[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 72 (Thursday, May 26, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H4078-H4084]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2528, MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE AND 
               VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 298 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 298

       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. 2528) making appropriations for military 
     quality of life functions of the Department of Defense, 
     military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2006, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. 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. During consideration of the bill for 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. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, 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 (Mr. Latham). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 298 is an open rule providing for consideration 
of H.R. 2528, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs 
Appropriations Act of 2006. The rule allows for 1 hour of general 
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill. It waives points of 
order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 
2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative 
provisions in an appropriations bill.
  It authorizes the Chair to accord priority and recognition to Members 
who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and 
it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Under 
the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by 
paragraph.
  Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present for consideration the rule 
for the very first Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs 
Appropriation bill. This important subcommittee was formed to take an 
all-inclusive look at the programs related to the quality of life for 
the brave servicemen and -women who currently serve America in the 
Armed Forces, their families and those men and women who sacrificed so 
much for our freedom in the past.
  I also believe the bill before us achieves this important goal in a 
fiscally responsible manner. The new subcommittee held 14 hearings this 
year covering a wide range of issues pertaining to their new 
jurisdiction, and I believe their product is a strong one.
  The underlying bill totals $121.8 billion of which $85.2 billion is 
discretionary and $36.6 billion is mandatory. The discretionary funding 
level represents a $1 billion increase above the President's request 
and $5.9 billion above last year's enacted level. The bill funds the 
Department of Veterans Affairs at $68.1 billion, $2.3 billion above the 
fiscal year 2005 enacted level, and $635 million above the 2006 budget 
request.
  Particularly important is the $21 billion for veterans medical 
services, $1.6 billion above the 2005 enacted level and a billion 
dollars more than the budget request. This is an 8.5 percent increase 
over last year's level, and an 18.2 percent increase in medical 
services from fiscal year 2004.
  Perhaps most importantly, and what I heard the most about from the 
veterans back home in northwest Georgia, is that this bill does not 
contain any new fees for veterans medical services or prescription 
drugs. The bill restores funding for long-term care to the level it was 
in the fiscal year 2005 appropriation legislation, and the bill directs 
the Secretary to work with the National Association of State Veterans 
Homes to generate an agreeable policy to make the program function more 
effectively for the veterans and for the taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two State veterans homes in Georgia that are 
hugely important to many aging citizens and their families, and I am 
personally grateful for this measure.
  Additionally, the bill includes language directing the Department to 
spend more than $2.2 billion on specialty mental health care in fiscal 
year 2006, an important issue that many Members of Congress brought to 
the attention of the chairman. The subcommittee also included report 
language directing the VA to double the funding available for mental 
health research.
  For the Department of Defense, the bill provides a total of $53.5 
billion, and within this total is funding for military construction, 
for family housing construction and maintenance, basic allowance for 
housing payments, facilities maintenance, modernization, and 
environmental restoration.
  Also included in this bill is $20 billion for the Defense health 
program. This is an increase of $1.8 billion above the fiscal year 2005 
enacted level, and it is $192.3 million above the 2006 Presidential 
budget request.
  This amount will sufficiently allow for ongoing preparation of our 
brave soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines while caring also for their 
families at home.

                              {time}  1030

  Finally, the subcommittee has allowed for greatly enhanced 
interaction between the Department of Defense and the VA to explore 
joint ventures that can enhance a continuity of services provided 
between the two departments.
  Mr. Speaker, in a tough budget year such as this, we have a 
responsibility to make sure that scarce resources are allocated in the 
most effective and efficient manner possible. This bill achieves that 
goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge Subcommittee 
Chairman Walsh, Ranking Subcommittee Member Edwards and, of course, 
Chairman Lewis for their vision and hard work on this bill. I look 
forward to this debate, and I encourage my colleagues to support the 
rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the first year that the House will consider a 
military quality of life-VA appropriations bill. As a result of the 
subcommittee realignment adopted earlier this year by the 
Appropriations Committee, military construction, Defense Department 
health programs and all veterans' programs are now contained in this 
one appropriations bill.
  I want to commend Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member Edwards for the 
bill that they have crafted. Both gentlemen are well known for their 
skill at reaching out and working in a bipartisan manner and this bill 
reflects that collaboration as well as their deep commitment to our 
uniformed men and women and their families, both those in current 
service and those who have honored our Nation with past service.
  Regrettably, while H.R. 2528 is a significant improvement over the 
President's shameful budget for veterans' health care, even this bill 
will not get the job done for the men and women who are depending on 
the Department

[[Page H4079]]

of Veterans Affairs to meet their health care needs. I appreciate that 
this bill is $1 billion more than the President suggested for veterans' 
medical services, but a significant portion of that increase is offset 
by cutting the very personnel and equipment necessary for the VA to 
carry out its mission and provide timely, and quality, service to our 
veterans. Further, the increases in this bill are simply not enough to 
keep up with inflation and the rapidly growing number of veterans 
needing services from the VA.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 20 percent of soldiers who have left active 
duty after service in Iraq or Afghanistan have sought health care 
services from the VA, and with no end of combat in sight, I am sure 
that that number will continue to rise. Recent studies show that the 
mental and psychological impact of war is taking its toll on our newest 
generation of veterans. Through February 11, 2005, according to a study 
performed by the VA, over 17,000 veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan 
wars have been diagnosed with mental disorders. The New England Journal 
of Medicine reported last July that nearly one in five soldiers is 
leaving the war with post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental 
health problems.
  How can we ensure the successful treatment and rehabilitation of 
these veterans when we know that the system in place is already 
insufficient to meet current needs?
  Mr. Speaker, this bill does not meet the needs of our veterans, old 
or new, because it simply does not provide the resources for the 
transition from soldier to veteran. It does not provide the resources 
needed to update and modernize crumbling facilities. It does not 
provide the funds to adequately staff and equip veterans' health care 
problems. You can spin it all you want, but those are the facts.
  This is an important question of priorities, Mr. Speaker, and the 
Members of this House should have a chance to debate and vote on these 
priorities.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey) presented a very simple amendment to provide an additional $2.6 
billion for veterans' health care. To pay for this increase, the 
amendment proposed reducing the tax cut for people making over $1 
million this year in taxable income from $140,000 to $129,000.
  But the Republicans on the Rules Committee said ``no,'' Mr. Speaker. 
They voted not to allow the amendment to be debated on the floor today. 
They voted to deny every Member of this House from expressing what 
their priorities would be if given a chance to vote on the matter: a 
slightly smaller tax cut for millionaires? Or $2.6 billion for our 
veterans? That is the choice. A smaller tax cut for millionaires, or to 
make sure our veterans get the health care that they need and that they 
deserve and have earned.
  Mr. Speaker, it was even suggested in the Rules Committee last night 
that millionaires need this tax cut more than our veterans returning 
from Iraq and Afghanistan need the services provided by the veterans' 
health system. I could not disagree more. If this rule passes, the 
Members of this House will be denied their right to debate and vote on 
whether or not it is a priority for them to adequately fund the VA and 
health care for America's veterans.
  At the end of this debate today, Mr. Speaker, I will call for a vote 
on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will 
amend the rule so that we can consider and vote on the Obey amendment 
to increase funding for veterans' health services.
  Last night, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority on this floor voted 
to deny adequate health care to our National Guard and Reserves. It was 
shameful what happened on the floor last night. Today, they have a 
chance to redeem themselves by voting ``no'' on the previous question 
and allowing the Obey amendment to be voted on on this floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In regard to the gentleman's comments about mental health care for 
our veterans, for the first time ever, the President proposed and 
Congress provided a dedicated pool of resources, actually $2.2 billion, 
to provide specialty mental health care to veterans, particularly those 
who are returning from the combat area, as so many are now.
  In order to better serve combat veterans, the Department of Veterans 
Affairs is directed to do a comprehensive study on post-traumatic 
stress disorder, focusing on improving mental health, mental health 
research, mental health care and access to information. In addition, in 
encouraging better cooperation and care of veterans and active military 
personnel, VA and the Department of Defense are directed to develop a 
plan to improve seamless transition on internal and external obstacles 
to transition and recommendations that would continue to enhance the 
continuity of care.
  Mr. Speaker, in regard to total spending on VA medical care, let us 
just go back to 1999 and come forward to 2005 over the last 6 years. In 
1999, VA medical care appropriations were $17.8 billion. In fiscal year 
2005, that number was $29.9 billion. The increases over those 6 years:
  1999 to 2000, 9.2 percent;
  2000 to 2001, 11.3 percent;
  2001 to 2002, a lean year, as we all know, because of the economy and 
9/11; nevertheless, a 4.6 percent increase;
  2002 to 2003, 11.9, an almost 12 percent increase;
  2003 to 2004, another 11.4 percent increase;
  2004 to 2005, a 6.2 percent increase.
  The commitment is there. Absolutely the numbers show it. I do not see 
how anybody could refute that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just respond to the gentleman. He talks about how the 
Republican majority has increased the amount of money that we are 
spending on veterans' issues. But the bottom line is, we are at war and 
there are more and more veterans coming back. And so you can spin this 
all you want, but what you are providing in this bill is not nearly 
enough to take care of the needs of our veterans. That is a fact.
  It is not just me saying it. The American Legion sent a letter to the 
Congress saying the same thing, that VA medical care is approximately 
$2.5 billion short for fiscal year 2006. They write, As Operations 
Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom veterans continue to seek timely 
access to the VA health care delivery system, older veterans should not 
be kicked to the curb to make room for the newest generation of wartime 
veterans.
  The coalition of Amvets, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled 
American Veterans and Veterans of Foreign Wars have endorsed the Obey 
amendment because, they wrote, the Obey amendment would provide the 
funding needed to meet fixed costs and to care for returning veterans 
as well as provide the resources the VA needs to meet shortfalls that 
are affecting veterans today.
  We are asking you to support this amendment and to provide the 
dollars needed to care for servicemembers returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan, as well as all veterans who rely upon the VA to provide 
their health care.
  Almost every veterans organization in this country is saying that 
what we are doing here today is not enough. You can say that you have 
increased it a little bit, but the bottom line is that we are at war. 
We are in Afghanistan and we are in Iraq, and more and more veterans 
are coming back, and we do not have the resources in this bill to 
adequately take care of their needs.
  Let us be clear. Let us not try to spin to the American people that 
somehow we are doing our job here. The Republican leadership has made a 
choice. They would rather spend the money to provide more tax cuts for 
millionaires and billionaires than adequately fund the VA budget. I 
think at a time of war that that is just absolutely wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my colleague on the 
committee, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that the last bill we take 
up before recessing for the Memorial Day District Work Period is the 
military quality of life appropriations bill, the bill which includes 
funding for Veterans Affairs. Today, when we pass this

[[Page H4080]]

bill and fund veterans' programs, we are reaffirming the promise we 
made to each veteran when they agreed to serve and protect our Nation. 
Part of that promise, one of the most important promises, is to provide 
them with superior medical care.
  While I do commend the committee for increasing funding for veterans' 
health care over the President's request, as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts mentioned, even leading veterans' groups state it does 
not increase funding enough. The funding does not keep pace with the 
rising population of veterans or the rising cost of health care.
  Yesterday, as the gentleman from Massachusetts also mentioned, the 
Rules Committee had the opportunity to make in order an amendment by 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that would have increased 
funding for veterans' health care to the necessary levels. The 
Republican majority chose not to. This is truly, truly unfortunate.
  Most Members, myself included, have already heard from veterans in 
their district that they have to wait far too long for medical care. In 
some instances, veterans face wait times of up to 6 months. Yet the 
bill before us does not provide the funding necessary to provide prompt 
access to health services. And with our ongoing operations in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the number of veterans needing medical service will only 
continue to rise.
  I am truly thankful that those men and women honorably serving our 
Nation in the world's hot spots are likely to return home to their 
family and friends. With protective armor and the improving quality of 
medical treatment in the field, more of our servicemembers are 
surviving combat wounds and returning, though with an increased need 
for medical service. Many of these men and women are amputees who will 
need months of rehabilitation to learn to walk and use prosthetic 
limbs. Because of these injuries, the men and women of our Armed Forces 
will need continuous care for the rest of their lives.
  At a time when American men and women are serving our Nation in 
hostile environments, we must demonstrate our intent to fulfill our 
promise and fund veterans' medical services at the highest possible 
level. We must provide them with the most efficient and highest quality 
medical care this country can offer.
  I hope that on the floor today, we can make in order the gentleman 
from Wisconsin's amendment increasing our commitment to veterans.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In regard to the comment about the waiting time for our veterans to 
receive care, we had several years ago, and I want to respond, of 
course, to the gentlewoman from California about her concerns, but 
there was a waiting time of greater than 6 months for up to 350,000 
veterans. I think most of those were in Category, priority level, 7 and 
8. But because of increased funding and policy change, that number was 
reduced to 36,000.
  We do not want to have, Mr. Speaker, any of our veterans having to 
wait 6 months or more. But to cut that down from hundreds of thousands 
to 36,000, I think, is significant progress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham), a member of the subcommittee.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the thing, I guess, that irks me the 
most, some of the Members on the other side come from the liberal left. 
They do not support the military. They vote against defense bills. They 
vote against defense supplementals, which protect our men and women and 
gives them the equipment and things they need to survive to do their 
job and come back alive. Many of these same Members give a cry for the 
veterans that we want to increase above budget, we want to increase 
that, because they know they vote. We want them to come back alive.
  When the Democrats had control of this House, they cut the military 
COLAs. They cut veterans' COLAs. They increased Social Security tax. 
They increased the tax on the veterans and the military. And cut their 
health care, VFW and American Legion chastised the Democrats because 
they not only just level funded it or reduced it, they gutted it. And I 
still have the articles in my office about how the Democrats did not 
come up to speed on the health care for the veterans.
  Since we took the majority over the last few years, we have increased 
health care over 60 percent. Subvention was my bill for the military, 
TRICARE for everybody.
  Another thing last night where they said, well, the Republicans did 
not vote to take care of our National Guard, they sign a contract, Mr. 
Speaker. When one goes into the National Guard or Reserve, they are a 
citizen soldier. They sign up and they are working in a business and 
they get your health care through the business or they sign up with 
private insurance.
  My colleagues on the other side want socialized medicine. They want 
single-payer, government controlled system. If the government gets 
involved in that, all of a sudden we are up around $5-plus billion, and 
the private sector will not provide for it. And they tried to use it as 
a political pawn. It sickens me. I am military retired, and I have 
health care, and so do our veterans in an increasing manner.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me say just to the gentleman from California who referred to the 
vote we had yesterday to provide more health care benefits to our Guard 
and Reserves, he may not think that an important thing to do, but those 
of us on this side do, especially when we are relying on them more and 
more to be the soldiers on the frontline in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  And I also want to point out that currently about 50,000 of our 
veterans are waiting in line for at least 6 months for veterans health 
care, and that problem will only gets worse with the growing number of 
returning soldiers from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. 
And as of May, 2005, the Department of Veterans Affairs had treated 
more than 85,000 of the 360,675 veterans from these deployments. In 
2006 the Department expects to treat 5.2 million veterans, double the 
number in 1995. And overall, the medical care inflation rate for 2004 
was close to double the inflation rate.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again, the point here is if we are going to send our 
young men and women overseas to fight wars, then I think we have an 
obligation, a moral obligation, to make sure they have the health care 
and the support when they return home that they not only deserve but 
they have earned.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, appropriation bills represent the legislation 
where we have a chance to put our money where our rhetoric is. On 
Veterans' Day, I would venture to say that virtually every Member of 
this House has gone home and spoken about how much we care for 
veterans, and I am sure on Memorial Day that many Members will be going 
home and they will put their hands over their hearts and say how much 
they respect veterans.
  When wars start, we are very good at having the bands play. We are 
very good at having the crowds cheer. But all too often, when those 
veterans come home, they do not get the same treatment. They certainly 
did not during Vietnam. And I think the test of our concern for 
veterans is not the kind of speeches we give as we send them off to 
war. It is the kind of treatment we give them when they get home.
  Now, we can brag all we want about the fact that this bill is a 
billion dollars above the President's for veterans health care. Fine. I 
am glad it is. But the fact is that still does not keep up with the 
cost of inflation. The fact is there are still waiting lists and 
waiting lines. The fact is that VA facilities are still badly in need 
of repair. The fact is we still do not do enough prosthesis research.
  Next year, the VA expects to handle twice as many veterans as they 
did in 1995, and medical care inflation is twice the rate of inflation 
in the regular economy.
  The reason this bill is so squeezed is because the budget resolution, 
which this House passed about a month ago, has imposed tight limits on 
this Congress's ability to fund veterans

[[Page H4081]]

health care and a number of other areas because the number one priority 
in that budget bill was tax cuts and we wound up guaranteeing to 
everybody who makes $1 million a year or more that they will take home 
a tax cut of $140,000 on average this year.
  The amendment that I wanted the Committee on Rules to make in order 
was very simple. We simply wanted this House to reconsider that tax 
package and to shave that $140,000 average tax cut down to 129,000 
bucks. I think every American would be very happy to settle for a 
$129,000 tax cut this year. If we simply shaved it down to 129,000 
bucks for people making over 1 million bucks a year, we would be able 
to put $2.6 billion more into veterans health care.
  In the past, this country has always thrived because it believed in 
the sense of shared sacrifice. How is the sacrifice being shared today? 
We are asking those who wear the uniform of the United States, whether 
they be regular forces or Guard or Reserves, we are asking them to bear 
the full burden of our effort in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what burden 
are we asking the folks to bear here at home? We are saying, ``Oh, they 
have got to sacrifice by taking a tax cut.'' What we are asking is that 
we adjust that sense of shared sacrifice so that we shave the benefits 
for people who are already the most blessed in this society, we shave 
their tax benefits by just a little bit in order to make just a little 
bit more room for veterans health care. And I make no a apology for 
trying to do that.
  I believe that we need to remember Abraham Lincoln's admonition in 
the second inaugural address: ``To care for him who shall have borne 
the battle, and for his widow and his orphan.'' This Congress has taken 
some initiatives to do that this year. But it is not enough. I plead 
fully guilty to wanting to have health care for every single American. 
I think it is a mortal sin that there are 45 million Americans who do 
not have health care coverage, but at the very least, we ought to see 
to it that every person who wears the uniform of the United States has 
whatever health care they need whenever they need it.
  We do not worry about how much a war is going to cost when we start 
one or when we get into one. We pay the cost. We should also not worry 
about how much it is going to cost to provide adequate health care for 
people who fight that war. Whatever they need is what we ought to 
provide, and there is not a Member in this House who can demonstrate 
that this bill is fully adequate. Is it better than the President's 
budget? Of course. Anything would be. But it is not enough, and we have 
tried to show a way for us to provide more funding for veterans without 
doing serious damage to anybody else's interests in this country.
  And I would hope we would turn down the previous question so that we 
have a chance to offer that amendment.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the gentleman from 
Massachusetts: Has he ever been in the Guard?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. No, Mr. Speaker. But I am in awe of those who serve 
this country.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, has he ever been in the Reserves?
  Mr. McGOVERN. No, I have not.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Has he ever been in active duty military?
  Mr. McGOVERN. No, Mr. Speaker. But I support these men and women who 
are serving our country, and they deserve health care, which it is a 
disgrace what the Republican majority did.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have. And I 
thought not.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it was shameful what happened on the House 
floor, and they have an opportunity to redeem themselves today.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thought not, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I should say to the gentleman I respect his service as well. I just 
wish he would join with us in providing the adequate allocation for our 
veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, just to follow up on the last comment of my 
colleague who has served our Nation so well in service in the military, 
let me just point out that Vice President Cheney did not serve our 
country in the military. And I do not think any one of us in this room 
would have the right, based on that, to question his allegiance to our 
country or his commitment to our servicemen and -women.
  I do not want to get into a partisan debate between Republicans and 
Democrats over military service. What I do want to do is raise one 
simple question: Should this House not have the right to vote on the 
Obey amendment, which would provide a $2.6 billion increase for 
veterans health care, education, and other programs? Should we not have 
the right during a time of war to vote on that?
  Now, the gentleman from Georgia said in his comments that this rule 
waives points of order against the bill. My follow-up question is if 
the House Committee on Rules waives points of order against the bill to 
pass the bill, would it not be fair to say why do we not waive one 
point of order against an amendment in order to help veterans receive 
better health care? This would not be the first time, if my Republican 
colleagues will check the record, that they would have waived a point 
of order to allow a tax measure to be part of an appropriations bill. 
It has been done multiple times by this leadership in this House.
  The point has been made that VA health care has been increased by, I 
believe, 40 percent over the last 5 years. And that is correct, and I 
think that has been a bipartisan effort. In fact, it has taken Congress 
a lot of increases over the President's requests over the last 5 years 
in order to get to that 40 percent increase. But what that fact does 
not paint a true picture of is that during that time period there has 
been an increase in the number of veterans needing VA health care of 31 
percent.
  So that means over the last 5 years, including during a time of war, 
we have only had a 9 percent increase in VA health care spending to 
cover all of the inflationary cost for that health care. And we all 
know health care budgets, whether they are within the VA or the private 
system, are going up at 5, 6, 7, 8 percent a year.
  Let us look at the inflationary costs in the VA health care that, 
frankly, make the Obey amendment very critical in trying to improve 
health care for our veterans. First is just a mandated 2.3 percent 
salary increase, which is the minimum increase we probably will pass 
this year, will take $247 million out of the VA health care budget. For 
prescription drugs, last year alone prescription drugs in the VA went 
up $548 million. So that is nearly $800 million we are talking about in 
inflationary costs.
  The fact is that this year, according to the Bush administration, we 
will expect a net increase of 300,000 veterans needing VA health care 
services. Many of those, tens of thousands of those, would be veterans 
of the Iraqi and Afghanistan war. Using the administration's own 
numbers, a little over $6,400 per veteran per year for VA health care 
times 300,000 veterans, that alone would require a $1.94 billion 
increase in VA health care funding for fiscal year 2006 just to meet 
inflationary costs and the increase in the number of veterans needing 
that care.

                              {time}  1100

  The fact is, and I think we all know this, we can talk statistics and 
percentages, that VA hospitals today all over the country are using 
capital equipment and other equipment budgets just to keep the lights 
on and to pay salaries. We all know, as Members of Congress who visit 
our VA hospitals back home, they are underfunded and are having to cut 
corners, which should not have to be cut, especially during a time of 
war.
  Through all this debate we might forget what the Obey amendment does. 
It prevents a $500 million cut in medical administration for VA care. 
It prevents a $417 million cut in dollars needed to keep the lights on 
and run our VA hospitals. It prevents a cut in VA health care research 
dollars. That is what this amendment is all about, not a partisan 
debate.

[[Page H4082]]

  Let us vote against this rule, vote against the previous question, 
and allow the veterans of America during a time of war to have the 
right for Congress to vote on increasing our commitment to quality care 
for our veterans.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak on this rule.
  I, too, am pleased with the establishment of the Subcommittee on 
Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. 
This is an important new development to be able to look holistically at 
the needs of our military.
  I also appreciate the great leadership that this subcommittee has 
with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). These are people who 
have proven their commitments to our veterans and who understand the 
intricacies of the appropriations process, are willing to get into the 
details and work hard. I commend their leadership, and look forward to 
ultimately supporting this bill today.
  I certainly support the open rule that has been granted, as is 
customary for an appropriations bill, particularly because it will 
allow for the first time in at least 10 years, and perhaps longer, for 
us to have a specific vote on the opportunity to have money dedicated 
to the cleanup of unexploded ordnance and military pollution.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of the great hidden issues surrounding 
military quality of life. Unexploded ordnance and military toxins 
pollute an area we anticipate is larger than the States of Maryland and 
Massachusetts combined. Let me repeat that. We face military pollution 
of over 200 years of military activity in this country that is 
suspected to pollute an area larger than the combined States of 
Maryland and Massachusetts.
  This is an area that is taking billions of dollars, we do not know 
how much, frankly, and we are on a path, given the current patterns of 
expenditure, that it will take not dozens of years, not decades, but it 
could take centuries to clean up.
  Now, military quality of life is threatened by exposure to unexploded 
ordnance and military toxins. My good friend from Massachusetts knows 
well the problem with the Massachusetts Military Reservation, where 
groundwater contamination is threatening the water supply of Martha's 
Vineyard, and there were 8,000 shells that have been discovered 
already, some within half a mile of an elementary school. We have the 
opportunity under this bill to be able to dedicate funds to 
meaningfully accelerate the cleanup.
  I am shocked as a Member of Congress that we are talking about the 
fifth round of base closures, the fifth round of base closures, 
threatening upset for communities across the country and job loss, and 
we have not yet cleaned up bases that were closed in the 1988 round.
  I will be offering amendments to remedy this situation and deal with 
the unexploded ordnance and the military toxins. I would suggest that 
this is an opportunity that will not only protect the people in these 
communities that lost military facilities and were not cleaned up, but 
it will accelerate the development of technology that will save lives 
for our military around the world. Because the sooner we can figure out 
whether it is a hubcap or a shell that is buried, it is not just going 
to make a difference in Massachusetts or in Georgia, where you have 
unexploded ordnance, or in my State, but it will make a difference in 
Iraq, Afghanistan and for innocent people that are dying in former 
battlefields every day around the world.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley), a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me support strongly this bill which supports our 
veterans who have served this country so incredibly well. We are a 
nation of freedom because of the hard work and sacrifice of veterans 
everywhere, and every day of my life I think of my father and others 
who have served this great country with distinction.
  We are a free nation, and we are winning the battles because of the 
bravery of our active duty Reservists. But it is the veteran who has 
brought honor to the flag behind the Speaker's well, and it is the 
veteran who has made it possible for us to be the free and proud Nation 
we are.
  Today, at 12:45, I will go to the Board of Veterans Appeals on a case 
that is vitally important to a person in my district, and that is Almon 
Scott. I have never personally gone to the Board of Appeals level for 
any veteran personally. My staff has worked tirelessly, Diana Robins in 
my district, fighting for veterans. But this is a unique case.
  Almon Scott served this Nation during Vietnam. He was asked to guard 
a base where we believe there were potential radioactive materials. 
Almon Scott is dying now of cancer, a cancer largely linked with 
radioactive material.
  Almon Scott has been shunted aside, if you will, by a system that 
suggests somehow his ailments are not related to his tour of duty. 
Unfortunately, he is not entitled to his records, they have been 
sealed, so Mr. Scott cannot even prove his case, which is why I have 
taken this extraordinary opportunity to testify on his behalf. He is in 
Stuart, Florida, today and cannot travel because of his illness. His 
illness is serious, and it is possibly close, from what I understand, 
to the end of his life.
  What we are hoping to do today is to give Al Scott justice. We are 
hoping that they recognize his valiant efforts at service, and that the 
final measure of devotion to this Nation is, he did what he was told. 
Now they will not tell him what he was guarding.
  Subsequent facts have indicated there may have been nuclear or other 
kinds of biological-type weaponry stored at the site he was requested 
to guard. At the end of his tour of duty he was told to go home and 
remain silent about what he did at that time. He honored that contract 
with America. Now I am hoping today, as I approach the Board of 
Veterans Appeal not as a lawyer, not as a Congressman, but as a fellow 
American, that Almon Scott's plea for justice will be heard, and that 
those hearing his appeal will look at his case specifically and 
recognize that the right thing to do for this veteran, this proud 
American, this Marine, is to stand by that same commitment he gave this 
Nation, that same devotion and that same dedication.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is inadequate to meet the health care needs of 
our veterans, plain and simple. Every veterans group in America has 
recognized that fact. They have all written to all of us. So we can 
spin this all we want, that somehow this is this incredible bill that 
is going to take care of all the health care needs of our veterans, but 
the bottom line is, it is better than what the President requested, but 
it is not enough. And we have an opportunity to fix it.
  To the gentleman from California who earlier questioned my patriotism 
and pointed out I did not serve in the military, let me say to him that 
I am in awe of those men and women who have served in our military. I 
am grateful for what they have done.
  I have two children, and there is not a day that I do not wake up and 
thank God they live in the freest country in the world. And it is 
precisely because of the veterans who have served our country over the 
years that they have that privilege. And it is precisely because of my 
gratitude to the men and women who serve in our military that I feel so 
passionately about making sure that we do the right thing here today 
and we adequately fund our veterans' health care budget.
  That is what this debate is all about, and that is whether you are a 
Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. I would like to think 
we could come together on this one issue and make sure that the 
veterans get what they deserve and have earned. We are at war, and yet, 
as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) pointed out earlier and as 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out, we are not making 
any sacrifices.
  What the Obey amendment would do is simply shave a little bit off of 
the tax cuts that millionaires are getting and put it towards the 
veterans budget to make sure we get what we need.

[[Page H4083]]

  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule 
so we can consider the Obey amendment that was rejected in the 
Committee on Rules last night on a straight party line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would add an additional $2.6 billion 
for VA health care and pay for it by slightly reducing the size of the 
tax cut for those persons who make more than $1 million a year. Instead 
of receiving a tax cut of $140,000, they would get $129,000, a 
reduction of $11,000 for millionaires. I will tell you that I cannot 
believe anybody in this country would object to that. I think if you 
did a poll right now, overwhelmingly the American people would say, 
that makes sense in this time of war. I am sure that the Donald Trumps 
and the Bill Gates of this country could afford to reduce their tax cut 
by $11,000 so that our troops can have the best health care possible 
when they return from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  This amendment will correct one of most serious shortfalls in this 
bill, quality health care for our Nation's veterans. It is absolutely 
critical that this funding be increased to meet the growing needs of 
our country's veterans.
  This Nation made a promise to those serving in the military that they 
would receive quality health care in return for their valiant service 
to this country, and now that wounded soldiers are returning to their 
homes, they deserve the best medical treatment and care available.
  We can fix this today. We can fix this today if we allow the Obey 
amendment to be considered on the floor. But the only way that will 
happen is if we defeat the previous question.
  I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us 
from considering the military quality of life-VA appropriations bill 
under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the 
Obey amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of 
this amendment to help our Nation's soldiers and our veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am in awe of our Nation's veterans. A few 
hours from now, Members of this body will get on planes and go to their 
districts and prepare to attend various Memorial Day events throughout 
the country, and I know all of us will pay tribute to our veterans. We 
will thank them, we will pay tribute by using the most wonderful words 
that we can express to be able to say ``thank you'' adequately.
  But, Mr. Speaker, words are not enough. We have enough words in this 
House. They are not enough. Yesterday, the Republican majority turned 
their backs on so many veterans by defeating the motion by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) to provide more health care 
benefits to our members of the Guard and Reserve. It was shameful. But 
today you have a chance to redeem yourself. Today, you have a chance to 
stand up and do the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to support our veterans. We need to make sure 
they have what they need. We need to support them not just with words, 
but with action.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point, I ask unanimous consent to insert the 
text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition 
of its importance to the men and women who have and who continue to 
serve and protect America.
  Mr. Speaker, our service men and women sacrifice so much for the 
safety and security of this Nation, and we have the responsibility to 
ensure that they have everything that they need, not only to succeed in 
their duties, but also to enjoy the quality of life that they deserve.
  This bill represents the culmination of a lot of hard work and a lot 
of cooperation to not only completely support our service men and women 
but to also do so in the most helpful and fiscally responsible way. 
With a total amount of $121.8 billion, this bill includes an overall 
increase of $5.8 billion in discretionary spending from last year. 
Specifically, the Department of Veterans Affairs will receive $2.3 
billion more than the previous year. The VA medical care increase from 
2005 to 2006, I gave the number earlier for the previous 5 years, 
another 8.5 percent increase. They will receive, they the VA medical 
services, an increase of $1.6 billion. And again, I emphasize that 
there will be no new fees for either veterans medical services or for 
prescription drugs.
  Today represent a victory for our service men and women in all stages 
of service from recruitment to retirement. And I appreciate all of my 
colleagues who have spoken on behalf of the rule and in support of the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank the subcommittee chairman, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh); the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards); and the chairman, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis), for leading the way and ensuring the 
necessary funds to provide for the quality of life of our service men 
and women.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to support both this rule and the 
underlying bill for the sake of those who spend their lives defending 
ours.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the previous question on H. Res. 298, the rule providing for the 
Military Quality of Life Appropriations Bill for FY06.
  Memorial Day will soon be here, and members of this body will head 
home to join Americans all across the country in celebrating those who 
serve, and have served, our Nation. These brave men and women 
undeniably deserve our praise and enduring gratitude for all they have 
done to defend our nation and secure our freedom. While grateful words 
and thoughtful recognition is right and necessary, it is incumbent on 
us in this Congress to ensure that words are met with action.
  Over 1 million of our active-duty and reserve soldiers have served to 
date in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women--like their 
predecessors before them--were promised a life time of health care in 
return for their service to our country. However, as these young 
soldiers return home, they find that this promise has not been kept by 
this Congress or the current Administration.
  Today, more than 50,000 veterans are waiting in line for at least 6 
months for veterans' health care--and that problem will only get worse 
with the growing numbers of returning soldiers from Operations Iraqi 
Freedom and Enduring Freedom. As of May 2005, VA had treated only about 
85,000 of the 360,675 veterans from these deployments. In 2006, the 
Department expects to treat 5.2 million veterans--double the number in 
1995. And the overall medical care inflation rate for 2003 was close to 
double the inflation rate.
  It is telling that major veteran service organizations call this bill 
``totally inadequate'' and tantamount to veterans being ``kicked to the 
curb.'' The current proposal before us is no less than $2.6 billion 
below the amount needed to maintain current V A services.
  The majority is nothing if not consistent, and has once again blocked 
attempts to fully fund the VA. The Obey amendment, blocked from even 
being considered on the floor today, would have increased spending on 
veterans health services by a total of $2.6 billion over H.R. 2528 This 
amendment means real improvements to medical services to meet increased 
demand for mental health services, prosthetics and amputee care, and 
for priority 8 veterans. It adds $300 million to upgrade and improve 
accessibility to VA medical facilities, restoring most of the $400 
million cut in the bill. And it does so by reducing the tax cuts for 
millionaires by about 8 percent--so instead of a $140,000 tax cut, the 
millionaire filer would get $129,000 tax cut. When compared to all our 
veterans have fought for and sacrificed, this seems like the least that 
we can do.
  When Americans serve their nation in the military, whether it is the 
Second World War or the current war in Iraq, this government makes the 
promise of a lifetime of guaranteed healthcare. It is outrageous that 
after all the lip service and rhetoric paid to American veterans, the 
Republican Majority then turns around and reduces funding for their 
healthcare. It is long past time that Congress match rhetoric with real 
action to ensure veterans receive the level of service they were 
promised.
  As my good friend Mr. Taylor of Mississippi said last night on this 
floor, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have been there for 
us. Now it is our turn to be there for them. I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the previous

[[Page H4084]]

question and finally give our veterans the health care system they 
deserve.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  Previous Question Statement on H. Res. 298--Rule for H.R. 2528 FY06 
              Military Quality of Life--VA Appropriations

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by Representative Obey of 
     Wisconsin or a designee. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for 
     a division of the question in the committee of the whole or 
     in the House.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

Amendment to Military Quality of Life, VA, Appropriations Bill Offered 
                        by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin

       Page 31, line 1, relating to VA compensation and pensions, 
     insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $26,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 21, relating to VA medical services, insert 
     after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $1,500,000,000)''.
       Page 36, line 9, relating to VA medical administration, 
     insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $500,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 1, relating to VA medical facilities, insert 
     after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $300,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 8, relating to VA medical and prosthetic 
     research, insert after the dollar amount the following: 
     ``(increased by $67,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 20, relating to VA general operating expense, 
     insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $11,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 16, relating to major construction projects, 
     insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $150,000,000)''.
       Page 41, line 11, relating to minor construction projects, 
     insert after the dollar amount the following: ``(increased by 
     $51,000,000)''.
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 409. In the case of taxpayers with an adjusted gross 
     income in excess of $1,000,000 for taxable year 2006, the 
     amount of tax reduction resulting from the enactment of the 
     Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 
     (Public Law 107-16) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-27) shall be 
     reduced by 8.125 percent.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). 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. McGOVERN. 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 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 194, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 223]

                               YEAS--223

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--194

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Doyle
     Emerson
     Filner
     Frelinghuysen
     Hastings (WA)
     Herseth
     Hyde
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Murtha
     Norwood
     Sweeney
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1143

  Messrs. SERRANO, CHANDLER and POMEROY changed their vote from ``yea'' 
to ``nay.''
  Mr. TURNER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 223, on H. Res. 298, I was 
in my Congressional District on official business. Had I been present, 
I would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Latham). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________