[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3222-H3227]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida for his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  [[Page H3223]] Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, does that mean 
that the 5 minutes that I yielded to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Obey], we can recapture that for our side?
  The CHAIRMAN. That would certainly be the case.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain the situation that we 
are in. We have heard two Republican speakers now talk about how 
outrageous it is that the contract with veterans is being broken by 
this legislation.
  I want to point out, it is the gentleman's side of the aisle that 
tried to break the contract. They produced a bill which cut veterans' 
programs by $200 million. Democrats did not. Those folks did.
  We then tried to correct it in the Committee on Appropriations. We 
offered an amendment that would have restored a number of programs, 
including full restoration for the veterans' programs. Every single 
Republican in the Committee on Appropriations voted against that 
restoration.
  Now they are out here trying to pose for political holy pictures with 
the veterans, and trying to pose as the great defenders of the American 
veterans.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. No, I will not. I would like to finish my statement. I have 
had a tough time getting this time. You will have your time.
  Mr. OBEY. As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, Mr. 
Chairman, what we now have is Republicans desperately trying to climb 
back on board in support of veterans' causes. So now what they have 
first done is to preclude the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. 
DeLauro] from offering her amendment to restore the veterans' program, 
and then what they have done instead is to have the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young] now offer an amendment which restores the funds 
that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] wanted to get 
protected last week. But what you are doing now, you had to look and 
find a place that was the single most insulting place for the President 
that you could find--to restore the funds--and that is what you have 
done, by going after AmeriCorps.
  Mr. Chairman, I see a Republican gentleman shaking his head here. It 
is too bad. I can remember when the President, regardless of party, was 
regarded as ``Our President,'' not ``your President.'' It is really too 
bad when I see the lack of respect on the floor of this House for the 
institution, of the presidency, or other political institutions.
  What we have now at stake is: instead of looking for ways to reach 
accommodation with the President,
 the Majority party is looking for a way to find the most insulting 
possible way to restore the funds for veterans, while sticking it to 
the President of the United States on the program that is one of his 
highest priorities. There is a Republican gentleman here nodding his 
head, saying yes, that is what they are trying to do.

  That, Mr. Speaker, is in my view cynical. I regret it, but I would 
suggest that the Members of this side of the aisle be a good deal 
bigger in their response to this issue than we are getting from that 
side of the aisle. I think we ought to accept this amendment, 
recognizing full well that there are extreme partisan motivations 
behind it, but also indicating that we will not let those extreme 
partisan motives get in the way of our trying to stick to the deal 
which we made with veterans to support these programs.
  therefore, I am going to support this amendment, even though I think 
that it is a lousy choice which they have given us. The gentlewoman 
from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] would have given us a much better choice 
because she would have taken it out of the nice fat NASA budget which 
could well sustain a hit. But no, that involves pork in Members' 
projects, in Members' districts, again. Therefore, they do not want to 
take it out of pork. They want to take it out of the White House's 
political hide.
  I think President Clinton is big enough to absorb it. I think we are, 
too. I would urge that Members support the amendment.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, I have worked for years and years with the 
gentleman from Arizona [Bob Stump], who has the best interests of the 
veterans at heart, an honorable man, and the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Sonny Montgomery], who has been a pillar for the veterans in this 
country for many, many years.
  I would just like for somebody to tell me, we talked about 
priorities, why did this program in the first place come under the axe 
for the rescissions? What was the rationale that was used to cut these 
programs for the veterans, that forces us into this situation, into a 
political situation? Why did it not have a higher priority than to be 
under the Rescission Act to start with?
  Could anybody answer that question for me?
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman will recall when this issue was before the 
committee, that at the time of these cuts it was being admitted fully 
on the Republican side these cuts were going to finance their tax cuts. 
What they wanted to do was gouge veterans in order to free up their 
nice big tax giveaways for corporations and the folks who are making 
more than $100,000 a year.
  Now the heat has gotten too bad and they want to run for cover a 
little bit, but they still want to do it in a very partisan way. I 
think that is regrettable, but I do not think we should let that stand 
in the way of restoring funding for veterans' programs.
  Mr. HEFNER. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I do remember being on the House floor and yielding to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] in the past, and it was with 
great disappointment to hear that he would consider it rude to request 
the return.
  I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin, about partisanship, 
these cuts of $206 million, I remember he was the former chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations. It was that 1993 budget, that tough 
vote that occurred on this floor that only passed by one vote, that cut 
$2.5 billion out of veterans' programs.
  Therefore, do not be coming to the House floor and saying ``Gee, what 
is going on right now?'' The President's budget that he just sent to us 
cuts an additional $3 billion, so President Clinton is personally 
responsible for $5.5 billion in cuts in veterans' programs.
  So I would say to my colleagues on this side that now all of a sudden 
want to bash on this side, read the budget. If you read the budget and 
read the fine print, look on page 128 and come back and talk with me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, first, why these things need to be 
restored. They need to be restored because we want to bring the VA into 
the 1990's. You do that by moving to the outpatient clinics. It is 
very, very important that we do that.
  Why AmeriCorps? I do not know about this political stuff that is 
going on now. I am speaking as someone who has knowledge with regard to 
the military.
  That knowledge with regard to the military, Mr. Chairman, when those 
of us that talked about the AmeriCorps and the problems it is going to 
have upon a volunteer military, if you support a volunteer military, 
then you want to be very careful about the pool from which we recruit. 
It impacts upon the propensity of those who are in the pool from the 
age of 18 to 25, and what impact it has.
  If there is another program out there that gives benefits that far 
exceed that of the Montgomery GI bill for a 2-year enlistee who 
completes his or her term, they are eligible for $2,960 per year. 
Compare that to AmeriCorps, 2-year service, educational benefits, 1 
year, they will receive $4,725 per year plus health care.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that the gentleman may squawk 
all he wants about the President's budget. The bill we have before us 
is H.R. 1158. The name that is on the front page, the sponsor of that 
bill, is the gentleman from Louisiana, one Mr. Livingston. Last time I 
looked, he was not President. He is the Republican 
 [[Page H3224]] chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  He is the fellow sponsoring the bill making the recommendation to cut 
veterans by $200 million.
  The subcommittee recommendation, came out of the HUD Subcommittee. 
The chairman of that subcommittee is the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis]. Last time I looked, he also was not the President. He was the 
Republican chairman of the subcommittee who recommended $200 million in 
veterans' cuts.
  Mr. Chairman, let us be straight, here, folks. You can talk all you 
want about some other vehicle, some other bill. The fact is, you are 
the ones who are recommending cutting veterans. Now you are running 
like scared rabbits to change it. I do not blame you. This should not 
be here in the first place.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes], the distinguished ranking member of the HUD subcommittee.
  Mr. STOKES. I thank the distinguished ranking member of the full 
Appropriations Committee for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say that I want to associate my remarks with his 
remarks in the well a few moments ago. The rule that we are proceeding 
under today really points out the real hypocrisy of what we now see in 
terms of this amendment. As was stated by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Obey], at the full Committee on Appropriations I offered the 
amendment which would have restored the full $206 million to the 
Veterans account.
  Just as he stated, the vote in the full committee was 29-22 defeating 
my amendment, strictly along party lines. All the Republicans voted 
against restoring the money to the Veterans account. All of the 
Democrats voted for it.
  Yesterday I appeared before the Committee on Rules. I once again 
asked for permission to make my amendment in order. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] appeared there, also asked the Committee on Rules 
to make my amendment in order to be able to restore all the funds to 
the Veterans account. We presented a budget-neutral amendment, and yet 
that amendment was not made in order.
  It is interesting that we come to the floor now and the Republicans 
now want to restore this funding. The problem is and the hypocrisy of 
it is shown in the fact that they want to take it from AmeriCorps, 
which is a program which is part of the national effort to engage 
Americans in community-based service while in exchange for this service 
making funding available for educational opportunities for those 
persons making a substantial commitment to service.
  I do not think that our Nation's veterans really want the Congress to 
deny these young people these opportunities just because of the 
shortsightedness that we see here today. In fact, it is interesting 
that AmeriCorps funding is available to veterans organizations to 
complement their efforts to serve their Members. This includes a wide 
range of support services.
  While I will vote for the amendment, I just think that it points up 
the hypocrisy that is occurring on our floor here today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
  (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment that 
restores funding, among other things, for Orlando's VA clinic.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Mr. 
Stump and Mr. Young of Florida to H.R. 1158, fiscal year 1995 emergency 
appropriations for disaster relief, and rescissions. This amendment 
calls for a restoration of the $206.1 million in cuts to the Department 
of Veterans Affairs. To offset this cost the amendment would rescind an 
additional $206.1 million from the Corporation for National and 
Community Service.
  The restoration of monies to the Department of Veterans Affairs for 
medical construction projects and supplies is in the best interest of 
our American veterans and taxpayers. We cannot afford to neglect these 
needs. In Florida alone, where the veteran population is presently 
growing at the net rate of approximately 3,000 per month and where we 
have the oldest median aged and the most disabled veterans in the 
nation, the proposed out-patient clinics are sorely needed.
  The six proposed out-patient clinics affected by the rescission in 
H.R. 1158 represent the shift on the part of the VA from expensive, 
inefficient hospital care to cost-effective, efficient outpatient 
clinic care. In Orlando, in particular, the savings to taxpayers would 
be substantial where we could consolidate three separate facilities 
presently operating and paying annual rents totaling $405,000.00 per 
year.
  What the Stump amendment calls for is to replace the VA rescissions 
is an additional cut in the Corporation for National and Community 
Service by $206.1 million. The major program in this Corporation is 
AmericCorps which is little more than another federal jobs program. 
Just last year, taxpayers paid over $24.8 billion on 154 such 
employment and training programs. The average cost of a single 
AmeriCorps ``member'' to the taxpayer is $30,000.00. Touting a goal of 
promoting volunteerism in this country, it probably does more to 
undermine this very worthy aim by paying people to do something 
millions of people already do without financial reward.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask that serious consideration be given to the 
priorities we set. Ours should certainly be the American veterans. And 
this is in the best interests of both our veterans and our taxpayers.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Stump-
Solomon amendment to H.R. 1158.
  This rescissions bill goes a long way toward bringing some fiscal 
responsibility to the Federal Government. The cuts made in H.R. 1158 
exemplify the Republicans' commitment to downsize the Government and 
reduce our national debt. I fully support the efforts to rescind 
appropriated funds as a step in the right direction.
  However, the rescission of moneys allocated to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs for the health administration and for construction of 
ambulatory care facilities is a mistake. There are many other programs 
far more deserving of spending cuts than medical care for America's 
veterans.
  I commend Chairman Stump and Chairman Solomon for their amendment. 
They understand that the VA provides services absolutely essential to 
the well-being of our Nation's Veterans. Their amendment recognizes the 
importance of VA programs and prompts the right question: Which is more 
important, medical care for veterans or AmeriCorps--a multi-million 
dollar boondoggle that pays young people for an activity they used to 
do out of a sense of the common good.
  As one who offered an amendment before the Rules Committee that would 
have done the same thing as Stump-Solomon--with the one difference that 
it would have offset the VA restoration with funds from the 
Environmental Protection Agency's construction budget--I lend my 
support to this worthy amendment. America's veterans deserve at least 
this much.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
  (Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in support 
of the amendment offered by Chairman Stump and Chairman Solomon to 
restore vital veterans' funding.
  The proposed rescission of $206 million from Veterans Affairs will 
take away the VA's ability to construct six desperately needed 
outpatient clinics. These outpatient clinics would improve access to 
vital, cost-effective care in areas where more than 1.2 million 
veterans reside. The cuts in VA medical funding would hurt the VA 
medical population, which, as compared to the general veterans 
population, is more often single, older, disabled, and form a minority 
group.
  The proposed rescission also cuts $50 million from medical equipment 
funding in the VA health care system, which has a backlog of $800 
million in essential medical equipment purchases. The VA is already 
deferring maintenance and renovation projects to sustain current 
operations.
  It is our duty to provide those who fought to defend our freedom with 
the services of a grateful Nation. It is a shame that we would even 
consider delaying much-needed repair, construction, and medical 
services to our veterans. I call upon my colleagues to support the 
Stump-Solomon amendment in order to restore essential funding to our 
veterans health care system. A yes vote on this amendment is 
 [[Page H3225]] the only way to honor our commitment to those who 
served their country in time of need.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
  (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BATEMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I strongly 
support its adoption. My project in Hampton, VA, has been 10 years in 
its formulation and is desperately needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss the proposed rescission of 
vital construction projects at six veterans medical centers. These 
projects are extremely important and should have their funding restored 
by this committee.
  One of those projects, an outpatient facility at the VA medical 
center in Hampton, VA, represents the culmination of 10 years of 
planning and would replace two buildings constructed around 1910. The 
Hampton center was established in 1870 as the southern branch of the 
National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers and is one of the oldest 
VA medical centers in the country. Working in outdated buildings with 
make-shift accommodations, the VAMC Hampton provided service to more 
than 171,000 outpatients in 1993. The space available is only half that 
needed for such a workload. The personnel perform exemplary service 
given the conditions, however, significant delays often occur because 
hallways and lobbies serve as waiting areas and work flow is 
inefficient. In many cases, veterans must visit different buildings 
sprawled across the center's 85 acres for various services. Often, 
because of their age those buildings cannot accommodate the handicapped 
patients who need treatment.
  As I stated, the center has been planning a clinical addition for 
more than 10 years. The final plan, which was approved by the VA 
central office and funded in the fiscal year 1995 VA/HUD appropriations 
bill, would replace the two outdated buildings mentioned earlier and 
provide for a new building able to accommodate the workload the center 
must handle. The addition would be connected to the main hospital and 
would house all outpatient functions. This project is essential for the 
VAMC Hampton to be able to continue to provide high quality medical 
care to the growing veteran community in the Hampton Roads area.
  Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by the fact that the Appropriations 
Committee eliminated the Hampton clinic and five other badly needed 
facilities simply because they were included in President Clinton's 
health care reform plan and are therefore thought to be of dubious 
merit. That is simply incorrect. These critical projects were taken out 
of the politics surrounding health care reform as part of a bipartisan 
effort to ensure that we considered them on their own merits. Let me 
submit to my colleagues that an overwhelming majority in both chambers 
specifically authorized each of these outpatient clinics. It makes no 
sense to revisit that wise decision now.
  I recognize that we need to reduce Federal spending, but how can 
anyone come to this floor and say to veterans, ``I know you fulfilled 
your promise to the government and people of the United States but we 
just can't fulfill the promises we have made to you.'' The veterans of 
our country deserve better.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].
  Mr. BILIRAKIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the Young-Stump-
Solomon amendment to H.R. 1158.
  Since coming to Congress, I have repeatedly supported efforts to cut 
Federal spending and I will continue to do so. But as a member of the 
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I was extremely disappointed that 
the Committee on Appropriations rescinded $206 million from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs' fiscal year 1995 budget. Over the 
years, increases in Federal spending on veterans programs have not kept 
pace with increases for other programs. Consequently, the needs of our 
veterans exceed the VA's available resources. These rescissions will 
only magnify the problems currently confronting the VA health care 
system.
  The proposed rescission eliminates construction funds for six VA 
outpatient clinics--two of which are in my home State of Florida. 
Florida already lacks the resources needed to adequately care for its 
veterans population. As a result, I frequently--too frequently--hear 
from veterans who are not able to receive treatment at VA medical 
facilities. In addition, every year, thousands of veterans travel south 
to spend the winter in Florida. These ``snowbirds'' place an extra 
burden on an already overtaxed system.
  The elimination of the Tampa/Orlando and Gainesville ambulatory care 
centers means that once again Florida's veterans will be forced to 
forgo badly needed treatment. How can I tell the veterans of my 
district--brave men and women who just by serving put their lives on 
the line in service to their country--that they are not entitled to 
adequate health care?
  In addition to the devastating effect these cuts will have on 
Florida, I am also concerned because of the long-term impact they will 
have on the overall VA health care system. Like the private sector, the 
VA is shifting from more expensive inpatient care towards ambulatory 
care in outpatient facilities. In fiscal year 1994, the VA had 26.3 
million outpatient visits.
  This shift to outpatient care would provide better health care to a 
larger number of veterans for the maximum return on funding dollars. 
Unfortunately, the six construction projects eliminated in the 
rescission bill are ambulatory care centers which are intended to 
improve medical care access to areas where more than 1.2 million 
veterans reside.
  These are exactly the types of projects the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee has urged the VA to build. The cuts also undermine priority 
committee legislative initiatives for VA eligibility reform. We must 
give greater priority to ambulatory care projects to improve service to 
veterans on a more cost-effective basis.
  H.R. 1158 also cuts $50 million in unobligated funds from medical 
equipment funding. The VA health care system already has an $800 
million backlog of essential medical equipment purchases due to chronic 
underfunding. In fact, VA medical facilities are diverting their 
medical equipment funding to pay for current operations--sacrificing 
the future to pay for the present. Additional cuts are unjustified.
  The Stump-Solomon amendment offsets the restoration of the VA funding 
by cutting back a lower priority program--Americorps. Why should we 
reduce funding for Americorps?
  The purpose of that program is to promote national and community 
service. Americorps participants are not volunteers but federally 
funded employees. Full-time Americorps volunteers will receive a $7,400 
annual stipend, plus $9,450 toward payment of higher education debts 
over 2 years.
  Over one-quarter of the 20,000 Americorps personnel in the field 
today work directly for Federal or State bureaucracies. Another 2,934 
volunteers are assigned to State government agencies and State-funded 
agencies.
  There are already at least 23 existing volunteer programs throughout 
six Federal agencies at a cost to taxpayers of $1.3 billion. Currently 
$575 million is appropriated for Americorps and the program plans to 
spend another $8 billion over a 5-year period. During a time in our 
Nation's history when Congress is even contemplating cuts in veterans 
programs, Americorps is a costly and unnecessary expense.
  The women and men who answered the call to duty deserve more than 
empty gestures and rhetoric about their service. Their life threatening 
sacrifices must be rewarded at a level beyond whatever else this 
Congress determines to be valuable. Whatever else, our veterans should 
come first. We cannot forget those who sacrificed for our Nation's 
security.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the Stump-Solomon amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr).
  Mr. BARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment in 
support of our veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to stand here today and support this 
vital amendment. After receiving the 1995 rescissions list I was deeply 
troubled to find that over $206 million was targeted for cuts from the 
Veterans Administration budget. Mr. Chairman, this rescissions package 
is about priorities, and there are few more important than our veterans 
who have served our country so honorably.
  It is the obligation of Congress to protect the rights and services 
of our veterans. I personally have the greatest respect for those who 
sacrificed so much to insure America's freedom. This amendment is an 
important step because cutting $156 million in funding for six new V.A. 
outpatient clinic projects and $50 million from V.A. medical equipment 
funding is not in the best interests of America's veterans or 
taxpayers.
  It is shameful for the current White House administration to send a 
budget to the Congress with $8 billion in AmeriCorps spending and 
nothing to address Veteran's eligibility requirements. The 
administration's budget fails 
 [[Page H3226]] to address the dire situation our VA hospitals are 
currently facing.
  Mr. Chairman, AmeriCorps is nothing more than another Federal make-
work program. Last year, taxpayers forked over $24.8 billion on 154 
different employment and training programs. We do not need yet another 
Federal jobs program. With 20,000 participants in 350 projects around 
the Country, AmeriCorps is larger after just 5 months than the Peace 
Corps at its height.
  This is a critical time for veteran's services. The V.A. is doing its 
part to provide more efficient and cost-effective service through 
shifting from more expensive inpatient care toward ambulatory care in 
outpatient facilities. V.A. cuts also undermine priority Committee 
legislative initiatives for V.A. eligibility reform.
  Again Mr. Chairman, this rescissions package is about priorities, and 
when the decision is between the veterans of this nation and a pet pork 
project, the decision is easy. Our veterans must prevail and these 
funds must be restored.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I think it is critical that we restore 
funding for much needed VA outpatient clinics so that I will vote for 
this outrageous amendment. But I find it unconscionable that this 
amendment offsets this restored funding by making further cuts to the 
already hard-hit national service program. It is appalling that this 
amendment forces us to choose between serving our veterans and 
providing college education for our children and needed services to our 
communities and a program, national service, that is working all over 
this United States. This is nothing more than a pointed and a personal 
attack on the President of the United States, and I want to say to the 
American public that the pawns in this game are the 20,000 young people 
who will be sent home in the middle of their year of service.
  The offset in my amendment would have made a cut of just 1.4 percent 
in the NASA budget rather than this 72 percent cut in the national 
service budget. But thanks to the Republican gag rule, I could not 
offer my amendment on the floor of this House, the people's House, so 
that we have been gagged at every step of the way, and that is wrong.
  Let me tell my Republican colleagues that the veterans are not likely 
to forget that you cut $206 million from their projects, and neither 
will the young people of this country or their parents forget what you 
have done to their children today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to respond to the gentlewoman.
  It is very important for the House to understand where we come from 
regarding this specific proposal for re-funding the veterans programs 
that were formerly set for some rescission. The fact is that AmeriCorps 
is a program that began in 1994. At that point in time, the President 
funded the proposal at $365 million. The following appropriations year, 
before the young people involved were even in place, it was raised by 
$210 million, more than a 50 percent increase.
  The President would have us in the 1996 year take the program up to 
$800 million. Shortly it would be another billion-dollar program. 
During all of this time, the program has not been evaluated indepth. 
There is little question that it is time we begin to stop this process 
of creating a brand new idea, a whim of somebody's, putting it in place 
and watching it go to billions and billions of dollars over the years.
  There is no doubt at all as we review this program it may deserve 
some funding, but indeed it deserves careful review before we go down 
this pathway.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. I am all for this amendment for the veteran. I asked the 
question while ago, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
answered it for me. I wanted you to answer it. Why was the program cut 
in priorities? Why was it cut to start with?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, if the gentleman had 
been on the floor earlier, we did explain that in some depth.
  Mr. HEFNER. Would the gentleman explain it again?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I will be glad to respond. The fact is that 
our veterans programs involve approximately $38 billion of spending 
across the country. Many of us are concerned that within those medical 
services, many of our veterans are disserved. they receive inefficient 
service, they stand in lines, they are not being treated in those 
programs the way they should. The only way to get above that is to 
shake the programs at their foundation. So all we did out of a $38 
billion program was to suggest a cut of $200 million so that we could 
take it to conference to discuss these programs further. It was clearly 
the intent of the committee to review those programs in depth. It is 
about time the new minority recognized that these programs have not 
worked nearly as well as they should in the past. And that was the 
reason, to take the programs to conference and evaluate how we can do 
the job better.
  Mr. HEFNER. Good story, Jerry. Stick with it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, something is really wrong when we as a 
Congress have provided better benefits to illegal immigrants than we 
have to people who have served this country, people who have fought and 
sacrificed for this country. Something is wrong when benefits for a 
volunteer program are more important than medical assistance for our 
veterans. We have cut our programs across this country and we need to 
direct our priorities at this time to those veterans who have served 
this country. I speak in strong support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, something is wrong when we as a Congress have provided 
better benefits to illegal immigrants than to people who have served, 
fought and sacrificed for this country. Something is wrong when 
benefits for a volunteer program are more important than medical 
assistance for our veterans.
  Today, we propose a cut in a volunteer program that has pay and 
perks. Today, we have tough choices. Today, in central Florida we have 
over 150,000 veteran patient visits to a veterans outpatient clinic 
that was designed for 50,000.
  Now the VA Administrator is threatening to abandon plans to continue 
the conversion of our former Naval Training Center Hospital to a 
veterans outpatient clinic. Now we have a choice: benefits to our 
veterans or benefits to volunteers.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, make tough choices 
today and support our veterans and their well-deserved medical 
services.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to 
point out that if we are talking about how these projects actually get 
evaluated, if we are talking about real pork that is in these bills, 
let's talk about where this $206 million is getting spent. The VA 
requested 11 projects for $206 million. Only five got funded. Somehow 
three projects that were not even included on the list got put in in 
the conference.
  The first one in the district of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. 
Stump] came in, it was not ranked, the VA when they did the arithmetic 
said it was worth $25 million, and $41 million got put in the 
conference committee.
  The second one in Tennessee was not even listed as one of 67 
projects, got put in in the conference committee in the district of a 
high-ranking member of the Republican Party.
  The third in Kansas, in Mr. Dole's State, was ranked No. 18 and 
mysteriously moved up to No. 3.
  You talk about pork. The pork is in this bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume in responding one more time to one of my colleagues who to 
say the least was somewhat outrageous in his excess. The fact is that 
the rescission that was proposed initially essentially said that the 
House-passed appropriations bill from last year was the bill we wanted 
to support. The rescissions involved add-ons on the Senate side. If 
there was pork involved, perhaps it was Senate pork. But indeed we 
decided to eliminate the Senate adds so that we could have a healthy 
discussion in conference with the Senate. There is no doubt that as we 
go forward with this 
 [[Page H3227]] $38 billion in spending, if we will shake up 
departments like HUD, like Veterans, there is little question that we 
can improve the way we deliver these services to Americans across the 
country.
  If the gentleman from Massachusetts is satisfied with the way many 
veterans are served by standing in lines half the day, then the 
gentleman is welcome to that satisfaction. It is my view that it is 
time we shake these departments in a fashion that causes them to pay 
attention to those we want to serve as human beings, not just as people 
with numbers on their forehead.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The committee will rise informally in order that the 
House may receive a message from the President.

                          ____________________