[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.


                          ____________________