In Puerto Rico we have a program where they have a tax-exemption for
the large corporations. Because those large corporations are tax-
exempt, the Federal Government tells us there is no money to give to
the U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico, the same way U.S. citizens are
treated in the 50 States of the Union.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to bring the attention of the House
to what I call the mean-spirited, hard-hearted manner in which the
Committee on Appropriations and the subcommittee has refused to restore
the funds that were authorized and appropriated to start outpatient
clinics at six outpatient facilities, at six veterans' hospitals
throughout this United States.
One of those is in my district. That hospital is named on behalf of
the greatest President, in my opinion, that has ever served this
country. It is the Harry S. Truman Veterans' Hospital in Columbia, MO.
{time} 1600
That hospital was built in 1972 in order to take care of veterans'
medical problems for not only the central and rural part of Missouri,
since we also have hospitals in St. Louis and elsewhere, but also for
acute care for heart transplants, et cetera, throughout the Midwest.
It may be of interest to the Members to know that the number of
veterans,
[[Page H3113]] especially World War II veterans, have gotten along in
years. They have aged like the rest of us. They are no longer the 18-,
the 19-, the 20-year-old that fought in the beaches of Omaha and in the
plains of North Africa and in the islands of the Pacific to preserve
the freedoms of this country.
At the time that they were fighting, when they came home, there was
this commitment that we are going to take care of your medical needs,
because many of them continued at that time and to the present time to
need that medical care.
When the Harry S. Truman Hospital--and, by the way, we have to
remember it was through the work of Harry Truman, then President, that
terminated the Second World War, through his actions and what he did,
not only of our fighting men but he as President. So I think it is very
appropriate that the hospital be in his name, and he of course is a
veteran of World War I and a recognized outstanding veteran of that
war.
When that hospital was constructed in 1972, it was anticipated at
that time that there would be a need for 12,000 patients a year. It may
be of interest to Members to know that in the year 1992, there were
82,000 patients that went through that hospital, most of them
outpatients. But they do not have the facilities, do not have the room
to handle that many outpatients, and it has continued at that rate
since that time.
It was suggested, and the Veterans Administration agreed, that we
really should have an outpatient clinic to take care of outpatients and
use the hospital for the inpatients. Working with Senator Kip Bond of
Missouri, our senior Senator, we were able to persuade the Veterans
Administration and this Congress, along with others, that this is the
way to handle these patients, these veterans, through an outpatient
clinic, so they did not have to wait.
How long do some of my veterans from my district have to wait? First
let's say you are from Bowling Green and you served in the Second World
War and whether it was in the Pacific or European theater makes no
difference, or let's say it was in Korea, whether it was at Seoul or
wherever in Korea, or whether it was in Vietnam, and let's say you live
in Bowling Green, MO. Well, Bowling Green is about a 75-mile trip and
so you get in your car and if you are not capable of driving, you get a
neighbor and they drive you over to Columbia, and it takes you about an
hour and 20 minutes, maybe an hour-and-a-half to get there.
So you start out, because you want to be there early because you know
there is going to be a whole line of people there. So you start out
about 6:30 or 7 o'clock in the morning and you drive to the hospital,
and you get to the outpatient clinic. Lo and behold, you already have
maybe 100 or 150 people already there, veterans, waiting, because we
have a lot of veterans within that distance a lot closer. So you sit
and wait, and sometimes, folks, they sit and wait almost all day just
to see a doctor or a nurse to maybe find out exactly what they need to
have, and then to maybe get a prescription.
Is that right, to tell your veterans--then they have to get in the
car and drive back home--all day just to go through an outpatient
clinic? That is what we are presently requiring of veterans that served
in a world war.
I wonder how many people would like to serve this country in the
future? I wonder how many of our young people would be willing to go
serve when they told them, ``We are not going to take care of you if
you get shot up or if you lose an arm, or if you get a little
disability or a large disability, we are not going to take care of you;
you take care of yourself.'' I don't think we will have too many that
would like to serve, anyway, and I think that would not help us any at
all.
I know that we have an obligation, not only a moral obligation but an
obligation as a country. If we are to have the respect of the rest of
the world, we should take care of our veterans, and we are not doing it
with this rescission bill. In fact, you are giving a slap in the face.
You are actually telling your veterans, ``You just go do your own
thing, we are not going to do anything more for you.''
As a result of that, I have an amendment that if I am permitted by
the Committee on Rules, by the chairman of the committee when we get in
the Committee of the Whole, I am going to offer to restore those funds,
and I am sure that when that amendment is offered that the majority of
the Members here will recognize the responsibility.
When it comes down to the question, the question really is, should
this money--we are not saving any money by doing this. There is no
savings, folks. I think everybody should recognize, we are not putting
this money on the deficit. We are not telling our veterans, ``Make a
little sacrifice so it can reduce the deficit and help this country
out.''
No, we are saying, ``Veterans, we want to take this 100 and some
million dollars and we want to give it away to people for tax cuts,
especially for those who have over $125,000-a-year income. We want to
help those people, because they, I guess, according to the majority,
they are the ones that really need the help.'' The way I read this, the
majority is saying the veterans don't need any help.
I am just anxiously waiting for the debate on this bill, because back
when I was talking to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
about this, the gentleman from Louisiana, about this problem, he also
made a statement to me that makes me really concerned about where this
majority is going as far as our veterans are concerned. I do no
remember the exact words, but the gist of it basically was, ``Harold,
we have got a bigger problem. We need to do something about our
veterans hospitals. We need to do away with the veterans hospitals. We
need to put the veterans on a voucher plan.''
Those are the words that I got, and the understanding I got from the
gentleman from Louisiana, the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, from my conversation with him.
I wonder how many veterans groups out there know that that is the way
that the majority feels? That the majority feels that we should close
all of our veterans hospitals, we should not provide care for our
veterans. All we do is give them a voucher and tell them, You go find
the medical care wherever you can. That is the way that this is going
with our majority.
I think they have lost sight of what again this Congress said to our
veterans when they were preserving the freedoms that we all cherish and
that we all now enjoy.
I feel that everybody in this House should recognize, and you among
the general public should recognize, that we are having an onslaught
against our veterans here in this Congress right now. And as one of
those who feels that it is a wrong thing to do, I want the Members of
this House to know that I am going to do everything I can to make sure,
along with the gentleman that is here in the well and the gentlewoman
from Florida, to make sure this money is replaced, and I know from my
own knowledge that when it gets to the Senate, they are going to keep
it in there. I know my senior Senator, Kip Bond, is going to keep it in
there because he is one of those who believes strongly that we should
provide for our veterans.
I know that all we have to do is win this battle here and we have won
the battle. In the first place, though, it should have never been
necessary. They should not even have thought of doing this.
For that reason, I say this was one of the most mean-spirited, hard-
hearted things that the Members of Congress do, to actually give a slap
in the face to a person who was willing to give his life for this
country, in battle, and yet to slap him in the face and say, You go
about your way, we don't care whether you get medical care or not.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, before we close,
can the gentleman repeat his exact words?
Mr. VOLKMER. I don't know if I can say the exact words, but to me it
is strictly a slap in the face to veterans. And these are the people,
as depicted in these pictures and elsewhere, that with bullets flying
around them were willing to give their life, and some of them gave
their limbs, some of them gave their ability to even function so that
we could stand here and speak today.
Yet the majority is saying, ``Too bad. We don't care about you. We
are going to give you a good slap in the face and
[[Page H3114]] tell you, you go take care of yourself.'' They are
telling my veterans that were willing to sacrifice their life for the
good of this country, willing to do that, they are telling them it is
all right for them to have to spend 8, 10, 12 hours a day just to see a
doctor, and that the majority says they do not deserve good medical
care.
I say the opposite. I say that our veterans, that is a priority. They
need to have the medical care that not only we should give them but
that we promised them.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Missouri.
I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Clyburn].
Mr. CLYBURN. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for allowing me to
participate in this special order. I am pleased to serve with the
gentlewoman on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and I know of the
gentlewoman's great commitment to the veterans of our Nation. And also
to join with our friend from Missouri who too has displayed time and
time again his concern for our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I join the gentlewoman from Florida in her opposition to
our Republican colleagues' plans to rescind funding for veterans
programs. Our Republican colleagues have already displayed their
callousness by proposing legislation that would harm our Nation's
youth. Now they are going after our Nation's veterans, the men and
women who have committed their lives to the defense of our country.
This so-called Contract With America has quickly revealed itself as a
contract on Americans. The people who seem to be in the line of fire
are the young and the helpless.
Is this how we want to honor our veterans, by rescinding $206.1
million in fiscal year 1995 VA appropriations? Is this how we are going
to care for our aging veterans, by rescinding money intended to fund 6
ambulatory health care projects totaling $156 million, and $50 million
in medical equipment purchases?
Mr. Speaker, these facilities are not Government frills. This medical
equipment, these are not Government frills. They all represent an
alternative to costly inpatient care by providing more accessible,
cost-effective and efficient outpatient care.
Mr. Speaker, when this rescission bill comes to the floor, I am going
to join the gentleman from Missouri and the gentlewoman from Florida in
opposing the bill and I will urge all my colleagues to vote against
what has got to be one of the most ill-conceived pieces of legislation
to be proposed by the Republican-controlled Congress thus far.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, I just want to ask
the gentleman one quick question.
In my opinion, this is old politics, because the committee did not
discuss at all with the authorizers, did not talk with the Secretary,
did not talk to the administration. It was just a group of good old
boys from the bad old days getting together against the veterans. Would
the gentleman agree?
Mr. CLYBURN. Absolutely. I think that most of our friends who have
been looking at the Congress operate thus far have been surprised to
wake up in the morning and all of a sudden see headlines indicating
that such and such is about to happen.
{time} 1615
We have always tended to take these kinds of decisions through a
process of hearings; people would come before the committee to talk
about the pros and the cons of all of these kinds of actions. But that
is not what is happening here, not in this instance and in other
instances as well. There are just two or three people, or whatever
number, who have gotten together and decided what they need to do in
order to make it work.
As our friend from Missouri said earlier, if this were being done in
order to do something about the deficit, I am convinced that the
veterans in my congressional district and the veterans all across
America would be lining up to do their fair share, because they too
want to see us take this deficit down even further. But that is not
what is being done here. We are going through a process of deciding how
much money can be moved to put over in a big pot that the friends and
supporters of our Republican colleagues can dip into in order to see a
tax break for themselves.
So that is what is happening here as a result of that. I hope that
the American people will wake up and get in touch with their Congress
people before we do our veterans what I consider to be irreparable
harm.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. So we have here today coming up this afternoon
and tomorrow reverse Robin Hood, robbing from the poor to give to the
rich.
Mr. CLYBURN. That is exactly what we have got and I think it is being
kind to call it that.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I would also add that the Contract With America
has turned out to be a contract on America.
Mr. CLYBURN. I think it is on Americans.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. On Americans. And this poster is a real
example. If you look at it this is a baby, and of course it does not
vote. This is one of the targets of the Republican group. And who is
the target now that they have added the veterans and elderly?
Everybody needs to take a close look because I think their pink slip
is in the mail, too. If they are not careful they are next on the
Republicans' hit list.
Mr. CLYBURN. I agree with the gentlewoman, and I think it is time for
me to yield back so she may close this special order. I thank the
gentlewoman so much for allowing me to be a part of this special order.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Florida has expired.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. I want to thank my colleagues very much for
coming and sharing with the American people the plight we are in here
fighting for our veterans and for other groups that are not here in the
House, represented here and given an opportunity to vote.
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Committee
on Veterans Affairs, I rise to urge all my colleagues to support an
amendment to the rescission bill reported last Thursday by the
Appropriations Committee. The amendment is modest in scope but vital to
VA health care. It would restore the $206 million for veterans programs
which the Committee on Appropriations proposes to rescind.
These rescissions don't make good sense. These funds were
appropriated by Congress only a few months ago, primarily to help meet
a critical need to improve veterans' access to outpatient care. The six
VA projects which the committee now proposes to cancel would serve
areas where more than 1.2 million veterans reside.
The budget for construction of veterans medical facilities has been
pretty lean for the past 5 or 6 years. As a result, the VA says it now
has almost 60 projects to improve outpatient services waiting to be
funded. The VA could award construction contracts on these six projects
in the next several months. We shouldn't put these projects off 1 day.
These are projects that can make VA health care delivery more cost-
effective. This rescission bill would slam the door on veterans across
this country. In some parts of the country, the VA doesn't have health
facilities that meet veterans needs. In other places, the clinics are
just too small. At one clinic, space is so tight that doctors are
forced to perform eye examinations in the hallways. Veterans deserve
better than this.
An increasing number of veterans are women; over 1.2 million. Many VA
outpatient clinics still lack privacy for women veterans. In the face
of such conditions, the rescission bill is a giant step backward.
Likewise, cutting funds for replacement equipment--as proposed by the
rescission measure--forces VA to choose between obtaining a needed
service at increased cost through contracting or continuing to use
inefficient or even obsolete equipment. The VA's medical equipment
backlog is more than $800 million. We must assure that VA care is care
of high quality. Cutting back on VA funds to replace old equipment is
putting out veterans at risk.
I want to commend all of the Members who are working hard to restore
these funds--the gentlewomen from Florida, Ms. Brown and Mrs. Thurman,
the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Volkmer, Mr. Scott,
Mr. Romero-Barcelo and the other Members who are gathered here tonight.
They are all doing a good job looking out for our Nation's veterans.
____________________