Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) be allowed to offer an amendment identified as Filner No. 1 which is at the desk at any point during the reading of the bill for amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, briefly in closing I would like to thank the distinguished Chair for conducting this portion of the general debate and my colleagues for, I think, a very intelligent, thoughtful debate.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, on the points that the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) made, and I understand his commitment is very strong to America's veterans, as are all Members. Just to set the record straight, we provided the President's request level for veterans cemeteries. That is a $5 million increase over the 1999 enacted level. So we actually did increase the budget for veterans cemeteries. As regards the request for emergency designation, we did do that, but we requested the $1.7 billion increase that was authorized by the committee, and that is consistent with what the veterans authorizing committee suggested and the budget document requested, and we were not given emergency designation. What we were given was an actual $1.7 billion in real dollars to increase the veterans health care budget. So I think it shows a substantial commitment on the part of the subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations, and we will take on that mantle of being veterans advocates; if the Executive Branch will not, we will do that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute to just respond to a couple of points that have been made. There is no question that we are below last year's funding level in this bill, and that is in keeping with the budget agreement. But let me just say a couple of things. If we take out of the HUD budget the $4 billion budget gimmick that the President used, and by ``gimmick'' I mean it was a $4 billion appropriation in the HUD budget and the President specifically said in his request that this money not be spent until the year 2001. That money is not available in this budget year that we are discussing here today. If you take that budget gimmick of $4 billion and throw it away, we are billions above the President's request for housing. Number two, on VA medical, as I said, this is the largest increase ever in VA medical. We have letters from the veterans service organizations supporting our level of funding. And at the same time, this really underlines the dismal, dismal request that the President made and the lack of understanding for veterans' health needs in this country. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, could you tell us how much time we have remaining?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to bring before the full House today H.R. 2684, the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000. As most Members are aware, we originally expected to bring this bill to the floor before the August recess. However, the circumstance of the death of the Honorable Robert Mollohan made doing so impossible, and I wanted to begin today by expressing my deepest sympathy to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), my friend and colleague, and his family on the death of his father. As my colleagues all know, the senior Mr. Mollohan served so ably in representing West Virginia in this House for 18 years, for the 2 terms during the early 1950s and then for 7 consecutive terms from 1969 to 1983. I hope and trust that the recess period has offered a time for reflection and healing for my good friend and his family. Prior to proceeding, Mr. Chairman, in discussing the bill before us, I would also like to offer my sincere recognition and thanks to the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work and assistance. As I have stated on numerous occasions on this floor, we, the Members of the House, are very fortunate to have dedicated staff willing to spend countless hours preparing these bills. The public is well served by all of our employees. My personal thanks to Frank Cushing, Valerie Baldwin, Tim Peterson, Dena Baron, and Angela Snell on the majority side, and to Del Davis and Lee Alman for the minority. I would also offer a special thanks to Ron Anderson and John Simmons and Art Jutton of my personal staff for all their assistance throughout this very difficult process. Moving now to H.R. 2684, I firmly believe that this is a good and fair bill. It is funded with less money overall than was provided last year in 1999. Indeed, to meet our commitment to stay within the spending levels anticipated by the 1997 Budget Agreement, we have trimmed $1.2 billion from the 1999 actual enacted level, $2.3 billion below the fiscal year 1999 CBO freeze level, and $3.4 billion from the President's budget request. Perhaps more important, Mr. Chairman, we have made these reductions at the same time we have provided an increase of $1.7 billion, the level provided in the Fiscal Year 2000 Budget resolution, for VA medical care. This is the largest increase ever in veterans medical health care. It also, I might add, fully funds all expiring contracts for HUD's section 8 housing program. Moreover, although nearly every other program in this bill was funded at or below the 1999 level, we made a great effort to assure that reductions were taken judiciously to assure that only the fat, and not the meat, was cut from each program. This is not to suggest that many decisions were not difficult or painful. Several programs at NASA, for example, and the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, the National Science Foundation, and at HUD, to name just a few, are excellent programs which, if we had more resources, deserve a greater level of support. Unfortunately, putting this bill together and expecting passage is a tremendous balancing act, and we do not get there by playing favorites with a small set of programs at the expense of others. We do not get there merely by taking payroll money from one agency or department and giving it to another. We do not get there by assuming that certain programs are in the domain of one political party at the expense of the other party. For every vote one may pick up with this type of exercise one is likely to lose the same number. It was, therefore, very important for us to craft a the bill that first took care of the so-called special needs, specifically VA medical care and expiring section 8 contracts, and then look fairly at every other program and project with an eye to trim but not to slash. Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe we have accomplished that goal of objective fairness; and, as a result, this bill should be fully supported. In the interest of brevity, I will not run through the funding levels of every program in this very detailed bill. However, given the regard that Members have for this bill, I believe it is important to highlight just a few of the major program levels. Veterans compensation and pension benefits are fully funded. Veterans medical care is funded at $19 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion above the President's request and the 1999 level. I would repeat, this is the largest single-year increase ever in VA medical health. Veterans medical and prosthetic research is provided $326 million, a $10 million increase over the budget request. All other VA programs, except for new construction, are funded either at or above the 1999 level. HUD section 8 expiring contracts are fully funded at $10.5 billion. Funds are sufficient to maintain the subsidy for every single current participant in the program. So if my colleagues hear later on that this is going to put people out of their homes, do not believe it. This program is fully funded. HUD's Public Housing Operating Fund, Native American Housing Block Grants, Housing for People with AIDS, and Housing for Special Populations accounts are all funded at the 1999 levels. While all other HUD programs have been slightly reduced, great care was taken to make sure that they remain viable. In other words, they were trimmed, but not gutted. EPA received a reduction from the 1999 level but is actually an increase over the President's request. I would repeat, this is an increase over the President's request for the EPA budget. I think that is an important statement of our party's concern for the environment. It is important to note that this was done to restore funding for State and local waste water and drinking water problems which had been slashed dramatically by the President. EPA's research programs have been funded slightly above the budget request while the agency's operating programs received a very modest $2 million increase above 1999 level. All other EPA programs are more than adequately funded. Federal Emergency Management Agency operating funds have been fully funded, including $20 million for the pre-disaster mitigation program. FEMA's disaster relief program has been provided the annual appropriated level of $300 million as requested by the President; however, forward funding for expected disasters has not been included. These funds are subject to emergency provisions of the Budget Act; and, while they have not been provided at this time, I suspect that enough natural disasters will occur in the coming months so as to necessitate our appropriating some additional disaster relief funds at some point during fiscal year 2000 as we seem to have done every year in the recent past. For NASA, both Space Station and Shuttle programs have been adequately funded. The committee's approach to funding other NASA programs included an attempt to determine which new or planned programs could be delayed without doing harm to core programs. While some programs are canceled or deferred, most of the proposed reductions are in program areas where growth has been significant over the past 2 years. In the aggregate, the National Science Foundation has been reduced 1 percent below the 1999 level. However, it is important to note that NSF research has actually been increased by $8.5 million over the 1999 level. The only significant reduction within NSF occurs in the Major Research Equipment account, a $33.5 million reduction from the 1999 level, and reflects reductions, closings or completions of projects as requested by the President. Because of programmatic concerns as well as a lack of resources, this bill does not include funds requested by the President to at this time construct a new terra-scale computing facility. It was felt within our legislative community and the scientific community that that could not be accomplished this year. Mr. Chairman, I have stated many times throughout this process that this is not a perfect bill. Indeed, had we had more money, I would have done some things differently. If this were not a product of bipartisan concern, I most certainly would do things differently. Nevertheless, this bill has been put together with the resources available to us in the spirit of the budget agreement most all of us agreed to, as well as in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation and understanding. It is not perfect, but it is a good bill which deserves bipartisan support. So that we can take this House bill to conference and hopefully work for an even better legislative product, I urge every Member to support its final passage. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the budget tables representing the mandatory and discretionary spending provided in H.R. 2648. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE99.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE99.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE99.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE99.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08SE99.004 Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, for that reason I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. WALSH. I do, Mr. Chairman. It is our understanding that this legislation was protected under the rule and thereby in order, and I would await the Chair's ruling. Mr. Chairman, in further discussion with staff, it is my understanding that this is not protected under the rule.

Mr. WALSH. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman. Point of Order

Mr. WALSH. Just to explain, Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman certainly has the right to say I told you so, but that does not mean that he is right. This agreement caused us to make difficult choices, and we are trying to do that today. But I would remind the committee and the Members that if they take the President's budget gimmick of $4.2 billion out of his request, this bill allocates $2 billion more than the President actually allowed or requested be spent on the housing programs for those exact same poor that the gentleman just mentioned. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman). (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a member of the committee.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill (H.R. 2684) 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, 2000, and for other purposes, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, that last statement was bordering on the outrageous. No one, no one, will be turned out of their homes. And to say that is irresponsible. Not one individual, not one family that is now in public housing will lose their home. Not one individual, not one family that is in Section 8 housing will lose their home. In fact, as I stated earlier, if we take the President's budget gimmick of $4 billion out of this bill, we are $2 billion above the President's request for Section 8 housing. Now, who is kidding whom? This class warfare sort of approach is not going to work. There are people on this side of the aisle who care deeply about all American citizens, regardless of their income. And it is sort of an old song that has worked in the past; but, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand for it. There is a commitment to public housing. If we are short in some areas of this bill, it is because we had hard choices to make. And if we can put additional resources in, we will.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I wish to address this issue of housing, because as an urban Republican, and having been a city council president in Syracuse, it is something I feel very, very strongly about. That is why, while we did have to make reductions in the budget, we made no draconian cuts in any of the programs. I would just submit that when the President presented his budget that has been talked about thus far, the President used a budget gimmick. It is called advanced appropriations or forward funding. He put a figure of $4.2 billion in advanced appropriations in this bill as an offset to cover the cost. But what that says, Mr. Speaker, is that HUD cannot spend that money until the first day of the next year. In other words, the first day of October of the year 2001. So, in effect, that money is not available to the poor people and to the people who are going from welfare to work in this country in the next budget year, which is what we are talking about. It is an advanced funding gimmick that we rejected. And if we take that out, we are $2 billion above the President's request for Section 8 housing.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I really feel compelled to comment. This bill is real. This bill involves many difficult decisions and very hard choices, and it is prioritizing. This bill does not have anything to do with a tax cut. It is not a revenue bill. This is a spending bill. I would suggest, what is real? What is real about the offset that is being proposed by the minority to fund the veterans medical care? They are suggesting that we use revenues from a tax cut that they have urged and that, indeed, the President has pledged to veto. Is that real? No. Is it disingenuous? Absolutely. Now, if there is a real effort to provide veterans with additional funds, then make the hard decisions. That is what we did. We made hard, tough decisions. These were not fun. I do not particularly like the reductions that we had to make in NASA. I like to look forward, and the subcommittee is the same way. We believe in the research and the science that is occurring there. But those were hard decisions. We did not just pull a figure out of a hat like a proposed tax cut. Now, if there was some support on the other side for the tax cut, maybe it would be more real. It still is fiction. But the fact is, if there is going to be an offset, let us offer a real offset. What we have done is put $1.7 billion on top of the frozen budget that the President has offered for the veterans for the last 3 years. This is a true commitment. The Congress has been a friend to the veteran. It is obvious in this bill that this was a priority of the subcommittee. I would say once again this is very real. Is it completed? No. This is a work in progress. But these are real decisions. I would ask that, if there are changes to be made, then real offsets, real suggestions, real decisions need to be made here.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for the courtesy of yielding me time, and to the Committee on Rules, both the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), for the way they received this bill in committee. I thought we had a good hearing, and we got a good rule. Mr. Chairman, it is with some sadness that I bring this rule before the House today. I have worked with my partner on this bill from the beginning, a gentleman who I really did not know that well when I began as chair of the subcommittee. As I said, sadly, he is not with us tonight to bring this rule before the House. That is my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), who suffered a tragic loss this week when his father, Robert, who served with such distinction and honor in this House for 18 years as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, passed away. The gentleman from West Virginia asked that we delay the full debate on this bill. It was obviously a heartfelt request. We honored that request, but we do bring the rule before the House, and we will withhold the consideration of the bill until we return in the fall. So I miss him and I wish him well, and I offer my condolences and those of my family and those of my colleagues to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and his family. Mr. Speaker, I think we have done the best we can with a very difficult allocation in a very difficult environment, given the constraints and the budget caps we voted for in 1997. We have brought before the House a bill that hold discretionary spending at $68.5 billion. That is $3.4 billion below the President's request. It is $1.2 billion below the 1999 funding level. Much has been said already tonight about veterans' medical care. Mr. Speaker, I know that Members know there is no higher priority in this Congress than our commitment to our veterans, and to meeting and keeping the promises that we made. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we raised the President's request for veterans by $1.7 billion. My colleague stated earlier that we have left the veterans short. If we had left the veterans short, what did the President do, Mr. Speaker? This is the request of the authorizing committee, fully funded, at $1.7 billion. This is the budget resolution level of funding. I have with me today a packet, a letter and some attachments that I have provided here on the Republican leadership desk that is available to all Members. I hope they would take advantage of it. If I could just briefly read a couple of lines from it, in addition to the $1.7 billion increase for medical care, H.R. 2684 provides an increase for the medical and prosthetic research account, provides additional claims analysis in the Veterans' Benefits Administration, and doubles the request for the State extended care facilities grants program. H.R. 2684 also fully funds the budget for the National Cemetery Administration, the State Cemetery Construction Program, and the Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims. This is a dramatic increase, Mr. Speaker. There has never been, never been an increase as large as the increase that is incorporated in this bill for veterans' medical care. For those who would suggest that we have not supported our veterans, I would remind them that in the 1990 budget of this House of Representatives, VA medical care was at a level of $11.3 billion. If this bill is enacted, Mr. Speaker, that amount will increase to $19 billion. That is a 70 percent increase over this past decade. No other Federal department, to my knowledge, has had those kinds of increases, nor that level of commitment from the Members of this body. Mr. Speaker, I would also offer for consideration and include in the Record letters from the National Commander of the American Legion and the national legislative director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, who urge all Members to support this bill, to support this level of funding. It is their consideration that this is the proper level of funding. I would ask all Members to consider those important veterans' service organizations when they vote. Mr. Speaker, veterans health care and the Veterans Administration is not the only aspect of this bill. It is a very broad-reaching complex bill. It includes HUD. And in the area of HUD funding, we have fully funded the Section 8 housing voucher program, which is a good program, a successful program. We have fully funded senior and disabled housing in this bill. Have there been cuts? There have been cuts, Mr. Speaker, but we had to find places within the budget to reduce spending in order to meet our spending allocations. None of the cuts are draconian cuts. Mr. Speaker, the most difficult and severest of cuts were in the NASA budget. However, the committee went back in and put $400 million back into the NASA budget. We are still below the level that we need to make these commitments, but I would remind my colleagues in all of these, in FEMA, EPA, the National Science Foundation, we are in the third inning of a 9-inning ballgame. We have a long way to go. I would ask my colleagues to work with us on this as we go towards conference to try to provide, if possible, additional resources to meet those commitments.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for the courtesy that she has extended and for the remarkably solid debate that we have had. I would like to use my time just to make a couple of points. One, to correct the gentleman that just spoke prior to the gentleman from Texas. The President has requested no increase in the budget for the last 5 years, but the Congress has put in an increase every single time. This being the largest increase in veterans health care history, this bill is before us today. As I said, in 10 years veterans medical care has gone up over 70 percent because the Congress, both parties, has stuck with our veterans, unlike the President. This bill is a good bill. It is full of hard decisions, but it is a good bill and it is a fair bill. Most of the debate has been around the issue of veterans' medical. I would like to insert for the Record the following letter from the Veterans of Foreign Wars: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Washington, DC, August 3, 1999. Hon. James T. Walsh, Chairman, Committee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the 1.9 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW), I want to express our sincere appreciation to you and the other members of the House Appropriations Committee for the $1.7 billion increase for VA Health Care you have prescribed in the VA-HUD-IA appropriation for FY 2000. This action by you and the committee will prove instrumental toward ensuring veterans receive quality health care delivered in a timely manner at VA medical facilities throughout the nation. Furthermore, this increase will avert unnecessary layoffs of critical medical personnel as well as prevent the curtailment of essential veterans programs and services. It is also our view that the elevated base-line established by these necessary dollars will contribute toward addressing the long-term health care needs of our rapidly aging veteran population within the context of congressional deliberations for VA funding in FY 2001 and out-years. Once again, the VFW salutes your vision, compassion, and political courage in providing an additional $1.7 billion for VA health care. We of the VFW look forward to working with you and other members of Congress on behalf of all veterans in need. You have shown yourself to be a true champion in their service. Sincerely, Dennis M. Cullinan, Director, National Legislative Service. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the American Legion: The American Legion, Washington, DC, August 3, 1999. Hon. James T. Walsh, Chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your hard work and that of your colleagues in putting together a difficult appropriations bill. The American Legion understands and deeply appreciates the Subcommittee's efforts to adequately fund the Department of Veterans Affairs in FY 2000. Clearly, you and your colleagues recognized the inadequacy of the President's budget request. You heard the deafening cries of the entire veterans' community to increase funding for medical care. No other group of Americans deserves the thanks of a grateful Nation that those service-connected veterans. For many of them, VA is their life-support system. To ``nickel and dime'' this national resource would be criminal; the ultimate victims are those who have paid the greatest price for freedom. The American Legion applauds full Committee's decision to increase in VA Medical Care of $1.7 billion above current funding. This will prevent the adverse impact under funding would have on the quality, timeliness, and availability of health care for service-connected veterans across the country. But before the ink is dry, we need to begin planning for FY 2001. It is extremely important that as the FY 2001 budget cycle approaches that the new, adjusted VA medical care baseline be established at $19 billion. To regress to the spending caps contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 would revert back to unrealistic spending recommendations. VA, just like the rest of the health care industry, has fixed costs associated with pharmaceuticals, cost-of-living adjustments, inflation, disaster assistance, and other internal and external economic factors that must be considered annually. There are two still key funding areas where the mark up falls short. As the House begins debate on this bill, The American Legion urges consideration to bringing medical construction (both major and minor) and State Home Care Grants Program construction funding to acceptable levels. The ever-increasing demand for VA long-term care is not being met. The State Home Care Grants Program allows the States to help assist in meeting this demand for such care in local communities. Thank you again for your continued leadership on behalf of America's veterans and their families. Sincerely, Harold L. ``Butch'' Miller, National Commander. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter the following letter also for the Record. This is a letter that I received on July 22, just 2 weeks ago, from the Democratic members of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. House of Representatives, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Washington, DC, July 22, 1999. Hon. Bill Young, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Young: For many months, Members, various veterans' service organizations and others have been sounding the alarm about funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. With the House Appropriations Committee poised to take action on VA fiscal year 2000 discretionary spending, we urge you to consider the mounting evidence of need for a significant increase in VA appropriations to avert catastrophe in veterans' health care in fiscal year 2000. We believe the budget resolution's $1.7 billion increase in VA discretionary spending for fiscal year 2000 is the minimum increase needed. Just as the Committee on Ways and Means recently adopted a tax measure consistent with the budget resolution conference agreement, we strongly believe the $1.7 billion increase in VA discretionary spending that is part of that same agreement should be enacted. The increase in fiscal year 2000 VA discretionary spending should not come at the expense of reasonable funding for other discretionary spending accounts in the appropriations reported by the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Subcommittee or the full Committee. On July 15th, the Health Subcommittee of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs conducted a public hearing to examine VA's experience with veterans' enrollment for VA health care benefits. VA health care network directors representing diverse regions around the country acknowledged the serious problems VA will have in delivering comprehensive health care to meet veterans' demand without adequate funding.\1\ The General Accounting Office (GAO) and VA's Acting Under Secretary for Health (USH) agreed that the budget request for FY 2000 could require VA to disenroll veterans and deny them access to VA health care. They estimated the decision could affect, not only ``higher income'' discretionary veterans, but also veterans exposed to Agent Orange, Ionizing Radiation, environmental hazards, those who served in the Persian Gulf War, and medically indigent veterans for whom VA health care has been a safety net. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes at end of letter. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The officials testifying on July 15th echoed the views shared at a February Health Subcommittee hearing on the VA health care budget proposed for fiscal 2000.\2\ All foretell of: massive layoffs (at least 8,500 \3\ employees); denials of care; hospital closures; closing or delaying the opening of popular community-based outpatient clinics; and limitations on or termination of many types of benefits, including inpatient psychiatric care, substance abuse, and pharmaceutical drugs. VA officials already acknowledge problems with excessive waiting times for VA clinical services. The Acting Under Secretary admitted in testimony that ``we are especially cognizant of the need to reduce waiting times in areas that are experiencing particularly long waits'' and that almost 40% of veterans do not receive primary care appointments within the 30-day goal established by VA. Clinicians in VA are also acknowledging serious problems with care delivery. Access to effective treatment in VA's networks for Hepatitis C, an emerging epidemic in the veterans' community, is spotty at best; a physician in Louisville, Kentucky reportedly stated he was able to provide treatment for only 35 of the 500 veterans with Hepatitis C under his care. One facility director in Florida advised a Member of Congress that VA does not have any funds to provide Hepatitis C treatment. Others acknowledge problems in staffing. A former nurse on a Spinal Cord Unit in Texas says, ``One of my reasons for leaving...was the lack of staffing which in turn creates unsafe conditions.'' RIFs and future Buy-Outs will exacerbate these reports. These compromises in the quality of our veterans' health care are absolutely unacceptable. We implore you, Mr. Chairman, that Congress provide nothing less than the $1.7 billion increase in discretionary spending for VA included in the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution conference agreement. Our veterans' health care system and the essential care it provides are at stake. Sincerely, Lane Evans; Luis Gutierrez; Corrine Brown; Mike Doyle; Silvestre Reyes; Ciro Rodriguez; Ronnie Shows; Julia Carson; Baron Hill; John Dingell; Jan Schakowsky; John Tierney; Carolos Romero-Barcelo; Collin Peterson; Shelly Berkley; Tom Udall; Dave Bonior; Bill Pascrell; Dennis Moore; Elijah Cummings.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, peace may well come soon to Northern Ireland. As intense as the remaining obstacles may be, the closeness of an agreement which leads to an elected Assembly makes us hopeful. But as we fervently pray and work for peace with our counterparts in Belfast, London and Dublin, we must also attend to other American-Ireland business which makes our bonds so strong. During this time, over the last four years to be exact, those of us in the United States who have been staunch supporters of the peace talks and closer ties between Ireland and the United States recognize well the name of Patrick Hennessy. Mr. Hennessy has served his country as Counsellor at the Irish Embassy in Washington and now has been reassigned, according to the practice of the Irish Foreign Service Department, to Dublin. Pat Hennessy has done an exemplary job. He is an outstanding and reliable resource. As Chairman of the Friends of Ireland and as Co- chair with Representative Ben Gilman of New York of the U.S.-Irish Interparliamentary Group, I have come to value Pat's many abilities. Indeed, the Irish Government's official presence in our country is well represented by the high-caliber professionalism of Pat Hennessy. His good humor, his intelligence and his love of Ireland--as well as his evident respect for our shared values and aspirations--make him the ``diplomat's diplomat.'' I will miss Pat's insight and assistance. I am conforted that, being a young man, he will remain in public service and I look forward to a time when we find ourselves working together again.