[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.
____________________