[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 13]
[House]
[Page 18768]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



    THE MEANING OF COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM: CUTTING FUNDING FOR 
                           AMERICA'S VETERANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I believe I have discovered the meaning of 
compassionate conservatism, at least as defined by the congressional 
Republicans. It is conservative to cut funding for the critical needs 
of our Nation's veterans, and it is compassionate to use that money for 
pork projects for congressional people in exchange for their votes.
  At least that is the definition implied by the VA-HUD-Independent 
Agencies appropriations bill which was crafted by the Republican 
majority in its subcommittee earlier this week.
  As the Washington Post reported yesterday, this pending bill is chock 
full of pork, 215 provisions funding a host of projects and activities 
that have little or nothing to do with veterans or housing, or the 
other concerns that this bill is supposed to address.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman just before me spoke of returning the 
surplus to people. What we are doing here is returning that surplus in 
pork projects to the majority Congresspeople.
  As one who has joined our veterans throughout the Nation in 
advocating for the past many months for additional funding in the 
veterans budget, I am frustrated, appalled, shocked, and angry at this 
turn of events.
  Our veterans must wait for months to see a doctor, but we fund the 
pork project of a machine aimed at growing plants in space. A Virginia 
doctor in Kentucky was authorized to provide care for only 35 of the 
500 veterans suffering from Hepatitis C, a disease that is often fatal, 
but we fund the pork project of ship bottom painting.
  Last year we fought to pass legislation to provide health care for 
Persian Gulf veterans suffering from undiagnosed illnesses. We now have 
no funding to absorb these additional veterans in VA medical 
facilities, but we are funding the pork project of research into 
windstorms. One-third of our homeless are veterans who served their 
Nation. We need services to help them get off the streets and back into 
productive lives. But instead, Madam Speaker, we fund a pork project 
for studying the impact of temperatures on living organisms.
  We are discharging veterans every day who are Alzheimer's patients, 
but we fund three separate pork projects worth $11.5 million in the 
district of our Speaker of the House.
  Some of these projects may be worthy, especially in the abstract. But 
then Congress should fund them openly and honestly and above board. 
Sneaking them into a bill that should include $2 billion more for 
veterans just to keep the services we are providing today afloat is 
dishonest, it is an insult to the men and women who served our Nation 
in battle.
  Is that what compassionate conservatism is all about: We cut 
veterans, but we hand out pork?
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill next week, 
and adequately fund the health needs of our Nation's veterans. I yield 
back whatever rationality exists in this House.

                          ____________________

                          ____________________