[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 114 (Thursday, August 5, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H7413-H7425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2684, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS 
  AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 275 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 275

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     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. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived except as follows: beginning with 
     ``Provided'' on page 70, line 15, through ``Act:'' on line 
     22; and page 93, lines 1 through 6. Where points of order are 
     waived against part of a paragraph, points of order against a 
     provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only 
     against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. 
     Before consideration of any other amendment it shall be in 
     order to consider the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, which may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, may amend portions of the bill not yet 
     read for amendment, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Points of order 
     against the amendment printed in the report for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to my good

[[Page H7414]]

 friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which 
I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on H. Res. 275.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 275 is an open rule 
that governs the consideration of H.R. 2684, the fiscal year 2000 
appropriations bill for the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing 
and Urban Development, and independent agencies.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the ranking member and the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
with respect to unauthorized or legislative provisions as well as the 
transfer of funds in the general appropriations bill are waived, except 
as specified by the rule.
  After general debate, it shall first be in order to consider the 
amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report. This amendment 
would restore funding for the Selective Service, which the bill itself 
eliminates. The Committee on Rules understands that Members on both 
sides of the aisle have strong feelings about the value of the 
selective service.
  Therefore, we felt it was appropriate and fair to provide waivers for 
this amendment and let the House work its will. The amendment is 
bipartisan, and will be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, along with 
the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), who chairs the 
Committee on Armed Services. Other cosponsors include the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), all of whom serve either on the 
Committee on Appropriations or Committee on Armed Services.
  Points of order against the amendment for failure to comply with 
clause 2 of Rule XXI are waived. The amendment shall be debatable for 
20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an 
opponent, and it is not subject to amendment or division of the 
question.
  To ensure orderly consideration of the bill, the rule provides 
priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in 
the Congressional Record. Further, the rule allows the Chair to 
postpone votes and reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 
minutes, as long as the first vote in a series is a 15-minute vote.
  Finally, the rule provides for the customary motion to recommit, with 
or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the VA-HUD appropriations bill combines fiscal 
responsibility with social responsibility. Under the Republican 
majority, Congress has fought tooth and nail for a balanced budget 
through lower government spending. We have combed the budget for waste, 
duplication, and inefficiency; and we have made the tough decisions 
necessary to ensure that the Federal Government lives within its means. 
Today we are seeing the fruits of our labor in a balanced budget and 
projected surpluses as far as the eye can see.
  But this is no time to rest on our laurels. We must be ever vigilant 
in our responsibility to the taxpayers to spend their hard-earned 
dollars wisely, while fulfilling the many obligations of government.
  One of our most important obligations is to the veterans of this 
country, who have been willing to trade their lives for the freedom and 
democracy that we enjoy. It may be impossible to compensate these 
individuals for their contributions and sacrifices, but this 
legislation makes a good faith effort by increasing funding for 
veterans' medical care by $1.7 billion. While the President recommended 
a freeze in spending on VA health in his budget, this legislation 
provides the largest increase in veterans' healthcare that we have seen 
in decades.
  This increase brings spending for veterans' medical care to a total 
of $19 billion. We did not pull this figure out of thin air. The 
Committee on Veterans Affairs heard testimony from the veterans service 
organizations and the VA healthcare officials from across the country 
before agreeing that a $1.7 billion boost in spending would meet our 
veterans' needs.
  We all want to give our veterans the best healthcare possible, and we 
probably all agree that the VA health system is inadequate in many 
respects, but money alone will not solve all of these problems. But an 
additional $1.7 billion is significant. This money will provide the 
needed injection into VA healthcare while the system as a whole is 
examined with an eye toward reforms that can have a much more profound 
impact on veterans' health.
  The Federal Government also has a responsibility to the poorest, most 
vulnerable of our citizens. We all have debated the importance of 
Medicare and Social Security as we watch our elderly population grow 
and life expectancies increase. This bill maintains our commitment to 
America's senior citizens by providing $660 million for seniors' 
housing assistance.
  The bill also recognizes the challenges faced by people with 
disabilities, who will receive $194 million in housing aid through this 
legislation.
  To ensure the continued availability of affordable housing for low 
income families, this legislation increases funding for the Housing 
Certificate Fund by $1 billion. This fund is used for the renewal and 
administration of Section 8 contracts. In other words, the bill 
provides 100 percent full funding for expiring Section 8 housing 
contracts.
  In addition to the government's responsibilities to our veterans and 
the poor, Americans have a shared responsibility to protect our 
environment for future generations. This VA-HUD bill provides $7.3 
billion for the Environmental Protection Agency, which is $106 million 
more than the President requested. Not only is this commitment to the 
environment more generous than the President's, but it targets the 
money to local programs designed to protect our resources, rather than 
bolstering the salaries and expenses of bureaucrats in government 
agencies in Washington.
  For example, the State and Tribal Assistance Grants, which include 
the State revolving funds for clean and safe drinking water, will 
receive almost $2.3 billion under this bill. That is $362 million more 
than the President requested.
  Through the VA-HUD bill, we also fulfill our responsibility to so 
many of our communities that have experienced the devastation of 
natural disaster. In times of true emergencies and catastrophic loss, 
our Federal Government has a responsibility to reach out and help 
people put their lives back together.
  This legislation provides more than $3 billion for the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, which represents an increase of almost 
$500 million over last year. In fact, disaster relief programs, 
emergency management planning and assistance, the Emergency Food and 
Shelter Program and the flood mitigation fund will all be funded above 
last year's level.
  Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hard work of the gentleman from New 
York (Chairman Walsh) to fulfill these many responsibilities and still 
pare back spending to stay within the limits set in the budget 
agreement between Congress and the President. It is the fiscal 
restraint that the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the 
Committee on Appropriations have demonstrated through this bill that is 
required if our budget surplus is to materialize and be maintained into 
the future.
  This VA-HUD bill funds our priorities, from supporting our Nation's 
veterans and housing our Nation's poor, to protecting our environment 
and rebuilding communities devastated by natural disasters. At the same 
time, this legislation will lower government spending by $1.2 billion.
  Some may not agree with the allocation of dollars among the many 
important programs in this bill. Fortunately, under this wide open rule 
they are free to offer amendments to rearrange the spending in this 
bill, so long as their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

[[Page H7415]]

  Mr. Speaker, this bill is one more challenge we must be willing to 
meet as we work to change the culture in Washington. We cannot continue 
to accept the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars merely because it is 
dedicated to a program with a popular name or one with good intentions. 
We must be diligent in our protection of taxpayer interests, both as 
wage earners and as members of a free society, where government 
fulfills its legitimate functions and gets out of the way.
  We recognize that veterans' programs, environmental protection, and 
emergency assistance are all key government functions, but we also 
understand that the government can be more efficient in achieving its 
desired purpose. There are always places where we can trim spending 
without undermining our objectives. It is our challenge to reconcile 
these realities to achieve multiple goods.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting yes on this 
open rule, and in support of the principles of fiscal and social 
responsibility which the VA-HUD bill protects.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, congressional spending is all about making choices, and 
the VA-HUD appropriation bill shows us very loud and clear the choices 
made by my Republican colleagues.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, with this bill they have chosen tax breaks for 
the very rich over health care for veterans and housing for low-income 
families. They are determined to give the richest Americans a whopping 
tax break at the expense of just about everybody else, and they have 
even resorted to shortchanging veterans on their health care.
  When this bill is properly funded, it makes sure we keep our promises 
to our veterans. It helps keep roofs over the heads of low-income 
disabled and elderly Americans. It protects the environment. It helps 
make repairs after natural disasters, and it turns scientific research 
on the heavens into real answers for today's problems on the Earth.
  But these cuts mean those worthy programs will begin to decline. The 
agency that takes the biggest cut, Mr. Speaker, despite the great 
service they perform, is NASA. Mr. Speaker, NASA expands our frontiers 
into space. They perform research on issues like El Nino and droughts, 
issues that have real meaning to the people of the United States.
  But Mr. Speaker, this bill cuts their funding. It cuts the funding 
they received last year by $1 billion. It will hurt American 
competitiveness, and could mean over 30 space missions either get 
canceled or deferred.
  The other agency that gets big cuts is the housing department. Even 
though 5 million very low-income families get no housing assistance at 
all, even though there is an average wait of about 2 years for Section 
8 housing, this bill cuts housing programs, not only by what they need 
to keep up with inflation but also below the actual dollar amount that 
was spent last year.
  Mr. Speaker, as someone who grew up in public housing, these people 
save lives, these people give people hope, they give people dignity, 
they give people a chance, especially when so many Americans do not 
earn a living wage, despite working full time jobs. Jobs may be more 
plentiful these days, Mr. Speaker, but affordable housing is not. But 
this bill cuts public housing by hundreds of millions of dollars.
  Finally and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not provide 
enough for veterans' health care. It lowers the standard of medical 
care for the men and women who risk their lives in military service. 
Over 60 veterans' groups say this bill falls $1.3 billion short of the 
amount needed to provide adequate health care for veterans. That, Mr. 
Speaker, is inexcusable.
  Last night in the Committee on Rules we tried to do something about 
that. My Democratic colleagues and I tried to include the amendment of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to delay the capital gains tax 
break and use $730 million of that savings for veterans' health care. 
But we were opposed by every single Republican on the committee.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill because this 
bill sells our veterans short. It risks leaving low-income families out 
in the cold, and it will drop the United States out of first place in 
space exploration.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to make in order the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) restoring $730 million to veterans' 
health care. The additional funding will come from delaying the capital 
gains tax for about 1 year.
  Mr. Speaker, there was also a matter on which we agreed and for that 
I want to thank my chairman, Chairman Dreier, for his leadership. He 
worked out a compromise for a Democratic colleague, Mr. Edwards. Then 
he graciously reconvened the Rules Committee so that the authorizing 
committee could withdraw their objection to Mr. Edwards' veterans 
hospital.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the text of the amendment of the gentleman 
from Texas and extraneous materials in the Record.
  The material referred to is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Section   . Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider the following amendment if offered 
     by Representative Edwards of Texas or his designee. The 
     amendment shall be considered as read and shall be debatable 
     for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment or to a division of the question. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the amendment.''
       In the paragraph in title I for the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Medical Care, 
     account--
       (1) after the second dollar amount, insert ``(increased by 
     $730,000,000)''; and
       (2) strike the period at the end and insert a colon and the 
     following:

     Provided further, That any reduction in the rate of tax on 
     net capital gain of individuals or corporations under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 enacted during 1999 shall not 
     apply to a taxable year beginning before January 1, 2001.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the question so we 
can give our veterans more of the health care they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the 
chairman of the subcommittee who has worked so hard on this bill.
  (Mr. WALSH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  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

[[Page H7416]]

$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. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, today this House passed a tax bill that is not real. It 
is a campaign document more than it is legislation. This bill is not 
real, either. It is another political document that is not legislation.
  We all want to be able to cut taxes, but the majority party 
apparently wants to push its political plans so hard that they are 
willing to say no new dollars for social security, no new dollars for 
Medicare. Now they are willing, in this bill, to crush our ability to 
conduct science, except for the station and the shuttle. They are 
willing to trash one of the President's top priorities, AmeriCorps. 
They are willing to take a half a billion dollar cut in public housing. 
They are willing to take $3 billion out of the Labor-Health-Education 
appropriation bill to pay for this bill.
  The majority party is telling the country that to pay for their tax 
scheme and to pay for this bill, they are willing to cut education, cut 
health care, cut the National Institutes of Health by one-third. 
Members know that is a phony promise. That is a false promise. It is a 
phony budget.
  Mr. Speaker, we asked the Committee on Rules for one amendment, to 
delay for one year the capital gains gift to the high rollers of this 
society, and use that money to pay for additional veterans' health 
care, because the President's request was inadequate and so is this 
bill on the item of health care. But the majority party says no, we 
cannot do that, because we will bend jurisdictional rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friends on the majority side of the 
aisle, they have obliterated budget rules. One day they use CBO 
spending estimates. The next day they use OMB spending estimates. The 
next day they make the most laughable claims that routine activities 
like the Census are emergencies in order to cover spending.
  If they can do all of that, it seems to me that they can bend their 
rules a little to help veterans who did not bother about budget rules 
when they answered their country's call.
  In the words of the old song, ``Whose side are you on?'' Are we on 
the side of the high rollers, or are we on the side of the schoolkids, 
on the side of sick people, and on the side of veterans?
  What Members do on this vote will speak more loudly than all of the 
summer speeches we give when we go home tonight after this session is 
over. I urge Members to support the Paralyzed Veterans of America, 
support the Disabled American Veterans, support the Vietnam Veterans of 
America. Vote no on the previous question on this rule. Get a new rule. 
Put veterans ahead on the train, rather than having them ride in the 
caboose.
  I urge Members to vote no on the previous question on the rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my 
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for this rule. It is a fair 
rule. There is plenty of room for debate and room for amendment.
  I would like to congratulate the Committee on Appropriations for 
doing something very important in this bill by deleting all the funding 
for the Selective Service System. I think that is very important.
  As was described by the gentlewoman earlier, there will be an attempt 
early on. The first amendment that will come to the floor will be to 
put that money back in.
  I would like my colleagues to consider very seriously not to do that, 
because there is no need for the Selective Service System. There is 
only one purpose for the Selective Service System. That is to draft 
young 18-year-olds. That is unfair.
  There is no such thing as a fair draft system. It is always unfair to 
those who are less sophisticated, who either avoid the draft or are 
able to get into the National Guard, or as it was in the Civil War, pay 
to get their way out.

                              {time}  2015

  The draft is a 20th century phenomenon, and I am delighted to see and 
very pleased that the Committee on Appropriations saw fit to delete 
this money because this, to me, is reestablishing one of the American 
traditions, that we do not believe in conscription. Conscription and 
drafting is a totalitarian idea.
  I would like to remind many of my conservative colleagues that, if we 
brought a bill to this floor where we would say that we would register 
all of our guns in the United States, there would be a hue and cry 
about how horrible it would be. Yet, we casually accept this program of 
registering 18-

[[Page H7417]]

year-old kids to force them to go and fight the political wars that 
they are not interested in. This is a very, very serious idea and 
principle of liberty.
  So when the time comes in September to vote for this, I beg that my 
fellow colleagues will think seriously about this, the needlessness to 
spend $25 million to continue to register young people to go off to 
fight needless wars. They are not even permitted to drink beer; and, 
yet, we expect them to be registered and to use them to fight the wars 
that the older generation starts for political and narrow-minded 
reasons.
  So when the time comes in September, please consider that there are 
ways that one can provide for an army without conscription. We have had 
the reinstitution of registration of the draft for 20 years. It has 
been wasted money. We can save the $25 million. We should do it. We 
should not put this money back in. We do not need the Selective Service 
System.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated. Members of the 
Republican Party have shamelessly turned their backs on the veterans of 
this Nation, and they have done so in this rule and this bill.
  My Republican colleagues have shown, by failing to make in order the 
Edwards amendment, that they are perfectly willing to sacrifice the 
health care for the veterans of this Nation. For what, Mr. Speaker? For 
a capital gains tax cut that will provide the lion's share of its 
benefits, some 76 percent to those Americans making over $200,000.
  Our veterans who depend upon the Veterans Administration for their 
health care have sacrificed much for their country and are now being 
asked to sacrifice yet again to the very wealthiest in this Nation. In 
my book, Mr. Speaker, that simply does not add up.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) asked the Committee on Rules 
for the right to offer an amendment to the VA-HUD appropriations bill 
that would increase veterans health care by $730 million and delay the 
capital gains tax cut for 1 year. While the Committee on Appropriations 
is to be commended for adding more funds to veterans health care, the 
money available simply will not cover the need. Yet, the Republican 
majority is willing to ignore this critical need all in the name of 
preserving a tax cut that will provide most of its benefits for the 
very richest among us.
  For that reason, I must oppose this rule. I cannot in good conscience 
go home to my constituents next week and tell them I am supporting 
cutting veterans health care so that those who have all they need and 
want, who can afford the very best health care available, might enjoy a 
benefit of a tax cut.
  This is a shameless situation, Mr. Speaker, and one I know my 
constituents will not soon forget.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  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. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards), the former ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Health of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, a Congress that can pass a risky trillion 
dollar tax cut today surely should be able to adequately fund veterans 
health care tonight.
  I want to genuinely thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), 
the chairman, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for 
their work to end a hard freeze on veterans health care, given a budget 
devastated by massive irresponsible tax cuts.
  Honestly, they did as well as anyone could. However, I rise tonight 
in opposition to this rule because it prohibits this House from 
adequately funding veterans health care.
  A Congress that can find a trillion dollar tax cut just 9 hours ago 
to cut taxes mainly for the wealthy surely, surely can find one-tenth 
of 1 percent of that amount to keep our Nation's commitment to 
veterans, to middle- and low-income veterans, veterans who are waiting 
months for basic health services if, indeed, they have not been cut off 
from those services already.
  The question before us, Mr. Speaker, is very straightforward. Whose 
side are we on? Are we on the side of veterans tonight who have fought, 
sacrificed, and suffered to defend our Nation, or are we going to be on 
the side of the wealthiest Americans who do not really need a tax cut 
to affect their life style?
  Is this Congress going to fight for veterans who have fought for us 
on the battlefield, or are we going to fight for the wealthiest 1 
percent of Americans?
  Some say this is an open rule. But the truth is this rule shut the 
door on the Edwards-Stabenow-Evans amendment that would provide 730 
million real dollars more for veterans health care.
  Our amendment is supported by organizations such as the Disabled 
American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the American 
Legion because they know this money, and they have said this money, is 
necessary to adequately fund veterans health care.
  The Edwards-Stabenow-Evans amendment is paid for by simply delaying 
until January 1 of 2001 the just-passed capital gains tax cut. It is a 
fiscally responsible straightforward amendment. It says that we think 
that providing more adequate health care for veterans is worth delaying 
one-tenth of 1 percent of the Republican tax cut, especially when we 
note that 76 percent of the just-passed capital gains tax cut goes to 
individuals making over $200,000 a year.
  Mr. Speaker, by voting no on the previous question, we can allow this 
House to vote its will on whether to put $730 million more into the 
veterans health care system. Have we not already asked our veterans to 
sacrifice enough on the battlefield? Must we ask them to sacrifice 
needed health care services to help pay for a tax cut for our 
wealthiest Americans?
  Let me finish, not with my words, but the words of the national 
commander of the Disabled American Veterans: ``It is shameful that 
veterans cannot receive a $3 billion increase in veterans health care 
at a time we have a $1.1 trillion surplus expected and a $792 billion 
tax cut proposal.''
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  I am having a hard time following the logic here. We are increasing 
funding for veterans medical care by $1.7 billion. That is $1.7 billion 
more than the President asked for, and it is the amount that was 
authorized by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

[[Page H7418]]

  The gentleman is acting as if we are cutting spending when we are 
increasing it by 10 percent. If there is some cause and effect between 
the tax bill and this increase, one would think the veterans would push 
for tax relief legislation every year.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no logic here.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Stabenow).
  (Ms. STABENOW asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening asking my colleagues 
to oppose the rule for VA-HUD, because it does not allow a vote on the 
Edwards-Stabenow-Evans amendment.
  The VA estimates that the adoption of our amendment would have 
allowed an additional 140,000 veterans to receive the health care that 
they need. Instead, this budget continues to underfund these critical 
services for our veterans.
  Today, there are 20,000 fewer VA medical staff than there were 5 
years ago. The dollars that we are talking about tonight are just 
attempting to get us back to where we were, and it does not even do 
that.
  Due to staffing shortages, for example, a veteran in Tennessee with 
multiple sclerosis was forced to wait 4 months to be seen by a doctor. 
We have veterans across this country that travel over 300 miles just to 
get an X-ray.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and 
to the bill that is to follow it. Frankly, it does not reflect the 
values or priorities that this Congress should be setting. We started 
with a make-believe budget, and now we are passing make-believe 
spending bills.
  But the cuts in here that are being proposed I think speak to the 
values of where we are going. We have an obligation in this society to 
help those that are in need. This budget cuts housing $1 billion below 
what it was last year.
  Furthermore, it goes on in the supplemental spending measures that we 
have had. We have repeatedly used the housing budget as a honey pot to 
fund other programs, continually taking money out of them and denying 
the funds that are needed to house people in this country.
  It is $2 billion below what the President asked in the housing 
programs. Of course it eliminates the AmeriCorps. It cuts into the 
regular and general science programs. This is a budget that has 
repeatedly denied the opportunity to respond to the needs of the 
neediest in our society, those that need housing.
  I hope we can reject this rule and reject the bill.
   Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule which will put in 
place a convoluted process to consider a seriously flawed bill when we 
return in September. This bill gives short shrift to housing and 
community development programs, to proven programs like AmeriCorps, and 
others of import to the science and environmental communities.
  This rule will allow the consideration of a bill that will continue 
the theme of the past few years: making housing the honey pot for 
budget spending increases elsewhere and tax cuts for special interests 
and the wealthy. The VA, HUD and Independent Agencies bill has been 
irreparably harmed by the flawed process set up by the initial budget 
blue print drawn by the Majority who thumbs their noses at the 
realities of funding needs in social programs, ensuring confrontation 
this fall with Democrats and the Clinton Administration.
  Unfortunately, the VA-HUD Appropriations bill cuts well over a 
billion dollars in funds from HUD's budget last year and is some $2 
billion below the Administration's request. It is a sort of water 
torture of cuts--a drip here, a drip there--but in the end, the 
programs are suffering from the budget drought.
  Since last week, the overall VA-HUD bill has lost some of the 
emergency spending gimmicks that other bills retained, such as calling 
the Decennial Census an ``emergency.'' So, the GOP Majority 
appropriators chose instead to gouge yet deeper into the Labor-HHS-
Education 302(b) allocation of funds in order to spare the popular 
Veterans and NASA programs. Predictably, the powerless in our society, 
the housing and community programs have been left with cuts to key 
programs, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the McKinney 
Homeless Assistance programs, HOPWA, and public housing. This bill 
would provide no new housing assistance despite the commitments to 
authorize 100,000 new vouchers made in the 1999 budget authorization 
and the Administration's request to fund such units. This is at a time 
when millions of people are on waiting lists for housing are on the 
streets, and according to a Department of Housing study, 5.3 million 
families have worst case housing needs.
  The real emergency, the real needs of the VA-HUD bill should be 
preserving our federally-assisted housing from the ``opt-out'' or 
prepayment phenomenon by matching state programs to keep buildings 
affordable, or marking up market rents so landlords stay with our 
successful programs. The real housing needs of this country will not be 
met under the VA-HUD Appropriations bill that this Rule would bring 
before the House.
  This spending measure makes no effort to reconcile the loss of 
hundreds of millions of dollars of rescinded Section 8 monies that have 
been usurped for emergency spending this year and the last. This year, 
for example, we lost $350 million in Section 8 that is made up, if at 
all, on the backs of other critical housing program like the CDBG block 
grant which serves low- and moderate-income folks in cities across the 
country.
  While the House has now passed the Conference Agreement providing for 
a trillion dollar tax cut pie for those who are well off, we are left 
in housing accounts with nothing but a bad taste in our mouths because 
the commitments to bring affordable housing opportunities to more 
people have been broken. We cannot stay even in funding for housing 
programs with the spending levels in this bill, and this future 
spending policy path provides no light at the end of the tunnel for the 
housing crisis.
  While the Committee may claim inadequate appropriation authority 
under the budget, the fact is that there are 215 earmarks spending 
money on special interest projects. The conclusion of this bill is to 
deny funding for housing and other needs but to buy off votes to pass 
it with projects and earmarked funds!
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Chair would inform both 
managers that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 15 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Benefits of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the veterans of San Diego, 
California, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill simply does not address the emergency our 
veterans are facing. Keeping the promises that we made to our veterans 
is an emergency; providing veterans health care is an emergency.
  It is vital to improve the Montgomery G.I. Education bill, reducing 
incredible backlog in claims, provide care to those facing illness of 
unknown causes from the Persian Gulf War.
  Not only has this bill failed to address these critical needs, it has 
compounded this emergency situation by approving hundreds of dollars of 
individual congressional projects, most of which pale in importance to 
the health care of our veterans.
  So our veterans can wait months for a doctor's appointment, die from 
hepatitis C because care is being rationed, live on the streets because 
there are no services to help them get back into productive lives.
  But this bill answers these needs by putting $1 million into a 
machine to grow plants in space and a half million dollars into 
improving paints for ship bottoms. Well, improve my ship bottom. Defeat 
this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Rodriquez).

                              {time}  2230

  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. I 
support the efforts of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), and 
during the committee process, I want to just share with my colleagues, 
that we had a substitute motion to try to put $3.1 billion that was 
needed in this particular piece of legislation and that particular 
motion was not even allowed, despite the fact that it was a proper 
motion.
  I want to also indicate that there is a tremendous need out there. 
These resources are not sufficient. We are going

[[Page H7419]]

to be seeing some closure of some hospitals and some services that are 
drastically needed, and I would appeal to my colleagues to please 
consider the proposal that is here before us. We have an opportunity to 
be able to do that. We need to make sure that we go out there and 
provide the services that are needed to some of our veterans that are 
hurting.
  The fact is there are extended services in terms of health care, in 
terms of hepatitis C, and emergency care in certain areas that are 
right now in drastic need of additional resources. We have an 
opportunity to address that when this vote comes up today. There is no 
need for us to be going out and verbalizing we are in favor of the 
veterans while at the same time we are not showing the action that is 
needed. I ask we vote ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on H.R. 2684. I 
support the efforts of Chet Edwards, Debbie Stabenow, David Obey and 
Lane Evans to add $730 million for veterans' medical care in fiscal 
year 2000. However, the effort to amend the VA-HUD Appropriations bill 
with this increase was denied by the House Rules Committee. If the 
amendment were to be in order, I would support this rule, and urge the 
House leadership to reconsider this decision to deny needed increase in 
VA spending.
  This amendment and the denial of even considering it is nothing new. 
Members have attempted to offer increased funding ever since the budget 
recommendations were offered in the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. 
That effort was based upon the Independent Veterans budget offered the 
major veterans service organizations such as the Disabled Veterans of 
America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS and Paralyzed Veterans of 
America. Many of these groups and the American Legion sent letters to 
the Rules Committee in support of the Edwards amendment as well, and 
have been instrumental in raising this issue in VSO halls, rallies, and 
meeting across the country.
  Throughout this budget cycle, I have joined my colleagues in meeting 
with the Administration. Our goal was to remind the Administration that 
it must put veterans first. We then secured a revised budget request 
from Vice-President Gore to add a billion dollars to next year's VA 
appropriation.
  The VA is in a position to make real progress in comprehensive health 
care: Expanded mental health care, long-term and nursing home health 
care, Hepatitis C, emergency care and other initiatives that had never 
been fully funded. But how can we promise these expanded goals without 
an adequate budget to keep our promises.
  Now is the time to keep our commitment to those who served our nation 
when she called.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I am 
privileged to represent a caring and proud community that cherishes 
freedom and deeply respects the men and women who have fought and died 
to protect those freedoms.
  As I think about the tremendous service veterans have provided our 
country, I am outraged that this rule does not make in order an 
important amendment to improve health care for veterans. This amendment 
would increase funding for veterans' health care by $730 million, which 
would help 140,000 veterans. I can think of few things more important 
than making certain that our veterans receive the medical care they 
deserve and medical care that they were promised.
  This bill and this rule do not meet this challenge, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, this rule represents a cold-
hearted approach to the needs of the homeless, including 6,500 veterans 
who will be left in the lurch.
  Public housing is cut down from the President's request, community 
development block grant programs, which help to rebuild low- and 
moderate-income communities and enhance the quality of life, are all 
cut.
  This is a weak response to the needs of the most vulnerable and is a 
disservice to the men and women who have made great sacrifices to serve 
their country.
  It is a bad rule, it is a bad bill. I urge that we vote ``no.''
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand).
  (Mr. WEYGAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WEYGAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Boston for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this week The Washington Post wrote about the great 
accomplishment that we have made in welfare to work; how we have been 
able to transition people from welfare into work programs, but how we 
also provided them with the very tools to make that transition.
  This bill and this rule takes away some of the most essential parts 
of that transition. It strips out all kinds of incremental vouchers 
that allows people to go from welfare into work and still pay for some 
housing and get some assistance. What will their choice be with this 
rule and this bill? Either go back into welfare or go into 
underqualified, unsubsidized, and poor quality housing.
  Housing is one of the most basic and fundamental essential parts of 
life, yet we are stripping that opportunity out and away from these 
people. We are not giving them hope but despair. We are not providing 
them with self-respect but with pity. We are not providing them with 
opportunity but a dead end.
  Oppose this rule because it does nothing to provide that continuation 
of welfare to work.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the committee.
  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. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The cuts 
that the Republicans have made in the VA-HUD appropriations bill really 
define who they are and what they care about.
  Let me just list a few of the cuts for my colleagues. A $515 million 
cut in public housing programs, a $250 million cut in Community 
Development Block Grants, a $10 million cut in housing opportunities 
for People With AIDS Program; a $3.5 million cut in grants to 
historically black colleges and universities, a $195 million cut in 
economic development initiatives.
  As a result of these cuts, my own home State of California will 
receive $151 million less than the amount requested by HUD. 
Specifically, my own district that I represent will receive $4.6 
million less than the amount requested by HUD.
  Why are the Republicans doing this? I will tell my colleagues why. 
These cuts are calculated to provide a $792 billion tax giveaway that 
favors the wealthiest 1 percent, who would get an average tax cut of 
$46,000 a year. This is at the expense of 60 percent of taxpayers in 
the middle income bracket and below who would receive less than 8 
percent of the total tax cuts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair be kind enough to provide 
my colleague and I the time remaining to us?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Chair would inform both 
sides that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) and the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) each have 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page H7420]]

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Brown) a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we cannot have a surplus if we 
have not paid our bills. Let me repeat that. We cannot have a surplus 
if we have not paid our bills, and we have not paid our bills.
  It is simply outrageous that the Republicans today have passed a 
trillion dollar tax cut when the veterans budget is billions, that is 
billions of dollars short in funding.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I have seen how 
this shortfall is hurting our veterans. A nursing home in my district 
had to delay its opening. Hospitals are understaffed and underfunded. 
Waiting periods for treatments are still weeks too long, and cemetery 
space is disappearing.
  While the Republicans celebrate a tax cut bill, they have cut the 
veterans out of this budget. I urge my colleagues to cut them out. 
Defeat this rule. This is simply unjust to American heroes.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule and to congratulate the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and our committee for the work it 
has done to support veterans throughout the United States.
  I heard a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, reference made to staffing 
shortages in VA hospitals. In many ways that has a lot to do with a 
lack of presidential leadership and it has a lot to do with the 
leadership of the Veterans Administration, which has been absent in 
many ways in supporting and properly advocating on behalf of veterans. 
And that was clearly evidenced through hearings that the VA-HUD 
committee had and that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) led. We 
had inadequate testimony from Secretary West.
  And as has been pointed out, over the last 4 years, the President has 
flat-lined the veterans' medical care portion of the budget, and it is 
only through the leadership of this committee that these dollars have 
been restored each and every year way over what the President has 
presented, $1.7 billion towards medical care. That would not have 
happened without the bipartisan leadership of our committee.
  One of the other issues, of course, if there are staffing shortages, 
little wonder, considering the fact that the VA is using a managed care 
model, a managed care model that is being managed by nonveterans, 
basically forcing veterans from our hospitals into the communities.
  The bottom line is that our committee is providing essential medical 
care money, more than the President, $1.7 billion. The committee knows 
the value of veterans, the value of medical care, and we have the 
endorsements from both the American Legion's national commander and the 
VFW commander supporting our efforts.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule because it is 
the first step in ripping off the roof over people's heads. That is 
what we are doing when we cut $2 billion from the HUD budget.
  Now, some people will argue that cutting the budget is good 
government. But this is not just some government program, it is a roof 
over people's heads. When we cut this program, we are taking away some 
seniors' rent money, we are throwing families out of their homes, and 
we are denying people on fixed and low incomes the safety and security 
of an affordable home.
  The residents of over 500,000 affordable apartments are at risk of 
losing their homes over the next 5 years if HUD does not renew the 
contracts with the private landlords who own them. The money to do that 
was cut.
  Last March, we cut $350 million from the Section 8 program, with 
solid promises it would be back in the budget; but it is not. Well, we 
can put the $350 million back if we do not give $800 billion to wealthy 
special interests in the form of an irresponsible tax cut. And we 
should put in the $1 billion that the President requested because 
500,000 households are depending on us.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New York (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. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. All of us 
claim to support human rights in faraway lands. This Republican 
appropriations bill demonstrates a disrespect for basic human rights 
for the least of these in our own country.
  And I say this because it does cut $5 million for homeless 
assistance, it cuts $50 million for renovation of severely distressed 
public housing, it cuts $250 million for Community Development Block 
Grants, and it cuts $1 billion from the President's request for 
assistance to landlords in exchange for affordable housing.
  Of course this is not a tax bill, but as we make these cuts, we must 
remember that, unfortunately, the Republicans did pass a major tax bill 
earlier that gives $731 million in capital gains tax cuts and $169 
million in special interest tax breaks.
  It is mind-boggling that those who talk about family values resort to 
gutting our families' basic foundation. This is a human rights 
violation of the highest order. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
ranking member for yielding me this time.
  I believe maybe we should reconsider the name of this rule, Mr. 
Speaker, and really call it ``I have got mine, you get yours rule'' for 
the night.
  I cannot imagine why the veterans' amendment to restore $730 million 
for the veterans' health care was not allowed, particularly with the 
sacrifice that our veterans make on behalf of this country, and 
especially in light of the fact that when I visit my veterans' 
facilities and go to veterans' meetings, we talk about the denial of 
health care that many of them face. That amendment should have been 
made in order.
  Then we need particularly to look at those who are struggling every 
day to make ends meet and need Section 8 certificates. Why would we cut 
and provide less than what we need? Why would we cut $5 million from 
homeless programs?

                              {time}  2245

  Why would we indicate in a market where there is not enough 
affordable housing that they do not need section 8? It is because I 
have got mine, you have got yours. And then NASA. We are cutting NASA 
$1 billion. We are losing jobs. We are denying research on HIV, on 
diabetes and heart disease.
  This is a bill for those who got theirs and they tell the rest of us 
to get ours. Vote down this rule. This is a bad rule and a bad bill.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise to oppose the rule and the appropriations bill. As if the 
damage to

[[Page H7421]]

housing and to veterans were not enough, the bill before us contains 
deep cuts to research and development. Research and development is the 
engine which is driving our robust economy.
  The $25 million cut to the National Science Foundation below the 
current level, among other critical research, includes a cut even to 
critical science education programs. And the incredible $1 billion 
slash in the NASA budget below the current level will be felt by 
scientists who will be forced to end long-standing research in 
astronomy and space science.
  As a scientist, I know that today's research will produce further 
major scientific advancement that can improve the quality of life of 
the American people.
  In this time of economic prosperity where we discuss budget surpluses 
and tax cuts, it is unwise to cut at the heart of that prosperity.
  Let us send this appropriations bill back to the drawing board and 
oppose cuts to the National Science Foundation and NASA.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The Chair would inform the 
managers that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining 4\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the former chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, let me make a very clear statement of fact 
that no one can refute in this House.
  If the Republican House leadership was not committed to a trillion 
dollar tax cut, billions of dollars more would be available for 
veterans health care.
  Let me repeat that statement of fact. If the House Republican 
leadership was not committed to a trillion dollar tax cut, billions of 
dollars more would be available for veterans health care.
  That is the question that we are raising tonight. Do you want to have 
a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans who are doing quite well, thank 
you, or do we want to adequately fund veterans health care?
  Let me respond to some of the statements made by my friend and 
colleague from New Jersey who suggested a few minutes ago that the 
veterans were supporting basically his position. While the veterans may 
be glad that we are getting some increase and a hard freeze on veterans 
care funding, let me be exactly clear, perfectly clear.
  The veterans' organizations he referred to are supporting my 
amendment and asking Republicans and Democrats tonight to oppose this 
rule and allow my amendment to come up.
  Gordon Mansfield, executive director, Paralyzed Veterans of America: 
``Making this amendment in order would be a giant step forward in 
providing the resources and the health care our Nation's sick and 
disabled veterans have earned and deserve.''
  The American Legion, Steve Robertson, director of their National 
Legislative Commission: ``The VA has an extremely long list of veterans 
seeking various types of long-term care. The VA's budgetary constraints 
limit its ability to effectively and efficiently meet these needs. 
Currently waiting times for appointments in the VA system are 
staggering. We are not talking days or weeks but months. If the veteran 
needs to see a specialist, the wait is even longer.''
  He goes on to say, and I quote: ``The American Legion supports this 
amendment and any waiver that may be in order for this amendment to 
proceed on the floor.''
  Let me go on to clarify this point with a quote from Andrew Kisler, 
the national commander of the 2.3 million Disabled American Veterans' 
Organization: ``On behalf of the more than 2.3 million disabled 
veterans, including the more than 1 million members of the DAV, I 
strongly urge you to consider a rule to allow this amendment,'' 
referring to the Edwards-Stabenow-Evans amendment.
  He goes on to express my views I think very well and the views of 
many Democrats in this House. ``While we greatly appreciate the $1.7 
billion increase over the Administration's budget request contained in 
the VA appropriations bill, it does not go far enough to provide for 
the health care needs of a sicker, older veterans' population.''
  Let me clarify another point. Several of my colleagues have said the 
President's health care proposal in his budget is inadequate. I agree. 
We all agree. Nobody is disagreeing. But let the American people know 
and let us be honest with them in saying that Presidents do not write 
budgets. That is our responsibility.
  Let me tell my colleagues what we in Congress have done over the last 
several years. It was not the President who flat-lined VA health care 
spending for 5 years. It was this Congress on a bipartisan basis but 
under the leadership of the Republican Speaker that flat-lined VA 
health care spending for 5 years.
  Why do we not just admit tonight we have made a mistake? I think 
admitting we made a mistake 2 years ago is a lot more responsible than 
trying to maintain our commitment to that terrible mistake and the 
inadequate funding for veterans health care. Congress passes budgets 
and has that responsibility, not the President.
  This Congress has made assumptions in the past several years of 
budgets that have said we are going to have 20 percent more veterans 
needing care, but we are going to bring in 10 percent extra VA health 
care income from outside sources. But surprise, this Congress did not 
pass the Medicare subvention law that was the basis to that assumption.
  This Congress, not the President, assumed that the VA would provide 
veterans care 30 percent cheaper per veteran. Which Member of this 
House has been willing to make that promise to his or her constituents?
  We appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and others' efforts. But let 
us say no to this rule. Let us adequately fund VA health care, and let 
us do it tonight.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record an 
explanation of the previous question, a procedural, not a substantive 
vote.

                       The Previous Question Vote

       The previous question is a motion made in order under House 
     Rule XIX, and accorded precedence under clause 4 of Rule XVI, 
     and is the only parliamentary device in the House used for 
     both closing debate and preventing amendment. The effect of 
     adopting the previous question is to bring the pending 
     proposition or question to an immediate, final vote. The 
     motion is most often made at the conclusion of debate on a 
     special rule, motion or legislation considered in the House 
     prior to a vote on final passage. A Member might think about 
     ordering the previous question in terms of answering the 
     question ``is the House ready to proceed to an immediate vote 
     on adopting the pending question?''
       Furthermore, in order to amend a special rule (other than 
     by the managers offering an amendment to it or by the manager 
     yielding for the purpose of amendment), the House must vote 
     against ordering the previous question. If the motion for the 
     previous question is defeated, the House is, in effect, 
     turning control of the Floor over to the Member who led the 
     opposition (usually a Member of the minority party). The 
     Speaker then recognizes the Member who led the opposition 
     (usually a minority member of the Rules Committee) to control 
     an additional hour of debate during which a germane amendment 
     may be offered to the rule. This minority Member then 
     controls the House Floor for the hour.
       The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural 
     vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting 
     the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and 
     amendment on the legislation it would make in order. 
     Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to remind my colleagues that 
this is an open rule. Any Member may offer any amendment to this 
legislation so long as it complies with House rules.
  The VA-HUD bill reduces spending by $1.2 billion while adequately 
funding our top priorities, not the least of which is veterans and 
medical care. In fact, this bill increases VA health care by $1.7 
billion. This is a 10 percent increase, far more than Congress has 
provided for VA medical care in any one year.
  Mr. Speaker, again I will take this opportunity to commend the 
gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) for his hard work to craft a 
bill that strikes a delicate balance between fiscal and social 
responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh).

[[Page H7422]]

  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

[[Page H7423]]

     Bonior; Bill Pascrell; Dennis Moore; Elijah Cummings.

                               FOOTNOTES

     \1\ VISN Directors from Central Plains (VISN 14), Florida and 
     Puerto Rico (VISN 8), New York and New Jersey (VISN 3), South 
     Central (VISN 16), and the Northwest (VISN 20) amended.
     \2\ VISN directors from Ohio (VISN 10), the Northwest (VISN 
     22), and New York/New Jersey (VISN 3) accompanied the Under 
     Secretary for Health. A recently retired director from the 
     Southwest (VISN 18) also provided testimony.
     \3\ As proposed in the FY 2000 Budget Submission. A retired 
     VISN director estimates that layoffs could impact up to 
     20,000 FTE; the former USH asserts that the need to cut will 
     become greater over time.
  ``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 the same agreement should be enacted.''
  Now, if it was good enough for them 2 weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I 
submit it should be good enough for them today.
  So with that I will close my comments and thank the courtesy of the 
Chair, thank my distinguished colleague, who unfortunately was not able 
to be here with us this evening, and look forward to passing the rule 
and completing work on this in September.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this 
fair and open rule and to vote ``yes'' on the previous question.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule on 
H.R. 2684. Last night, I joined Chet Edwards, Debbie Stabenow, and 
David Obey in asking our Rules Committee to support a waiver to allow 
Mr. Edwards' amendment to add $730 million for veterans' medical care 
in fiscal year 2000 to be considered by this House. Had the amendment 
been made in order, we could have been assured it would be debated and 
voted on by the full House.
  To offset the cost of providing the additional funds for veterans' 
health care, the Edwards amendment would have delayed implementation of 
a proposed cut in the capital gains tax, a part of the nearly $800 
billion tax cut passed by the House. The Edwards amendment was 
considered earlier by the House Appropriations Committee and was 
defeated by a one-vote margin on a 26-25 straight party-line vote.
  Earlier this year, the Committee on Veterans Affairs had a 
contentious debate on next year's funding for VA health care. At that 
time, I was denied the opportunity to offer an amendment providing more 
funding than proposed by our Chairman. The Edwards Amendment would have 
provided approximately the same increase in discretionary funding for 
VA next fiscal year, $2.4 billion, as I had earlier sought to provide.
  Mr. Speaker, veterans' service organizations have steadfastly 
supported efforts to add funds to the VA health care budget. The 
American Legion, Disabled Veterans of America, and Paralyzed Veterans 
of America sent letters to the Rules Committee in support of the 
Edwards amendment being made in order. A coalition of veterans' groups 
had earlier supported the increased funding level I planned to propose 
to the VA Committee.
  The last few years in VA health care system have been pivotal. VA has 
reformed its delivery system, bringing its acute care system into line 
with modern health care practices. But clinicians and patients alike 
have begun to cite waiting times and other problems with access to care 
that have been affected by this sea change. Recognizing the urgent need 
for funding, I, and other Democratic Members, have met repeatedly with 
members of the Administration. Our meetings ultimately succeeded in 
securing a revised budget request offered by Vice-President Gore to add 
a billion dollars to next year's appropriation for VA health care and 
construction. Our efforts with the Republicans in this body, however, 
have not been as successful.
  This latest vote against making the Edwards amendment in order is 
``deja vu all over again''. We only asked the Republican majority to 
give us a chance for an honest debate on where veterans fit into our 
Nation's priorities. The priority of Congressional Republicans is 
obviously cutting capital gains taxes and not providing added funding 
for veterans programs. I can understand why Republicans want to avoid 
an open debate on funding for veterans programs vs. capital gains tax 
breaks.
  Unfortunately there will be real consequences for this partisanship. 
VA needs this money, and I am convinced that given the opportunity the 
House would pass the Edwards amendment. Members are aware that VA's 
progress in implementing some positive and necessary changes has come 
at a price. Shifting health care practice styles are eroding some of 
the VA's best programs--its long-term care programs, its rehabilitative 
and extended care for seriously disabled veterans, and its mental 
health care treatment for veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 
or substance abuse issues.
  We are now at a point where we must restore certain programs to their 
past distinction. Congress must take the initiative to fund VA and 
allow it to re-build its most excellent programs--those that serve the 
veterans who were injured physically or psychically on the 
battleground--those that have borne the battle. The Edwards amendment 
would have allowed VA to do this. I regret the Republican majority has, 
once again, seen fit to thwart an honest debate on National priorities.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, when the House of Representatives 
returns next month, it will consider the VA-HUD appropriations bill. It 
is critical that we include adequate funding to meet the housing and 
community development needs of the country. On any given night, there 
are 600,000 homeless persons--including children and veterans--living 
on our streets. There are another 5.3 million families who pay over 
half of their income on housing. Millions of them live in substandard 
housing. This is a crisis.
  Tragically, the VA-HUD appropriations bill falls far short. In fact, 
in most areas, it represents a step backwards. I hope my colleagues 
will consider the following letter, signed by fifty organizations. 
Those organizations include the U.S. Conference of Mayors, NAACP, 
AFSCME, the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, National Council of 
Senior Citizens, National Council of Jewish Women and many other 
community, faith-based, and civic groups. They are calling on us to 
respond to this enormous need and to meet our responsibilities by 
providing more funding for housing and community development.
         Fully Fund Housing and Community Development, National 
           Low Income Housing Coalition,
                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1999.
     Hon. Janice Schakowsky,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Schakowsky, this year marks the 50th 
     anniversary of the Housing Act of 1949, in which Congress 
     declared the national goal of a decent home and a suitable 
     living environment for every American family. We believe, as 
     do most Americans, that this nation is capable of achieving 
     this worthy goal.
       However, we have a long way to go. Even while most 
     Americans are thriving in our remarkably healthy economy, 
     many families still struggle with excessive housing costs and 
     insufficient income to meet basic needs. Over 9,000,000 very 
     low income households pay more than half of their income for 
     housing. The 1999 report by the Joint Center for Housing 
     Studies at Harvard, The State of the Nation's Housing, 
     clearly documents the paradox of record accomplishments in 
     housing production and home ownership while rents are 
     increasing faster than wages. Nowhere in the country can a 
     household with one full time minimum wage earner afford basic 
     housing costs. Families who apply for housing assistance wait 
     longer than they ever have before, and in many communities, 
     waiting lists are closed indefinitely.
       We believe that a time when we are celebrating bountiful 
     budget surpluses is also the time to address our severe 
     national shortage of affordable housing. This can best be 
     done by strengthening the proven federal housing and 
     community development programs that lift up low-income 
     Americans. There is ample evidence that housing assistance 
     helps low income families gain the housing stability that is 
     necessary for family members to succeed at work and in 
     school.
       Unfortunately, the action of the House Appropriations 
     Committee last week weakens our housing and community 
     development programs. Rather than building on the success of 
     our economy by extending its rewards to more and more people, 
     the Committee moved us backwards by failing to fully fund the 
     President's FY2000 HUD budget request. The bill cuts CDBG, 
     HOME, HOPWA, Public Housing Operating Fund, and Homeless 
     Assistance, among others, and does not fund a single new 
     housing voucher.
       We find it inconceivable that in this period of 
     extraordinary economic prosperity that Congress continues to 
     purport that we are unable to fund modest expansions of 
     programs that improve the housing and economic opportunities 
     of low wage earners and people on fixed incomes. The 
     substantial tax cuts that are under consideration in the 
     House will not improve the housing circumstances of low 
     income people, but more housing assistance will.
       We urge you to vote against the HUG-VA-IA Appropriations 
     bill when it comes to the full House. We are capable of doing 
     much better.
           Sincerely,
         ACORN, AFSCME, AIDS Policy Center for Children, Youth and 
           Families, Alliance for Children and Families, Campaign 
           for America's Future, Center for Community Change, 
           Child Welfare League of America, Children's Defense 
           Fund, Children's Foundation, Coalition on Human Needs, 
           Development Training Institute, Employment Support 
           Center, Feminist Majority, Friends Committee on 
           National Legislation (Quaker), International 
           Brotherhood of Teamsters, Jesuit Conference, Lawyers' 
           Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership 
           Conference on Civil

[[Page H7424]]

           Rights, Lutheran Services in America, McAuley 
           Institute, Mennonite Central Committee U.S., Washington 
           Office, NAACP, National Alliance to End Homelessness, 
           National Association of Child Advocates, National 
           Association of Housing Cooperataives, National 
           Association of School Psychologists, National Center on 
           Poverty Law Inc., National Coalition for the Homeless, 
           National Council of Churches, National Council of 
           Jewish Women, National Council of Senior Citizens, 
           National Housing Law Project, National Housing Trust, 
           National League of Cities, National Low Income Housing 
           Coalition, National Ministries, American Baptist 
           Churches, USA, National Neighborhood Coalition, 
           National Network for Youth, National Puerto Rican 
           Coalition, National Rural Housing Coalition, National 
           Urban League, Neighbor to Neighbor, Network, A National 
           Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Preamble Center, Public 
           Housing Authorities Directors Association, Surface 
           transportation Policy Project, Unitarian Universalist 
           Affordable Housing Corporation, United Church of 
           Christ, Office of Church in Society, U.S. Conference of 
           Mayors, and the Volunteers of America.

  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with grave concern for our 
nation's veterans. For the past few years, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs has struggled to maintain health care services for veterans 
under essentially flat-lined budgets. According to the Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Paralyzed 
Veterans of America, we need to increase the budget for VA medical care 
by $3 billion in order to simply maintain current levels of medical 
care for veterans.
  The FY2000 VA-HUD Appropriations bill improves upon the President's 
budget for veterans' health care with an increase of $1.7 billion--the 
largest increase since the 1980's. It also provides a $10 million 
increase for Veterans Medical and Prosthetic Research and an additional 
$30 million for the Veterans Benefits Administration to expedite claims 
processing. This bill also doubles the President's request for Veterans 
State Extended Care Facilities from $40 million to $80 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud these efforts, but we need to do more--much 
more. I am very disappointed that the amendment offered by Mr. Edwards 
of Texas--which would have made an additional $730 million available to 
the Department of Veterans Affairs for better health care services for 
our veterans--was not made in order.
  In a related issue, I want to call to the House's attention a recent 
Washington Post article which linked a high incidence of the fatal 
neurological disease, ALS, to service in the Persian Gulf War. The VA 
and Department of Defense have identified 28 cases of ALS--also known 
as Lou Gehrig's disease--among veterans of Desert Storm. Although it is 
still unclear whether or not there is a direct link between service in 
the Persian Gulf and cases of ALS, there is an unusually high number of 
victims in this relatively small group of veterans.
  As the author of the ALS Treatment and Assistance Act, I am very 
concerned that we make every effort to help veterans who suffer from 
this tragic disease. I am pleased to have introduced the ALS Treatment 
and Assistance Act. This bipartisan bill would help those tragically 
afflicted with ALS by making Medicare coverage more accessible to them 
and by covering drugs to treat ALS symptoms.
  Mr. Speaker, veterans have served this nation honorably and made 
countless sacrifices on our behalf. They deserve the very best support 
services we can provide them. As veterans make the often difficult re-
adjustment to civilian life, they sometimes need a helping hand to 
figure out what benefits they are eligible for and where to turn for 
assistance. Despite the wide array of services offered by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, many veterans assistance programs are 
unknown to the constituency they are intended to support.
  Today I introduced the Veterans Emergency Telephone Service Act. The 
VETS Act sets up a national veterans' hotline service which would 
operate 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week and provide immediate access to 
counseling and crisis intervention. This toll free service would also 
have a staff knowledgeable in VA benefits and programs who could 
provide immediate information on medical treatment, substance abuse 
rehabilitation, emergency food and shelter services, employment 
training and opportunities, and counseling services.
  This combination ``411-911'' number for veterans provides a one-stop, 
toll free number veterans can call at any time of day or night and 
receive encouragement and assistance. Current toll free information 
lines for veterans typically dump them into a frustrating automated 
system which requires repeated transfers and long waiting periods.
  I called the VA toll free information line myself two days ago and, 
after being put on hold for 26 minutes, I was told that the VA did not 
have a crisis hotline.
  Mr. Speaker, this simply isn't good enough. We can and should do 
better than this for our veterans. That's why I'm pleased to introduce 
this bipartisan bill with two distinguished veterans, Lane Evans and 
Steve Kuykendall.
  This bill was inspired by Shad Meeshad, a Vietnam veteran and a close 
friend of my late husband Walter. Through the National Veterans 
Foundation in Los Angeles, California, Shad has worked tirelessly to 
provide support for veterans in California and around the country. Shad 
runs a hotline for veterans called the ``Lifeline For American 
Veterans,'' which provides veterans with counseling and referral 
services. This important program has assisted thousands of veterans 
around the country and has literally saved lives. I want to expand on 
Shad's work and make this valuable resource available to vets at any 
hour of the day and in every part of this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope we can improve the VA-HUD Appropriations bill and 
ensure that this legislation is truly worthy of the veterans who have 
put their lives on the line for our nation and our way of life.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule 
on the VA/HUD Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000, because our 
majority colleagues have prohibited the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Edwards from offering an amendment to increase funding for our 
veterans' medical care.
  Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of the men and women who answered 
our country's call to serve, I was elated when Vice President Gore 
announced, last month, that the Administration was going to seek an 
additional $1 billion to ensure that our veterans will have timely 
access to quality health care. Likewise I was equally thrilled when the 
VA/HUD Appropriations subcommittee included this additional funding 
when it reported its FY 2000 bill.
  But while this additional funding is welcomed, there is still more 
that needs to be done. That is why I was so disappointed that the 
Edwards-Evans-Stabenow amendment, which would have provided an 
additional $730 million for the VA to help ensure that an additional 
140,000 veterans would get the health care that they need, was not made 
in order.
  While our friends in the majority rushed to spend almost $800 billion 
on a politically motivated tax bill--virtually all of the projected on-
Social Security surpluses over the next ten years--they could not find 
a mere $730 million to help disabled and paralyzed veterans.
  In my own district, Virgin Islands veterans have to struggle every 
day to find the $200 to $300 to fly to the San Juan VA Medical Center 
for treatment because the VA does not have the funding to either pay 
for them to receive service on their home island or to reimburse them 
for their hefty travel expenses.
  My colleagues we must defeat the previous question on the VA/HUD rule 
so that the bill can be sent back to the rules committee to have the 
Edwards-Evans-Stabenow amendment made in order.
  It is time that we keep our promise of free medical care to our 
veterans!!
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, when our soldiers enlist to defend our 
nation, we make them a promise. We promise to stand behind them 100 
percent. Not just when we need them, but when they need us. Later in 
life. When they are sick. When they are old or infirm, and need our 
care.
  These brave men and women have risked their lives for us, and for our 
ideals. They have paid their dues. They have kept their promise to 
America.
  That is why it saddens me. It angers me that this Congress is 
breaking our promise to America's veterans.
  For the past four years, this Congress has not added one single dime 
to cover rising health care costs for veterans. Not one thin dime!
  In this time of record surplus, in this economic boom of historic 
proportions, in this era of tax cuts for the rich, our veterans are 
being forgotten.
  They are being forgotten again, just like they were after Vietnam.
  The majority in this Congress passed a trillion dollar tax cut today. 
But they won't let us add anything for veterans' health care.
  It is too much to ask to delay a tax break benefitting the richest 
Americans, so we can help veterans get the medical care they need?
  Every one of us has gotten letter after letter from veterans seeking 
help.
  Veterans with heart conditions, waiting months on end, just to see a 
specialist at a VA hospital.
  Veterans waiting for a year, limping and in pain, before they can get 
into the hospital for a hip replacement.
  Veterans who can't even get a physical exam without a six-month wait. 
Or get dentures within a year.
  Our VA hospitals are overcrowded and overwhelmed. They are struggling 
to serve their patients. But they just don't have the resources.
  This is no way to treat the men and women who risked their lives for 
us. We asked these

[[Page H7425]]

men and women to defend our liberty. Now they are asking us to defend 
their health care, and we cannot in good conscience turn our backs on 
them.
  That is why I urge you to oppose the previous question. Let us do 
right by our veterans and honor the promise we made.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 208, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 388]

                               YEAS--217

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bilbray
     Clay
     Lantos
     Leach
     Linder
     McDermott
     Mollohan
     Peterson (PA)

                              {time}  2318

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. BLUMENAUER and Ms. PELOSI changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. EVERETT and Mr. THOMAS changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2320

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________