Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 20, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4724-H4776] DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 525 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4635. {time} 1640 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, June 19, 2000, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) had been disposed of and the bill was open to amendment from page 9, line 1, to page 9, line 3. Request For En Bloc Consideration of Amendments Numbered 40, 28, And 26 Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time that the Ney amendment No. 40, the Guttierez amendment No. 28, and the Tancredo amendment No. 26 be considered en bloc. I further ask unanimous consent that after disposition of these amendments, that the House return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 8. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I feel constrained to object to the request at this time. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. WAXMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. WAXMAN. I have another amendment on the same subject as yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to inquire if this is the appropriate time in the bill to offer that amendment. The CHAIRMAN. As the Committee proceeds further on page 10 the gentleman will be in order in the reading, but at the moment another Member of the House, a member of the committee, is seeking recognition to strike the last word. After that the Clerk will read to the proper point in the bill. Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to see that a number of Members have recognized that the VA medical research account is underfunded in this bill, and that they want to increase this funding through amendments that we are going to consider soon. The chairman and the ranking member have done a good job [[Page H4725]] under tough constraints on this legislation, but this is one item that we really need to tend to here today. I am glad to see that we will have the opportunity to do so. I have been a strong proponent of VA medical research, and I offered an amendment during the full Committee on Appropriations markup that would have increased that account by $23 million. I want to take just a minute today to explain why I support increasing the VA medical research account and why it is so important for us to find a way of doing so. The original request from the VA to OMB was to fund the research account at $397 million. Outside supporters of the program believe the program should be funded at $386 million. These recommendations are both well above the current bill's level of $321 million. Most of us have heard about the Seattle foot, that remarkable artificial limb that has been depicted in television commercials by a double amputee playing pick-up basketball or by a woman running a 100- yard dash. It is not obvious that she has two artificial legs until the camera zooms in at the end of the commercial. The technology for this prosthesis was developed by VA researchers in Seattle. Research at VA hospitals is important because it is clinical research, mainly. The researcher, who is almost always affiliated with a neighboring teaching hospital, also treats patients, veterans. The VA research program is the only one dedicated solely to finding cures to ailments that affect our veteran population. It is not interchangeable with other research efforts. At the Durham, North Carolina, VA, which is affiliated with Duke University, there is a great range of research being done, from working to find a cure for AIDS to finding a shingles vaccine to important advances in brain imaging and telemedicine. This work, of course, assists veterans, but it also helps the population at large. The VA does a great job of leveraging its funds. Dr. Jack Feussner, the director of the VA medical research program, testified that for every dollar of increase that the program has received over the last 5 years, it has received $3 from other sources. Therefore, if we were to add $23 million here today, it could translate into $92 million more for research. What will these additional funds be used for? Eleven million dollars is needed just to maintain current services, to keep up with medical inflation. Another $12 million could be used for any number of research projects. The VA is starting a research oversight program vital to the integrity of the human-based research programs. It could be a model for other federally-assisted research. This program needs $1 million. To bring the program back to the high water mark of 1998 would take $43 million. Dr. Feussner has listed four areas that would benefit particularly from additional research dollars: Parkinson's Disease, end-stage renal failure, diabetes, and Post-Traumatic Shock Disorder. Additional research into the treatment and cure for hepatitis C would also be looked at carefully. {time} 1645 We also need to increase the commitment to training the next generation of clinician and nonclinician investigators. To keep that program on track would take an additional $10 million. Now, Mr. Chairman, difficult decisions will need to be made on these upcoming amendments, and there are several of them. They all offer an offset of some sort. Most of the offsets I would not support if they stood alone. But the overall allocation for our VA-HUD subcommittee is just not sufficient, and these difficult trade-offs must be made. I am hopeful that, at the end of this process, an additional allocation will be available and that we will be able to fund VA medical research at close to $386 million and that any offsets that we adopt can largely be restored. However, it is very important to raise the appropriations level here today for medical research before this bill goes any farther in the appropriations process. I hope this is helpful, this overview of how these monies might be spent and why we need them. Additional funding for VA research will benefit our veterans and our country, and I hope Members will pay attention closely to the arguments on the amendments to follow. The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the bill? Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Filner Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Filner: Page 9, after line 3, insert the following: In addition, for ``Medical Care'', $35,200,000 for health care benefits for Filipino World War II veterans who were excluded from benefits by the Rescissions Acts of 1946 and to increase service-connected disability compensation from the peso rate to the full dollar amount for Filipino World War II veterans living in the United States: Provided, That the Congress hereby designates the entire such amount as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That such amount shall be available only to the extent of a specific dollar amount for such purpose that is included in an official budget request transmitted by the President to the Congress and that is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A). Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a point of order. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an issue which has been before this House before, an issue of, I think, great moral urgency but financially responsible; and that is to right a wrong that was committed in this country by the Congress of 1946, which took away the veterans' benefits that had been promised to our Filipino allies who were drafted into World War II, fought bravely at Corregidor and Bataan. Many died. But were ultimately extremely helpful, if not responsible, for our slowing up of the Japanese advance and then our ultimate victory in the Pacific. What we did do to these brave men was to take away their benefits after the war, and they have yet to be recognized in this way. Many are in their late 70s and early 80s. Many will not be here in a few years. I think this is an emergency item that ought to be considered by this House. My amendment would provide $35,200,000 for health care benefits to these veterans of World War II. This is the benefit that they need the most in their twilight years. Like their counterparts, they fought as brave soldiers. They helped to win the war. Many of them marched to their deaths, in fact, in the famous Bataan death march. Yet we rewarded them by taking away their benefits. We owe them a fair hearing. We owe them the dignity and honor of considering them veterans. My amendment would restore just some of those benefits to these veterans. I think all of my colleagues know that veterans are entitled to, under certain conditions provided by law, certain preventions and certain medical care. But this amendment divides the benefits from the pensions from the medical benefits and says let us at least now, within our budget means, give health care to those brave Filipino soldiers. My amendment would make available monies for care in this country, a small portion also for our VA clinic in Manila to serve the Filipino World War II veterans and U.S. citizens there alike. What we are saying here is that the honor and bravery of veterans of World War II will finally be recognized by this Congress 54 years after they were taken away. I would ask this body to recognize the bravery of our allies, the Filipinos who we drafted, provide them with eligibility for benefits, health care benefits that are given to American soldiers who fought in the same war for the same honorable cause. Now, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being challenged on a point of order because authorization has not been given. I would make the point that, not only did these veterans earn this benefit in the war, not only are there dozens of programs in this bill that are not authorized, but that, through the regular legislative process, we have not been allowed to bring this bill up. [[Page H4726]] I ask the floor, I ask the Chair to allow us to finally grant honor and dignity to these brave soldiers, many of whom, as I said, are in their 80s, and finally right a historical wrong of great proportions. Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by applauding the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), for his efforts. I know he has done this over many years, trying to fight for the justice of many of the veterans for World War II who fought under the flag of the United States, in fact fought at the insistence of this country. Simply put, what the gentleman is trying to do is trying to restore benefits to which these individuals as veterans were entitled to but were stripped of by affirmative action by this Congress back in the late 1940s. But for the action of this Congress, some 50-odd years ago, these individuals would be receiving these benefits that the gentleman from California are now trying to restore. So I would like to add my voice to the many in this Congress who are supportive of the gentleman's efforts, and, unfortunately, at this time is unable to proceed with this particular amendment. I would hope that my colleagues would recognize the efforts of the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), and at some point soon recognize that we must do something for the ladies and gentlemen who fought in the 1940s to defend this country and are now at the point of passing on. It is time for us to recognize their effort and recognize that this Congress some 54 years ago or so denied them the rights that they had under this Constitution. So I applaud the gentleman for what he does. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order against the amendment? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this amendment may be struck on a point of order. Many of us have been trying for many, many years to get this through, both under Democrat and Republican administrations. I served in the United States military, and a large portion of that was in Southeast Asia, eight different deployments on carriers all going through the Philippines, and based there for training. I was also stationed there at San Miguel for some 18 months. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I would hope that the conference chairman, in some way, even though this may be struck with a point of order, see that the gentleman is correct, there was a promise made by the United States Government, if these individuals fought on the side of the allies, that we would give them certain benefits. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is not asking even for the full-blown benefits that were promised, but even a neck-down version so that the cost is not too high. This does not affect the health care of American veterans; this will actually enhance it. I hope there is some way that in the conference when additional monies from revenues come into the coffers that we can find some way in the conference to support the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). The Negridos were like the Native Americans to the United States; they were native to the Philippines. They are infamous on their ability to disrupt the enemy's lines during World War II in the Philippines. The Filipino people, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) mentioned, actually walked in the Bataan death march with us; and many of those people died right alongside of Americans. Many of them died trying to free Americans in hiding and protecting them. They were executed. I mean, there is movie after movie depicting their heroism. I also want my colleagues to take a look at the involvement of the Filipino Americans in this country and what they have done for the United States of America. Every university we see is filled with Filipinos. Why? Because they believe in education. They believe in patriotism. They believe in the family unit. There has been no better group to immigrate to this country. Secondly, the United States Navy for many, many years used the Filipinos. They would give up their lives, in some cases actually give up their lives, to serve in the military. During Desert Storm, they would volunteer to serve in the military, even though they were killed, their spouses may have been shipped back to the Philippines, giving their life. We thought that that was wrong also. But I rise in support, and I would say to the Filipino community-- (the gentleman from California spoke in Tagolog)--which means I will love the Philippines forever. I was stationed there, so I speak a little Tagolog. But in this case, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is absolutely correct. I hope we can work in a bipartisan way to bring about this amendment. It is a very small measure of what we have been trying to do for a long time. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). Mr. Filner. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman from California is adjacent to me in San Diego. He is a powerful voice for our Filipino American citizens. I thank him. There are no two people I would prefer to have talking on this from the other side of the aisle than the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and I appreciate the support. This is a bipartisan effort. It is a matter of historical and moral righteousness and truth. I so appreciate the statement of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for espousing the cause of our Philippine veterans. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment to provide $35.2 million in VA health care benefits for our Filipino nationals who fought with our American troops against the Japanese in World War II. For almost 4 years, over 100,000 Filipinos of the Philippine Commonwealth Army fought alongside the allies to reclaim the Philippines from the Japanese. Regrettably, in return, what did Congress do? Congress enacted the Rescission Act of 1946. Despite President Truman having approved all of this, that measure limited veterans' eligibility for service-connected disabilities and death compensation and also denied the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army the honor of being recognized as veterans of our own Armed Forces. A second group, the special Philippines Scouts, called New Scouts, who enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces after October 6, 1945, primarily to perform occupation duty in the Pacific were simply excluded. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has expired. (On request of Mr. Filner, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I believe it is long past time to try to correct this injustice and to provide the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the Special Philippine Scouts with a token of the appreciation for the courageous services that they valiantly earned during their service in World War II. Given the difficulty in extending full veterans' benefits without adversely impacting other domestic veterans programs, health benefits are the most appropriate to extend. With this in mind, the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), with the support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), provides funding for such benefits which are sorely needed by an aging population of veterans well into their twilight years. I commend both gentleman from California, Mr. Filner and Mr. [[Page H4727]] Cunningham, for supporting this amendment. I urge our colleagues to lend their full support. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the balance of my time, I would say that this is a promise made by the United States Government. Most of us were not here when that promise was made, much like our friends from Guam. But there is a promise, and that promise was taken away after the war. They fulfilled their contract, and this government reneged on that particular contract. I ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the chairman to give this consideration in the conference even though it will probably be struck with a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think it is worth standing here for the next few minutes to continue this dialogue. I want to congratulate the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who just spoke, along with those of the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), as well. Both of the gentlemen from California have spoken very righteously about this particular issue. {time} 1700 And while we know this amendment will be ruled out of order in the next few minutes, it does bear saying. I do not know if all my colleagues are aware of what we are talking about here, nor perhaps the American people who might be watching; but what we are talking about here is the fact that during World War II Americans encountered a very rough time in the Pacific. There was a point there where it was not clear how the battles would turn and how the war would turn; and in the Philippines, things were tough. It got to a point where our President, President Roosevelt, called upon the Filipino people to come forward and fight under the American flag. In fact, it was an edict. They were to serve under the American flag. And, sure enough, they did, and they did so with honor. These were individuals from the Philippines who were fighting not just for their country but for the United States of America. They were under the command of U.S. forces. They were under the direction of generals of the United States of America. When they were told to go to battle, it was by American generals; and it was to provide for the security and safety not just of Philippine soldiers but of American soldiers. When many of these Philippine soldiers died, they died under the American flag. At the conclusion of the war, these Filipino veterans who fought so valiantly were entitled, because they had fought under the flag of the United States and at the direction of our President, to receive the benefits of Americans who had served under our flag. And had everything proceeded as it normally would, these Filipino veterans would have received every single type of benefit that an American soldier received having fought for this country at the direction of this government. But in 1946, Congress affirmatively took steps to rescind those rights that those veterans from the Philippines had. The Rescission Act of 1946 stripped Filipino veterans of any rights they had as American veterans. Last session, this Congress, working in a bipartisan manner, actually restored a modicum amount of those benefits. It allowed some of those Filipino veterans who were in this country, had been here for the last 50-some-odd years, and who actually decided to go back to the Philippines, to retain their SSI benefits, these are folks that are in their 80s, at reduced levels. In fact, we ended up saving money having them do that. Because rather than having them collect supplemental security income at the price of what it would cost by their staying here in America, if they did it in the Philippines, it would cost even less. That was, in a way, a token to those Filipino veterans, but it actually saved us money. What the two gentlemen from San Diego are talking about is trying to restore some semblance of decency, who are now in their 80s and dying away, and it is the right thing to do. It is something we owe them. Because when it was time to take to that battle and they were charged to do so, they did not ask what would happen; and they did not ask what would be the return, they just did so. For that reason, we should try to work in support of the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), which would simply say give these veterans, now in their 80s, for the most part, access to health care that most American veterans are entitled to receive. That is the right thing to do. And I would join with my two friends from San Diego who are fighting for this, to say that it is something I hope that the conference committee will take up, that the chairman and ranking member will consider, because we should do this. At a time when many of these veterans may not see the next year, as we come closer to doing this, it is the right thing to do. In the last session of Congress, in the 105th Congress, we had 209 Members of Congress who cosponsored legislation that contained these precise provisions. Just eight sponsors away from having a majority of this House saying they wanted to see this happen. We are very close. Most Members do support this when they are told about this, but it is just so difficult bureaucratically, procedurally, to get this done. I would hope that the chairman and the ranking Members and the committees of jurisdiction, when in conference, would consider this. I join with my colleagues from California who have spoken, along with the many others who would like to speak on this, to say it is the right thing to do and we should move forward. Announcement by the Chairman The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must remind all Members that remarks in debate should be addressed to the Chair and not to a viewing or listening audience. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I too rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), that would provide health care benefits for Filipino World War II veterans that were excluded from benefits by the 1946 Rescission Act. For all the reasons that have been stated by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), this is an issue that is really a no-brainer. It is an issue that when people hear the entire story, they will support full equity, full World War II benefits for Filipino World War II veterans. These veterans are comprised mostly of Filipino volunteers and recruits, augmented by American soldiers, who were the defenders of Bataan and Corregidor and who delayed the Japanese effort to conquer the western Pacific. This enabled U.S. forces to adequately prepare and launch the campaign to finally secure victory in the Pacific theater of World War II. Filipino veterans swore allegiance to the same flag, wore the same uniforms, fought, bled, and died in the same battlefields alongside American comrades, but were never afforded equal status. And even after the surrender of American forces in the initial part of the battle of the Philippines, they continued to fight on in guerilla units. Prior to the mass discharges and disbanding of their unit in 1949, these veterans were paid only a third of what regular service members received at the time. Underpaid, having been denied benefits that they were promised, and lacking proper recognition, General MacArthur's words, ``No army has ever done so much with so little,'' truly depicts the plight of the remaining Filipino veterans today as they certainly did a half century ago. In terms of my own people of Guam, since we are closest to the Philippines, I guess of all the areas that are represented in Congress, and the people of Guam share deep cultural and historic ties with the Philippines, we also understand the trauma and the tragedy that they endured because we too suffered horrendous occupation, a long and painful and brutal occupation under the Imperial Japanese Army. [[Page H4728]] And we certainly appreciate, understand, and support the efforts of peoples who are trying to resolve the issue of Filipino World War II veterans. I urge my colleagues to support the Filner amendment. I know that I certainly will probably be ruled out of order here before too long, but the issue will not go away until we certainly see justice for these veterans no matter how many are left. And I must remind the Members of the House that they continue to pass away as we continue to not address this issue fully. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I know we cannot fix this problem here today, but I want the gentlemen to know that we are sympathetic on this issue. These Filipino veterans enlisted in the United States Armed Services during World War II to fight against the Japanese. At the time, the Philippines were a protectorate of the United States and not an independent country. They fought bravely, at great sacrifice, under the orders of the U.S. military commands, and had every reason to expect full veterans benefits. For the reasons which I do not fully understand, however, in 1946, the law established for this particular group of veterans a two-tier system with less benefits. In particular, they have less health care and lower rates of disability compensation, even when they now live in the United States. I would hope that the authorizing committee could look into this situation, and hopefully look into it expeditiously, and make appropriate adjustments for these Filipino veterans who fought both for their country and for the United States. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman very much for his remarks, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for the amendment, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his support, and the others who have spoken on this amendment. I rise in strong support of this amendment. Unfortunately, I guess a point of order has been raised against it. But I agree, I would hope that the authorizing committee would report this legislation out so that these Filipino veterans would get what is in fact due to them under the promises that we have made, and I look forward to working with the others supporting this matter. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his warm support of this. He is absolutely right. And, again, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) indicated that well over 200 Members of the House signed onto legislation. I would point out to the House that that legislation was for both health care and for pension benefits. So if 209 Members of this body supported a bill which was costed out at roughly $500 million or $600 million, surely this session of Congress could approve just the health benefits at $35 million. But I thank the gentleman for his kind words. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I think the authorizing committee has been invited to bring that legislation to the floor. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Filner amendment. I do not quite understand the legislative precedence which, in some instances, allow appropriation bills to come to the floor with a waiver of points of order which would allow the inclusion of appropriations for matters that have not cleared the authorizing committee. When so many Members of this Chamber support this legislation, it seems to me in order for the rule to have come out allowing this amendment to be made to correct this very, very grave injustice that has been permitted to exist for these numbers of years. These Filipino veterans, if they were aged 20 at the time they were enlisted to help the United States Government, if they were 20 years old, today they are at least 80 or 85. There will not be much more time for this Congress to rectify this injustice, so I plead with the people who are taking this bill over to the other side to give consideration to the emergency of this situation and to find a way to at least provide the health care which the Filner amendment allows this Congress to permit these individuals. A lot has been said about the sacrifice that these individuals made. I want it to be made perfectly clear that it was 5 months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order calling upon the Filipino Commonwealth Army into the service of the United States Forces in the Far East. The date was July 26, 1941, long before Pearl Harbor. The Filipino soldiers complied without hesitation. They were part of the United States in their hearts and in their minds. The Philippines was considered a possession of the United States. In fact, perhaps they had no choice but to agree to enlist and become a part of the U.S. forces. They had grown up under the U.S. rule. They spoke English. They knew a lot about our government and about our democracy. And so when they were called upon to defend this freedom for which we fought and died, they willingly signed up, stood in line and gave of their lives. And it seems to me that the promises made to them at the time that they went into service should be honored. The fact of the matter is that there is almost a concession that the promises were made. Why else do we have a rescission, which is a cancellation, of benefits that were promised? We do not have a rescission if there is not an acknowledgment that there were promises made and commitments given to these veterans. But, anyway, in 1946, the Congress of the United States passed a rescission bill and took away all possibility that the promises made to the Filipino veterans would be honored by the United States Government. And that is the shameful act that we are seeking at least partially today to correct. These veterans are very old. They are in their 80s, 85, perhaps 90s. Many of them live in my district. I see them every time that there is a veterans holiday or a Memorial Day or a gathering in the community, and I know how deeply they feel about this issue. They see the Congress dealing with it, and yet due to some legislative thing there is a point of order and the matter cannot be brought to a vote. I think it is a very, very sad travesty that we are permitting, through a parliamentary situation, not to bring up to the House of Representatives. Because I feel sure, as the previous speaker from California indicated, that more than 218 Members of this House would vote for this measure. This is not the full measure that we feel they are entitled to, but it is the most urgent piece of this promise, and that is the health care that they so desperately need. Many of these veterans have returned back to the Philippines because that is probably the only way that they could be cared for by their families or some friends, or perhaps the health system there would permit them to be cared for. {time} 1715 But for those few thousand veterans that are here in the United States, the delay of a day, a month, a year means a delay in perpetuity. So I call upon those who will be working on this matter, taking it to conference and discussing it, not to wait another day but to call the compassion and the commitment and the moral obligation that this country has to these veterans and enact it into law this year. point of order The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) now insist on his point of order? [[Page H4729]] Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Mr. Chairman, there are any number of Members who sympathize with the intent of this language. The problem is it is unauthorized. This decision needs to be determined in the committee of authorization, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, not in the context of an appropriation. And, therefore, I insist on my point of order. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) in not insisting on the point of order until we had a chance for those who wanted to speak on it, and I sincerely thank him for that courtesy. But I would point out to the Chair of our committee and to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that this insistence on this point of order is rather arbitrary. The same argument could be made, as I have said earlier, to dozens of programs in this bill. Under FEMA there are many programs not authorized. The whole NASA, apparently, is not authorized. The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation is not authorized. Major projects of construction in the veterans' affairs budget are not authorized. And I can go on and on. The point here is that this House can pick and choose which items to protect in a point of order in an appropriations bill. I think that is not only illogical, but it does not show the reality. In this case, we have had to face really the obstruction of only one person that would prevent this from even coming to the floor and being authorized. So I would ask at some point in the future that the chairman and the ranking member look kindly on this amendment, this legislation. We only have a few years left before these brave veterans are no longer with us. And so, I understand his insistence on the point of order, but I wish he would grant the same latitude that he had to dozens of other programs in this bill. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). This is not a partisan issue. The 40 years following the war, the Congress was controlled by the other side. We have gone through 5 years of Republican control of this House; and it is time, especially with the cosponsors, that we bring this to fruition. I would like to repeat to the ranking member and the ranking minority member of the committee on authorization, there is a determination here by both sides of the aisle to see this through to fruition. Whether we do it this time or we do it the next time, this will pass. I would ask the chairman to consider it in the conference. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. The amendment earmarks funds in a manner not supported by existing law. The amendment also proposes to designate an appropriation as an emergency for purposes of budget enforcement procedures in law. As such, it constitutes legislation, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I again rise to ask unanimous consent that it may be in order to consider at this time the Ney amendment No. 40, the Gutierrez amendment No. 28, the Tancredo amendment No. 26, and that they be considered en bloc. I ask further that after disposition of these amendments that the House return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 8. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want to clarify that amendments under the Medical Research paragraph are still eligible with the unanimous consent request of the gentleman. Is that correct? Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, our intention is not to preclude anyone's ability to comment on these amendments or offer amendments. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to see, before I pursue the objection, whether amendment No. 19 would be in order, given this unanimous consent agreement. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot prejudge an amendment that has not yet been offered. Mr. FILNER. Then I will have to object. I want to know if it is eligible for offering at the point of line 8, as the amendment requests. I have to ask this, otherwise I will have to object to the unanimous consent request. I think the intent is to keep my amendment eligible. I just want to make sure that it is. The CHAIRMAN. First of all, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) should understand that reading is to commence at page 9, line 4, not line 8. His request is a bit premature. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would, then, amend that we return to reading of the bill on page 9, line 4. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read, as follows: medical and prosthetic research For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available until September 30, 2002, $321,000,000, plus reimbursements. The CHAIRMAN. There has been no unanimous consent agreement in the Committee, nor is there an amendment pending. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) wish to offer an amendment or a unanimous consent request? Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, may I restate my unanimous consent request? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that I may offer Ney amendment No. 40, Gutierrez amendment No. 28, and Tancredo amendment No. 26, and that they be considered en bloc; and I further ask that after disposition of the amendments the Committee return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 4. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Amendments Offered by Mr. Walsh Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments. The text of the amendments is as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. Walsh: H.R. 4635 Amendment No. 40 Offered By: Mr. Ney Under the heading ``Medical and Prosthetic Research'' of title I, page 9, line 8, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)'' after ``$321,000,000''. Under the heading ``Environmental Programs and Management'' of title III, page 59, line 6, insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000)'' after ``$1,900,000,000''. ____ Amendment No. 28 Offered By: Mr. Gutierrez Page 9, after line 8, insert after the dollar amount the follwoing: ``(increase by $25,000,000)''. Page 73, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''. ____ Amendment No. 26 Offered By: Mr. Tancredo Page 14, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''. Page 73, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard job that the distinguished chairman and the members of the committee faced as they drafted this bill. It is a good bill, and I intend to support it. The amendment has been agreed to by the parties involved. It is about giving our veterans the facilities they need as they grow older and the care that they were promised as they chose to defend the country. Our bipartisan amendment will restore the State Extended Care Facilities Construction Grant Program funding to the FY 2000 level of $90 million. Currently the bill cuts the funding in this program to $30 million. In 2010, one in every 16 American men will be a veteran of the military over the age of 62. That is an amazing statistic. The increasing age of most veterans means additional demand for medical services for eligible veterans as the aging process brings on chronic conditions needing more frequent care and lengthier convalescence. [[Page H4730]] This surge of older veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our Nation's veterans' health services. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, passed by this House and signed into law in 1999, places new requirements on State care facilities that must be funded immediately. With the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis, States already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our veterans. Finally, State care facilities are cost effective. In Fiscal Year 1998, the VA spent an average of $255 per day on long-term care nursing home care for residents, while State veterans homes spent an average of $40 per resident. This economic trend continued in 1999. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. It is about nursing home care for our veterans. Unfortunately, when the administration came forward with its budget this year, they proposed a significant cut in State grants, grants to our States to provide veterans nursing homes. As we have seen growing need, as particularly our veterans of Korea and Vietnam and World War II-era veterans need nursing home care, there is tremendous demand. And State care facilities operated through the State of Illinois and others have proven cost effective. The VA spends on average $225 a day for care for long-term nursing care residents, whereas State nursing homes provide about $30 a day. They are effective and they provide quality care. I am proud to say that in Illinois we have four veterans homes. Two are in the district that I represent. One of them, the LaSalle Veterans Home, has a waiting list 220 veterans, veterans having to wait as long as 18 months in order to obtain nursing home care. Imagine that, if they need nursing home care and they have to wait 18 months. That is an eternity for veterans. Other veterans homes in Illinois, Manteno is owed a million dollars for its compliance with ADA. The State of Illinois is owed $5 million for other home updates. The bottom line is this money is needed. I want to salute the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for accepting this amendment. I also want to salute my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), for his leadership in fighting for veterans. The bottom line is this legislation deserves bipartisan support. Let us support our veterans. Let us ensure the dollars are there to ensure nursing home care for our veterans and their needs. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly discuss the amendments that the chairman proposes to merge here. I want to begin by expressing my agreement with the premise of these amendments that the Veterans Medical Research account and the State Grants Account for extended care facilities are both underfunded. Two of the amendments in this unanimous consent request, those of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), would together increase the VA Medical Research Account by $30 million. As I said before, VA research has been widely praised for its quality and medical advances. Indeed, this Congress has clearly demonstrated its interest in medical research, specifically in the National Institutes of Health, which received a $2.2 billion increase last year, an increase of over 14 percent. We should be doing the same for VA medical research. And although these amendments do not get us to that point, they are a good start. In addition, the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) would increase the State Grant Account for the construction of extended care facilities by $30 million, for a total of $90 million, the same level as was enacted for Fiscal Year 2000. The need for extended care facilities is great, and this increase will help meet that need. All that being said, I do have concerns regarding the offsets of these amendments. One offset would take $25 million from NASA's Human Space Flight Account. It is a small cut relatively, but I am a bit apprehensive about making any cuts to this account, particularly at a time when we are literally months away from establishing a permanent human presence in the Space Station. This account also funds the Space Shuttle Program, and reductions could either force delays or cuts in the mission manifest or, even worse, force cuts to important shuttle safety upgrades planned by NASA. The other NASA offset is also somewhat distressing. It would take $30 million from NASA's Science Aeronautics and Technology Account. {time} 1730 This account funds almost all of NASA's activities other than the Space Shuttle and the Space Station, such activities as space science, aeronautics, earth science and NASA's academic programs. This account was also the only NASA account in this bill to receive less than the President's request. Mr. Chairman, NASA's budget has been cut for years and this amendment cuts an already anemic account. Finally, the last of these amendments would take $5 million from EPA's operating programs account, which includes just about all the agency's activities other than science research and Superfund. Although this is a very small cut, the relevant account is already 10 percent below the President's request. All that being said, I supported the gentleman's unanimous-consent request and the acceptance of the underlying amendments. I do look forward to working with the chairman and the other body in conference to restore the NASA and EPA funding as we move forward. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today for an amendment that I believe is critically important to the health and well-being of our veterans and to the future of the VA health care system. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and make a strong statement of support for an effective, cost-efficient, and important program, the VA medical research program. Unfortunately, the appropriation bill before us calls for no increased funding, zero, in the VA medical research program. Given inflation and increased program needs, this amounts to a significant reduction in the amount of work and research the VA will be able to perform. This is a shortsighted and extremely damaging budget decision. Few government programs have given our Nation a better return on the dollar than VA medical research. The VA has become a world leader in such research areas as aging, AIDS-HIV, women's veterans health, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Specifically, VA researchers have played key roles in developing cardiac pacemakers, magnetic source imaging, and in improving artificial limbs. The first successful kidney transplant in the U.S. was performed at a VA hospital and the first successful drug treatments for high blood pressure and schizophrenia were pioneered by VA researchers. Quite simply, VA medical research has not only been vital for our veterans, it has led to breakthroughs and refinement of technology that have improved health care for all of us. Given this record of accomplishment with a very modest appropriation, the reduced commitment to the VA medical research budget is unjustified and unwise. At the proposed level of funding, the VA would be unable to maintain its current level of research effort in such vital areas as diabetes, substance abuse, mental health, Parkinson's disease, prostate cancer, spinal cord injury, heart disease, and hepatitis. In fact, research projects currently in progress would be put in jeopardy. I am asking for a very reasonable increase, enough to save the current level of research and to allow for a modest improvement. My amendment [[Page H4731]] calls for a $25 million increase in funding. Approximately $10 million is needed to maintain the current research level and approximately $15 million will help to fund new research projects in such vital areas as mental health and spinal cord injury. This is money well spent on proven, effective research projects that benefit not only our Nation's most deserving population, our veterans, but that eventually benefits us all. Again I believe in this Congress, we must reexamine our priorities and in our current economic climate, $25 million is hardly a budget- breaking commitment. We cannot in any honest fashion say the money is not there. The money exists. It is simply a question of what we want to invest it in, what priorities are most important to us. What better choice, what better investment than the health care of our veterans? The average research grant is $130,000. My amendment will help pave the way for as many as 250 new ones. Which of those grants will help to find a cure for Parkinson's disease? Or ease the pain of post-traumatic stress? Or discover new ways to prevent prostate cancer or protect against heart disease? Or which of these grants will never be funded because we were not willing to make this reasonable and effective appropriation? Which grant will we lose because once again we made speeches praising our courageous members of the Armed Forces when they fought and sacrificed to keep our country safe only to make them sacrifice again when we turn our backs on their health care needs? This amendment shows us that we do not have to sacrifice any of these research projects. The amendment has the strong support of the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and Vietnam Veterans of America. I urge my colleagues to join these veterans advocacy groups and please support the funding. It is effective, it is necessary, it is reasonable, and our veterans deserve it. I hope Members will stand with me in support of VA medical research. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for including this amendment in the en bloc package that he has offered to the House and to wish him a belated happy birthday. Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for including my amendment in the en bloc. My amendment reduces the EPA's program and management budget which is $1.9 billion by $5 million and transfers the dollars to medical research in the VA. The EPA's account in this section encompasses a broad range of things, including travel and expenses for most of the agency. I believe the EPA can tighten their belts on some travel to the tune of $5 million so that our veterans can continue to receive the medical care that they need and deserve. With passage of Public Law 85-857 in 1958, Congress gave official recognition to a research program with a proven record of contributing to the improvement of medical care and rehabilitation services for the U.S. veteran. The law formally authorized medical and prosthetic research in the VA and led to the establishment of four organizational units, medical research, rehabilitation research and development, health services research and development, and the cooperative studies program. There are over 75 some groups which I have listed here that, in fact, support the increase for VA medical research. I want to again thank the gentleman from New York for his indulgence to support the veterans. Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I believe with the allocations made by the leadership, and I appreciate the $30 million additional in terms of nursing homes for veterans, but still we need $80 million to take care of existing costs. I feel compelled to speak out on this amendment which would inadequately fund the State Veterans Home Program. It is imperative that the veterans and their families be able to be taken care of in the twilight of their years. Getting the funding increase is only the first step. While I am primarily concerned about the dire need of these homes in Texas, veterans all across the country need these services. The key to strong recruitment into our military is a strong evidence of helping veterans throughout their life. On behalf of the nearly 1.7 million veterans in Texas, I want to boost this appropriation for the Department of Veterans Affairs' grants for construction of State extended care facilities to $140 million for fiscal year 2001. The $30 million would only give us $90 million. We need $80 million additional to bring us up to $140 million to be able to take care of existing costs. This increase of $80 million, if you add $50 million to your request from the VA, was recommended by both the chairman and the ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs in their letter to the House Committee on the Budget expressing our views and estimates of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York in securing necessary resources to fund this crucial program which is very important. Providing for the long-term health care needs of veterans remains one of our most important commitments to those who have served our Nation. I feel that providing this stepped up level of funding for 2001 sends a strong signal to our veterans and their families across this country that Congress is committed to serving veterans in the twilight of their years. Texas has only received 3 percent of the funding from these types of programs in the past since its inception even though we have over 7 percent of the Nation's veterans. As they get older and are in more need of nursing home care, we must be there for them and be able to provide that service. Texas has been a newcomer to this program, and we have not taken advantage of it in the past which provides funding for State nursing homes for veterans. We have begun construction of four sites in Texas. Those sites are in Floresville, Texas; Temple, Texas; Bonham; and in Big Spring. The reality is that the way it is structured now, Texas will not be entitled to a red cent, to not a single penny of the resources that are there unless we go beyond the existing resources because of the wording that you have for renovation and not for new construction. I am hopeful that we can continue to work on this to provide the additional resources that are needed. Once again, it was unfortunate the administration had only recommended $60 million. Your $30 million will bring it up to $90 million. We really need to look in terms of bringing it up to $140 million to meet the needs. That is one of the recommendations that was made from our committee. I want to ask the committee to please consider the possibility of increasing these resources beyond the $30 million that is there before us. Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. (Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that our veterans population is aging. In fact, in 2010--over half of the veterans population will be over the age of 62. Currently, 36 percent of all veterans are over the age of 65 and that number is expected to increase exponentially over the next eight years. The increasing age of most veterans means additional demands for medical services for eligible veterans. This surge of older veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our nation's Veterans Health Services. The House and Senate approved $90 million in funding for the State Extended Care Facilities Construction Grant Program for FY99 and FY00. This year, however, the Committee has funded the program at $60 million--$30 million below last year's funding. This amendment would increase funding for these States Care Facilities by $30 million to the fiscal year 2000 level of $90 million. Last year, 354 Members of Congress voted to support our aging veteran population by voting for a similar amendment to restore funding the State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program in the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Once again, this amendment must be offered to prevent a massive, 33 percent cut in funding to this vital, cost-effect program for our veterans. [[Page H4732]] The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, passed by the House and signed into law in 1999, places new requirements on state care facilities that must be funded immediately. With the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis, states already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our veterans. In fiscal year 1998, the VA spent on average $255.25 per day to care for long term nursing care residents, while, state veterans homes on average spent $40.00 per resident. This economic trend continued in 1999--proving that state care facilities are in fact cost-effective. Mr. Chairman, taking care of our nation's veterans is clearly one of the government's prime responsibilities Congress has a track record of supporting veterans program as we have increased the President's request for VA funding for several consecutive years now. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. The State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program is an important program that meets our veterans health care meets. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment and to the Gutierrez amendment. I would like to say straight out, though, that I certainly am very sympathetic to the idea of plussing up these veterans accounts. I believe I have the fourth largest number o

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 20, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4724-H4776] DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 525 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4635. {time} 1640 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, June 19, 2000, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) had been disposed of and the bill was open to amendment from page 9, line 1, to page 9, line 3. Request For En Bloc Consideration of Amendments Numbered 40, 28, And 26 Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time that the Ney amendment No. 40, the Guttierez amendment No. 28, and the Tancredo amendment No. 26 be considered en bloc. I further ask unanimous consent that after disposition of these amendments, that the House return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 8. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I feel constrained to object to the request at this time. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. WAXMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. WAXMAN. I have another amendment on the same subject as yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to inquire if this is the appropriate time in the bill to offer that amendment. The CHAIRMAN. As the Committee proceeds further on page 10 the gentleman will be in order in the reading, but at the moment another Member of the House, a member of the committee, is seeking recognition to strike the last word. After that the Clerk will read to the proper point in the bill. Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to see that a number of Members have recognized that the VA medical research account is underfunded in this bill, and that they want to increase this funding through amendments that we are going to consider soon. The chairman and the ranking member have done a good job [[Page H4725]] under tough constraints on this legislation, but this is one item that we really need to tend to here today. I am glad to see that we will have the opportunity to do so. I have been a strong proponent of VA medical research, and I offered an amendment during the full Committee on Appropriations markup that would have increased that account by $23 million. I want to take just a minute today to explain why I support increasing the VA medical research account and why it is so important for us to find a way of doing so. The original request from the VA to OMB was to fund the research account at $397 million. Outside supporters of the program believe the program should be funded at $386 million. These recommendations are both well above the current bill's level of $321 million. Most of us have heard about the Seattle foot, that remarkable artificial limb that has been depicted in television commercials by a double amputee playing pick-up basketball or by a woman running a 100- yard dash. It is not obvious that she has two artificial legs until the camera zooms in at the end of the commercial. The technology for this prosthesis was developed by VA researchers in Seattle. Research at VA hospitals is important because it is clinical research, mainly. The researcher, who is almost always affiliated with a neighboring teaching hospital, also treats patients, veterans. The VA research program is the only one dedicated solely to finding cures to ailments that affect our veteran population. It is not interchangeable with other research efforts. At the Durham, North Carolina, VA, which is affiliated with Duke University, there is a great range of research being done, from working to find a cure for AIDS to finding a shingles vaccine to important advances in brain imaging and telemedicine. This work, of course, assists veterans, but it also helps the population at large. The VA does a great job of leveraging its funds. Dr. Jack Feussner, the director of the VA medical research program, testified that for every dollar of increase that the program has received over the last 5 years, it has received $3 from other sources. Therefore, if we were to add $23 million here today, it could translate into $92 million more for research. What will these additional funds be used for? Eleven million dollars is needed just to maintain current services, to keep up with medical inflation. Another $12 million could be used for any number of research projects. The VA is starting a research oversight program vital to the integrity of the human-based research programs. It could be a model for other federally-assisted research. This program needs $1 million. To bring the program back to the high water mark of 1998 would take $43 million. Dr. Feussner has listed four areas that would benefit particularly from additional research dollars: Parkinson's Disease, end-stage renal failure, diabetes, and Post-Traumatic Shock Disorder. Additional research into the treatment and cure for hepatitis C would also be looked at carefully. {time} 1645 We also need to increase the commitment to training the next generation of clinician and nonclinician investigators. To keep that program on track would take an additional $10 million. Now, Mr. Chairman, difficult decisions will need to be made on these upcoming amendments, and there are several of them. They all offer an offset of some sort. Most of the offsets I would not support if they stood alone. But the overall allocation for our VA-HUD subcommittee is just not sufficient, and these difficult trade-offs must be made. I am hopeful that, at the end of this process, an additional allocation will be available and that we will be able to fund VA medical research at close to $386 million and that any offsets that we adopt can largely be restored. However, it is very important to raise the appropriations level here today for medical research before this bill goes any farther in the appropriations process. I hope this is helpful, this overview of how these monies might be spent and why we need them. Additional funding for VA research will benefit our veterans and our country, and I hope Members will pay attention closely to the arguments on the amendments to follow. The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the bill? Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Filner Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Filner: Page 9, after line 3, insert the following: In addition, for ``Medical Care'', $35,200,000 for health care benefits for Filipino World War II veterans who were excluded from benefits by the Rescissions Acts of 1946 and to increase service-connected disability compensation from the peso rate to the full dollar amount for Filipino World War II veterans living in the United States: Provided, That the Congress hereby designates the entire such amount as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That such amount shall be available only to the extent of a specific dollar amount for such purpose that is included in an official budget request transmitted by the President to the Congress and that is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A). Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a point of order. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an issue which has been before this House before, an issue of, I think, great moral urgency but financially responsible; and that is to right a wrong that was committed in this country by the Congress of 1946, which took away the veterans' benefits that had been promised to our Filipino allies who were drafted into World War II, fought bravely at Corregidor and Bataan. Many died. But were ultimately extremely helpful, if not responsible, for our slowing up of the Japanese advance and then our ultimate victory in the Pacific. What we did do to these brave men was to take away their benefits after the war, and they have yet to be recognized in this way. Many are in their late 70s and early 80s. Many will not be here in a few years. I think this is an emergency item that ought to be considered by this House. My amendment would provide $35,200,000 for health care benefits to these veterans of World War II. This is the benefit that they need the most in their twilight years. Like their counterparts, they fought as brave soldiers. They helped to win the war. Many of them marched to their deaths, in fact, in the famous Bataan death march. Yet we rewarded them by taking away their benefits. We owe them a fair hearing. We owe them the dignity and honor of considering them veterans. My amendment would restore just some of those benefits to these veterans. I think all of my colleagues know that veterans are entitled to, under certain conditions provided by law, certain preventions and certain medical care. But this amendment divides the benefits from the pensions from the medical benefits and says let us at least now, within our budget means, give health care to those brave Filipino soldiers. My amendment would make available monies for care in this country, a small portion also for our VA clinic in Manila to serve the Filipino World War II veterans and U.S. citizens there alike. What we are saying here is that the honor and bravery of veterans of World War II will finally be recognized by this Congress 54 years after they were taken away. I would ask this body to recognize the bravery of our allies, the Filipinos who we drafted, provide them with eligibility for benefits, health care benefits that are given to American soldiers who fought in the same war for the same honorable cause. Now, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being challenged on a point of order because authorization has not been given. I would make the point that, not only did these veterans earn this benefit in the war, not only are there dozens of programs in this bill that are not authorized, but that, through the regular legislative process, we have not been allowed to bring this bill up. [[Page H4726]] I ask the floor, I ask the Chair to allow us to finally grant honor and dignity to these brave soldiers, many of whom, as I said, are in their 80s, and finally right a historical wrong of great proportions. Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by applauding the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), for his efforts. I know he has done this over many years, trying to fight for the justice of many of the veterans for World War II who fought under the flag of the United States, in fact fought at the insistence of this country. Simply put, what the gentleman is trying to do is trying to restore benefits to which these individuals as veterans were entitled to but were stripped of by affirmative action by this Congress back in the late 1940s. But for the action of this Congress, some 50-odd years ago, these individuals would be receiving these benefits that the gentleman from California are now trying to restore. So I would like to add my voice to the many in this Congress who are supportive of the gentleman's efforts, and, unfortunately, at this time is unable to proceed with this particular amendment. I would hope that my colleagues would recognize the efforts of the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), and at some point soon recognize that we must do something for the ladies and gentlemen who fought in the 1940s to defend this country and are now at the point of passing on. It is time for us to recognize their effort and recognize that this Congress some 54 years ago or so denied them the rights that they had under this Constitution. So I applaud the gentleman for what he does. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order against the amendment? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this amendment may be struck on a point of order. Many of us have been trying for many, many years to get this through, both under Democrat and Republican administrations. I served in the United States military, and a large portion of that was in Southeast Asia, eight different deployments on carriers all going through the Philippines, and based there for training. I was also stationed there at San Miguel for some 18 months. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I would hope that the conference chairman, in some way, even though this may be struck with a point of order, see that the gentleman is correct, there was a promise made by the United States Government, if these individuals fought on the side of the allies, that we would give them certain benefits. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is not asking even for the full-blown benefits that were promised, but even a neck-down version so that the cost is not too high. This does not affect the health care of American veterans; this will actually enhance it. I hope there is some way that in the conference when additional monies from revenues come into the coffers that we can find some way in the conference to support the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). The Negridos were like the Native Americans to the United States; they were native to the Philippines. They are infamous on their ability to disrupt the enemy's lines during World War II in the Philippines. The Filipino people, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) mentioned, actually walked in the Bataan death march with us; and many of those people died right alongside of Americans. Many of them died trying to free Americans in hiding and protecting them. They were executed. I mean, there is movie after movie depicting their heroism. I also want my colleagues to take a look at the involvement of the Filipino Americans in this country and what they have done for the United States of America. Every university we see is filled with Filipinos. Why? Because they believe in education. They believe in patriotism. They believe in the family unit. There has been no better group to immigrate to this country. Secondly, the United States Navy for many, many years used the Filipinos. They would give up their lives, in some cases actually give up their lives, to serve in the military. During Desert Storm, they would volunteer to serve in the military, even though they were killed, their spouses may have been shipped back to the Philippines, giving their life. We thought that that was wrong also. But I rise in support, and I would say to the Filipino community-- (the gentleman from California spoke in Tagolog)--which means I will love the Philippines forever. I was stationed there, so I speak a little Tagolog. But in this case, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is absolutely correct. I hope we can work in a bipartisan way to bring about this amendment. It is a very small measure of what we have been trying to do for a long time. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). Mr. Filner. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman from California is adjacent to me in San Diego. He is a powerful voice for our Filipino American citizens. I thank him. There are no two people I would prefer to have talking on this from the other side of the aisle than the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and I appreciate the support. This is a bipartisan effort. It is a matter of historical and moral righteousness and truth. I so appreciate the statement of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for espousing the cause of our Philippine veterans. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment to provide $35.2 million in VA health care benefits for our Filipino nationals who fought with our American troops against the Japanese in World War II. For almost 4 years, over 100,000 Filipinos of the Philippine Commonwealth Army fought alongside the allies to reclaim the Philippines from the Japanese. Regrettably, in return, what did Congress do? Congress enacted the Rescission Act of 1946. Despite President Truman having approved all of this, that measure limited veterans' eligibility for service-connected disabilities and death compensation and also denied the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army the honor of being recognized as veterans of our own Armed Forces. A second group, the special Philippines Scouts, called New Scouts, who enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces after October 6, 1945, primarily to perform occupation duty in the Pacific were simply excluded. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has expired. (On request of Mr. Filner, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I believe it is long past time to try to correct this injustice and to provide the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the Special Philippine Scouts with a token of the appreciation for the courageous services that they valiantly earned during their service in World War II. Given the difficulty in extending full veterans' benefits without adversely impacting other domestic veterans programs, health benefits are the most appropriate to extend. With this in mind, the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), with the support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), provides funding for such benefits which are sorely needed by an aging population of veterans well into their twilight years. I commend both gentleman from California, Mr. Filner and Mr. [[Page H4727]] Cunningham, for supporting this amendment. I urge our colleagues to lend their full support. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the balance of my time, I would say that this is a promise made by the United States Government. Most of us were not here when that promise was made, much like our friends from Guam. But there is a promise, and that promise was taken away after the war. They fulfilled their contract, and this government reneged on that particular contract. I ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the chairman to give this consideration in the conference even though it will probably be struck with a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think it is worth standing here for the next few minutes to continue this dialogue. I want to congratulate the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who just spoke, along with those of the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), as well. Both of the gentlemen from California have spoken very righteously about this particular issue. {time} 1700 And while we know this amendment will be ruled out of order in the next few minutes, it does bear saying. I do not know if all my colleagues are aware of what we are talking about here, nor perhaps the American people who might be watching; but what we are talking about here is the fact that during World War II Americans encountered a very rough time in the Pacific. There was a point there where it was not clear how the battles would turn and how the war would turn; and in the Philippines, things were tough. It got to a point where our President, President Roosevelt, called upon the Filipino people to come forward and fight under the American flag. In fact, it was an edict. They were to serve under the American flag. And, sure enough, they did, and they did so with honor. These were individuals from the Philippines who were fighting not just for their country but for the United States of America. They were under the command of U.S. forces. They were under the direction of generals of the United States of America. When they were told to go to battle, it was by American generals; and it was to provide for the security and safety not just of Philippine soldiers but of American soldiers. When many of these Philippine soldiers died, they died under the American flag. At the conclusion of the war, these Filipino veterans who fought so valiantly were entitled, because they had fought under the flag of the United States and at the direction of our President, to receive the benefits of Americans who had served under our flag. And had everything proceeded as it normally would, these Filipino veterans would have received every single type of benefit that an American soldier received having fought for this country at the direction of this government. But in 1946, Congress affirmatively took steps to rescind those rights that those veterans from the Philippines had. The Rescission Act of 1946 stripped Filipino veterans of any rights they had as American veterans. Last session, this Congress, working in a bipartisan manner, actually restored a modicum amount of those benefits. It allowed some of those Filipino veterans who were in this country, had been here for the last 50-some-odd years, and who actually decided to go back to the Philippines, to retain their SSI benefits, these are folks that are in their 80s, at reduced levels. In fact, we ended up saving money having them do that. Because rather than having them collect supplemental security income at the price of what it would cost by their staying here in America, if they did it in the Philippines, it would cost even less. That was, in a way, a token to those Filipino veterans, but it actually saved us money. What the two gentlemen from San Diego are talking about is trying to restore some semblance of decency, who are now in their 80s and dying away, and it is the right thing to do. It is something we owe them. Because when it was time to take to that battle and they were charged to do so, they did not ask what would happen; and they did not ask what would be the return, they just did so. For that reason, we should try to work in support of the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), which would simply say give these veterans, now in their 80s, for the most part, access to health care that most American veterans are entitled to receive. That is the right thing to do. And I would join with my two friends from San Diego who are fighting for this, to say that it is something I hope that the conference committee will take up, that the chairman and ranking member will consider, because we should do this. At a time when many of these veterans may not see the next year, as we come closer to doing this, it is the right thing to do. In the last session of Congress, in the 105th Congress, we had 209 Members of Congress who cosponsored legislation that contained these precise provisions. Just eight sponsors away from having a majority of this House saying they wanted to see this happen. We are very close. Most Members do support this when they are told about this, but it is just so difficult bureaucratically, procedurally, to get this done. I would hope that the chairman and the ranking Members and the committees of jurisdiction, when in conference, would consider this. I join with my colleagues from California who have spoken, along with the many others who would like to speak on this, to say it is the right thing to do and we should move forward. Announcement by the Chairman The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must remind all Members that remarks in debate should be addressed to the Chair and not to a viewing or listening audience. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I too rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), that would provide health care benefits for Filipino World War II veterans that were excluded from benefits by the 1946 Rescission Act. For all the reasons that have been stated by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), this is an issue that is really a no-brainer. It is an issue that when people hear the entire story, they will support full equity, full World War II benefits for Filipino World War II veterans. These veterans are comprised mostly of Filipino volunteers and recruits, augmented by American soldiers, who were the defenders of Bataan and Corregidor and who delayed the Japanese effort to conquer the western Pacific. This enabled U.S. forces to adequately prepare and launch the campaign to finally secure victory in the Pacific theater of World War II. Filipino veterans swore allegiance to the same flag, wore the same uniforms, fought, bled, and died in the same battlefields alongside American comrades, but were never afforded equal status. And even after the surrender of American forces in the initial part of the battle of the Philippines, they continued to fight on in guerilla units. Prior to the mass discharges and disbanding of their unit in 1949, these veterans were paid only a third of what regular service members received at the time. Underpaid, having been denied benefits that they were promised, and lacking proper recognition, General MacArthur's words, ``No army has ever done so much with so little,'' truly depicts the plight of the remaining Filipino veterans today as they certainly did a half century ago. In terms of my own people of Guam, since we are closest to the Philippines, I guess of all the areas that are represented in Congress, and the people of Guam share deep cultural and historic ties with the Philippines, we also understand the trauma and the tragedy that they endured because we too suffered horrendous occupation, a long and painful and brutal occupation under the Imperial Japanese Army. [[Page H4728]] And we certainly appreciate, understand, and support the efforts of peoples who are trying to resolve the issue of Filipino World War II veterans. I urge my colleagues to support the Filner amendment. I know that I certainly will probably be ruled out of order here before too long, but the issue will not go away until we certainly see justice for these veterans no matter how many are left. And I must remind the Members of the House that they continue to pass away as we continue to not address this issue fully. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I know we cannot fix this problem here today, but I want the gentlemen to know that we are sympathetic on this issue. These Filipino veterans enlisted in the United States Armed Services during World War II to fight against the Japanese. At the time, the Philippines were a protectorate of the United States and not an independent country. They fought bravely, at great sacrifice, under the orders of the U.S. military commands, and had every reason to expect full veterans benefits. For the reasons which I do not fully understand, however, in 1946, the law established for this particular group of veterans a two-tier system with less benefits. In particular, they have less health care and lower rates of disability compensation, even when they now live in the United States. I would hope that the authorizing committee could look into this situation, and hopefully look into it expeditiously, and make appropriate adjustments for these Filipino veterans who fought both for their country and for the United States. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman very much for his remarks, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for the amendment, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his support, and the others who have spoken on this amendment. I rise in strong support of this amendment. Unfortunately, I guess a point of order has been raised against it. But I agree, I would hope that the authorizing committee would report this legislation out so that these Filipino veterans would get what is in fact due to them under the promises that we have made, and I look forward to working with the others supporting this matter. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his warm support of this. He is absolutely right. And, again, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) indicated that well over 200 Members of the House signed onto legislation. I would point out to the House that that legislation was for both health care and for pension benefits. So if 209 Members of this body supported a bill which was costed out at roughly $500 million or $600 million, surely this session of Congress could approve just the health benefits at $35 million. But I thank the gentleman for his kind words. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I think the authorizing committee has been invited to bring that legislation to the floor. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Filner amendment. I do not quite understand the legislative precedence which, in some instances, allow appropriation bills to come to the floor with a waiver of points of order which would allow the inclusion of appropriations for matters that have not cleared the authorizing committee. When so many Members of this Chamber support this legislation, it seems to me in order for the rule to have come out allowing this amendment to be made to correct this very, very grave injustice that has been permitted to exist for these numbers of years. These Filipino veterans, if they were aged 20 at the time they were enlisted to help the United States Government, if they were 20 years old, today they are at least 80 or 85. There will not be much more time for this Congress to rectify this injustice, so I plead with the people who are taking this bill over to the other side to give consideration to the emergency of this situation and to find a way to at least provide the health care which the Filner amendment allows this Congress to permit these individuals. A lot has been said about the sacrifice that these individuals made. I want it to be made perfectly clear that it was 5 months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order calling upon the Filipino Commonwealth Army into the service of the United States Forces in the Far East. The date was July 26, 1941, long before Pearl Harbor. The Filipino soldiers complied without hesitation. They were part of the United States in their hearts and in their minds. The Philippines was considered a possession of the United States. In fact, perhaps they had no choice but to agree to enlist and become a part of the U.S. forces. They had grown up under the U.S. rule. They spoke English. They knew a lot about our government and about our democracy. And so when they were called upon to defend this freedom for which we fought and died, they willingly signed up, stood in line and gave of their lives. And it seems to me that the promises made to them at the time that they went into service should be honored. The fact of the matter is that there is almost a concession that the promises were made. Why else do we have a rescission, which is a cancellation, of benefits that were promised? We do not have a rescission if there is not an acknowledgment that there were promises made and commitments given to these veterans. But, anyway, in 1946, the Congress of the United States passed a rescission bill and took away all possibility that the promises made to the Filipino veterans would be honored by the United States Government. And that is the shameful act that we are seeking at least partially today to correct. These veterans are very old. They are in their 80s, 85, perhaps 90s. Many of them live in my district. I see them every time that there is a veterans holiday or a Memorial Day or a gathering in the community, and I know how deeply they feel about this issue. They see the Congress dealing with it, and yet due to some legislative thing there is a point of order and the matter cannot be brought to a vote. I think it is a very, very sad travesty that we are permitting, through a parliamentary situation, not to bring up to the House of Representatives. Because I feel sure, as the previous speaker from California indicated, that more than 218 Members of this House would vote for this measure. This is not the full measure that we feel they are entitled to, but it is the most urgent piece of this promise, and that is the health care that they so desperately need. Many of these veterans have returned back to the Philippines because that is probably the only way that they could be cared for by their families or some friends, or perhaps the health system there would permit them to be cared for. {time} 1715 But for those few thousand veterans that are here in the United States, the delay of a day, a month, a year means a delay in perpetuity. So I call upon those who will be working on this matter, taking it to conference and discussing it, not to wait another day but to call the compassion and the commitment and the moral obligation that this country has to these veterans and enact it into law this year. point of order The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) now insist on his point of order? [[Page H4729]] Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Mr. Chairman, there are any number of Members who sympathize with the intent of this language. The problem is it is unauthorized. This decision needs to be determined in the committee of authorization, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, not in the context of an appropriation. And, therefore, I insist on my point of order. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) in not insisting on the point of order until we had a chance for those who wanted to speak on it, and I sincerely thank him for that courtesy. But I would point out to the Chair of our committee and to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that this insistence on this point of order is rather arbitrary. The same argument could be made, as I have said earlier, to dozens of programs in this bill. Under FEMA there are many programs not authorized. The whole NASA, apparently, is not authorized. The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation is not authorized. Major projects of construction in the veterans' affairs budget are not authorized. And I can go on and on. The point here is that this House can pick and choose which items to protect in a point of order in an appropriations bill. I think that is not only illogical, but it does not show the reality. In this case, we have had to face really the obstruction of only one person that would prevent this from even coming to the floor and being authorized. So I would ask at some point in the future that the chairman and the ranking member look kindly on this amendment, this legislation. We only have a few years left before these brave veterans are no longer with us. And so, I understand his insistence on the point of order, but I wish he would grant the same latitude that he had to dozens of other programs in this bill. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). This is not a partisan issue. The 40 years following the war, the Congress was controlled by the other side. We have gone through 5 years of Republican control of this House; and it is time, especially with the cosponsors, that we bring this to fruition. I would like to repeat to the ranking member and the ranking minority member of the committee on authorization, there is a determination here by both sides of the aisle to see this through to fruition. Whether we do it this time or we do it the next time, this will pass. I would ask the chairman to consider it in the conference. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. The amendment earmarks funds in a manner not supported by existing law. The amendment also proposes to designate an appropriation as an emergency for purposes of budget enforcement procedures in law. As such, it constitutes legislation, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I again rise to ask unanimous consent that it may be in order to consider at this time the Ney amendment No. 40, the Gutierrez amendment No. 28, the Tancredo amendment No. 26, and that they be considered en bloc. I ask further that after disposition of these amendments that the House return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 8. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want to clarify that amendments under the Medical Research paragraph are still eligible with the unanimous consent request of the gentleman. Is that correct? Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, our intention is not to preclude anyone's ability to comment on these amendments or offer amendments. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to see, before I pursue the objection, whether amendment No. 19 would be in order, given this unanimous consent agreement. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot prejudge an amendment that has not yet been offered. Mr. FILNER. Then I will have to object. I want to know if it is eligible for offering at the point of line 8, as the amendment requests. I have to ask this, otherwise I will have to object to the unanimous consent request. I think the intent is to keep my amendment eligible. I just want to make sure that it is. The CHAIRMAN. First of all, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) should understand that reading is to commence at page 9, line 4, not line 8. His request is a bit premature. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would, then, amend that we return to reading of the bill on page 9, line 4. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read, as follows: medical and prosthetic research For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available until September 30, 2002, $321,000,000, plus reimbursements. The CHAIRMAN. There has been no unanimous consent agreement in the Committee, nor is there an amendment pending. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) wish to offer an amendment or a unanimous consent request? Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, may I restate my unanimous consent request? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that I may offer Ney amendment No. 40, Gutierrez amendment No. 28, and Tancredo amendment No. 26, and that they be considered en bloc; and I further ask that after disposition of the amendments the Committee return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 4. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Amendments Offered by Mr. Walsh Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments. The text of the amendments is as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. Walsh: H.R. 4635 Amendment No. 40 Offered By: Mr. Ney Under the heading ``Medical and Prosthetic Research'' of title I, page 9, line 8, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)'' after ``$321,000,000''. Under the heading ``Environmental Programs and Management'' of title III, page 59, line 6, insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000)'' after ``$1,900,000,000''. ____ Amendment No. 28 Offered By: Mr. Gutierrez Page 9, after line 8, insert after the dollar amount the follwoing: ``(increase by $25,000,000)''. Page 73, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''. ____ Amendment No. 26 Offered By: Mr. Tancredo Page 14, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''. Page 73, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard job that the distinguished chairman and the members of the committee faced as they drafted this bill. It is a good bill, and I intend to support it. The amendment has been agreed to by the parties involved. It is about giving our veterans the facilities they need as they grow older and the care that they were promised as they chose to defend the country. Our bipartisan amendment will restore the State Extended Care Facilities Construction Grant Program funding to the FY 2000 level of $90 million. Currently the bill cuts the funding in this program to $30 million. In 2010, one in every 16 American men will be a veteran of the military over the age of 62. That is an amazing statistic. The increasing age of most veterans means additional demand for medical services for eligible veterans as the aging process brings on chronic conditions needing more frequent care and lengthier convalescence. [[Page H4730]] This surge of older veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our Nation's veterans' health services. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, passed by this House and signed into law in 1999, places new requirements on State care facilities that must be funded immediately. With the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis, States already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our veterans. Finally, State care facilities are cost effective. In Fiscal Year 1998, the VA spent an average of $255 per day on long-term care nursing home care for residents, while State veterans homes spent an average of $40 per resident. This economic trend continued in 1999. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. It is about nursing home care for our veterans. Unfortunately, when the administration came forward with its budget this year, they proposed a significant cut in State grants, grants to our States to provide veterans nursing homes. As we have seen growing need, as particularly our veterans of Korea and Vietnam and World War II-era veterans need nursing home care, there is tremendous demand. And State care facilities operated through the State of Illinois and others have proven cost effective. The VA spends on average $225 a day for care for long-term nursing care residents, whereas State nursing homes provide about $30 a day. They are effective and they provide quality care. I am proud to say that in Illinois we have four veterans homes. Two are in the district that I represent. One of them, the LaSalle Veterans Home, has a waiting list 220 veterans, veterans having to wait as long as 18 months in order to obtain nursing home care. Imagine that, if they need nursing home care and they have to wait 18 months. That is an eternity for veterans. Other veterans homes in Illinois, Manteno is owed a million dollars for its compliance with ADA. The State of Illinois is owed $5 million for other home updates. The bottom line is this money is needed. I want to salute the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for accepting this amendment. I also want to salute my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), for his leadership in fighting for veterans. The bottom line is this legislation deserves bipartisan support. Let us support our veterans. Let us ensure the dollars are there to ensure nursing home care for our veterans and their needs. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly discuss the amendments that the chairman proposes to merge here. I want to begin by expressing my agreement with the premise of these amendments that the Veterans Medical Research account and the State Grants Account for extended care facilities are both underfunded. Two of the amendments in this unanimous consent request, those of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), would together increase the VA Medical Research Account by $30 million. As I said before, VA research has been widely praised for its quality and medical advances. Indeed, this Congress has clearly demonstrated its interest in medical research, specifically in the National Institutes of Health, which received a $2.2 billion increase last year, an increase of over 14 percent. We should be doing the same for VA medical research. And although these amendments do not get us to that point, they are a good start. In addition, the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) would increase the State Grant Account for the construction of extended care facilities by $30 million, for a total of $90 million, the same level as was enacted for Fiscal Year 2000. The need for extended care facilities is great, and this increase will help meet that need. All that being said, I do have concerns regarding the offsets of these amendments. One offset would take $25 million from NASA's Human Space Flight Account. It is a small cut relatively, but I am a bit apprehensive about making any cuts to this account, particularly at a time when we are literally months away from establishing a permanent human presence in the Space Station. This account also funds the Space Shuttle Program, and reductions could either force delays or cuts in the mission manifest or, even worse, force cuts to important shuttle safety upgrades planned by NASA. The other NASA offset is also somewhat distressing. It would take $30 million from NASA's Science Aeronautics and Technology Account. {time} 1730 This account funds almost all of NASA's activities other than the Space Shuttle and the Space Station, such activities as space science, aeronautics, earth science and NASA's academic programs. This account was also the only NASA account in this bill to receive less than the President's request. Mr. Chairman, NASA's budget has been cut for years and this amendment cuts an already anemic account. Finally, the last of these amendments would take $5 million from EPA's operating programs account, which includes just about all the agency's activities other than science research and Superfund. Although this is a very small cut, the relevant account is already 10 percent below the President's request. All that being said, I supported the gentleman's unanimous-consent request and the acceptance of the underlying amendments. I do look forward to working with the chairman and the other body in conference to restore the NASA and EPA funding as we move forward. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today for an amendment that I believe is critically important to the health and well-being of our veterans and to the future of the VA health care system. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and make a strong statement of support for an effective, cost-efficient, and important program, the VA medical research program. Unfortunately, the appropriation bill before us calls for no increased funding, zero, in the VA medical research program. Given inflation and increased program needs, this amounts to a significant reduction in the amount of work and research the VA will be able to perform. This is a shortsighted and extremely damaging budget decision. Few government programs have given our Nation a better return on the dollar than VA medical research. The VA has become a world leader in such research areas as aging, AIDS-HIV, women's veterans health, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Specifically, VA researchers have played key roles in developing cardiac pacemakers, magnetic source imaging, and in improving artificial limbs. The first successful kidney transplant in the U.S. was performed at a VA hospital and the first successful drug treatments for high blood pressure and schizophrenia were pioneered by VA researchers. Quite simply, VA medical research has not only been vital for our veterans, it has led to breakthroughs and refinement of technology that have improved health care for all of us. Given this record of accomplishment with a very modest appropriation, the reduced commitment to the VA medical research budget is unjustified and unwise. At the proposed level of funding, the VA would be unable to maintain its current level of research effort in such vital areas as diabetes, substance abuse, mental health, Parkinson's disease, prostate cancer, spinal cord injury, heart disease, and hepatitis. In fact, research projects currently in progress would be put in jeopardy. I am asking for a very reasonable increase, enough to save the current level of research and to allow for a modest improvement. My amendment [[Page H4731]] calls for a $25 million increase in funding. Approximately $10 million is needed to maintain the current research level and approximately $15 million will help to fund new research projects in such vital areas as mental health and spinal cord injury. This is money well spent on proven, effective research projects that benefit not only our Nation's most deserving population, our veterans, but that eventually benefits us all. Again I believe in this Congress, we must reexamine our priorities and in our current economic climate, $25 million is hardly a budget- breaking commitment. We cannot in any honest fashion say the money is not there. The money exists. It is simply a question of what we want to invest it in, what priorities are most important to us. What better choice, what better investment than the health care of our veterans? The average research grant is $130,000. My amendment will help pave the way for as many as 250 new ones. Which of those grants will help to find a cure for Parkinson's disease? Or ease the pain of post-traumatic stress? Or discover new ways to prevent prostate cancer or protect against heart disease? Or which of these grants will never be funded because we were not willing to make this reasonable and effective appropriation? Which grant will we lose because once again we made speeches praising our courageous members of the Armed Forces when they fought and sacrificed to keep our country safe only to make them sacrifice again when we turn our backs on their health care needs? This amendment shows us that we do not have to sacrifice any of these research projects. The amendment has the strong support of the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and Vietnam Veterans of America. I urge my colleagues to join these veterans advocacy groups and please support the funding. It is effective, it is necessary, it is reasonable, and our veterans deserve it. I hope Members will stand with me in support of VA medical research. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for including this amendment in the en bloc package that he has offered to the House and to wish him a belated happy birthday. Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for including my amendment in the en bloc. My amendment reduces the EPA's program and management budget which is $1.9 billion by $5 million and transfers the dollars to medical research in the VA. The EPA's account in this section encompasses a broad range of things, including travel and expenses for most of the agency. I believe the EPA can tighten their belts on some travel to the tune of $5 million so that our veterans can continue to receive the medical care that they need and deserve. With passage of Public Law 85-857 in 1958, Congress gave official recognition to a research program with a proven record of contributing to the improvement of medical care and rehabilitation services for the U.S. veteran. The law formally authorized medical and prosthetic research in the VA and led to the establishment of four organizational units, medical research, rehabilitation research and development, health services research and development, and the cooperative studies program. There are over 75 some groups which I have listed here that, in fact, support the increase for VA medical research. I want to again thank the gentleman from New York for his indulgence to support the veterans. Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I believe with the allocations made by the leadership, and I appreciate the $30 million additional in terms of nursing homes for veterans, but still we need $80 million to take care of existing costs. I feel compelled to speak out on this amendment which would inadequately fund the State Veterans Home Program. It is imperative that the veterans and their families be able to be taken care of in the twilight of their years. Getting the funding increase is only the first step. While I am primarily concerned about the dire need of these homes in Texas, veterans all across the country need these services. The key to strong recruitment into our military is a strong evidence of helping veterans throughout their life. On behalf of the nearly 1.7 million veterans in Texas, I want to boost this appropriation for the Department of Veterans Affairs' grants for construction of State extended care facilities to $140 million for fiscal year 2001. The $30 million would only give us $90 million. We need $80 million additional to bring us up to $140 million to be able to take care of existing costs. This increase of $80 million, if you add $50 million to your request from the VA, was recommended by both the chairman and the ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs in their letter to the House Committee on the Budget expressing our views and estimates of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York in securing necessary resources to fund this crucial program which is very important. Providing for the long-term health care needs of veterans remains one of our most important commitments to those who have served our Nation. I feel that providing this stepped up level of funding for 2001 sends a strong signal to our veterans and their families across this country that Congress is committed to serving veterans in the twilight of their years. Texas has only received 3 percent of the funding from these types of programs in the past since its inception even though we have over 7 percent of the Nation's veterans. As they get older and are in more need of nursing home care, we must be there for them and be able to provide that service. Texas has been a newcomer to this program, and we have not taken advantage of it in the past which provides funding for State nursing homes for veterans. We have begun construction of four sites in Texas. Those sites are in Floresville, Texas; Temple, Texas; Bonham; and in Big Spring. The reality is that the way it is structured now, Texas will not be entitled to a red cent, to not a single penny of the resources that are there unless we go beyond the existing resources because of the wording that you have for renovation and not for new construction. I am hopeful that we can continue to work on this to provide the additional resources that are needed. Once again, it was unfortunate the administration had only recommended $60 million. Your $30 million will bring it up to $90 million. We really need to look in terms of bringing it up to $140 million to meet the needs. That is one of the recommendations that was made from our committee. I want to ask the committee to please consider the possibility of increasing these resources beyond the $30 million that is there before us. Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. (Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that our veterans population is aging. In fact, in 2010--over half of the veterans population will be over the age of 62. Currently, 36 percent of all veterans are over the age of 65 and that number is expected to increase exponentially over the next eight years. The increasing age of most veterans means additional demands for medical services for eligible veterans. This surge of older veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our nation's Veterans Health Services. The House and Senate approved $90 million in funding for the State Extended Care Facilities Construction Grant Program for FY99 and FY00. This year, however, the Committee has funded the program at $60 million--$30 million below last year's funding. This amendment would increase funding for these States Care Facilities by $30 million to the fiscal year 2000 level of $90 million. Last year, 354 Members of Congress voted to support our aging veteran population by voting for a similar amendment to restore funding the State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program in the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Once again, this amendment must be offered to prevent a massive, 33 percent cut in funding to this vital, cost-effect program for our veterans. [[Page H4732]] The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, passed by the House and signed into law in 1999, places new requirements on state care facilities that must be funded immediately. With the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis, states already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our veterans. In fiscal year 1998, the VA spent on average $255.25 per day to care for long term nursing care residents, while, state veterans homes on average spent $40.00 per resident. This economic trend continued in 1999--proving that state care facilities are in fact cost-effective. Mr. Chairman, taking care of our nation's veterans is clearly one of the government's prime responsibilities Congress has a track record of supporting veterans program as we have increased the President's request for VA funding for several consecutive years now. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. The State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program is an important program that meets our veterans health care meets. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment and to the Gutierrez amendment. I would like to say straight out, though, that I certainly am very sympathetic to the idea of plussing up these veterans accounts. I believe I have the fourth larges

Summary:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 20, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4724-H4776] DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 525 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4635. {time} 1640 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, June 19, 2000, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) had been disposed of and the bill was open to amendment from page 9, line 1, to page 9, line 3. Request For En Bloc Consideration of Amendments Numbered 40, 28, And 26 Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time that the Ney amendment No. 40, the Guttierez amendment No. 28, and the Tancredo amendment No. 26 be considered en bloc. I further ask unanimous consent that after disposition of these amendments, that the House return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 8. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I feel constrained to object to the request at this time. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. WAXMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. WAXMAN. I have another amendment on the same subject as yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to inquire if this is the appropriate time in the bill to offer that amendment. The CHAIRMAN. As the Committee proceeds further on page 10 the gentleman will be in order in the reading, but at the moment another Member of the House, a member of the committee, is seeking recognition to strike the last word. After that the Clerk will read to the proper point in the bill. Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to see that a number of Members have recognized that the VA medical research account is underfunded in this bill, and that they want to increase this funding through amendments that we are going to consider soon. The chairman and the ranking member have done a good job [[Page H4725]] under tough constraints on this legislation, but this is one item that we really need to tend to here today. I am glad to see that we will have the opportunity to do so. I have been a strong proponent of VA medical research, and I offered an amendment during the full Committee on Appropriations markup that would have increased that account by $23 million. I want to take just a minute today to explain why I support increasing the VA medical research account and why it is so important for us to find a way of doing so. The original request from the VA to OMB was to fund the research account at $397 million. Outside supporters of the program believe the program should be funded at $386 million. These recommendations are both well above the current bill's level of $321 million. Most of us have heard about the Seattle foot, that remarkable artificial limb that has been depicted in television commercials by a double amputee playing pick-up basketball or by a woman running a 100- yard dash. It is not obvious that she has two artificial legs until the camera zooms in at the end of the commercial. The technology for this prosthesis was developed by VA researchers in Seattle. Research at VA hospitals is important because it is clinical research, mainly. The researcher, who is almost always affiliated with a neighboring teaching hospital, also treats patients, veterans. The VA research program is the only one dedicated solely to finding cures to ailments that affect our veteran population. It is not interchangeable with other research efforts. At the Durham, North Carolina, VA, which is affiliated with Duke University, there is a great range of research being done, from working to find a cure for AIDS to finding a shingles vaccine to important advances in brain imaging and telemedicine. This work, of course, assists veterans, but it also helps the population at large. The VA does a great job of leveraging its funds. Dr. Jack Feussner, the director of the VA medical research program, testified that for every dollar of increase that the program has received over the last 5 years, it has received $3 from other sources. Therefore, if we were to add $23 million here today, it could translate into $92 million more for research. What will these additional funds be used for? Eleven million dollars is needed just to maintain current services, to keep up with medical inflation. Another $12 million could be used for any number of research projects. The VA is starting a research oversight program vital to the integrity of the human-based research programs. It could be a model for other federally-assisted research. This program needs $1 million. To bring the program back to the high water mark of 1998 would take $43 million. Dr. Feussner has listed four areas that would benefit particularly from additional research dollars: Parkinson's Disease, end-stage renal failure, diabetes, and Post-Traumatic Shock Disorder. Additional research into the treatment and cure for hepatitis C would also be looked at carefully. {time} 1645 We also need to increase the commitment to training the next generation of clinician and nonclinician investigators. To keep that program on track would take an additional $10 million. Now, Mr. Chairman, difficult decisions will need to be made on these upcoming amendments, and there are several of them. They all offer an offset of some sort. Most of the offsets I would not support if they stood alone. But the overall allocation for our VA-HUD subcommittee is just not sufficient, and these difficult trade-offs must be made. I am hopeful that, at the end of this process, an additional allocation will be available and that we will be able to fund VA medical research at close to $386 million and that any offsets that we adopt can largely be restored. However, it is very important to raise the appropriations level here today for medical research before this bill goes any farther in the appropriations process. I hope this is helpful, this overview of how these monies might be spent and why we need them. Additional funding for VA research will benefit our veterans and our country, and I hope Members will pay attention closely to the arguments on the amendments to follow. The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the bill? Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Filner Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Filner: Page 9, after line 3, insert the following: In addition, for ``Medical Care'', $35,200,000 for health care benefits for Filipino World War II veterans who were excluded from benefits by the Rescissions Acts of 1946 and to increase service-connected disability compensation from the peso rate to the full dollar amount for Filipino World War II veterans living in the United States: Provided, That the Congress hereby designates the entire such amount as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That such amount shall be available only to the extent of a specific dollar amount for such purpose that is included in an official budget request transmitted by the President to the Congress and that is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A). Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a point of order. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an issue which has been before this House before, an issue of, I think, great moral urgency but financially responsible; and that is to right a wrong that was committed in this country by the Congress of 1946, which took away the veterans' benefits that had been promised to our Filipino allies who were drafted into World War II, fought bravely at Corregidor and Bataan. Many died. But were ultimately extremely helpful, if not responsible, for our slowing up of the Japanese advance and then our ultimate victory in the Pacific. What we did do to these brave men was to take away their benefits after the war, and they have yet to be recognized in this way. Many are in their late 70s and early 80s. Many will not be here in a few years. I think this is an emergency item that ought to be considered by this House. My amendment would provide $35,200,000 for health care benefits to these veterans of World War II. This is the benefit that they need the most in their twilight years. Like their counterparts, they fought as brave soldiers. They helped to win the war. Many of them marched to their deaths, in fact, in the famous Bataan death march. Yet we rewarded them by taking away their benefits. We owe them a fair hearing. We owe them the dignity and honor of considering them veterans. My amendment would restore just some of those benefits to these veterans. I think all of my colleagues know that veterans are entitled to, under certain conditions provided by law, certain preventions and certain medical care. But this amendment divides the benefits from the pensions from the medical benefits and says let us at least now, within our budget means, give health care to those brave Filipino soldiers. My amendment would make available monies for care in this country, a small portion also for our VA clinic in Manila to serve the Filipino World War II veterans and U.S. citizens there alike. What we are saying here is that the honor and bravery of veterans of World War II will finally be recognized by this Congress 54 years after they were taken away. I would ask this body to recognize the bravery of our allies, the Filipinos who we drafted, provide them with eligibility for benefits, health care benefits that are given to American soldiers who fought in the same war for the same honorable cause. Now, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being challenged on a point of order because authorization has not been given. I would make the point that, not only did these veterans earn this benefit in the war, not only are there dozens of programs in this bill that are not authorized, but that, through the regular legislative process, we have not been allowed to bring this bill up. [[Page H4726]] I ask the floor, I ask the Chair to allow us to finally grant honor and dignity to these brave soldiers, many of whom, as I said, are in their 80s, and finally right a historical wrong of great proportions. Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by applauding the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), for his efforts. I know he has done this over many years, trying to fight for the justice of many of the veterans for World War II who fought under the flag of the United States, in fact fought at the insistence of this country. Simply put, what the gentleman is trying to do is trying to restore benefits to which these individuals as veterans were entitled to but were stripped of by affirmative action by this Congress back in the late 1940s. But for the action of this Congress, some 50-odd years ago, these individuals would be receiving these benefits that the gentleman from California are now trying to restore. So I would like to add my voice to the many in this Congress who are supportive of the gentleman's efforts, and, unfortunately, at this time is unable to proceed with this particular amendment. I would hope that my colleagues would recognize the efforts of the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), and at some point soon recognize that we must do something for the ladies and gentlemen who fought in the 1940s to defend this country and are now at the point of passing on. It is time for us to recognize their effort and recognize that this Congress some 54 years ago or so denied them the rights that they had under this Constitution. So I applaud the gentleman for what he does. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order against the amendment? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this amendment may be struck on a point of order. Many of us have been trying for many, many years to get this through, both under Democrat and Republican administrations. I served in the United States military, and a large portion of that was in Southeast Asia, eight different deployments on carriers all going through the Philippines, and based there for training. I was also stationed there at San Miguel for some 18 months. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I would hope that the conference chairman, in some way, even though this may be struck with a point of order, see that the gentleman is correct, there was a promise made by the United States Government, if these individuals fought on the side of the allies, that we would give them certain benefits. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is not asking even for the full-blown benefits that were promised, but even a neck-down version so that the cost is not too high. This does not affect the health care of American veterans; this will actually enhance it. I hope there is some way that in the conference when additional monies from revenues come into the coffers that we can find some way in the conference to support the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). The Negridos were like the Native Americans to the United States; they were native to the Philippines. They are infamous on their ability to disrupt the enemy's lines during World War II in the Philippines. The Filipino people, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) mentioned, actually walked in the Bataan death march with us; and many of those people died right alongside of Americans. Many of them died trying to free Americans in hiding and protecting them. They were executed. I mean, there is movie after movie depicting their heroism. I also want my colleagues to take a look at the involvement of the Filipino Americans in this country and what they have done for the United States of America. Every university we see is filled with Filipinos. Why? Because they believe in education. They believe in patriotism. They believe in the family unit. There has been no better group to immigrate to this country. Secondly, the United States Navy for many, many years used the Filipinos. They would give up their lives, in some cases actually give up their lives, to serve in the military. During Desert Storm, they would volunteer to serve in the military, even though they were killed, their spouses may have been shipped back to the Philippines, giving their life. We thought that that was wrong also. But I rise in support, and I would say to the Filipino community-- (the gentleman from California spoke in Tagolog)--which means I will love the Philippines forever. I was stationed there, so I speak a little Tagolog. But in this case, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is absolutely correct. I hope we can work in a bipartisan way to bring about this amendment. It is a very small measure of what we have been trying to do for a long time. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). Mr. Filner. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman from California is adjacent to me in San Diego. He is a powerful voice for our Filipino American citizens. I thank him. There are no two people I would prefer to have talking on this from the other side of the aisle than the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and I appreciate the support. This is a bipartisan effort. It is a matter of historical and moral righteousness and truth. I so appreciate the statement of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for espousing the cause of our Philippine veterans. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment to provide $35.2 million in VA health care benefits for our Filipino nationals who fought with our American troops against the Japanese in World War II. For almost 4 years, over 100,000 Filipinos of the Philippine Commonwealth Army fought alongside the allies to reclaim the Philippines from the Japanese. Regrettably, in return, what did Congress do? Congress enacted the Rescission Act of 1946. Despite President Truman having approved all of this, that measure limited veterans' eligibility for service-connected disabilities and death compensation and also denied the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army the honor of being recognized as veterans of our own Armed Forces. A second group, the special Philippines Scouts, called New Scouts, who enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces after October 6, 1945, primarily to perform occupation duty in the Pacific were simply excluded. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has expired. (On request of Mr. Filner, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I believe it is long past time to try to correct this injustice and to provide the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the Special Philippine Scouts with a token of the appreciation for the courageous services that they valiantly earned during their service in World War II. Given the difficulty in extending full veterans' benefits without adversely impacting other domestic veterans programs, health benefits are the most appropriate to extend. With this in mind, the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), with the support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), provides funding for such benefits which are sorely needed by an aging population of veterans well into their twilight years. I commend both gentleman from California, Mr. Filner and Mr. [[Page H4727]] Cunningham, for supporting this amendment. I urge our colleagues to lend their full support. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the balance of my time, I would say that this is a promise made by the United States Government. Most of us were not here when that promise was made, much like our friends from Guam. But there is a promise, and that promise was taken away after the war. They fulfilled their contract, and this government reneged on that particular contract. I ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the chairman to give this consideration in the conference even though it will probably be struck with a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think it is worth standing here for the next few minutes to continue this dialogue. I want to congratulate the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who just spoke, along with those of the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), as well. Both of the gentlemen from California have spoken very righteously about this particular issue. {time} 1700 And while we know this amendment will be ruled out of order in the next few minutes, it does bear saying. I do not know if all my colleagues are aware of what we are talking about here, nor perhaps the American people who might be watching; but what we are talking about here is the fact that during World War II Americans encountered a very rough time in the Pacific. There was a point there where it was not clear how the battles would turn and how the war would turn; and in the Philippines, things were tough. It got to a point where our President, President Roosevelt, called upon the Filipino people to come forward and fight under the American flag. In fact, it was an edict. They were to serve under the American flag. And, sure enough, they did, and they did so with honor. These were individuals from the Philippines who were fighting not just for their country but for the United States of America. They were under the command of U.S. forces. They were under the direction of generals of the United States of America. When they were told to go to battle, it was by American generals; and it was to provide for the security and safety not just of Philippine soldiers but of American soldiers. When many of these Philippine soldiers died, they died under the American flag. At the conclusion of the war, these Filipino veterans who fought so valiantly were entitled, because they had fought under the flag of the United States and at the direction of our President, to receive the benefits of Americans who had served under our flag. And had everything proceeded as it normally would, these Filipino veterans would have received every single type of benefit that an American soldier received having fought for this country at the direction of this government. But in 1946, Congress affirmatively took steps to rescind those rights that those veterans from the Philippines had. The Rescission Act of 1946 stripped Filipino veterans of any rights they had as American veterans. Last session, this Congress, working in a bipartisan manner, actually restored a modicum amount of those benefits. It allowed some of those Filipino veterans who were in this country, had been here for the last 50-some-odd years, and who actually decided to go back to the Philippines, to retain their SSI benefits, these are folks that are in their 80s, at reduced levels. In fact, we ended up saving money having them do that. Because rather than having them collect supplemental security income at the price of what it would cost by their staying here in America, if they did it in the Philippines, it would cost even less. That was, in a way, a token to those Filipino veterans, but it actually saved us money. What the two gentlemen from San Diego are talking about is trying to restore some semblance of decency, who are now in their 80s and dying away, and it is the right thing to do. It is something we owe them. Because when it was time to take to that battle and they were charged to do so, they did not ask what would happen; and they did not ask what would be the return, they just did so. For that reason, we should try to work in support of the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), which would simply say give these veterans, now in their 80s, for the most part, access to health care that most American veterans are entitled to receive. That is the right thing to do. And I would join with my two friends from San Diego who are fighting for this, to say that it is something I hope that the conference committee will take up, that the chairman and ranking member will consider, because we should do this. At a time when many of these veterans may not see the next year, as we come closer to doing this, it is the right thing to do. In the last session of Congress, in the 105th Congress, we had 209 Members of Congress who cosponsored legislation that contained these precise provisions. Just eight sponsors away from having a majority of this House saying they wanted to see this happen. We are very close. Most Members do support this when they are told about this, but it is just so difficult bureaucratically, procedurally, to get this done. I would hope that the chairman and the ranking Members and the committees of jurisdiction, when in conference, would consider this. I join with my colleagues from California who have spoken, along with the many others who would like to speak on this, to say it is the right thing to do and we should move forward. Announcement by the Chairman The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must remind all Members that remarks in debate should be addressed to the Chair and not to a viewing or listening audience. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I too rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), that would provide health care benefits for Filipino World War II veterans that were excluded from benefits by the 1946 Rescission Act. For all the reasons that have been stated by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), this is an issue that is really a no-brainer. It is an issue that when people hear the entire story, they will support full equity, full World War II benefits for Filipino World War II veterans. These veterans are comprised mostly of Filipino volunteers and recruits, augmented by American soldiers, who were the defenders of Bataan and Corregidor and who delayed the Japanese effort to conquer the western Pacific. This enabled U.S. forces to adequately prepare and launch the campaign to finally secure victory in the Pacific theater of World War II. Filipino veterans swore allegiance to the same flag, wore the same uniforms, fought, bled, and died in the same battlefields alongside American comrades, but were never afforded equal status. And even after the surrender of American forces in the initial part of the battle of the Philippines, they continued to fight on in guerilla units. Prior to the mass discharges and disbanding of their unit in 1949, these veterans were paid only a third of what regular service members received at the time. Underpaid, having been denied benefits that they were promised, and lacking proper recognition, General MacArthur's words, ``No army has ever done so much with so little,'' truly depicts the plight of the remaining Filipino veterans today as they certainly did a half century ago. In terms of my own people of Guam, since we are closest to the Philippines, I guess of all the areas that are represented in Congress, and the people of Guam share deep cultural and historic ties with the Philippines, we also understand the trauma and the tragedy that they endured because we too suffered horrendous occupation, a long and painful and brutal occupation under the Imperial Japanese Army. [[Page H4728]] And we certainly appreciate, understand, and support the efforts of peoples who are trying to resolve the issue of Filipino World War II veterans. I urge my colleagues to support the Filner amendment. I know that I certainly will probably be ruled out of order here before too long, but the issue will not go away until we certainly see justice for these veterans no matter how many are left. And I must remind the Members of the House that they continue to pass away as we continue to not address this issue fully. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I know we cannot fix this problem here today, but I want the gentlemen to know that we are sympathetic on this issue. These Filipino veterans enlisted in the United States Armed Services during World War II to fight against the Japanese. At the time, the Philippines were a protectorate of the United States and not an independent country. They fought bravely, at great sacrifice, under the orders of the U.S. military commands, and had every reason to expect full veterans benefits. For the reasons which I do not fully understand, however, in 1946, the law established for this particular group of veterans a two-tier system with less benefits. In particular, they have less health care and lower rates of disability compensation, even when they now live in the United States. I would hope that the authorizing committee could look into this situation, and hopefully look into it expeditiously, and make appropriate adjustments for these Filipino veterans who fought both for their country and for the United States. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman very much for his remarks, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for the amendment, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his support, and the others who have spoken on this amendment. I rise in strong support of this amendment. Unfortunately, I guess a point of order has been raised against it. But I agree, I would hope that the authorizing committee would report this legislation out so that these Filipino veterans would get what is in fact due to them under the promises that we have made, and I look forward to working with the others supporting this matter. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his warm support of this. He is absolutely right. And, again, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) indicated that well over 200 Members of the House signed onto legislation. I would point out to the House that that legislation was for both health care and for pension benefits. So if 209 Members of this body supported a bill which was costed out at roughly $500 million or $600 million, surely this session of Congress could approve just the health benefits at $35 million. But I thank the gentleman for his kind words. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I think the authorizing committee has been invited to bring that legislation to the floor. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Filner amendment. I do not quite understand the legislative precedence which, in some instances, allow appropriation bills to come to the floor with a waiver of points of order which would allow the inclusion of appropriations for matters that have not cleared the authorizing committee. When so many Members of this Chamber support this legislation, it seems to me in order for the rule to have come out allowing this amendment to be made to correct this very, very grave injustice that has been permitted to exist for these numbers of years. These Filipino veterans, if they were aged 20 at the time they were enlisted to help the United States Government, if they were 20 years old, today they are at least 80 or 85. There will not be much more time for this Congress to rectify this injustice, so I plead with the people who are taking this bill over to the other side to give consideration to the emergency of this situation and to find a way to at least provide the health care which the Filner amendment allows this Congress to permit these individuals. A lot has been said about the sacrifice that these individuals made. I want it to be made perfectly clear that it was 5 months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order calling upon the Filipino Commonwealth Army into the service of the United States Forces in the Far East. The date was July 26, 1941, long before Pearl Harbor. The Filipino soldiers complied without hesitation. They were part of the United States in their hearts and in their minds. The Philippines was considered a possession of the United States. In fact, perhaps they had no choice but to agree to enlist and become a part of the U.S. forces. They had grown up under the U.S. rule. They spoke English. They knew a lot about our government and about our democracy. And so when they were called upon to defend this freedom for which we fought and died, they willingly signed up, stood in line and gave of their lives. And it seems to me that the promises made to them at the time that they went into service should be honored. The fact of the matter is that there is almost a concession that the promises were made. Why else do we have a rescission, which is a cancellation, of benefits that were promised? We do not have a rescission if there is not an acknowledgment that there were promises made and commitments given to these veterans. But, anyway, in 1946, the Congress of the United States passed a rescission bill and took away all possibility that the promises made to the Filipino veterans would be honored by the United States Government. And that is the shameful act that we are seeking at least partially today to correct. These veterans are very old. They are in their 80s, 85, perhaps 90s. Many of them live in my district. I see them every time that there is a veterans holiday or a Memorial Day or a gathering in the community, and I know how deeply they feel about this issue. They see the Congress dealing with it, and yet due to some legislative thing there is a point of order and the matter cannot be brought to a vote. I think it is a very, very sad travesty that we are permitting, through a parliamentary situation, not to bring up to the House of Representatives. Because I feel sure, as the previous speaker from California indicated, that more than 218 Members of this House would vote for this measure. This is not the full measure that we feel they are entitled to, but it is the most urgent piece of this promise, and that is the health care that they so desperately need. Many of these veterans have returned back to the Philippines because that is probably the only way that they could be cared for by their families or some friends, or perhaps the health system there would permit them to be cared for. {time} 1715 But for those few thousand veterans that are here in the United States, the delay of a day, a month, a year means a delay in perpetuity. So I call upon those who will be working on this matter, taking it to conference and discussing it, not to wait another day but to call the compassion and the commitment and the moral obligation that this country has to these veterans and enact it into law this year. point of order The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) now insist on his point of order? [[Page H4729]] Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Mr. Chairman, there are any number of Members who sympathize with the intent of this language. The problem is it is unauthorized. This decision needs to be determined in the committee of authorization, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, not in the context of an appropriation. And, therefore, I insist on my point of order. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) in not insisting on the point of order until we had a chance for those who wanted to speak on it, and I sincerely thank him for that courtesy. But I would point out to the Chair of our committee and to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that this insistence on this point of order is rather arbitrary. The same argument could be made, as I have said earlier, to dozens of programs in this bill. Under FEMA there are many programs not authorized. The whole NASA, apparently, is not authorized. The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation is not authorized. Major projects of construction in the veterans' affairs budget are not authorized. And I can go on and on. The point here is that this House can pick and choose which items to protect in a point of order in an appropriations bill. I think that is not only illogical, but it does not show the reality. In this case, we have had to face really the obstruction of only one person that would prevent this from even coming to the floor and being authorized. So I would ask at some point in the future that the chairman and the ranking member look kindly on this amendment, this legislation. We only have a few years left before these brave veterans are no longer with us. And so, I understand his insistence on the point of order, but I wish he would grant the same latitude that he had to dozens of other programs in this bill. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). This is not a partisan issue. The 40 years following the war, the Congress was controlled by the other side. We have gone through 5 years of Republican control of this House; and it is time, especially with the cosponsors, that we bring this to fruition. I would like to repeat to the ranking member and the ranking minority member of the committee on authorization, there is a determination here by both sides of the aisle to see this through to fruition. Whether we do it this time or we do it the next time, this will pass. I would ask the chairman to consider it in the conference. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. The amendment earmarks funds in a manner not supported by existing law. The amendment also proposes to designate an appropriation as an emergency for purposes of budget enforcement procedures in law. As such, it constitutes legislation, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I again rise to ask unanimous consent that it may be in order to consider at this time the Ney amendment No. 40, the Gutierrez amendment No. 28, the Tancredo amendment No. 26, and that they be considered en bloc. I ask further that after disposition of these amendments that the House return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 8. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want to clarify that amendments under the Medical Research paragraph are still eligible with the unanimous consent request of the gentleman. Is that correct? Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, our intention is not to preclude anyone's ability to comment on these amendments or offer amendments. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to see, before I pursue the objection, whether amendment No. 19 would be in order, given this unanimous consent agreement. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot prejudge an amendment that has not yet been offered. Mr. FILNER. Then I will have to object. I want to know if it is eligible for offering at the point of line 8, as the amendment requests. I have to ask this, otherwise I will have to object to the unanimous consent request. I think the intent is to keep my amendment eligible. I just want to make sure that it is. The CHAIRMAN. First of all, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) should understand that reading is to commence at page 9, line 4, not line 8. His request is a bit premature. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would, then, amend that we return to reading of the bill on page 9, line 4. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read, as follows: medical and prosthetic research For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available until September 30, 2002, $321,000,000, plus reimbursements. The CHAIRMAN. There has been no unanimous consent agreement in the Committee, nor is there an amendment pending. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) wish to offer an amendment or a unanimous consent request? Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, may I restate my unanimous consent request? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that I may offer Ney amendment No. 40, Gutierrez amendment No. 28, and Tancredo amendment No. 26, and that they be considered en bloc; and I further ask that after disposition of the amendments the Committee return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 4. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Amendments Offered by Mr. Walsh Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments. The text of the amendments is as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. Walsh: H.R. 4635 Amendment No. 40 Offered By: Mr. Ney Under the heading ``Medical and Prosthetic Research'' of title I, page 9, line 8, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)'' after ``$321,000,000''. Under the heading ``Environmental Programs and Management'' of title III, page 59, line 6, insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000)'' after ``$1,900,000,000''. ____ Amendment No. 28 Offered By: Mr. Gutierrez Page 9, after line 8, insert after the dollar amount the follwoing: ``(increase by $25,000,000)''. Page 73, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''. ____ Amendment No. 26 Offered By: Mr. Tancredo Page 14, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''. Page 73, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard job that the distinguished chairman and the members of the committee faced as they drafted this bill. It is a good bill, and I intend to support it. The amendment has been agreed to by the parties involved. It is about giving our veterans the facilities they need as they grow older and the care that they were promised as they chose to defend the country. Our bipartisan amendment will restore the State Extended Care Facilities Construction Grant Program funding to the FY 2000 level of $90 million. Currently the bill cuts the funding in this program to $30 million. In 2010, one in every 16 American men will be a veteran of the military over the age of 62. That is an amazing statistic. The increasing age of most veterans means additional demand for medical services for eligible veterans as the aging process brings on chronic conditions needing more frequent care and lengthier convalescence. [[Page H4730]] This surge of older veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our Nation's veterans' health services. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, passed by this House and signed into law in 1999, places new requirements on State care facilities that must be funded immediately. With the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis, States already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our veterans. Finally, State care facilities are cost effective. In Fiscal Year 1998, the VA spent an average of $255 per day on long-term care nursing home care for residents, while State veterans homes spent an average of $40 per resident. This economic trend continued in 1999. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. It is about nursing home care for our veterans. Unfortunately, when the administration came forward with its budget this year, they proposed a significant cut in State grants, grants to our States to provide veterans nursing homes. As we have seen growing need, as particularly our veterans of Korea and Vietnam and World War II-era veterans need nursing home care, there is tremendous demand. And State care facilities operated through the State of Illinois and others have proven cost effective. The VA spends on average $225 a day for care for long-term nursing care residents, whereas State nursing homes provide about $30 a day. They are effective and they provide quality care. I am proud to say that in Illinois we have four veterans homes. Two are in the district that I represent. One of them, the LaSalle Veterans Home, has a waiting list 220 veterans, veterans having to wait as long as 18 months in order to obtain nursing home care. Imagine that, if they need nursing home care and they have to wait 18 months. That is an eternity for veterans. Other veterans homes in Illinois, Manteno is owed a million dollars for its compliance with ADA. The State of Illinois is owed $5 million for other home updates. The bottom line is this money is needed. I want to salute the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for accepting this amendment. I also want to salute my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), for his leadership in fighting for veterans. The bottom line is this legislation deserves bipartisan support. Let us support our veterans. Let us ensure the dollars are there to ensure nursing home care for our veterans and their needs. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly discuss the amendments that the chairman proposes to merge here. I want to begin by expressing my agreement with the premise of these amendments that the Veterans Medical Research account and the State Grants Account for extended care facilities are both underfunded. Two of the amendments in this unanimous consent request, those of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), would together increase the VA Medical Research Account by $30 million. As I said before, VA research has been widely praised for its quality and medical advances. Indeed, this Congress has clearly demonstrated its interest in medical research, specifically in the National Institutes of Health, which received a $2.2 billion increase last year, an increase of over 14 percent. We should be doing the same for VA medical research. And although these amendments do not get us to that point, they are a good start. In addition, the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) would increase the State Grant Account for the construction of extended care facilities by $30 million, for a total of $90 million, the same level as was enacted for Fiscal Year 2000. The need for extended care facilities is great, and this increase will help meet that need. All that being said, I do have concerns regarding the offsets of these amendments. One offset would take $25 million from NASA's Human Space Flight Account. It is a small cut relatively, but I am a bit apprehensive about making any cuts to this account, particularly at a time when we are literally months away from establishing a permanent human presence in the Space Station. This account also funds the Space Shuttle Program, and reductions could either force delays or cuts in the mission manifest or, even worse, force cuts to important shuttle safety upgrades planned by NASA. The other NASA offset is also somewhat distressing. It would take $30 million from NASA's Science Aeronautics and Technology Account. {time} 1730 This account funds almost all of NASA's activities other than the Space Shuttle and the Space Station, such activities as space science, aeronautics, earth science and NASA's academic programs. This account was also the only NASA account in this bill to receive less than the President's request. Mr. Chairman, NASA's budget has been cut for years and this amendment cuts an already anemic account. Finally, the last of these amendments would take $5 million from EPA's operating programs account, which includes just about all the agency's activities other than science research and Superfund. Although this is a very small cut, the relevant account is already 10 percent below the President's request. All that being said, I supported the gentleman's unanimous-consent request and the acceptance of the underlying amendments. I do look forward to working with the chairman and the other body in conference to restore the NASA and EPA funding as we move forward. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today for an amendment that I believe is critically important to the health and well-being of our veterans and to the future of the VA health care system. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and make a strong statement of support for an effective, cost-efficient, and important program, the VA medical research program. Unfortunately, the appropriation bill before us calls for no increased funding, zero, in the VA medical research program. Given inflation and increased program needs, this amounts to a significant reduction in the amount of work and research the VA will be able to perform. This is a shortsighted and extremely damaging budget decision. Few government programs have given our Nation a better return on the dollar than VA medical research. The VA has become a world leader in such research areas as aging, AIDS-HIV, women's veterans health, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Specifically, VA researchers have played key roles in developing cardiac pacemakers, magnetic source imaging, and in improving artificial limbs. The first successful kidney transplant in the U.S. was performed at a VA hospital and the first successful drug treatments for high blood pressure and schizophrenia were pioneered by VA researchers. Quite simply, VA medical research has not only been vital for our veterans, it has led to breakthroughs and refinement of technology that have improved health care for all of us. Given this record of accomplishment with a very modest appropriation, the reduced commitment to the VA medical research budget is unjustified and unwise. At the proposed level of funding, the VA would be unable to maintain its current level of research effort in such vital areas as diabetes, substance abuse, mental health, Parkinson's disease, prostate cancer, spinal cord injury, heart disease, and hepatitis. In fact, research projects currently in progress would be put in jeopardy. I am asking for a very reasonable increase, enough to save the current level of research and to allow for a modest improvement. My amendment [[Page H4731]] calls for a $25 million increase in funding. Approximately $10 million is needed to maintain the current research level and approximately $15 million will help to fund new research projects in such vital areas as mental health and spinal cord injury. This is money well spent on proven, effective research projects that benefit not only our Nation's most deserving population, our veterans, but that eventually benefits us all. Again I believe in this Congress, we must reexamine our priorities and in our current economic climate, $25 million is hardly a budget- breaking commitment. We cannot in any honest fashion say the money is not there. The money exists. It is simply a question of what we want to invest it in, what priorities are most important to us. What better choice, what better investment than the health care of our veterans? The average research grant is $130,000. My amendment will help pave the way for as many as 250 new ones. Which of those grants will help to find a cure for Parkinson's disease? Or ease the pain of post-traumatic stress? Or discover new ways to prevent prostate cancer or protect against heart disease? Or which of these grants will never be funded because we were not willing to make this reasonable and effective appropriation? Which grant will we lose because once again we made speeches praising our courageous members of the Armed Forces when they fought and sacrificed to keep our country safe only to make them sacrifice again when we turn our backs on their health care needs? This amendment shows us that we do not have to sacrifice any of these research projects. The amendment has the strong support of the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and Vietnam Veterans of America. I urge my colleagues to join these veterans advocacy groups and please support the funding. It is effective, it is necessary, it is reasonable, and our veterans deserve it. I hope Members will stand with me in support of VA medical research. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for including this amendment in the en bloc package that he has offered to the House and to wish him a belated happy birthday. Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for including my amendment in the en bloc. My amendment reduces the EPA's program and management budget which is $1.9 billion by $5 million and transfers the dollars to medical research in the VA. The EPA's account in this section encompasses a broad range of things, including travel and expenses for most of the agency. I believe the EPA can tighten their belts on some travel to the tune of $5 million so that our veterans can continue to receive the medical care that they need and deserve. With passage of Public Law 85-857 in 1958, Congress gave official recognition to a research program with a proven record of contributing to the improvement of medical care and rehabilitation services for the U.S. veteran. The law formally authorized medical and prosthetic research in the VA and led to the establishment of four organizational units, medical research, rehabilitation research and development, health services research and development, and the cooperative studies program. There are over 75 some groups which I have listed here that, in fact, support the increase for VA medical research. I want to again thank the gentleman from New York for his indulgence to support the veterans. Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I believe with the allocations made by the leadership, and I appreciate the $30 million additional in terms of nursing homes for veterans, but still we need $80 million to take care of existing costs. I feel compelled to speak out on this amendment which would inadequately fund the State Veterans Home Program. It is imperative that the veterans and their families be able to be taken care of in the twilight of their years. Getting the funding increase is only the first step. While I am primarily concerned about the dire need of these homes in Texas, veterans all across the country need these services. The key to strong recruitment into our military is a strong evidence of helping veterans throughout their life. On behalf of the nearly 1.7 million veterans in Texas, I want to boost this appropriation for the Department of Veterans Affairs' grants for construction of State extended care facilities to $140 million for fiscal year 2001. The $30 million would only give us $90 million. We need $80 million additional to bring us up to $140 million to be able to take care of existing costs. This increase of $80 million, if you add $50 million to your request from the VA, was recommended by both the chairman and the ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs in their letter to the House Committee on the Budget expressing our views and estimates of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York in securing necessary resources to fund this crucial program which is very important. Providing for the long-term health care needs of veterans remains one of our most important commitments to those who have served our Nation. I feel that providing this stepped up level of funding for 2001 sends a strong signal to our veterans and their families across this country that Congress is committed to serving veterans in the twilight of their years. Texas has only received 3 percent of the funding from these types of programs in the past since its inception even though we have over 7 percent of the Nation's veterans. As they get older and are in more need of nursing home care, we must be there for them and be able to provide that service. Texas has been a newcomer to this program, and we have not taken advantage of it in the past which provides funding for State nursing homes for veterans. We have begun construction of four sites in Texas. Those sites are in Floresville, Texas; Temple, Texas; Bonham; and in Big Spring. The reality is that the way it is structured now, Texas will not be entitled to a red cent, to not a single penny of the resources that are there unless we go beyond the existing resources because of the wording that you have for renovation and not for new construction. I am hopeful that we can continue to work on this to provide the additional resources that are needed. Once again, it was unfortunate the administration had only recommended $60 million. Your $30 million will bring it up to $90 million. We really need to look in terms of bringing it up to $140 million to meet the needs. That is one of the recommendations that was made from our committee. I want to ask the committee to please consider the possibility of increasing these resources beyond the $30 million that is there before us. Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. (Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that our veterans population is aging. In fact, in 2010--over half of the veterans population will be over the age of 62. Currently, 36 percent of all veterans are over the age of 65 and that number is expected to increase exponentially over the next eight years. The increasing age of most veterans means additional demands for medical services for eligible veterans. This surge of older veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our nation's Veterans Health Services. The House and Senate approved $90 million in funding for the State Extended Care Facilities Construction Grant Program for FY99 and FY00. This year, however, the Committee has funded the program at $60 million--$30 million below last year's funding. This amendment would increase funding for these States Care Facilities by $30 million to the fiscal year 2000 level of $90 million. Last year, 354 Members of Congress voted to support our aging veteran population by voting for a similar amendment to restore funding the State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program in the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Once again, this amendment must be offered to prevent a massive, 33 percent cut in funding to this vital, cost-effect program for our veterans. [[Page H4732]] The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, passed by the House and signed into law in 1999, places new requirements on state care facilities that must be funded immediately. With the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis, states already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our veterans. In fiscal year 1998, the VA spent on average $255.25 per day to care for long term nursing care residents, while, state veterans homes on average spent $40.00 per resident. This economic trend continued in 1999--proving that state care facilities are in fact cost-effective. Mr. Chairman, taking care of our nation's veterans is clearly one of the government's prime responsibilities Congress has a track record of supporting veterans program as we have increased the President's request for VA funding for several consecutive years now. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. The State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program is an important program that meets our veterans health care meets. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment and to the Gutierrez amendment. I would like to say straight out, though, that I certainly am very sympathetic to the idea of plussing up these veterans accounts. I believe I have the fourth largest number o

Major Actions:

All articles in House section

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
(House of Representatives - June 20, 2000)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages H4724-H4776] DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 525 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4635. {time} 1640 In the Committee of the Whole Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4635) making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, with Mr. Pease in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, June 19, 2000, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) had been disposed of and the bill was open to amendment from page 9, line 1, to page 9, line 3. Request For En Bloc Consideration of Amendments Numbered 40, 28, And 26 Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time that the Ney amendment No. 40, the Guttierez amendment No. 28, and the Tancredo amendment No. 26 be considered en bloc. I further ask unanimous consent that after disposition of these amendments, that the House return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 8. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I feel constrained to object to the request at this time. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. WAXMAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. WAXMAN. I have another amendment on the same subject as yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to inquire if this is the appropriate time in the bill to offer that amendment. The CHAIRMAN. As the Committee proceeds further on page 10 the gentleman will be in order in the reading, but at the moment another Member of the House, a member of the committee, is seeking recognition to strike the last word. After that the Clerk will read to the proper point in the bill. Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to see that a number of Members have recognized that the VA medical research account is underfunded in this bill, and that they want to increase this funding through amendments that we are going to consider soon. The chairman and the ranking member have done a good job [[Page H4725]] under tough constraints on this legislation, but this is one item that we really need to tend to here today. I am glad to see that we will have the opportunity to do so. I have been a strong proponent of VA medical research, and I offered an amendment during the full Committee on Appropriations markup that would have increased that account by $23 million. I want to take just a minute today to explain why I support increasing the VA medical research account and why it is so important for us to find a way of doing so. The original request from the VA to OMB was to fund the research account at $397 million. Outside supporters of the program believe the program should be funded at $386 million. These recommendations are both well above the current bill's level of $321 million. Most of us have heard about the Seattle foot, that remarkable artificial limb that has been depicted in television commercials by a double amputee playing pick-up basketball or by a woman running a 100- yard dash. It is not obvious that she has two artificial legs until the camera zooms in at the end of the commercial. The technology for this prosthesis was developed by VA researchers in Seattle. Research at VA hospitals is important because it is clinical research, mainly. The researcher, who is almost always affiliated with a neighboring teaching hospital, also treats patients, veterans. The VA research program is the only one dedicated solely to finding cures to ailments that affect our veteran population. It is not interchangeable with other research efforts. At the Durham, North Carolina, VA, which is affiliated with Duke University, there is a great range of research being done, from working to find a cure for AIDS to finding a shingles vaccine to important advances in brain imaging and telemedicine. This work, of course, assists veterans, but it also helps the population at large. The VA does a great job of leveraging its funds. Dr. Jack Feussner, the director of the VA medical research program, testified that for every dollar of increase that the program has received over the last 5 years, it has received $3 from other sources. Therefore, if we were to add $23 million here today, it could translate into $92 million more for research. What will these additional funds be used for? Eleven million dollars is needed just to maintain current services, to keep up with medical inflation. Another $12 million could be used for any number of research projects. The VA is starting a research oversight program vital to the integrity of the human-based research programs. It could be a model for other federally-assisted research. This program needs $1 million. To bring the program back to the high water mark of 1998 would take $43 million. Dr. Feussner has listed four areas that would benefit particularly from additional research dollars: Parkinson's Disease, end-stage renal failure, diabetes, and Post-Traumatic Shock Disorder. Additional research into the treatment and cure for hepatitis C would also be looked at carefully. {time} 1645 We also need to increase the commitment to training the next generation of clinician and nonclinician investigators. To keep that program on track would take an additional $10 million. Now, Mr. Chairman, difficult decisions will need to be made on these upcoming amendments, and there are several of them. They all offer an offset of some sort. Most of the offsets I would not support if they stood alone. But the overall allocation for our VA-HUD subcommittee is just not sufficient, and these difficult trade-offs must be made. I am hopeful that, at the end of this process, an additional allocation will be available and that we will be able to fund VA medical research at close to $386 million and that any offsets that we adopt can largely be restored. However, it is very important to raise the appropriations level here today for medical research before this bill goes any farther in the appropriations process. I hope this is helpful, this overview of how these monies might be spent and why we need them. Additional funding for VA research will benefit our veterans and our country, and I hope Members will pay attention closely to the arguments on the amendments to follow. The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to this section of the bill? Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Filner Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Filner: Page 9, after line 3, insert the following: In addition, for ``Medical Care'', $35,200,000 for health care benefits for Filipino World War II veterans who were excluded from benefits by the Rescissions Acts of 1946 and to increase service-connected disability compensation from the peso rate to the full dollar amount for Filipino World War II veterans living in the United States: Provided, That the Congress hereby designates the entire such amount as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That such amount shall be available only to the extent of a specific dollar amount for such purpose that is included in an official budget request transmitted by the President to the Congress and that is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to such section 251(b)(2)(A). Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) reserves a point of order. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I have an issue which has been before this House before, an issue of, I think, great moral urgency but financially responsible; and that is to right a wrong that was committed in this country by the Congress of 1946, which took away the veterans' benefits that had been promised to our Filipino allies who were drafted into World War II, fought bravely at Corregidor and Bataan. Many died. But were ultimately extremely helpful, if not responsible, for our slowing up of the Japanese advance and then our ultimate victory in the Pacific. What we did do to these brave men was to take away their benefits after the war, and they have yet to be recognized in this way. Many are in their late 70s and early 80s. Many will not be here in a few years. I think this is an emergency item that ought to be considered by this House. My amendment would provide $35,200,000 for health care benefits to these veterans of World War II. This is the benefit that they need the most in their twilight years. Like their counterparts, they fought as brave soldiers. They helped to win the war. Many of them marched to their deaths, in fact, in the famous Bataan death march. Yet we rewarded them by taking away their benefits. We owe them a fair hearing. We owe them the dignity and honor of considering them veterans. My amendment would restore just some of those benefits to these veterans. I think all of my colleagues know that veterans are entitled to, under certain conditions provided by law, certain preventions and certain medical care. But this amendment divides the benefits from the pensions from the medical benefits and says let us at least now, within our budget means, give health care to those brave Filipino soldiers. My amendment would make available monies for care in this country, a small portion also for our VA clinic in Manila to serve the Filipino World War II veterans and U.S. citizens there alike. What we are saying here is that the honor and bravery of veterans of World War II will finally be recognized by this Congress 54 years after they were taken away. I would ask this body to recognize the bravery of our allies, the Filipinos who we drafted, provide them with eligibility for benefits, health care benefits that are given to American soldiers who fought in the same war for the same honorable cause. Now, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is being challenged on a point of order because authorization has not been given. I would make the point that, not only did these veterans earn this benefit in the war, not only are there dozens of programs in this bill that are not authorized, but that, through the regular legislative process, we have not been allowed to bring this bill up. [[Page H4726]] I ask the floor, I ask the Chair to allow us to finally grant honor and dignity to these brave soldiers, many of whom, as I said, are in their 80s, and finally right a historical wrong of great proportions. Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by applauding the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), for his efforts. I know he has done this over many years, trying to fight for the justice of many of the veterans for World War II who fought under the flag of the United States, in fact fought at the insistence of this country. Simply put, what the gentleman is trying to do is trying to restore benefits to which these individuals as veterans were entitled to but were stripped of by affirmative action by this Congress back in the late 1940s. But for the action of this Congress, some 50-odd years ago, these individuals would be receiving these benefits that the gentleman from California are now trying to restore. So I would like to add my voice to the many in this Congress who are supportive of the gentleman's efforts, and, unfortunately, at this time is unable to proceed with this particular amendment. I would hope that my colleagues would recognize the efforts of the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), and at some point soon recognize that we must do something for the ladies and gentlemen who fought in the 1940s to defend this country and are now at the point of passing on. It is time for us to recognize their effort and recognize that this Congress some 54 years ago or so denied them the rights that they had under this Constitution. So I applaud the gentleman for what he does. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order against the amendment? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this amendment may be struck on a point of order. Many of us have been trying for many, many years to get this through, both under Democrat and Republican administrations. I served in the United States military, and a large portion of that was in Southeast Asia, eight different deployments on carriers all going through the Philippines, and based there for training. I was also stationed there at San Miguel for some 18 months. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I would hope that the conference chairman, in some way, even though this may be struck with a point of order, see that the gentleman is correct, there was a promise made by the United States Government, if these individuals fought on the side of the allies, that we would give them certain benefits. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is not asking even for the full-blown benefits that were promised, but even a neck-down version so that the cost is not too high. This does not affect the health care of American veterans; this will actually enhance it. I hope there is some way that in the conference when additional monies from revenues come into the coffers that we can find some way in the conference to support the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). The Negridos were like the Native Americans to the United States; they were native to the Philippines. They are infamous on their ability to disrupt the enemy's lines during World War II in the Philippines. The Filipino people, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) mentioned, actually walked in the Bataan death march with us; and many of those people died right alongside of Americans. Many of them died trying to free Americans in hiding and protecting them. They were executed. I mean, there is movie after movie depicting their heroism. I also want my colleagues to take a look at the involvement of the Filipino Americans in this country and what they have done for the United States of America. Every university we see is filled with Filipinos. Why? Because they believe in education. They believe in patriotism. They believe in the family unit. There has been no better group to immigrate to this country. Secondly, the United States Navy for many, many years used the Filipinos. They would give up their lives, in some cases actually give up their lives, to serve in the military. During Desert Storm, they would volunteer to serve in the military, even though they were killed, their spouses may have been shipped back to the Philippines, giving their life. We thought that that was wrong also. But I rise in support, and I would say to the Filipino community-- (the gentleman from California spoke in Tagolog)--which means I will love the Philippines forever. I was stationed there, so I speak a little Tagolog. But in this case, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is absolutely correct. I hope we can work in a bipartisan way to bring about this amendment. It is a very small measure of what we have been trying to do for a long time. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). Mr. Filner. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman from California is adjacent to me in San Diego. He is a powerful voice for our Filipino American citizens. I thank him. There are no two people I would prefer to have talking on this from the other side of the aisle than the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and I appreciate the support. This is a bipartisan effort. It is a matter of historical and moral righteousness and truth. I so appreciate the statement of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for espousing the cause of our Philippine veterans. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this amendment to provide $35.2 million in VA health care benefits for our Filipino nationals who fought with our American troops against the Japanese in World War II. For almost 4 years, over 100,000 Filipinos of the Philippine Commonwealth Army fought alongside the allies to reclaim the Philippines from the Japanese. Regrettably, in return, what did Congress do? Congress enacted the Rescission Act of 1946. Despite President Truman having approved all of this, that measure limited veterans' eligibility for service-connected disabilities and death compensation and also denied the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army the honor of being recognized as veterans of our own Armed Forces. A second group, the special Philippines Scouts, called New Scouts, who enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces after October 6, 1945, primarily to perform occupation duty in the Pacific were simply excluded. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has expired. (On request of Mr. Filner, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cunningham was allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.) Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I believe it is long past time to try to correct this injustice and to provide the members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army and the Special Philippine Scouts with a token of the appreciation for the courageous services that they valiantly earned during their service in World War II. Given the difficulty in extending full veterans' benefits without adversely impacting other domestic veterans programs, health benefits are the most appropriate to extend. With this in mind, the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), with the support of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), provides funding for such benefits which are sorely needed by an aging population of veterans well into their twilight years. I commend both gentleman from California, Mr. Filner and Mr. [[Page H4727]] Cunningham, for supporting this amendment. I urge our colleagues to lend their full support. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the balance of my time, I would say that this is a promise made by the United States Government. Most of us were not here when that promise was made, much like our friends from Guam. But there is a promise, and that promise was taken away after the war. They fulfilled their contract, and this government reneged on that particular contract. I ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the chairman to give this consideration in the conference even though it will probably be struck with a point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think it is worth standing here for the next few minutes to continue this dialogue. I want to congratulate the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who just spoke, along with those of the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner), as well. Both of the gentlemen from California have spoken very righteously about this particular issue. {time} 1700 And while we know this amendment will be ruled out of order in the next few minutes, it does bear saying. I do not know if all my colleagues are aware of what we are talking about here, nor perhaps the American people who might be watching; but what we are talking about here is the fact that during World War II Americans encountered a very rough time in the Pacific. There was a point there where it was not clear how the battles would turn and how the war would turn; and in the Philippines, things were tough. It got to a point where our President, President Roosevelt, called upon the Filipino people to come forward and fight under the American flag. In fact, it was an edict. They were to serve under the American flag. And, sure enough, they did, and they did so with honor. These were individuals from the Philippines who were fighting not just for their country but for the United States of America. They were under the command of U.S. forces. They were under the direction of generals of the United States of America. When they were told to go to battle, it was by American generals; and it was to provide for the security and safety not just of Philippine soldiers but of American soldiers. When many of these Philippine soldiers died, they died under the American flag. At the conclusion of the war, these Filipino veterans who fought so valiantly were entitled, because they had fought under the flag of the United States and at the direction of our President, to receive the benefits of Americans who had served under our flag. And had everything proceeded as it normally would, these Filipino veterans would have received every single type of benefit that an American soldier received having fought for this country at the direction of this government. But in 1946, Congress affirmatively took steps to rescind those rights that those veterans from the Philippines had. The Rescission Act of 1946 stripped Filipino veterans of any rights they had as American veterans. Last session, this Congress, working in a bipartisan manner, actually restored a modicum amount of those benefits. It allowed some of those Filipino veterans who were in this country, had been here for the last 50-some-odd years, and who actually decided to go back to the Philippines, to retain their SSI benefits, these are folks that are in their 80s, at reduced levels. In fact, we ended up saving money having them do that. Because rather than having them collect supplemental security income at the price of what it would cost by their staying here in America, if they did it in the Philippines, it would cost even less. That was, in a way, a token to those Filipino veterans, but it actually saved us money. What the two gentlemen from San Diego are talking about is trying to restore some semblance of decency, who are now in their 80s and dying away, and it is the right thing to do. It is something we owe them. Because when it was time to take to that battle and they were charged to do so, they did not ask what would happen; and they did not ask what would be the return, they just did so. For that reason, we should try to work in support of the amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), which would simply say give these veterans, now in their 80s, for the most part, access to health care that most American veterans are entitled to receive. That is the right thing to do. And I would join with my two friends from San Diego who are fighting for this, to say that it is something I hope that the conference committee will take up, that the chairman and ranking member will consider, because we should do this. At a time when many of these veterans may not see the next year, as we come closer to doing this, it is the right thing to do. In the last session of Congress, in the 105th Congress, we had 209 Members of Congress who cosponsored legislation that contained these precise provisions. Just eight sponsors away from having a majority of this House saying they wanted to see this happen. We are very close. Most Members do support this when they are told about this, but it is just so difficult bureaucratically, procedurally, to get this done. I would hope that the chairman and the ranking Members and the committees of jurisdiction, when in conference, would consider this. I join with my colleagues from California who have spoken, along with the many others who would like to speak on this, to say it is the right thing to do and we should move forward. Announcement by the Chairman The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must remind all Members that remarks in debate should be addressed to the Chair and not to a viewing or listening audience. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I too rise in support of the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), that would provide health care benefits for Filipino World War II veterans that were excluded from benefits by the 1946 Rescission Act. For all the reasons that have been stated by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), this is an issue that is really a no-brainer. It is an issue that when people hear the entire story, they will support full equity, full World War II benefits for Filipino World War II veterans. These veterans are comprised mostly of Filipino volunteers and recruits, augmented by American soldiers, who were the defenders of Bataan and Corregidor and who delayed the Japanese effort to conquer the western Pacific. This enabled U.S. forces to adequately prepare and launch the campaign to finally secure victory in the Pacific theater of World War II. Filipino veterans swore allegiance to the same flag, wore the same uniforms, fought, bled, and died in the same battlefields alongside American comrades, but were never afforded equal status. And even after the surrender of American forces in the initial part of the battle of the Philippines, they continued to fight on in guerilla units. Prior to the mass discharges and disbanding of their unit in 1949, these veterans were paid only a third of what regular service members received at the time. Underpaid, having been denied benefits that they were promised, and lacking proper recognition, General MacArthur's words, ``No army has ever done so much with so little,'' truly depicts the plight of the remaining Filipino veterans today as they certainly did a half century ago. In terms of my own people of Guam, since we are closest to the Philippines, I guess of all the areas that are represented in Congress, and the people of Guam share deep cultural and historic ties with the Philippines, we also understand the trauma and the tragedy that they endured because we too suffered horrendous occupation, a long and painful and brutal occupation under the Imperial Japanese Army. [[Page H4728]] And we certainly appreciate, understand, and support the efforts of peoples who are trying to resolve the issue of Filipino World War II veterans. I urge my colleagues to support the Filner amendment. I know that I certainly will probably be ruled out of order here before too long, but the issue will not go away until we certainly see justice for these veterans no matter how many are left. And I must remind the Members of the House that they continue to pass away as we continue to not address this issue fully. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I know we cannot fix this problem here today, but I want the gentlemen to know that we are sympathetic on this issue. These Filipino veterans enlisted in the United States Armed Services during World War II to fight against the Japanese. At the time, the Philippines were a protectorate of the United States and not an independent country. They fought bravely, at great sacrifice, under the orders of the U.S. military commands, and had every reason to expect full veterans benefits. For the reasons which I do not fully understand, however, in 1946, the law established for this particular group of veterans a two-tier system with less benefits. In particular, they have less health care and lower rates of disability compensation, even when they now live in the United States. I would hope that the authorizing committee could look into this situation, and hopefully look into it expeditiously, and make appropriate adjustments for these Filipino veterans who fought both for their country and for the United States. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman very much for his remarks, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) for the amendment, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his support, and the others who have spoken on this amendment. I rise in strong support of this amendment. Unfortunately, I guess a point of order has been raised against it. But I agree, I would hope that the authorizing committee would report this legislation out so that these Filipino veterans would get what is in fact due to them under the promises that we have made, and I look forward to working with the others supporting this matter. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his warm support of this. He is absolutely right. And, again, the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) indicated that well over 200 Members of the House signed onto legislation. I would point out to the House that that legislation was for both health care and for pension benefits. So if 209 Members of this body supported a bill which was costed out at roughly $500 million or $600 million, surely this session of Congress could approve just the health benefits at $35 million. But I thank the gentleman for his kind words. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I think the authorizing committee has been invited to bring that legislation to the floor. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) continue to reserve his point of order? Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Filner amendment. I do not quite understand the legislative precedence which, in some instances, allow appropriation bills to come to the floor with a waiver of points of order which would allow the inclusion of appropriations for matters that have not cleared the authorizing committee. When so many Members of this Chamber support this legislation, it seems to me in order for the rule to have come out allowing this amendment to be made to correct this very, very grave injustice that has been permitted to exist for these numbers of years. These Filipino veterans, if they were aged 20 at the time they were enlisted to help the United States Government, if they were 20 years old, today they are at least 80 or 85. There will not be much more time for this Congress to rectify this injustice, so I plead with the people who are taking this bill over to the other side to give consideration to the emergency of this situation and to find a way to at least provide the health care which the Filner amendment allows this Congress to permit these individuals. A lot has been said about the sacrifice that these individuals made. I want it to be made perfectly clear that it was 5 months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that President Roosevelt issued an Executive Order calling upon the Filipino Commonwealth Army into the service of the United States Forces in the Far East. The date was July 26, 1941, long before Pearl Harbor. The Filipino soldiers complied without hesitation. They were part of the United States in their hearts and in their minds. The Philippines was considered a possession of the United States. In fact, perhaps they had no choice but to agree to enlist and become a part of the U.S. forces. They had grown up under the U.S. rule. They spoke English. They knew a lot about our government and about our democracy. And so when they were called upon to defend this freedom for which we fought and died, they willingly signed up, stood in line and gave of their lives. And it seems to me that the promises made to them at the time that they went into service should be honored. The fact of the matter is that there is almost a concession that the promises were made. Why else do we have a rescission, which is a cancellation, of benefits that were promised? We do not have a rescission if there is not an acknowledgment that there were promises made and commitments given to these veterans. But, anyway, in 1946, the Congress of the United States passed a rescission bill and took away all possibility that the promises made to the Filipino veterans would be honored by the United States Government. And that is the shameful act that we are seeking at least partially today to correct. These veterans are very old. They are in their 80s, 85, perhaps 90s. Many of them live in my district. I see them every time that there is a veterans holiday or a Memorial Day or a gathering in the community, and I know how deeply they feel about this issue. They see the Congress dealing with it, and yet due to some legislative thing there is a point of order and the matter cannot be brought to a vote. I think it is a very, very sad travesty that we are permitting, through a parliamentary situation, not to bring up to the House of Representatives. Because I feel sure, as the previous speaker from California indicated, that more than 218 Members of this House would vote for this measure. This is not the full measure that we feel they are entitled to, but it is the most urgent piece of this promise, and that is the health care that they so desperately need. Many of these veterans have returned back to the Philippines because that is probably the only way that they could be cared for by their families or some friends, or perhaps the health system there would permit them to be cared for. {time} 1715 But for those few thousand veterans that are here in the United States, the delay of a day, a month, a year means a delay in perpetuity. So I call upon those who will be working on this matter, taking it to conference and discussing it, not to wait another day but to call the compassion and the commitment and the moral obligation that this country has to these veterans and enact it into law this year. point of order The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) now insist on his point of order? [[Page H4729]] Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Mr. Chairman, there are any number of Members who sympathize with the intent of this language. The problem is it is unauthorized. This decision needs to be determined in the committee of authorization, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, not in the context of an appropriation. And, therefore, I insist on my point of order. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) in not insisting on the point of order until we had a chance for those who wanted to speak on it, and I sincerely thank him for that courtesy. But I would point out to the Chair of our committee and to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Appropriations that this insistence on this point of order is rather arbitrary. The same argument could be made, as I have said earlier, to dozens of programs in this bill. Under FEMA there are many programs not authorized. The whole NASA, apparently, is not authorized. The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation is not authorized. Major projects of construction in the veterans' affairs budget are not authorized. And I can go on and on. The point here is that this House can pick and choose which items to protect in a point of order in an appropriations bill. I think that is not only illogical, but it does not show the reality. In this case, we have had to face really the obstruction of only one person that would prevent this from even coming to the floor and being authorized. So I would ask at some point in the future that the chairman and the ranking member look kindly on this amendment, this legislation. We only have a few years left before these brave veterans are no longer with us. And so, I understand his insistence on the point of order, but I wish he would grant the same latitude that he had to dozens of other programs in this bill. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the words of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). This is not a partisan issue. The 40 years following the war, the Congress was controlled by the other side. We have gone through 5 years of Republican control of this House; and it is time, especially with the cosponsors, that we bring this to fruition. I would like to repeat to the ranking member and the ranking minority member of the committee on authorization, there is a determination here by both sides of the aisle to see this through to fruition. Whether we do it this time or we do it the next time, this will pass. I would ask the chairman to consider it in the conference. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. The amendment earmarks funds in a manner not supported by existing law. The amendment also proposes to designate an appropriation as an emergency for purposes of budget enforcement procedures in law. As such, it constitutes legislation, in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I again rise to ask unanimous consent that it may be in order to consider at this time the Ney amendment No. 40, the Gutierrez amendment No. 28, the Tancredo amendment No. 26, and that they be considered en bloc. I ask further that after disposition of these amendments that the House return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 8. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want to clarify that amendments under the Medical Research paragraph are still eligible with the unanimous consent request of the gentleman. Is that correct? Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, our intention is not to preclude anyone's ability to comment on these amendments or offer amendments. Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to see, before I pursue the objection, whether amendment No. 19 would be in order, given this unanimous consent agreement. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair cannot prejudge an amendment that has not yet been offered. Mr. FILNER. Then I will have to object. I want to know if it is eligible for offering at the point of line 8, as the amendment requests. I have to ask this, otherwise I will have to object to the unanimous consent request. I think the intent is to keep my amendment eligible. I just want to make sure that it is. The CHAIRMAN. First of all, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) should understand that reading is to commence at page 9, line 4, not line 8. His request is a bit premature. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would, then, amend that we return to reading of the bill on page 9, line 4. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read, as follows: medical and prosthetic research For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical and prosthetic research and development as authorized by 38 U.S.C. chapter 73, to remain available until September 30, 2002, $321,000,000, plus reimbursements. The CHAIRMAN. There has been no unanimous consent agreement in the Committee, nor is there an amendment pending. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) wish to offer an amendment or a unanimous consent request? Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, may I restate my unanimous consent request? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that I may offer Ney amendment No. 40, Gutierrez amendment No. 28, and Tancredo amendment No. 26, and that they be considered en bloc; and I further ask that after disposition of the amendments the Committee return to the reading of the bill on page 9, line 4. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York? There was no objection. Amendments Offered by Mr. Walsh Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments. The text of the amendments is as follows: Amendments offered by Mr. Walsh: H.R. 4635 Amendment No. 40 Offered By: Mr. Ney Under the heading ``Medical and Prosthetic Research'' of title I, page 9, line 8, insert ``(increased by $5,000,000)'' after ``$321,000,000''. Under the heading ``Environmental Programs and Management'' of title III, page 59, line 6, insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000)'' after ``$1,900,000,000''. ____ Amendment No. 28 Offered By: Mr. Gutierrez Page 9, after line 8, insert after the dollar amount the follwoing: ``(increase by $25,000,000)''. Page 73, line 3, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''. ____ Amendment No. 26 Offered By: Mr. Tancredo Page 14, line 13, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''. Page 73, line 18, insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by $30,000,000)''. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hard job that the distinguished chairman and the members of the committee faced as they drafted this bill. It is a good bill, and I intend to support it. The amendment has been agreed to by the parties involved. It is about giving our veterans the facilities they need as they grow older and the care that they were promised as they chose to defend the country. Our bipartisan amendment will restore the State Extended Care Facilities Construction Grant Program funding to the FY 2000 level of $90 million. Currently the bill cuts the funding in this program to $30 million. In 2010, one in every 16 American men will be a veteran of the military over the age of 62. That is an amazing statistic. The increasing age of most veterans means additional demand for medical services for eligible veterans as the aging process brings on chronic conditions needing more frequent care and lengthier convalescence. [[Page H4730]] This surge of older veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our Nation's veterans' health services. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, passed by this House and signed into law in 1999, places new requirements on State care facilities that must be funded immediately. With the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis, States already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our veterans. Finally, State care facilities are cost effective. In Fiscal Year 1998, the VA spent an average of $255 per day on long-term care nursing home care for residents, while State veterans homes spent an average of $40 per resident. This economic trend continued in 1999. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment. It is about nursing home care for our veterans. Unfortunately, when the administration came forward with its budget this year, they proposed a significant cut in State grants, grants to our States to provide veterans nursing homes. As we have seen growing need, as particularly our veterans of Korea and Vietnam and World War II-era veterans need nursing home care, there is tremendous demand. And State care facilities operated through the State of Illinois and others have proven cost effective. The VA spends on average $225 a day for care for long-term nursing care residents, whereas State nursing homes provide about $30 a day. They are effective and they provide quality care. I am proud to say that in Illinois we have four veterans homes. Two are in the district that I represent. One of them, the LaSalle Veterans Home, has a waiting list 220 veterans, veterans having to wait as long as 18 months in order to obtain nursing home care. Imagine that, if they need nursing home care and they have to wait 18 months. That is an eternity for veterans. Other veterans homes in Illinois, Manteno is owed a million dollars for its compliance with ADA. The State of Illinois is owed $5 million for other home updates. The bottom line is this money is needed. I want to salute the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for accepting this amendment. I also want to salute my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), for his leadership in fighting for veterans. The bottom line is this legislation deserves bipartisan support. Let us support our veterans. Let us ensure the dollars are there to ensure nursing home care for our veterans and their needs. Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly discuss the amendments that the chairman proposes to merge here. I want to begin by expressing my agreement with the premise of these amendments that the Veterans Medical Research account and the State Grants Account for extended care facilities are both underfunded. Two of the amendments in this unanimous consent request, those of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), would together increase the VA Medical Research Account by $30 million. As I said before, VA research has been widely praised for its quality and medical advances. Indeed, this Congress has clearly demonstrated its interest in medical research, specifically in the National Institutes of Health, which received a $2.2 billion increase last year, an increase of over 14 percent. We should be doing the same for VA medical research. And although these amendments do not get us to that point, they are a good start. In addition, the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) would increase the State Grant Account for the construction of extended care facilities by $30 million, for a total of $90 million, the same level as was enacted for Fiscal Year 2000. The need for extended care facilities is great, and this increase will help meet that need. All that being said, I do have concerns regarding the offsets of these amendments. One offset would take $25 million from NASA's Human Space Flight Account. It is a small cut relatively, but I am a bit apprehensive about making any cuts to this account, particularly at a time when we are literally months away from establishing a permanent human presence in the Space Station. This account also funds the Space Shuttle Program, and reductions could either force delays or cuts in the mission manifest or, even worse, force cuts to important shuttle safety upgrades planned by NASA. The other NASA offset is also somewhat distressing. It would take $30 million from NASA's Science Aeronautics and Technology Account. {time} 1730 This account funds almost all of NASA's activities other than the Space Shuttle and the Space Station, such activities as space science, aeronautics, earth science and NASA's academic programs. This account was also the only NASA account in this bill to receive less than the President's request. Mr. Chairman, NASA's budget has been cut for years and this amendment cuts an already anemic account. Finally, the last of these amendments would take $5 million from EPA's operating programs account, which includes just about all the agency's activities other than science research and Superfund. Although this is a very small cut, the relevant account is already 10 percent below the President's request. All that being said, I supported the gentleman's unanimous-consent request and the acceptance of the underlying amendments. I do look forward to working with the chairman and the other body in conference to restore the NASA and EPA funding as we move forward. Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today for an amendment that I believe is critically important to the health and well-being of our veterans and to the future of the VA health care system. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment and make a strong statement of support for an effective, cost-efficient, and important program, the VA medical research program. Unfortunately, the appropriation bill before us calls for no increased funding, zero, in the VA medical research program. Given inflation and increased program needs, this amounts to a significant reduction in the amount of work and research the VA will be able to perform. This is a shortsighted and extremely damaging budget decision. Few government programs have given our Nation a better return on the dollar than VA medical research. The VA has become a world leader in such research areas as aging, AIDS-HIV, women's veterans health, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Specifically, VA researchers have played key roles in developing cardiac pacemakers, magnetic source imaging, and in improving artificial limbs. The first successful kidney transplant in the U.S. was performed at a VA hospital and the first successful drug treatments for high blood pressure and schizophrenia were pioneered by VA researchers. Quite simply, VA medical research has not only been vital for our veterans, it has led to breakthroughs and refinement of technology that have improved health care for all of us. Given this record of accomplishment with a very modest appropriation, the reduced commitment to the VA medical research budget is unjustified and unwise. At the proposed level of funding, the VA would be unable to maintain its current level of research effort in such vital areas as diabetes, substance abuse, mental health, Parkinson's disease, prostate cancer, spinal cord injury, heart disease, and hepatitis. In fact, research projects currently in progress would be put in jeopardy. I am asking for a very reasonable increase, enough to save the current level of research and to allow for a modest improvement. My amendment [[Page H4731]] calls for a $25 million increase in funding. Approximately $10 million is needed to maintain the current research level and approximately $15 million will help to fund new research projects in such vital areas as mental health and spinal cord injury. This is money well spent on proven, effective research projects that benefit not only our Nation's most deserving population, our veterans, but that eventually benefits us all. Again I believe in this Congress, we must reexamine our priorities and in our current economic climate, $25 million is hardly a budget- breaking commitment. We cannot in any honest fashion say the money is not there. The money exists. It is simply a question of what we want to invest it in, what priorities are most important to us. What better choice, what better investment than the health care of our veterans? The average research grant is $130,000. My amendment will help pave the way for as many as 250 new ones. Which of those grants will help to find a cure for Parkinson's disease? Or ease the pain of post-traumatic stress? Or discover new ways to prevent prostate cancer or protect against heart disease? Or which of these grants will never be funded because we were not willing to make this reasonable and effective appropriation? Which grant will we lose because once again we made speeches praising our courageous members of the Armed Forces when they fought and sacrificed to keep our country safe only to make them sacrifice again when we turn our backs on their health care needs? This amendment shows us that we do not have to sacrifice any of these research projects. The amendment has the strong support of the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans and Vietnam Veterans of America. I urge my colleagues to join these veterans advocacy groups and please support the funding. It is effective, it is necessary, it is reasonable, and our veterans deserve it. I hope Members will stand with me in support of VA medical research. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for including this amendment in the en bloc package that he has offered to the House and to wish him a belated happy birthday. Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for including my amendment in the en bloc. My amendment reduces the EPA's program and management budget which is $1.9 billion by $5 million and transfers the dollars to medical research in the VA. The EPA's account in this section encompasses a broad range of things, including travel and expenses for most of the agency. I believe the EPA can tighten their belts on some travel to the tune of $5 million so that our veterans can continue to receive the medical care that they need and deserve. With passage of Public Law 85-857 in 1958, Congress gave official recognition to a research program with a proven record of contributing to the improvement of medical care and rehabilitation services for the U.S. veteran. The law formally authorized medical and prosthetic research in the VA and led to the establishment of four organizational units, medical research, rehabilitation research and development, health services research and development, and the cooperative studies program. There are over 75 some groups which I have listed here that, in fact, support the increase for VA medical research. I want to again thank the gentleman from New York for his indulgence to support the veterans. Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I believe with the allocations made by the leadership, and I appreciate the $30 million additional in terms of nursing homes for veterans, but still we need $80 million to take care of existing costs. I feel compelled to speak out on this amendment which would inadequately fund the State Veterans Home Program. It is imperative that the veterans and their families be able to be taken care of in the twilight of their years. Getting the funding increase is only the first step. While I am primarily concerned about the dire need of these homes in Texas, veterans all across the country need these services. The key to strong recruitment into our military is a strong evidence of helping veterans throughout their life. On behalf of the nearly 1.7 million veterans in Texas, I want to boost this appropriation for the Department of Veterans Affairs' grants for construction of State extended care facilities to $140 million for fiscal year 2001. The $30 million would only give us $90 million. We need $80 million additional to bring us up to $140 million to be able to take care of existing costs. This increase of $80 million, if you add $50 million to your request from the VA, was recommended by both the chairman and the ranking member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs in their letter to the House Committee on the Budget expressing our views and estimates of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I look forward to working with the gentleman from New York in securing necessary resources to fund this crucial program which is very important. Providing for the long-term health care needs of veterans remains one of our most important commitments to those who have served our Nation. I feel that providing this stepped up level of funding for 2001 sends a strong signal to our veterans and their families across this country that Congress is committed to serving veterans in the twilight of their years. Texas has only received 3 percent of the funding from these types of programs in the past since its inception even though we have over 7 percent of the Nation's veterans. As they get older and are in more need of nursing home care, we must be there for them and be able to provide that service. Texas has been a newcomer to this program, and we have not taken advantage of it in the past which provides funding for State nursing homes for veterans. We have begun construction of four sites in Texas. Those sites are in Floresville, Texas; Temple, Texas; Bonham; and in Big Spring. The reality is that the way it is structured now, Texas will not be entitled to a red cent, to not a single penny of the resources that are there unless we go beyond the existing resources because of the wording that you have for renovation and not for new construction. I am hopeful that we can continue to work on this to provide the additional resources that are needed. Once again, it was unfortunate the administration had only recommended $60 million. Your $30 million will bring it up to $90 million. We really need to look in terms of bringing it up to $140 million to meet the needs. That is one of the recommendations that was made from our committee. I want to ask the committee to please consider the possibility of increasing these resources beyond the $30 million that is there before us. Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. (Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that our veterans population is aging. In fact, in 2010--over half of the veterans population will be over the age of 62. Currently, 36 percent of all veterans are over the age of 65 and that number is expected to increase exponentially over the next eight years. The increasing age of most veterans means additional demands for medical services for eligible veterans. This surge of older veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our nation's Veterans Health Services. The House and Senate approved $90 million in funding for the State Extended Care Facilities Construction Grant Program for FY99 and FY00. This year, however, the Committee has funded the program at $60 million--$30 million below last year's funding. This amendment would increase funding for these States Care Facilities by $30 million to the fiscal year 2000 level of $90 million. Last year, 354 Members of Congress voted to support our aging veteran population by voting for a similar amendment to restore funding the State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program in the VA-HUD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Once again, this amendment must be offered to prevent a massive, 33 percent cut in funding to this vital, cost-effect program for our veterans. [[Page H4732]] The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, passed by the House and signed into law in 1999, places new requirements on state care facilities that must be funded immediately. With the ranks of those requiring VA care growing on a yearly basis, states already face huge financial burdens in helping to care for our veterans. In fiscal year 1998, the VA spent on average $255.25 per day to care for long term nursing care residents, while, state veterans homes on average spent $40.00 per resident. This economic trend continued in 1999--proving that state care facilities are in fact cost-effective. Mr. Chairman, taking care of our nation's veterans is clearly one of the government's prime responsibilities Congress has a track record of supporting veterans program as we have increased the President's request for VA funding for several consecutive years now. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans' extended care needs. The State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program is an important program that meets our veterans health care meets. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment and to the Gutierrez amendment. I would like to say straight out, though, that I certainly am very sympathetic to the idea of plussing up these veterans accounts. I believe I have the fourth larges