[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5265-H5273]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3057, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT
FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, by direction
[[Page H5266]]
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 341 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 341
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. 3057) making appropriations for foreign
operations, export financing, and related programs 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 except as follows:
beginning with ``or'' on page 113, line 26, through page 114,
line 10. Where points of order are waived against part of a
section, points of order against a provision in another part
of such section may be made only against such provision and
not against the entire section. 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. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, the rule provides
1 hour of general debate evenly divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The
rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
I would like to take just a minute, Madam Speaker, to reiterate that
we bring this rule forward under an open rule. Historically,
appropriations bills have come to the House governed by an open rule,
and we continue to do so, in order to allow every Member of this House
the opportunity to submit amendments for consideration, obviously as
long as they comply with all of the Rules of the House.
Madam Speaker, the legislation before us appropriates over $20
billion, an increase of $73 million, for operations across the globe.
The bill is fiscally sound while, at the same time, compassionate and
globally responsive to the needs of those plagued by disease and
international disaster.
The bill bolsters the President's Millennium Challenge Corporation to
$1.75 billion, nearly a quarter of a billion dollars more than in
fiscal year 2005. The expansion of assistance is meant to help bring
economic security and the rule of law to some of the most of the
poorest nations of the world. The Millennium Challenge provides
assistance through a competitive selection process to developing
nations that are pursuing political and economic reforms basically in
three areas, Madam Speaker: ruling justly, investing in people, and
fostering economic freedom. Economic development genuinely succeeds
when it is linked to free market economic principles as well as to
democracy and where governments are committed to implementing reform
measures in order to achieve these goals.
Two years ago in his State of the Union address, President Bush
announced the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief, the largest
international health initiative in history initiated by a single
government to address one disease. This bill shows Congress's continued
support of the fight against HIV/AIDS, as it includes over $2.6 billion
to continue the fight against that horrendous deadly disease.
Our resolve to help all those across the globe who fight this disease
is strong; it is serious. In addition to funding, the Federal
Government enlists the expertise of various agencies, including the
Food and Drug Administration, which assures that the medicines we send
to the developing world are safe and effective to help those with HIV/
AIDS.
In other foreign assistance, H.R. 3057 funds the Andean Counterdrug
Initiative at the President's request, $734 million, $9 million more
than last fiscal year. Economic growth in the area since the start of
Plan Colombia is proof that the assistance we have provided Colombia
has made a difference, a very important difference in that country. I
myself visited in April of last year and was able to see the
extraordinary progress that the Colombian government and the Colombian
people have made against the narcoterrorists, and they constantly
reiterate their gratitude to this Congress for the important
assistance, Madam Speaker, that we have provided them and continue to
do so.
However, we must not take progress in the Andean region for granted.
If the United States turns its back on the region, a scenario may ensue
which would require greater U.S. investment and involvement at a time
when we obviously have significant responsibilities worldwide.
Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation also provides over $2.5
billion for military and economic assistance to Israel. We must
continue to ensure that our friends and allies remain secure. I am
fully convinced that a strong Israel is necessary not only for Israel,
but also for the security interests of the United States. We are
committed to do everything we can so that Israel is safe and secure
within its borders.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3057 was introduced by the gentleman from Arizona
and reported out of the Committee on Appropriations on June 21 by voice
vote. It is a good bill, essential to our continued commitment to the
security and safety of all in the United States, and we bring it forth,
as I stated before, under a very fair and, as a matter of fact, an open
rule.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from
Arizona and the gentlewoman from New York for their leadership on this
important issue, and I obviously would urge my colleagues to support
both the underlying legislation as well as this rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, from
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for yielding me this time, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my significant concerns about
the Foreign Operations bill for fiscal year 2006. The substance of the
underlying legislation will be addressed later in my statement.
Madam Speaker, while the rule is similar to that of other
appropriations bills, I am extremely disappointed that the majority has
blocked our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) from
offering an amendment that would have provided $1 billion in emergency
funding for the Veterans' Administration. All of our colleagues here in
the House know that the Bush administration and the Republican
majority, by their own admission, have underfunded the Veterans'
Administration by $1 billion. Without the emergency funding proposed by
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the VA will shortly run out of
money, leaving veterans, and there are 86,000 of them coming back from
Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, with nowhere to turn. But because
my friends in the majority on the Committee on Rules did not make the
Edwards amendment in order, the House will not have an opportunity to
consider this critical amendment now. Shame on all of us.
Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation has some admirable
provisions yet, in several areas, it falls far short of meeting the
United States' near and long-term policy needs.
The majority's excuse that the budget constraints prevent greater
generosity is just that: an excuse. The simple fact of the matter is
that the Republicans' reckless and irresponsible
[[Page H5267]]
economic policies have left the United States with little room to meet
our important international and domestic obligations.
Realize, I think that it is appropriate that we have funding
allocated to fighting the plagues of our time, HIV and AIDS, malaria
and tuberculosis. I applaud the current appropriations and encourage
this body to continue supporting these efforts until these diseases
have been completely eradicated.
I am also appreciative of the assistance levels for the Middle East.
This past April, with the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), I had an opportunity to visit
Israel and the Palestinian territories, and we met with officials from
both sides of the conflict. I found them at that time to be committed
to the pursuit of a fair and just peace and dedicated to ensuring an
equitable resolution to the many issues that divide the Israelis and
the Palestinians. The United States must continue to show its
commitment to Israel, our most reliable ally in the Middle East. This
legislation does just that. Further, we must be engaged in the region
and reward positive efforts by the Palestinians with appropriate levels
of assistance.
I am also pleased to note that the United States is the leading donor
of humanitarian assistance to Darfur, with $350 million appropriated in
this legislation. This assistance is important, but not nearly enough.
Frankly, the Bush administration has been neglectful of the realities
on the ground, even while acknowledging that genocide is taking place.
There should be no action on earth that compels us to act more than
genocide. However, the House continues to refuse to move the Darfur
Accountability Act, which provides for sanctions against the regime and
authorizes the President to use force, if needed, to save the lives of
innocent civilians.
{time} 1100
Is there a reason vastly more compelling than halting genocide that
is forcing the United States to merely shake our finger in admonishment
at the Sudanese Government? The world long remembers those instances in
which the United States failed to take action to prevent genocide, and
I fear that this is going to be another one of those times.
Despite all of the positive provisions in the bill, Mr. Speaker,
there are several aspects of this bill that project the wrong message
to the global community. At a time of intense international hostility
toward many aspects of United States foreign policy, we should not be
compounding the problem with a ``sore loser'' attitude and a lack of
commitment to protecting human rights.
Allow me to expand. Section 528 of the underlying legislation
withholds 25 percent of funding to the World Bank's International
Development Association if it fails to continue implementing some
procurement reforms that are supported by the United States. Once
again, as with last week's United Nations Reform Act, Republicans are
insisting on a my-way-or-the-highway approach. This is plain wrong. We
will never reform these institutions by staying at home and
complaining. We must accept compromise and continue to press for change
while remaining a committed participant.
Mr. Speaker, typically, the foreign operations bill is one of the
most bipartisan bills that this body passes every year. While I will
most likely support the underlying legislation, I am greatly concerned
by the overall amount of money appropriated in this bill. Later today,
we will hear from the chairman and other Republican leaders who will
claim that they did the best they could with what they were given. I do
not doubt that, Mr. Speaker; and I applaud the chairman and ranking
member of the subcommittee for the hard and dedicated work which they
do for all of us. Nevertheless, the budget constraints which the
chairman and others will speak of are the creation of the Republicans'
fiscal mismanagement.
I am appalled that we have the money to provide egregious tax cuts to
extremely wealthy people in our country; yet we do not have the money
to meet our international humanitarian commitment. We have the money to
provide billions in tax giveaways to the Bush administration's favorite
corporate donors; yet we do not have the money to provide the necessary
assistance to some of the poorest countries in the world. This is
beyond shameful. It is negligent, and it leads many in the world to
understandably question the seriousness of our rhetoric on human rights
and the promotion of democracy.
Just once, Mr. Speaker, I would like to come to this floor with
Republicans in the majority and President Bush in the White House and
say, We do not have the money for tax cuts for millionaires and
billionaires because we have to fulfill our commitment to improving the
lives of billions of people around the world, including millions right
here in our own country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
With regard to some of the many, many points that were made by my
distinguished friend, and I am certainly not going to address them all
at this point, but I would like to make two points with regard to this
foreign aid bill which we are bringing to the floor today with an open
rule. We are providing over $20 billion in foreign aid in this bill.
That is an increase of $73 million over last year. We are fulfilling
our obligations and being quite compassionate as we do so.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding and thank him for his fine
management of this very important rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule which provides for
an open amendment process. Any germane amendment that any Member
chooses to offer will in fact be debated and voted upon here in the
House. So understand that Members under the rules of the House will
have an opportunity to amend this legislation as they see fit.
I was very happy to hear praise for the bill from my good friend from
Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Mr. Hastings) as well as the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) and an understanding that at the end
of the day there will be bipartisan support for this legislation.
We know full well that this is a piece of legislation that is often
misunderstood by many Americans. There is a belief that somehow we
expend 10 to 15 percent of the Federal budget on foreign assistance, on
foreign aid; and there is a belief that we are taking our hard-earned
tax dollars and sending them down a rat hole when, in fact, there needs
to be an understanding that the foreign operations bill is comprised of
less than 1 percent of the entire Federal budget.
I believe that the chairman and ranking member have done a great job
in putting together a bill, and I will do exactly what the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said and say correctly that with the
resources that are limited, we frankly have done, I believe,
extraordinarily well. There is a reason that resources are limited when
it comes to the Federal budget. It is not, as my friend from Florida
said, because of reckless and irresponsible policies that President
Bush and the Republicans have put forward. It is the fact that both
Democrats and Republicans are regularly saying that we need to bring
about a reduction in the Federal deficit. We cannot continue to have
deficit spending.
Now, the so-called reckless and irresponsible policies that have been
categorized as that by my good friend are policies that have actually
brought the Federal deficit to a level that is $73 billion lower than
had been anticipated and projected in February. First, we saw in April
a reduction of $50 billion; and then just 2 weeks ago, we got the
report of an additional $23 billion reduction in the Federal deficit.
Why? Because of the fact that we have seen strong, bold economic
growth. We have a 3.5 percent GDP growth rate taking place in this
country, and we also have seen the unemployment rate at 5.1 percent,
lower than the average unemployment rate through the 1960s, 1970s,
1980s and 1990s.
And so this view, somehow, that we have created more problems when it
comes to the deficit, we not only have
[[Page H5268]]
not created more problems; we have got the deficit on a downward slope,
we are still fighting the war on terror, and we are meeting these very
important obligations.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) was absolutely right, Mr.
Speaker, when he talked about the great trip that we took in traveling
throughout the Middle East, going to Israel and the Palestinian
territories. We were also in Egypt. I believe that the aid package that
we have here for both Israel and Egypt is very important, and I would
like to compliment my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the
distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations, for his effort to focus resources on the
democratization that is taking place in Egypt. We know that for the
first time ever, we in September are going to see multicandidate
elections take place in Egypt. I believe that that is a clear sign that
the policies that we have been pursuing under President Bush in
creating a chance for 8.5 million Iraqis to vote has been a very
positive thing.
We know that today marks the first anniversary of the transition from
the Coalition Provisional Authority to Iraqi sovereignty, which is a
very, very important thing to mark. Obviously, we have tragically seen
terrorist activities take place throughout the past year which have
been designed to bring about destabilization. But because of what we
have done, because of the resolve, and the President will be talking
about this tonight in his nationally televised address from Fort Bragg,
we as a Nation are determined to see political pluralism, the rule of
law and the building of democratic institutions; and the effort that
the gentleman from Wisconsin has put into that when it comes to Egypt
is, I think, a very, very important one.
I also want to talk about the issue that was raised by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), that being the concern that we all have
over this issue of a shortfall in funding for our veterans. Mr.
Speaker, we all know, Democrats and Republicans alike, that there is a
great responsibility that we have to our veterans. Our veterans have
shed their blood and shared their courage for the good of our country.
They have given us our enduring freedom, and it is our duty to honor
our country's commitment to them. It is our duty to do that.
Now, just this morning at 9 o'clock, we have seen the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Walsh), the very, very distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee that deals with this issue, the Subcommittee on Military
Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, hold a hearing focusing on the
need to address this issue. We did, unfortunately, get this report of
the shortfall, but it is important to note what it is that we have done
for our Nation's veterans.
We passed by a vote of 425-1 the military quality of life
appropriations bill. That legislation includes over $28 billion for the
Veterans Health Administration, including $21 billion for medical
services. Medical services are actually funded in the legislation at
$1.6 billion above the current fiscal year. Over the last 2 years,
funding for medical care for veterans has increased by 18 percent. That
does not in any way diminish the fact that we have unfortunately gotten
this report of the $1 billion shortfall; but, Mr. Speaker, it makes it
very clear that we as an institution have a responsibility to encourage
the Veterans Administration to have a degree of accountability.
When you provide $28 billion in resources, $21 billion for medical
services, an increase of 18 percent over the last 2 years, it seems to
me that steps need to be taken to ensure that we, in fact, look at and
understand this problem of the $1 billion shortfall. We should not
continue to subsidize what obviously is a problem.
That is why there is a strong commitment. The White House is
committed to dealing with this issue. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer), the chairman of the authorizing committee, is very determined
to deal with this issue. And I believe that we have done the correct
thing by saying the funds will be available through using surpluses
that the Veterans Administration has and other operational funds while
we try to deal with the challenge of this $1 billion shortfall.
There will be some who will try to claim that we are ignoring the
problem of the $1 billion shortfall that has been announced if we do
not defeat the previous question and turn back this rule. Nothing could
be further from the truth. We face the problem head-on. We are going to
responsibly deal with it working together in a bipartisan way with the
executive branch and the legislative branch to ensure that we can
address this issue.
I urge support of this rule. I thank my friend for his leadership
that he has shown on this and a wide range of very important foreign
policy issues.
I will close with one point that I raised with the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) when he testified and, that is, I am very proud
that Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi have come together to
establish a task force, a commission that is geared towards seeing the
United States House of Representatives directly provide technical
assistance and other expertise to emerging parliaments in these new
democracies that are taking place around the world, and there are very
important resources for that that are included in this bill. I would
like to thank my colleagues who have been involved in that. I urge
support of both the rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the
Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for one simple reason:
it shortchanges our Nation's veterans. I would say to my friend and
colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, with all
due respect, our veterans do not need more hearings. They do not need
your sympathy. They need your action. They need this Congress to act,
and they need this Congress to act now.
The Department of Veterans Affairs recently admitted they are $1
billion short. Last night in the Rules Committee, Democrats offered an
amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to correct this
shortfall and to make sure that our veterans get the health care that
they deserve. As the gentleman from Texas noted in his testimony before
the committee, ``There are three basic reasons why VA health funding
must be increased above present levels.
{time} 1115
``First, health care inflation is approximately 7 percent a year.
Second, 86,000 Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans have needed VA care.
Third, health care and prescription drug costs have caused a net
increase of 250,000 veterans per year using the VA health care
system.''
Mr. Speaker, despite this glaring need for more veterans health care
funding, the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules refused to
provide it on a partisan vote. What are our priorities?
Yesterday in The Washington Post, it was reported that senior VA
officials are spending their time making sure that every VA facility
has a framed portrait of the VA Secretary prominently displayed.
One senior VA official said that facilities should make the portrait
their ``highest priority.''
I have a suggestion for the VA. Maybe their highest priority should
be providing adequate health care for our veterans. Maybe their highest
priority should be spending American tax dollars wisely.
There is a quote from Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural etched into
the VA building downtown. It says, ``to care for him who shall have
borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.''
Lincoln did not say anything about the framed portrait of government
officials.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question
so that we can provide adequate funding for veterans health care.
During this time of war, our veterans deserve more than nice words.
They deserve the health care that they have earned.
I realize that this is not a tax cut for millionaires, something that
you on the other side of the aisle embrace with urgency, but how can
you turn your backs on the brave men and women fighting in the wars
that you voted for?
[[Page H5269]]
Mr. Speaker, this is an outrageous situation that must be fixed
today, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month. We do not need any
more hearings. We need to fix it today. We owe the men and women who
have worn the uniform of this country nothing less.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our support for veterans. A few
weeks ago, as a matter of fact, on May 25, this House of
Representatives brought to the floor, considered and passed by a vote
of 425 to 1 the appropriations bill for the next fiscal year on
military quality of life. The legislation included over $28 billion for
the Veterans Health Administration, including $21 billion for medical
services. Medical services were funded $1.6 billion above the current
fiscal year. Over the last 2 years, funding for the veterans medical
care has increased by 18 percent.
We are very proud of our support for veterans. And I would like to
say, Mr. Speaker, that I know of no two Members of this House who feel
and have more concern for the rights of veterans than the chairman of
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Buyer), as well as the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh) of the appropriations subcommittee that funds veterans affairs.
So this matter brought to our attention now of a shortfall is of
extreme concern to them. And as we speak, Mr. Speaker, a hearing is
taking place to fully investigate the causes and the issues of this
shortfall, a hearing is taking place by the appropriations subcommittee
dealing with this issue, Military Quality of Life Appropriations
Subcommittee, called for by the chairman, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Walsh). And so not only are we not ignoring the issue, we are
proud of our record of support for veterans and will continue to
support veterans in a way which will make us all proud.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. What my colleague from Florida ignores is
that we could do something today for those same veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill spends a lot of money on foreign
aid, but there is a major problem with this bill today. And that
problem is not money that the bill contains. It is money that the bill
does not contain.
Last week we were told by the Veterans Administration that after
continually resisting efforts to increase funding for veterans health
care, they were finally admitting that there was, in fact, a $1 billion
shortfall in veterans health care funding for the present fiscal year.
My understanding is that at the hearing of the Subcommittee on
Military Construction this morning, the VA amended that number and they
are now telling us that in addition to the $1 billion shortfall which
they said they had in this fiscal year, they are saying that they are
going to need $1.5 billion next year, plus another $1.1 billion if the
Congress does not take action with respect to co-payments and
enrollment fees that the Congress has already decided that it will not
support.
So in other words, there is a huge hole in the Veterans
Administration health care funding and it is growing.
Now, we have had to endure a lot of cynical comments from some
Members on the other side over the past 2 years because the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I and several others have tried at every
opportunity to get more money into the budget for veterans health care.
In fact, I recall at one point the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards)
was called a demagogue by a member of the majority party because he
stood up and insisted that we fund veterans health care at least a
billion dollars higher level than it was being funded.
I think now we recognize, and I would hope our friends on the other
side of the aisle would recognize, that the numbers which the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and others have been citing are correct and
that the numbers that the Veterans Administration has been citing are
not.
I find it ironic that the majority party even removed from the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairmanship, the gentleman who last
year recognized along with us that we need higher funding for veterans
health care. He was rewarded for being frank about the needs for
veterans by being bounced out of his committee chairmanship.
I think we ought to take a look at what the facts are. Right now
medical facilities are literally falling down around their patients.
One veterans medical clinic had to put up scaffolding around walls to
protect patients from falling bricks. Physicians at VA hospitals have
reported that they had to visit neighboring hospitals to borrow
supplies that they needed to carry out specific medical procedures.
The VA is proposing two solutions to the problem: diverting $400
million that was to be used for medical services next year, and using
$600 million that was supposed to be used to improve hospitals. This,
in our judgment, is just digging the hole deeper, and it is not the
first time that we have seen this resistance.
In fiscal 2002 the administration would not allow the VA to spend
$275 million that Congress had provided to meet the needs of veterans.
In fiscal year 2004, the VA Secretary testified that the administration
had cut his own request by $1.2 billion. They now admit there is a
shortfall.
For 2006 the VA bill adds only 2 percent or $661 million for the
Veterans Health Care Administration. Not nearly enough in light of
today's revelations.
I will place into the Record, Mr. Speaker, a listing of our efforts
over the past 2 years to raise veterans health care.
In short, I simply want to urge each and every Member of this House
on both sides of the aisle to vote against the previous question on the
rule on this bill so that we can try to respond to what is obviously an
emergency situation and add to this bill the money that the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) tried to add on the floor last week to a
previous bill so that we can clean up the shortfall in the VA health
care budget for this year, and so that we do not dig the hole deeper
for the following year.
Even the money that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) was asking
for last week will not be sufficient for the 2-year problem, but it is
a whole lot better than hiding the problem under the rug as the
administration has done for the past 2 years.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished chairman of
the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I do not think I am incorrect in stating that this discussion
regarding veterans health care does not belong on a foreign operations
bill. Clearly there is a venue for discussion of veterans funding. And
as Members know, we have had a full discussion of that before the House
and in committee and it was done in a proper way.
I just want to make sure that everyone understands that we were
provided additional information after the House had concluded its work
on the Veterans and Military Quality of Life bill. That prompted us, my
colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my
ranking member of the subcommittee, to jointly request an oversight
hearing which was conducted just this morning for 2\1/2\ hours.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would simply say I appreciate the oversight hearing but what we
need is not so much a hearing but action. Secondly, I would grant to
the gentleman that the preferred place to deal with this problem is not
on this bill. The problem is we tried to deal with it on the bill where
it belongs and we were blocked by the majority for doing so.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, we can deal with this before the 2006
budget is implemented. We have time. It is June. We moved expeditiously
to get the bill passed. We did that.
[[Page H5270]]
We now have new information and we have to respond to that. And the
questions I can frankly say were aggressive and thorough, and the
response from the Veterans' Administration, while complete, at least we
believe complete at this time, was not as thorough as we would like.
And we asked questions, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I
and other members of the subcommittee have asked questions. We want to
get at what exactly is the anticipated shortfall for 2006. We want to
make sure that this projected deficit for 2005 is responded to. That
there is no diminution of care or quality of care in our veterans
hospitals and that is our responsibility. That is the proper venue for
this debate. Not on the foreign operations bill. We will have time to
respond to it.
We have had discussions with OMB and with the Veterans'
Administration. We will not rest until we resolve this difference of
what is needed to meet the needs of our veterans. But I assure the
House and Members here today that we will get to the bottom of this, we
will get the proper resolution. And if additional funds are needed, and
I believe they are, we will find them.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations who has a great deal of dedication
and skill in this arena.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise in opposition to this rule and urge my colleagues to defeat
the previous question. I am grateful for the Committee on Rules for
granting an open rule for consideration of H.R. 3057, the FY 2006
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
It is always my preference each year to allow as broad a debate as
possible on the provisions in the bill and on United States foreign aid
policy generally.
{time} 1130
I believe this rule will accomplish that.
However, I did ask the Committee on Rules to grant a waiver to one
amendment during today's debate, an amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to provide $1 billion in emergency funding for
veterans health care. While I do not usually support giving waivers to
amendments on the foreign operations bill that are not directly related
to the bill, I wholeheartedly support the gentleman from Texas' effort.
The administration's recent revelation of a $1 billion shortfall in
veterans health care funding is already significantly impacting our
veterans, as facilities across the country deny new requests for
appointments. This admission, which emerged during a congressional
hearing last week, comes less than 4 months after Secretary Nicholson
wrote to the Senate with a bold assertion that the VA ``does not need
emergency supplemental funds in fiscal year 2005.'' It seems Secretary
Nicholson was either misleading Congress or simply was not informed of
the facts; and, frankly, I do not know which poses a greater threat to
the veterans health care system.
The nonchalance with which the administration has handled funding for
veterans health care is unbelievable, especially as our men and women
in uniform continue to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the
world. These brave Americans continue to give the ultimate sacrifice to
defend our freedoms, and we must fulfill our commitment to care for
them upon their return.
The gentleman from Texas' effort is not without precedent. The
Committee on Rules made in order a Republican amendment to the Iraq War
supplemental on REAL ID, allowing for adoption of this provision
without any real debate or hearings. The committee also made in order a
nongermane amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill,
arguing that the continuity of Congress was too important not to
include.
Given what our veterans have done for this country, the gentleman
from Texas' amendment is too important not to consider today, and I
urge defeat of the previous question.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
We will get to the bottom of this problem. We will solve it, and we
have heard from the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that
has jurisdiction over the veterans issue to that effect. We will hear
as well shortly from the chairman of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, and when I say we are going to get to the bottom of this and
solve it, it is coming from the history of the House of Representatives
that in the last 2 years alone has increased funding for veterans
medical care by 18 percent. We are very proud of our record, and we are
going to continue to have a record to be proud of.
So having said that, I would simply like to remind any colleagues who
may be following this debate that with this rule what we are doing is
bringing to the floor the foreign aid bill, the foreign operations
appropriations bill, which includes about $22 billion, the foreign aid
bill, includes about $22 billion, and it is almost $100 million over
the amounts that we appropriated for the current fiscal year. That is
what we are bringing to the floor again, Mr. Speaker, with this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida, the distinguished gentleman,
amazes me with his logic. We gave the veterans $2 billion more he said
last year. What does that have to do with today and the fact that there
is a $1 billion shortfall? This shortfall that has come to the
attention of people is a mistake. When can this administration say that
we were wrong about something? The veterans need $1 billion and that is
that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards) who has been denigrated for arguing this point over
the last 2 years.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I think what the House has to decide today
is what is more important: House procedures that we waive every single
day for the most insignificant of reasons or taking care of a $1
billion-plus shortfall in veterans health care programs during a time
of war.
Quite frankly, if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), my good
friend and leader of the House Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life
and Veterans Affairs, were Speaker of the House, I would withdraw my
opposition to the vote against the rule that denies us a chance to
provide adequate care for veterans; but the fact is he is not. The fact
is that repeatedly this year, not the Committee on Appropriations on
veterans affairs health care spending, but the House leadership has
repeatedly said no to adequate funding for VA medical care.
The gentleman from Florida talked about how proud he was of his work
on veterans programs this year. Let me just point out that if we go
back and look at the budget resolution passed on a partisan basis in
April, that budget resolution directs a cut compared to present
services of $14 billion in veterans health care over the next 5 years.
I am not only not proud of that; that is the reason I voted against the
partisan budget resolution in April that began this process.
This problem was not created by the Committee on Appropriations. It
was created by an inadequate budget resolution that was pushed through
this House in April, strictly on a partisan basis. The fact is, I am
less interested in how we got here and more interested in how we take
care of veterans. That is more important than all the partisan
disagreements we might discuss on the floor this day.
What are the facts? The facts are that the Veterans Administration
has now admitted that it has approximately, or say minimally, a $1
billion shortfall. The fact is that kind of shortfall is delaying
purchasing equipment that doctors and nurses at our VA hospitals say is
needed to provide quality care for veterans. That shortfall is going to
have a direct impact on the quality of care for America's veterans,
including veterans coming back from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
If anyone questions how serious this shortfall is, let me just read
to my colleagues a letter dated May 3 of this year from Barbara
Watkins, a medical center director for the Alexandria VA
[[Page H5271]]
Medical Center in Virginia. She says: ``Dear Friend: As of April 29,
2005, the Alexandria VA Medical Center is no longer scheduling
appointments for new Non Service Connected veterans.'' In laymen's
terms, what that means is if you are a veteran that is unemployed, if
you are a veteran that is making only $10,000 a year or so, perhaps on
minimum wage, and you have a serious health care concern, you will not
be given a medical appointment at the Alexandria VA Medical Center. My
guess is that this kind of cut in services for veterans is occurring
all over the country.
The fact is that in Togus, Maine, quoting the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Michaud), I can tell my colleagues, using Togus VA Hospital in
Maine, the Togus facility actually had to put up scaffolding over the
doors to block bricks from falling on patients or staff. This crisis is
real. It is serious. It is today.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), is correct: we should not
normally have to deal with this on the foreign aid appropriations bill.
Frankly, we should have dealt with it in April on the budget resolution
that underfunded VA medical care. I wish we could have added this money
in the VA budget that passed recently in the House. The fact is that is
already through the House, and the problem is that if the Subcommittee
on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies
has to deal with it in a nonemergency basis, guess where we will have
to take $1 billion from to take care of the VA health care crisis?
It will come out of military construction. That is housing, day care
facilities for our active duty servicemen and -women and their
families, or it might have to come out of the defense health care
budget. That is hospital care and medical care for active duty
servicemen and -women, members of the Guard and Reserve who are
fighting the war on terrorism.
This is not the best place to deal with the veterans health care
crisis. But if not now, when? If not this bill, what bill? Let us vote
``no'' on the rule. Let us add $1 billion today to deal with the
veterans health care funding crisis.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to
the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time.
I would like to give an explanation of how we got here. I have great
respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my colleague, and
his sincerity and his work not only on the commitment of men and women
who wear the uniform but also our veterans.
I also extend congratulations. You are either that good, or it was
the best guess that turned out to be right. What I really believe in my
heart, since you are my friend, is the latter because we do not
understand this health financing model as well as we should. So I know
you just said I really do not want to say how we got here, let us take
immediate action. First of all, we do not even know how to define the
word ``adequate.'' To take action, we need to have it based on an
intellect, and we are not even there yet.
So what happened here? Let me tell my colleagues how we got here.
Everybody in this town seems to be throwing out a budget number with
regard to veterans health. Whether it is the American Legion who has a
number, whether the independent budget has a number, whether
Republicans have a number, whether Democrats have a number, whether VA
has a number or the OMB or the President, everybody seems to have a
number. So I said wait a minute, time out here.
I looked back into what we did in the mid-1990s when after the BRAC
and prior to before we ever created TRICARE for life and we are trying
to figure out the military health delivery system's budget number, and
we never could get it right, and we always have to come back in the
supplementals, right? So what do we do? We held a hearing on the
finance models on the predictability of these budgets. So we increased
the predictability.
What is going on now? The modeling still is wrong. So on June 23, in
the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs, we held a hearing on the
finance of how we do the health modeling with regard to what are the
assumptions that are used in the model, what are the risk adjustments
that may be necessary, what are the variances, what are the unexpected
contingencies. All of these things are very important.
One thing I think is fascinating that we learned was that the model
that we used, because the VA contracts with the private sector and when
we contract, the model that is used in the private sector is done on an
annual basis. In DOD, they use this model, and it is a 2.5 projection.
In the VA, it is a 2.5 to 3.5, which means we are stressing the model
itself.
I just want everybody to know this is extremely important. We are
stressing the health finance model, which means we need to go back and
perhaps do more science with regard to how we predict these budgets.
My colleagues say, Steve, what are you talking about? This is
extremely important, and we are going to continue our work. Why?
Because we need to make sure we define the word, what is ``adequate.''
So when the VA sends this dollar figure to not only the authorizers
but, more importantly, the appropriators, so when you pass a budget you
know what that budget is and you have confidence in it.
Now there is no hide-the-ball here. The VA conducts a mid-year
review. When they conducted the mid-year review, unfortunately a week
after the gentleman from New York's (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman
from Texas' (Ranking Member Edwards) product is passed by the floor, we
learned from the mid-year review that they are off on the 2005 budget.
They are off because of OIF and OEF and dental and personnel and
increase on demand of services for older veterans, and now they have a
shortfall with regard to 2005.
The Secretary informs us and says I have work-around solutions with
regard to 2005. We in Congress authorize what is called a cushion,
whether it is DOD health or VA health, and that cushion is around $400
million that goes from year to year. He says, well, I need to take $380
million out of the $400 million cushion, and I also then need to
redirect or reprogram out of the capitalization accounts for 2005.
I agree with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the
gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) with regard to our oversight
responsibilities. Matter of fact, the Speaker said maintain our
oversight to make sure that we maintain the quality of care and the
services necessary for America's veterans. That is going to be done.
So as we listen and be a good listener with regard to the Secretary's
work-around solutions for 2005, it is 2006. That 2006 budget number, I
will submit there is no one here on this floor, despite whatever number
they may advocate, that knows exactly what it is today.
{time} 1145
Hearings are very important, and the hearings are going to continue.
This is, as the Secretary said, evolution. Yes, this is going to be an
evolutionary process to get it right about 2006. I do not care about
just 2006, I care about getting it right from 2006 on. I care about
getting it right in 2006 and beyond because of our commitment to
veterans.
So it would be very good and very helpful and very appropriate for us
to use the right words on this floor. No one owns a cornerstone in
their advocacy to veterans and what they have done for this Nation. No
one in this House. We all do. We all respect the service and sacrifice
of our veterans.
So let us embrace the challenge of getting into the health modeling
issue to make sure these issues are right; that we go in and work with
our Senate colleagues to make sure we get the numbers correct with
regard to the 2006 budget. And when we do this, we then define what is
``adequate funding'' for the VA.
Mr. Speaker, I want to work with my friend, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Edwards) and with the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Walsh). I respect the leadership of Chairman Walsh, and I also thank
him for his firmness and for his tough words with the Secretary. I look
forward to working on this commitment.
[[Page H5272]]
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate my strong support
for the bill and particularly for the provisions relative to Armenia
and the Nagorno Karabakh. Thanks to the chairman of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the ranking Democrat, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and also my friend and co-chair
of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), for their continued support we now have
$67.5 million in the bill for humanitarian assistance to Armenia, which
is $12.5 million more than what the President requested; and $5 million
in assistance for Nagorno Karabakh, which is $2 million more than last
year. I just want to thank all the members of the subcommittee for
their continued support.
It is very important this House continue to recognize the plight of
the victims of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, and that is why we must
support the committee's recommendations. It is also significant that
the President requested and the committee has maintained military
assistance parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan with $5.7 million
allocated to each country. By allocating equal levels of military and
security assistance to both nations, the U.S. Government will preserve
its credibility as an impartial and leading mediator in the continued
and sensitive peace negotiations for the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.
Given the ongoing Azerbaijani blockades and threats to renew military
aggression against Armenia and Karabakh, it is critically important the
administration continue to promote balanced, short- and long-term
policies that elevate regional cooperation and reduce the risk of
conflict in the South Caucasus region. The members of this subcommittee
and the leadership on both sides of the aisle have for a long time
played a major role in trying to provide balanced, short- and long-term
policies that elevate regional cooperation in the Caucasus, and I thank
them once again for the assistance levels that are in this legislation.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) was talking
a moment ago about the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) either being
lucky or being good, he chose that he was lucky during the last 2
years. However, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) spoke with
hospital administrators, and that is how he got his information. And if
somehow or another we were not so interested in hanging the picture of
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman somewhere rather than
trying to figure out what hospital administrators need, all of us could
be good.
I know this much: At the Veterans Hospital in West Palm Beach,
Florida, veterans wait 6 months on occasion to get themselves treated,
and I think that is ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule
so we can consider the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night on a
straight party-line vote.
Mr. Speaker, the Edwards amendment would provide additional badly
needed health care funds for our Nation's veterans today. The Edwards
amendment uses the supplemental authority provided in the 2006 budget
resolution to correct the current $1 billion shortfall mistake in
funding for the health care needs of America's veterans, including the
approximately 86,000 new Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of my colleagues are aware by now of the
announcement last week by the Bush administration's own Secretary of
Veterans Affairs that the VA is facing a $1 billion shortfall in
veterans' health care. This is not news to this side of the aisle. We
have known all along the funding was woefully inadequate. We have tried
on numerous occasions to increase funding to care for our returning
soldiers, but the Republican leadership has ignored our demands and has
consistently rejected our many attempts to add money to the VA health
care budget. Maybe now they will listen. Today, they will have a chance
to show just how much they support our soldiers.
I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us
from considering the foreign operations appropriations bill under an
open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Edwards
amendment to help our brave returning veterans get the health care they
need and deserve. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of
this amendment and, sadly, once again, this leadership will turn its
back on our wounded veterans.
We make much of visiting veterans' hospitals. We make much of
Veterans Day. All of these are appropriate undertakings. But when we
learn that this administration has made a big mistake with reference to
veterans in this Nation, we cannot muster here in the House of
Representatives the oomph to do the things necessary for people that
are putting their lives on the line for us and returning home in need
of care.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment immediately prior to the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my good friend from Florida, as he was
wrapping up his remarks, as always with eloquence, talked about the
``yes'' votes and the ``no'' votes, because just 1 month ago, Mr.
Speaker, when this House brought forth the bill to fund the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs, the appropriations bill to fund Veterans'
Affairs, there was a very interesting ``yes'' and ``no'' vote on this
floor; 425 yes and 1 no.
So I simply want to put in context what has been said today. If we
would be acting with such unfairness on the majority side, if we would
be neglecting the interests of those men and women who we all hold in
such admiration, then why was the vote to fund Veterans' Affairs 425-1
only 1 month ago?
As we have heard from the chairman of the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, from the authorizing committee, and the chairman as well of
the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations on these issues
brought to our attention subsequent to that vote of 425-1, they are
being addressed. They are being delved into. They will be solved. And
we will continue to be proud of our record of support for our veterans.
Now, with regard to what this rule does, the rule we have been
discussing today, it brings forth for consideration by this body the
foreign aid appropriations bill, over $20 million in foreign aid. A lot
of important programs, humanitarian programs; support for allies and
friends; for poor people throughout the world; for the sick and the
infirm. It is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.
So at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would request that the underlying
legislation, the foreign operations legislation, be supported, as well
as the rule that brings it forth, which is an open rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as
follows:
Previous Question on H. Res. 341 Rule for H.R. 3057 Foreign Operations,
Export Financing, and Related Programs FY06 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 Edwards of
Texas 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:
[[Page H5273]]
Amendment to H.R. 3057, as Reported Offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new title:
TITLE VI--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration
medical services
(including transfer of funds)
For an additional amount for necessary expenses for
furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient
care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of
Veterans Affairs and veterans described in section 1705(a) of
title 38, United States Code, including care and treatment in
facilities not under the jurisdiction of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and including medical supplies and
equipment and salaries and expenses of health-care employees
hired under title 38, United States Code, and aid to State
homes as authorized by section 1741 of title 38, United
States Code; $1,000,000,000, to be available for obligation
upon the enactment of this Act and to remain available for
obligation until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the
amount provided under this heading is designated as making
appropriations for the purpose set forth in subparagraph (A)
of section 402(a)(1) of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 2006:
Provided further, That amounts made available under this
heading may be transferred to other accounts of the
Department of Veterans Affairs to the extent necessary to
reimburse those accounts for prior transfers to ``Medical
Services'' after notice of the amount and purpose of the
transfer is provided to the Committees on Appropriations of
the Senate and House of Representatives and a period of 30
days has elapsed: Provided further, That the transfer
authority in this paragraph is in addition to any other
transfer authority available to the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________