[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 90 (Thursday, June 30, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5561-H5570]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 345 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 345
Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of Thursday, June 30, 2005, for the Speaker
to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The
Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority
Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for
consideration pursuant to this resolution.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding,
to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment
of the House and Senate during the month of July.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
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. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 345 provides that
suspensions will be in order at any time on this legislative day. The
resolution also provides that the Speaker or his designee shall consult
with the minority leader, or her designee, on any suspension considered
under the rule. Additionally, the rule provides that it shall be in
order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to
consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment of the House
and Senate during the month of July.
Mr. Speaker, the leadership of this House set out a positive and
aggressive legislative plan for this week on behalf of the American
people. The goal of this plan has been to pass a number of bills that
will allow for USAID to foreign nations, transportation and
infrastructure improvements for our Nation, improved housing for those
in need, and important funding for executive agencies and our judiciary
along with the District of Columbia.
I want to particularly commend the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lewis) and his Committee on Appropriations and the staff for sticking
to the time table that they laid out at the start of this session. As
of today, the House has passed all 11 appropriations bills prior to the
July 4 district work period. And I note that the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations is also on the floor and we certainly
appreciate the work that he and his committee members and staff have
also put into that. It is a tremendous accomplishment that the House
has completed its appropriations work prior to the July 4 work period.
We now await action from the Senate so that we may finish the
appropriations process and avoid a cumbersome omnibus funding bill at
the end of the year.
This week we have spirited debate, particularly on the previous two
appropriations bills, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill and
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development appropriations
bill.
I understand that Members on both sides of the aisle have differing
viewpoints on how to address these issues, and we have had the
opportunity to hear that spirited debate from both sides of the aisle
on all of these issues. But some of this legislation that also needs to
be considered this week has broad support among Members of both the
majority and minority. In an attempt to make sure that this important
work is completed by the end of this legislative week, we are here
today
[[Page H5562]]
to pass a rule to provide a process for consideration of these bills
under rules that would require them to pass by a two-thirds majority.
This will allow us to consider items in a timely manner and ensure that
last minute issues are resolved prior to adjournment for the Fourth of
July work period.
This balanced rule provides the minority with the ability to consult
with the Speaker on any suspension bill offered, ensuring that input
and views are duly considered before any legislation considered under
the rule is brought to the floor.
I am proud of the accomplishments of this House over the last weeks
and months. I now ask my colleagues to support this rule so that we may
continue the work of the American people in a timely fashion this
evening. Completing consideration of these suspensions ensures that
Congress may accomplish as much as possible before we return to work in
our home States and districts and observe our Nation's birthday.
{time} 1915
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support this balanced rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman the
Florida (Mr. Putnam), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida has explained, this rule
would do two things. It would allow the House to consider legislation
under suspension of the rules, and it would waive a provision in the
Congressional Budget Act that prohibits the House from adjourning for
more than 3 days unless it has completed consideration on
reconciliation.
Mr. Speaker, in general, I think far too much of the legislation
passed around here is done by suspension, a process that waives all
House rules and prohibits all amendments, and even precludes a motion
to recommit. Having that said, however, I must add that tonight is
somewhat different.
I would ordinarily have more concern about allowing yet another day
for considering legislation in this manner, but I do realize that in
limited instances, it may be necessary to waive this rule in order to
expedite legislation that is truly emergency in nature. It is evident
today that two of the four items which are to be considered under
suspension are indeed particularly urgent.
One is the temporary extension of the highway bill. Without this
legislation, the highway programs will be shut down and significant
layoffs will occur. I am hopeful, as I am sure many of my colleagues
are as well, that this will be the last time that we will have to pass
a short-term extension of this bill. The conferees must finish their
work on the highway authorization bill quickly so we can begin building
and repairing our Nation's decaying highways and infrastructure.
The other critical bill before us today is the emergency supplemental
bill for veterans medical care. We Democrats attempted to address this
emerging veterans crisis earlier this week when we advocated for the
Edwards amendment and also in March when the gentlewoman from Oregon
(Ms. Hooley) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) brought in a
resolution asking for an amendment to be approved by the Committee on
Rules to include $1.3 billion more. They were turned down.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is being flooded with veterans
from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, four times as many as had
originally been budgeted for. Trying to help 103,000 of our brave men
and women with a budget designed to assist just over 25,000 has
produced a shortfall in the Veterans Department funds of more than $1
billion this year, a staggering sum.
The gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Edwards) amendment would have filled
in a shameful gap between our Nation's professed support for its
veterans and its actual action on their behalf; but, Mr. Speaker, the
Republican majority in our House was not concerned with this chasm
separating rhetoric from reality.
As I said, the Edwards amendment was voted down on a party-line vote.
Not a single Republican voted for the necessary health care for our
wounded veterans; and on the emergency supplemental bill, as I
mentioned before, the Baird-Hooley amendment to provide $1.3 billion
that was in March was not allowed by the Committee on Rules on a party-
line vote.
This issue is not about Republicans or Democrats. It is about our
soldiers. We have a patriotic duty to uphold our end of the bargain and
properly care for the fighting men and women of this country.
This is a sacred bond of trust, a contract that the majority has
violated; but my fellow Americans believe that refusing to care for our
veterans after having voted to send them to war is the height of
hypocrisy, and the public is outraged.
As a result, House Republicans have reversed course. They received
the wake-up call. They have come back to the table so we can hammer out
the funding we need to care for our troops, as we should have earlier
this week and in March.
This is a pattern that has become all too familiar. The majority does
something unpopular, the public gets incensed, and the majority backs
off. It has happened over and over with the ethics crisis in the House.
It happened with the recent Republican attempt to kill public
broadcasting in America; and now less than 7 days later, they are at it
again, having to fess up to the fact that their priorities are out of
step with the American people, their values are out of the mainstream.
Have they had a change of heart regarding the issue before us?
Perhaps, or perhaps they just do not want to go home to July 4th
parades in their districts before they have dealt with the tangible and
pressing need of the veterans they will be saluting.
Let me say I find it absolutely scandalous that the Veterans
Administration failed to tell us of this shortfall.
Now, Mr. Speaker, while I give my friends on the right credit for
admitting their error and working to fix it, I regret to report that
their proposed solution is just not good enough.
They have proposed increasing veterans spending by $975 million,
which is still $25 million short of what the Veterans Affairs
Department says it needs just this year, and more than half a billion
dollars short of what the Senate pledged yesterday. Their bill does
nothing to address the issue of veterans funding in 2006, where we are
told there will be another more than $1 billion deficit.
I hope and pray we do not have to have this embarrassing debate again
next year and can instead solve this problem now. We should always
remember, Mr. Speaker, that it is easy to make the right decision when
the whole world is watching, but what defines our character is what we
do when no one is watching.
The Members of the majority have repeatedly been coerced by popular
pressure into doing what is right when all eyes are on them. Now, both
I and my colleagues on the Democratic side implore them to do something
more: to summon the courage and the wisdom to do what is right when the
only eyes on them are their own.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and certainly understand the
importance that she has placed on us rectifying the situation with
regard to veterans funding and as it relates to highway spending.
I am glad that the House by unanimous consent, before we took this
rule up, adopted the extension of the existing highway authorization.
So I am glad we have taken that off the table. It is precisely the type
of immediate action that we need to take before we go home for the
district work period.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
We have actually done some good things for veterans over the last 4
years. I would like to point those out.
We have passed concurrent receipt legislation which we have been
trying
[[Page H5563]]
to get done for a period of time. Death and survivor benefits have
certainly been very helpful to servicemembers over the past 4 years.
The VA budget has been increased from $48 billion to $68 billion, a 42
percent increase; and nearly 5 million veterans receive health care
benefit services this year, which is about 1 million more than 4 years
ago. So many good things have happened.
I realize that the current shortfall is really unacceptable and would
like to comment that even though this was due to an actuarial
miscalculation, certainly was unintentional and certainly is fixable,
we do find that some of our rural veterans are really struggling for
health care.
Many of these people have to travel long distances; and the older
they get and the sicker they get, the more difficult it is to get them
health care. They often have to have a friend, a child, drive them down
one day. The next day they come back, and it may be for very routine
issues such as blood pressure, adjustment of medications and so on.
What I am saying here at this particular time is that this seems to
be a neglected group, and ofttimes our rural veterans are the people
who really serve our country in the highest number, highest
percentages.
What we would like to propose is that legislation that I have
introduced, H.R. 1741, the Rural Veterans Access to Care Act, would
establish a pilot program to assist highly rural or geographically
remote veterans who are enrolled in the VA and are obtaining primary
health care at a medical facility closer to home, in other words, their
local hospital. If they need to adjust their medications, they can go
and check there, and VA reimburses them for that. This would, I think,
in some cases save money. It certainly would provide a lot more
services for those who badly need the health care.
I would just like to make that comment, and I thank the gentleman for
his time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out two things: first
of all, in response to my dear friend from Nebraska, when he mentioned
that the majority, or that this body, had passed or fixed concurrent
receipt, he neglected to mention that was following a Democratic
discharge petition that essentially shamed the majority into doing
something that the administration had opposed, the Republican majority
had opposed. They finally did it in the late term of the last Congress,
just in time for an election; but they still did not put in a permanent
fix for it.
When the gentleman talked about the other things that the majority
party has supposedly done for veterans, he neglected that just a couple
of weeks ago, right here on this floor, the majority party rejected the
gentleman from Mississippi's (Mr. Taylor) passionate request that we
provide additional TRIO health care access to Guardsmen and Reservists.
They rejected that.
So to come here and say look at what all we have done for veterans is
mighty hypocritical when you know the full record.
Let me talk about what happened this past March. I have worked in VA
hospitals as a clinical psychologist with returning veterans. We had
Task Force Olympia coming back to my region, and I said we have got
thousands of soldiers coming back and it is a logical, reasonable
question to say do we have the resources in place to treat those
soldiers and their families when they come back.
I worked with the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), and we held a
whole series of meetings with veterans and their families, and the
veterans said, we are not getting the care already that we need. We
talked to staff within the veterans hospital, and they told us, we are
not meeting the demands of the people already back home, let alone do
we have the capacity to meet the demands of thousands coming back.
Based on that information and other information we had gleaned from
prior hearings within this Congress, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Hooley) and I offered an amendment to the supplemental appropriations
bill to provide $1.3 billion to make sure that those veterans came back
and got the care they needed.
The distinguished gentleman from Florida was part of the Committee on
Rules that voted unanimously to not allow that amendment to be brought
to the floor. Had we brought that amendment to the floor and passed it
as part of the emergency supplemental, we would not be having this
debate, veterans would not be waiting in lines, their families would be
receiving the services they need, and we would be honoring our
commitments to the men and women who served.
Instead, what we are doing now months later is trying to jerryrig
something that we could have solved. You have let the veterans and
their families down. It is a historical fact. It is a current reality,
and it is shameful.
The President in his speech the other night said let us all wave
flags on July 4th. We are all for the flag and we are all for our
soldiers; but when the rubber meets the road, when the time comes to
armor the Humvees, to equip our soldiers, to adequately provide for
their health care before they deploy, to take care of them when they
come back, you folks are AWOL.
We could do the right thing tonight. We could do the right thing
tonight, pass a bill through the House that would immediately be taken
up by the Senate and immediately pass and get the money into the system
that it needs. We are not going to do that; and, yet again, we are not
going to do the right thing because of the opposition of the majority
party which will then somehow claim that they stood up for veterans,
and I think that is a disgrace, and it is inaccurate compared to the
historical record.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman attempted to give his version of the history. The
history speaks for itself.
Concurrent receipts is an issue that was never brought to the floor
under the Democratic majority. The gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Bilirakis), a champion for veterans, filed that bill year after year
after year for over a decade. It did not get a hearing until the
Republicans took over. It was the Republican majority that passed it.
It is under Republican leadership that funding per veteran has nearly
doubled.
Where the rubber meets the road, as the gentleman put it, has been in
funding and support for America's soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines
and our veterans; and it is unfortunate that we had this actuarial
model problem, but the fact of the matter is this rule allows us to fix
it tonight. I hope my colleagues will support that rule. Because of
that fact, it is freeing up those funds for our veterans to correct
this problem. It is also allowing us to move forward on other issues
before we go home for the 4th of July work period.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Baird) for a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. BAIRD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the report from the
Committee on the Budget hearing in which the majority denied our
efforts to add the $1.3 billion back in March.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration
of the bill. The Committee anticipates that the waiver
includes: Rule XIII, clause 4 of House rules (requiring a
three-day layover of the committee report and requiring the
three-day availability of printed hearings on a general
appropriation bill); Section 306 of the Congressional Budget
Act (prohibiting consideration of legislation within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget unless reported
by the Budget Committee); and Section 401 of the
Congressional Budget Act (prohibiting consideration of
budget-related legislation, as reported, that is not subject
to annual appropriations).
committee votes
Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of
each record vote on an amendment or motion to report,
together with the names of those voting for and against, are
printed below:
Rules Committee Record Vote No. 10
Date: March 14, 2005.
Measure: H.R. 1268, Making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005,
and for other purposes.
Motion by: Mrs. Slaughter.
[[Page H5564]]
Summary of motion: To make in order and provide the
appropriate waivers to the amendment offered by Rep. Hooley
to add $1.3 billion in funding to the FY06 Supplemental
Appropriations bill to provide health care and readjustment
assistance to the veterans of Iraq and the War on Terror.
Specifically, the amendment would provide $1.2 billion for
the Veterans Health Administration and $100 million for the
reintegration of Army National Guard members being released
from active duty.
Results: Defeated 3 to 9.
Vote by Members: Diaz-Balart--Nay; Hastings (WA)--Nay;
Sessions--Nay; Putnam--Nay; Capito--Nay; Cole--Nay; Bishop--
Nay; Gingrey--Nay; Slaughter--Yea; McGovern--Yea; Hastings
(FL)--Yea; Dreier--Nay.
Rules Committee Record Vote No. 11
Date: March 14, 2005.
Measure: H.R. 1268, Making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005,
and for other purposes.
Motion by: Mr. McGovern
Summary of motion: To make in order and provide the
appropriate waivers to the amendment offered by Rep. Tierney
to establish a select committee to study, among other things,
the bidding, contracting, and auditing standards in the
issuance of government contracts; the oversight procedures
and forms of payment and safeguards against money laundering;
the accountability of contractors and government officials
involved in procurement; and the allocation of contracts to
foreign companies and small businesses.
Results: Defeated 3 to 9.
Vote by Members: Diaz-Balart--Nay; Hastings (WA)--Nay;
Sessions--Nay; Putnam--Nay; Capito--Nay; Cole--Nay; Bishop--
Nay; Gingrey--Nay; Slaughter--Yea; McGovern--Yea; Hastings
(FL)--Yea; Dreier--Nay.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, all I can say to our Republican friends on the
other side of the aisle is: ``Welcome Aboard,'' even if you are a
little short and even if you are a little late.
The fact is that for the last 3 years we have had a history of
resistance by the majority party in this House to efforts by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and me to add funding for veterans
health care above the amounts that the Republican majority saw fit to
provide.
Example: fiscal 2005, the budget resolution. We asked that $1.3
billion more be made available for veterans health care. We were turned
down. In a continuing resolution for fiscal 2005, we tried to add $2.5
billion for veterans health care. We were turned down.
{time} 1930
As recently as a month ago, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards)
was called a demagogue by a member of the majority party because he was
insisting that the VA estimates were too low and that we needed more
money.
Now the VA belatedly admits that they have found a problem. The only
problem is even under their story they found it in April and they did
not reveal it until now. I would suggest that the VA also has a history
of trying to chisel on veterans' benefits. Three years ago, they sent
out instructions to veterans' service officers not to engage in
outreach in order to inform veterans what they were entitled to, and we
had to scold them day by day on this House floor to try to get them to
back off, and they are still being penurious about it.
The sad fact is that tonight what we ought to do is to take what the
Senate did. We ought to take the $1.5 billion that the Senate
Appropriations Committee reported out unanimously, every Republican,
every Democrat, $1.5 billion, and they suggested that if we passed
that, we could pass it immediately, no need for a conference, and we
would be in great shape.
We were told yesterday we should not bother with bringing funding up
on the Treasury Transport bill because we wanted to rush bills through
that could be signed faster. Well, the best way to get a bill through
this place immediately is to take the same number the Senate is taking
and pass it.
Let me also simply say that I find amusing this scramble by the
majority party leadership to finally get on board in a recognition that
veterans need more funding. It was just 6 months ago that the majority
party dumped the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) from his
chairmanship of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs because he had been
too insistent on adding money for veterans' health care. So when he got
out of line, you dumped him and you substituted someone you thought
would be more compliant with party leadership.
The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) pointed out to me that this
message was on a billboard in a veterans hospital in her district. It
reads: ``Important: We regret to inform you that, due to budget issues,
we can no longer supply meals to patients. Please bring a meal from
home if you are going to be in the short-stay unit. We apologize for
any inconvenience.''
Well, I think this Congress ought to apologize for the inconvenience
that they have caused veterans for the past 3 years by refusing to
recognize that these budgets are inadequate. We are oh so good at
praising the soldiers when the bands are playing and they are going off
to war. We have an obligation to be just as enthusiastic in meeting
their needs when they come home.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I hope we
would vote against the previous question so we can adopt the $1.5
billion solution which the Senate, on a unanimous basis in the Senate
Appropriations Committee, indicated was necessary.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
comment, as the gentleman is aware, that this rule allows us to move
that funding as expeditiously as possible. It requires a two-thirds
vote from the House to move forward. I am hopeful that he and the rest
of his side will support us on this rule so that we can get that fix
through. We can then restore the full funding to the veterans that they
require.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on
Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of
the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his
leadership in bringing this rule to the floor that provides for
consideration of several suspension bills, including a very important
one.
I have heard a lot of bellyaching tonight about what happened before
and why we should have done something else, and why did we not do
something this way and why did we not do it that way. I suspect that
when all the bellyaching is over, that we will have a near unanimous,
if not unanimous, vote, at least I hope we do, to provide these
resources.
We have a very logical process that we follow. It is according to our
rules and according to our traditions. In the Committee on
Appropriations we hold hearings in the spring, we take testimony, we
provide oversight, we then receive our allocation, and provide the
resources every year to meet the needs of our Nation. Again this year,
as we did last year, and the year before, and the year before, and the
year before, and the year before, the Veterans Administration receives
the highest increase of any budget within the entire Federal budget.
Year after year after year.
The House has the power of the purse. We set our priorities with the
money that we have. Clearly, year after year this budget, the Veterans
Administration budget, has been our highest priority. Whether you are a
Republican or you are a Democrat, that is the way most Members believe.
I feel that. I hear that from my colleagues, both sides of the aisle,
members of my subcommittee and members of the full committee. And that
is the way we have proceeded. It is not a partisan issue, and I hope we
will not make it one tonight. Because at the end of the day, literally,
that will be your last vote, and I hope we are all together on it.
What has happened since we had these hearings is that we move
rapidly. I think everybody noticed that tonight. The appropriation
bills for 2006 are complete. We moved rapidly. But the Veterans
Administration has a midyear annual review, which they had just
recently. Ensuing hearings by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
providing oversight, determined that there was a shortfall. The
Veterans Administration brought that forward, about $1 billion, or $975
million. They also explained that they had a work-around solution, $600
million out of capital and $375 million in anticipated reserve that
they would utilize to fill that void.
We then held additional hearings, the subcommittee and the Senate
authorization committee and the House authorization committee, and what
we
[[Page H5565]]
have found is that we have an accurate picture now of what that
shortfall is. We also have an accurate sense of the Congress that we do
not want to work-around solution. We want to provide those resources so
that the Veterans Administration does not have to set aside repair and
maintenance and acquisition of equipment, MRIs or computers or research
equipment or laboratory equipment. We do not want them to have to do
that.
So we are going through our normal procedure. And parts of that
procedure, when you have to go back and take a look-back at a budget,
is a supplemental budget request. This supplemental budget request will
be presented for the consideration of the House tonight. The request is
to provide that shortfall, $975 million, to the Veterans Administration
to meet the needs to complete 3 more months of this year.
Now, people say, well, $1 billion, how could they be off $1 billion?
My colleagues, this is a $30 billion-plus budget. This $1 billion means
they were off by 3 percent, 3 percent, in their estimation. Now, is
that unforgivable? Of course not. Is it a mistake? It sure is. And we
have a way to resolve that mistake, to fix it, to correct it, and again
to show our commitment to our Nation's veterans, especially in a time
of war.
We are sending a signal not only to our current veterans, but we are
sending a signal to those heroes that are out there in the field today,
in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the globe. We want them to know that
the commitments we have made to them we will keep, even if it has to be
in an extraordinary measure like this.
So I would welcome additional comment. I would welcome the
opportunity of those individuals who looked ahead and offered
additional resources. But I would ask you to look at the logic of what
we are doing. Look at the thread of logic through this whole process.
We want to do this right, and I think we have done it right. So let us
have the debates tonight. If you feel compelled to say ``I told you
so,'' go ahead. But stick with us and vote for this bill and support
our veterans in a process that is reliable and is predictable and has a
thread of logic all the way through it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time and for her leadership on this important issue. I also want to
acknowledge the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). He and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) have been such champions for
America's veterans.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach this 4th of July, we remember the
sacrifice, the vision of our Founding Fathers, the courage, the
imagination, and the intellect and values they presented in the
Declaration of Independence. Since then, our country has always been
about shared sacrifice in time of war and in time of peace. That is, up
until now.
As Americans, we make a simple yet sacred promise to our veterans:
You take care of us and we will take care of you. How we repay the
service of our veterans speaks volumes about the character of our
country. Unfortunately, under Republican leadership, the Congress is
failing to keep faith with the veterans who have defended our freedom
with their very lives.
Veterans of this country deserve some answers. Why does the
Republican leadership in Congress find billions of dollars of tax cuts
for the wealthiest Americans but does not find enough money for the
veterans who risk their lives for our Nation? Why are veterans' affairs
initiatives consistently underfunded and shortchanged, forcing
thousands of veterans to wait months for health care? Why did the Bush
administration suddenly discover a shortfall when we had been talking
about this for months? Democrats and veterans organizations have been
saying that the VA has been underfunded for more than 2 years now.
The answer is simple: The shortfall is the direct result of the
failed budget policies and misplaced priorities of the Bush
administration and the Republican Congress. Republicans here have
either been in denial about the plight of our veterans or it simply has
not been a priority for them.
This did not have to happen. Veterans across our country did not have
to hear that the government had underfunded their health care. Our
veterans did not have to give up only part of their patriotism and
bravery in defending our Nation. Let today be the day when we begin to
enact a GI Bill of Rights, and we can begin by responding to the call
from the Senate.
The reason that we are here this evening, and the effect of the
motion that is made to the Committee on Rules on the previous question,
would say that if we defeat the previous question, the resolution
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) would come to the
floor and would fund by $1.5 billion the needs for veterans' health
care.
Senator Craig said in a unanimous vote that the appropriators in the
Senate voted to authorize the Senate to quickly take up the $1.5
billion emergency supplemental if the House approves such a measure. So
a vote ``no'' on the previous question says ``yes'' to bringing up the
Edwards resolution, which would immediately send it to the Senate,
where they would take it up immediately, pass it, and send it to the
President's desk.
Instead, the Republicans are advocating a different position, which
is to once again shortchange America's veterans. On a battlefield, Mr.
Speaker, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a Nation,
let our pledge be that when they return home, we leave no veteran
behind. We can support our veterans with a ``no'' vote on the previous
question, and a 'yes' on the Edwards resolution, and a ``yes'' for our
veterans. That would be the appropriate observation of the 4th of July.
Mr. Speaker, I support the President's call for flying the flag on
the 4th of July. Let us fly the flag and fund veterans' benefits.
Mr. Speaker, as we approach this Fourth of July, we remember the
sacrifice of our Founding Fathers--the courage, the imagination, the
intellect, and the values they presented in the Declaration of
Independence. And since then, our country has always been about shared
sacrifice--when it came to war, and when it came to peace. That is, up
until now.
As Americans, we make a simple yet sacred promise to our veterans:
``You have taken care of us, so we will take care of you.'' How we
repay the service of our veterans speaks volumes about our national
character. Unfortunately under Republican leadership, the Congress is
failing to keep faith with the veterans who have defended our freedom
with their very lives.
Veterans in this country deserve some answers. Why does the
Republican leadership in Congress find billions in tax cuts for the
wealthiest Americans, but does not find enough money for the veterans
who risked their lives for our Nation? Why are Veterans Affairs
initiatives consistently underfunded, forcing thousands of veterans to
wait months for health care? Why did the Bush Administration suddenly
discover a shortfall, when Democrats and veterans have been saying that
the VA was underfunded for more than 2 years now?
The answer is simple: this shortfall is the direct result of the
failed budget policies and misplaced priorities of the Bush
Administration and the Republican Congress.
This did not have to happen. Veterans across our Nation did not have
to hear that their government had under funded their health care; our
veterans did not give only part of their patriotism and bravery in
defending our Nation.
For more than two years, Democrats and veterans' organizations have
stood together, calling for adequate funding.
We have sent letters, we have offered amendments, and we have
launched a discharge petition to try to force a vote on additional
funding for veterans' health care. We have tried time and time again,
only to be rebuffed by the Republicans in Congress every step of the
way. Vote after vote failed on the party line.
For our latest attempt, we sent a letter, signed by every single
Democrat, to President Bush calling for an emergency supplemental to
fund VA health care.
It seems that our voices were finally heard. Democrats have made this
too hot for the Republicans to handle.
The truth has come out. The Bush Administration and the Republicans
in Congress are finally admitting to what we've been saying for 2
years.
And today we have a chance in taking the first step in righting a
wrong. The problem is that once again, the Republicans are a day late
and dollar short.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has authorized the Senate to
quickly take up a
[[Page H5566]]
$1.5 billion emergency supplemental if the House passes the same.
The Chairman of the Senate Veteran's Committee has stated, and I
quote, ``Clearly there is a disagreement here on the number, but it's
clear that we all want to do the right thing for our veterans. We do
not want to leave the Department of Veterans Affairs short of funds.
Working with our colleagues in the House, I'm sure we can achieve that
objective.''
The VA desperately needs this funding. And to get it done today the
House must pass $1.5 billion for our veterans.
The ultimate fix would be what veterans and the Ranking Democrat on
the Veterans Affairs Committee, Lane Evans, have been calling for. They
are correct, the only way to assure funding for VA health care: make it
mandatory.
But let us start today by voting no on the previous question, so we
can offer an amendment that would increase the amount for veterans to
$1.5 billion to match the Senate amount.
Caring for our veterans shouldn't be a partisan issue. It should be
our number one priority. Our veterans deserve better.
We must fulfill our sacred obligations to those who have worn this
Nation's uniform.
My wish is that today's vote will lead to a renewed bipartisan
commitment for our veterans.
Let today be the beginning of a new chapter, let today be the day
when this government no longer ignores the promises we've made, and
provide the support our veterans have earned and deserve.
Let today be the day when we begin ending the Disabled Veterans' Tax
for every single veteran.
Let today be the day when we begin fully ending the Military Families
Tax.
Let today be the day when we begin to enact a new GI Bill of Rights
for the 21st Century.
On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind.
As a Nation, let it be our pledge that when they return home, we leave
no veteran behind.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from New York called this frustration
bellyaching. It is not. In my office last month was a wounded veteran
from Iraqi Freedom. His leg had been nearly blown off by an IED. He had
been repeatedly and routinely denied care just as a default to say
``you are not service-connected here.'' I saw the leg. It was damn near
blown off.
Because of shortfalls in funding, the people who have served this
country and nearly gave their lives, but did give their limbs, are not
getting the care they need. It is more than bellyaching to stand up for
them. I would invite the gentleman from New York to do something we do
not do very often here. Let us step out of the box and stop the
partisan fighting.
Here is the situation here today. If we pass the $975 million that
the majority is putting forward, there is no way the Senate can
conference that before the July 4th recess. The other body has said
that if we pass $1.5 billion in the House, the same bill as theirs, it
will be on the President's desk and can be signed and we can do
something substantive rather than symbolic before July 4th. What is
wrong with doing that for our veterans?
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, the Senate attached this 2005 funding to an
2006 bill, which will not take effect within the 2005 year. If they
take up this bill on a stand-alone basis, the President can sign it
tomorrow.
{time} 1945
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is different. The gentleman
may be right.
My point is we have tried repeatedly on our side of the aisle to get
additional funding for the veterans. We had hearings before the
Committee on the Budget. The $1.3 billion figure that the gentlewoman
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and I tried to add and were defeated by the
majority, we did not draw out of thin air. It came from hearings before
the Committee on the Budget. Veterans groups, as the gentlemen know,
roundly criticized the majority budget as woefully underfunding
veterans' needs. This did not come as a surprise. We saw it coming. We
tried to tell you it was coming. You denied it repeatedly; and the sad
part is for all of our bickering and complaining here, the people who
suffered were the soldiers, and they are suffering today. We need to
solve this problem.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman from New York for pointing out the flaws in the
argument. If we pass the $975 million tonight, the Senate can take it
up tomorrow. The relief is there immediately. It is not a game of
political one-upsmanship or the Polk County fair where we have this
bidding contest going on.
The $975 million is out there before the July 4 break. It will be on
the Senate's desk for them to take up. That is the responsible approach
for this House to adopt at this point in the week as we continue to
work through all of our avenues of support to get all of this
assistance and help and rehabilitation to the veterans in need.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that if we pass $1.5 billion, we can
do the same thing, take the Senate bill and get it finished tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown).
(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have been on the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 13 years, and let me say one thing:
we do not have a shortage of money here in this Congress. We pass
whatever we want whenever we want. The problem is, and I rise on behalf
of all of the veterans, the problem is that there is not the will. The
veterans are not the priority.
What I said in committee I say on this floor today. We can send $1.5
billion over to the Senate. They can pick it up, pass it, and tomorrow
morning the President will be taking pictures, taking credit for it;
but who wins will be the veterans.
I am reminded of the words of the first President of the United
States, George Washington, whose words are worth repeating at this
time: ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve
in any war, no matter how justifiable,'' and we are going to question
that, ``will be directly proportionate as to how they perceive the
veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated.''
Now let us not sham them. Everybody knows that the veterans need $3
billion; not $1 billion, $3 billion. That is what the independent
budget says. The other side of the aisle is not surprised. They know
what they need.
Why is it we cannot come together and give them something more than
this lip service? You all talk a great talk. Let us all come together
and walk the walk for the veterans tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of veterans everywhere. What has been
introduced here today is a sham. The emergency supplemental sent over
by the President and accepted by the Republican leadership is wholly
inadequate. This $975 million breaks down with money for many needed
accounts; however, why should we believe their numbers now?
They lied to us when submitting their budget in February, they lied
to us when they came to our committees in April, they did not discuss
any issues with the minority members of the Veterans Committee. What do
we know that the Senate does not? Why is there more than $500 million
less for veterans in this bill? Why are we still trying to balance the
budget on the backs of the veterans?
The 3 surgical operating rooms at the White River Junction VA Medical
Center in Vermont had to be closed on June 27 because the heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning system was broken and had not been
repaired due to the siphoning of maintenance funds to cover the budget
shortfall.
The Community Based Outpatient Clinics needed to meet veterans'
increased demand for care in the North Florida/South Georgia VA
Healthcare System have been delayed due to fiscal constraints. As of
April, the Gainesville facility has nearly 700 service-connected
veterans waiting for more than 30 days for an appointment. As a result
of cost cutting measures to make up for the shortfall in FY 2005, the
Portland, Oregon, VA Medical Center is delaying all non-emergent
surgery by at least six months. Veterans in need of knee replacement
surgery won't be treated because of the budget shortfall.
[[Page H5567]]
The goal of the Republicans and President Bush is to delay funding to
veterans health. By passing this level of funding, we are guaranteed a
conference. That will delay funding. Our veterans cannot wait! Support
our Veterans! Defeat the Previous Question and fully fund veterans
health care! I am reminded of the words of the first President of the
United States, George Washington, whose words are worth repeating at
this time:
The willingness with which our young people are likely to
serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly
proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier
wars were treated and appreciated by their country.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, we are asking young Americans, men and
women alike, to fight a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan. As we debate
funding for veterans tonight, if the Congress is going to err, should
we not err a little bit on the side of veterans rather than erring on
the side of shortchanging them?
I must say I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and
his effort in this process to fix a hole in veterans funding that I
believe was created by repeated denials of the Republican House
leadership at a real cost of providing quality health care for our
veterans. It has been going on for 2 years, not 1 or 2 weeks, but 2
years.
I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his efforts this
week. This bill would move it a step forward. But why in the world
would the House Republican leadership refuse to even consider the $1.5
billion funding level that I think is needed to adequately fund VA
health care during a time of war?
Let me put this debate in perspective. Over a year ago, the
Republican chairman of the VA committee, the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith), stood up and said in a bipartisan letter to the House
Committee on the Budget that if you do not add $2.5 billion in 2005 to
the VA health care budget, we are going to have to cut veterans
services during a time of war, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Smith) said that was wrong, and he was right to say it would be wrong.
How did the House Republican leadership honor the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Smith) for standing up for veterans? Did they salute him?
No, they fired him. They not only fired him from his position as
chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, took him off the
Committee on Veterans Affairs' altogether.
Now the same leadership that punished a Member of the House for
standing up for veterans during a time of war is asking us on a few
minutes' notice to support the funding level for the VA health care
crisis that is nearly $600 million less than that approved on a
bipartisan basis by the United States Senate.
If we are going to err, why not err on the side of veterans? The same
people who provided the numbers that put together this bill, it was put
together on a partisan basis. I was not approached as ranking member of
the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs to
help determine what the number should be.
If this had been done on a bipartisan basis today, perhaps we could
have all come up with a number that we all could have agreed upon.
If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) had his way, I think it
would have been done in a bipartisan way. But the decision to make this
a partisan bill tonight was made by the same House Republican
leadership that chose a year ago to turn its back on veterans when it
fired the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for saying we should
adequately fund veterans health care.
Let us err on the side of honoring our veterans tonight, not
shortchanging them. And the Senate, the other body, has made it
perfectly clear that it would take up immediately the bill that we
would like to have voted on the House tonight to add $1.5 billion to VA
health care spending for the year 2005.
It is a sad day when Members of this House are punished for standing
up for veterans. Let no one on the Republican side of the aisle say
these are just Democrats making partisan fights. We have been accused
of that for the last 2 years by some who now want to say you were
right, our numbers were wrong.
We should come together tonight. I would plead on a bipartisan basis
to support the $1.5 billion funding level for veterans health care that
the Senate has already adopted on a bipartisan basis. I would urge the
House Republican leadership to stop punishing and intimidating Members
of this House who will put their loyalty to veterans above their
loyalty to partisanship. Let us do the right thing.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman continues to say this is a partisan issue. I would
venture to agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh): the vote
on this will be anything but partisan. I would venture to say that the
support for restoring the $975 million mistake that the VA made will be
a very broad, bipartisan, nonpartisan vote because I cannot imagine
that anybody would stand in the way of that money finding its way into
the veterans' hands, and the medical clinics and hospitals that so
desperately need it.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has identified the need as
being $1.5 billion. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown)
has identified the need as being $3 billion. The VA and the
administration has said it is $975 million. If we as a House pass that
$975 million, get it into the hands of the people who need it, if we
find between now and the end of the fiscal year, because that is the
number that has been stated that is needed for the remainder of the
fiscal year, but we will be back here in a week, and if we find that
more is needed, without question it would be given again on a broad
bipartisan vote.
But we believe that the correct number based on the new actuarial
study, based on the request of the Secretary, based on the request of
the administration is $975 million. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown) believes it is $3 billion, but she is only willing to
put half of that up by asking for $1.5 billion. We are willing to fund
all that we believe the VA has requested to get them through the
remainder of this fiscal year. This is not a partisan issue. This is an
issue of huge importance to all of our veterans. I think that all of us
on a broad bipartisan basis should pass this rule which allows us to
get this money to them.
I want to correct another issue that continues to be repeated by the
other side of the aisle. The Senate has not passed a penny for the
veterans. It has been reported out of their committee. What we are
doing here tonight allows the entire House to act on this
appropriations request and get it over there to the Senate as quickly
as possible.
As usual, we are ahead of the Senate on this issue, and we are acting
as quickly as possible to get them the request the administration has
made for the remainder of the fiscal year. It has not been taken up by
the Senate. It has not passed out of the Senate, it has only come out
of committee. We have put this thing on the fast track to get veterans
the help they need.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I echo the sentiments of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards), who has been a tireless advocate of veterans
benefits. I am a veteran and a son of a veteran who has a son who just
became a veteran, so I echo the gentleman's sentiments.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our veterans, our troops, and
H.R. 3130. Since I was elected, we have buried five soldiers in the
Third Congressional District. As we drape our Nation's flag over their
coffins, are we supposed to tell their families that our budget
prevents them from getting promised benefits? As we celebrate July 4
and march in parades alongside the heroes of World War II, Vietnam,
Korea, and the Persian Gulf, are we supposed to tell these veterans
that last week's accounting error will prevent them from being seen by
a doctor? And that not only will they have to travel 5 hours to see a
doctor, but once they get there, they will be turned away?
They did not turn away when we called upon them to serve our country.
[[Page H5568]]
They did not turn away from putting their lives on the line for our
freedoms. We cannot turn away from them now.
It should not take an emergency or bad press coverage for this
administration to care about the health of our Nation's veterans. In a
time of war, bringing our troops home safely and taking care of our
veterans is our number one priority.
This administration has let our Nation's heroes suffer because of a
mismanaged budget. This is absolutely shameful and unacceptable. No one
should ever let the troops and veterans be an afterthought. We need to
provide this money now. We need to guarantee all future funding for the
Veterans Administration so our Nation's heroes never have to suffer
from a mismanaged budget again.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in response to the
comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), he cannot name one
Democrat in this House that was approached in putting together this
bill dealing with veterans health care. If that is not partisan, I do
not know what is.
What were the Republicans afraid of in working with Democrats to come
up with a bill to fix the problem that the Republican leadership
created? By the way, the same leadership passed a budget resolution
this year cutting veterans health care benefits by $14 billion over the
next 5 years. Forgive me if I do not trust that same leadership coming
forward with this bill tonight.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is a champion for veterans and
has been for years, and I do not take anything away from him on that.
But the fact of the matter is that for the last 10 years, veterans
funding per veteran has doubled under Republican leadership. The
funding overall has continued to grow. It has grown, as the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh) pointed out, at the highest rate of any
agency in the government. As I said earlier, the vote on this issue
will not be a partisan one. Every Member is committed to move this
funding to the veterans as quickly as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
{time} 2000
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me quickly point out that this should
come as no surprise. The President's budget for 2005 cut veterans
appropriated funding $248 million below the Congressional Budget Office
estimate of what was needed to keep pace for inflation in 2005 and
$13.4 billion below current services over 5 years. For 2006, the
President's budget called the even deeper cuts. Excluding the proposal
to impose new and unrealistic fees, it cut funding for veterans
appropriated programs $759 million below current services necessary to
keep pace with inflation, $18 billion below inflation over 5 years.
Democrats have offered alternatives every year on this floor that
would have covered the shortfalls the V.A. has identified. In 2005, we
offered a budget resolution with $2.5 billion more than the President
requested. In 2006, we offered a budget resolution with $2.3 billion
over the President's request. And every year the outyear funding that
we proposed was also substantially more than they proposed, and that is
a problem we are not even discussing tonight because consistently what
has happened here is there has been a little plus-up in the near term
and a flattening out in the long term, and we inherit the consequences
and episodes like this.
If we had passed the resolutions that Democrats supported and brought
to this floor, we would not be here tonight discussing this bill.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Florida for yielding me this time.
I always take a keen interest in these debates on veterans' health
care issues. I actually work in a veterans' health care facility. I
volunteer once a month; I see patients. And I have been doing it for
years, and we have seen for years a tremendous explosion in demand for
access to our veterans' health care system. And some of it has been
generated by this Congress. We relaxed some of the access requirements.
Some of it has been generated by the high cost of prescription drugs. A
lot of the new patients coming into the system are people who do not
have a prescription drug benefit. And, of course, now we have increased
demand with the consequence of the war.
And I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) on this
rule. I think it is a good rule, and I want to commend the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh). He has worked very hard to address this
shortfall. And, personally, I think we, as a Congress and as a
Committee on Appropriations, need to take a very close look at the bill
that we have already passed to address the 2006 needs, and this
situation that we are dealing with today, I think, is the right thing
for us to do. It is the best thing for our veterans. I know in the
State of Florida, where I work and where I live, it has more than
doubled, the number of veterans that have come into the system in the
last 6 years, and it is truly breathtaking the number of people who are
coming into the veterans system on a regular basis.
So I commend the author of this supplemental, and I believe it is the
right thing for us to do for our veterans. We are in a state of war,
and we need to send a signal to young people who want to enlist, to
people who are serving and the people who have served that the Congress
is going to stand with them and we are going to address these needs
properly.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Baird).
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman
from New York have repeatedly said that this will be a nearly unanimous
passage. That may be true because the only thing we can unanimously
agree on is the lower number. The Republicans will not agree on the
higher number, which is what the veterans need. The Democrats will
agree on the lower number because it is all they are really willing to
give us. But if they truly cared for the veterans, they would agree
with us and we would have unanimous vote on the $1.5 billion.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Before I start, I will insert in the Record the news release from
Senator Craig, Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman, and the New
York Times editorial today called ``The True Cost of War.''
Senate to Quickly Take Up $1.5 Billion Measure for Veterans If Sent
From the House
Washington, DC--The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee
retreated its position today that the Department of Veterans
Affairs need $1.5 billion to fill a spending gap for the
Department of Veterans Affairs. In a unanimous vote, the
appropriators voted to authorize the Senate to quickly take
up a $1.5 billion emergency supplemental if the House
approves such a measure.
That action came after the Bush Administration indicated
earlier today that the agency needs $975 million.
``Clearly there is disagreement here on the number, but
it's clear that we all want to do the right thing for
veterans. We do not want to leave the Department of Veterans
Affairs short of funds,'' said Sen. Larry Craig who serves on
the Appropriations Committee and is Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Veterans' Affairs. ``Working with our colleagues
in the House, I'm sure we can achieve that objective.''
[From the New York Times, Jun. 30, 2005]
The True Cost of War
In anger and embarrassment, Congressional Republicans are
scrambling to repair a budget shortfall in veterans' medical
care now that the Bush administration has admitted it vastly
underestimated the number of returning Iraq and Afghanistan
personnel needing treatment. The $1 billion-plus gaffe is
considerable, with the original budget estimate of 23,553
returned veterans needing care this year now ballooning to
103,000. American taxpayers should be even more furious than
Congress.
The Capitol's Republican majorities have shown no
hesitation in signing the president's serial blank-check
supplemental budgets for waging the war, yet they repeatedly
ignored months of warnings from Democrats
[[Page H5569]]
that returning veterans were being shortchanged. One
Republican who warned of the problem--Representative
Christopher Smith of New Jersey--lost his chairmanship of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee after pressing his plea too
boldly before the House leadership.
But partisan resistance melted in a flood of political
chagrin once the administration admitted the budget error,
which was first discovered in April but only now disclosed.
The explanation offered--the gaffe was due to using dated
formulas based on prewar calculations--left Republicans
sputtering all the more.
All wars necessarily involve mismanagement, even successful
ones. But there is no excuse for treating the needs of
wounded and damaged warriors as a budgetary afterthought.
Congressional Republicans were far from innocent victims of
administrative ineptitude or deception. After years of
approving record tax cuts and budget deficits, they stuck to
this year's pre-election script of fictitious ``budget
tightening'' that underestimated inevitable expenses and
shortchanged returning veterans with higher health care
enrollment fees and drug co-payments. The only comfort for
the American public is that unlike many of the war's
problems, this one can be repaired, providing partisan combat
is suspended in the Capitol.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be asking Members to vote
``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated,
I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to
immediately consider H.R. 3136, legislation introduced by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey)
that provides an immediately desperately needed $1.5 billion in funding
for veterans medical service. This amount is the same level that was
approved by the Senate last night and is what is needed to fully care
for our Nation's veterans.
Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the White House and the VA were not
honest about this shortfall in the first place because if they had
been, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said, we would
not need to be here tonight. But I think now even the most skeptical of
my colleagues in the House realize that our veterans' health care
system is in a serious crisis. And while it is encouraging that after
feeling the pressure brought to bear by the American people that the
Republican leadership has reversed course and agreed to take some
action, it is unclear to me why they are providing only $975 million
instead of the full amount needed. How can we believe the same people
who told us there was no problem?
Senator Craig is asking the leadership of this body to pass a bill
and let him have that $1.5 billion out of here so they can finish work
on this in the morning. Clearly, clearly, we must do that for our
veterans. Remember, we have a contract with them. When we sent them off
to war, we guaranteed that we will meet their needs.
So please vote ``no'' on the previous question, and we can vote today
for full funding of our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment
be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of closing, I yield the
balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh),
distinguished chairman of the Military Quality of Life and Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Committee on
Appropriations; who has been a champion for veterans funding, who has
been there year in and year out. He shepherded, along with the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and other Members of this House,
the first concurrent receipt bill in the history of this country,
double-digit funding increases for veterans, a doubling of funding for
veterans over the last decade, a real champion for the veterans.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
After all the speeches and the rhetoric, really the big difference
here is the dollar amount. We all realize there is a shortfall. We all
support closing the gap. So the issue is $1.5 billion that the Senate
acted on. One Member said it was 3, but I think most people, at least
on the opposite side of the aisle, agree that it is $1.5 billion. We
believe it is $975 million. So everything else really at this point is
rhetoric. We just need to try to address that. And I tried for the life
of me to figure out where this $1.5 billion figure came from. I know
the Senate is working with that figure, because everything we have
heard from the Veterans Administration was that they had a work-around
solution to come up with $600 million out of their capital fund and
$375 million out of their reserve fund to close this gap in different
lines of health care within the hospital system, and that would add up
to that $975 million.
The $1.5 million is still a big question mark, and the only thing I
can come up with is that, in a conversation I had with OMB Director
Bolten, he mentioned that there may be, they do not know but they are
working on it, a shortfall in 2006, in 2006, of somewhere between $1.1
and $1.6 billion. And that is 2006. No one, no one, has ever mentioned
the fact that there is a shortfall in 2005 of $1.5 billion. So we have
what I think is a number that is provided through a logical process,
through testimony in the hearings presented by the head of the health
administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary.
This, I believe, is as close to what we can get as what the gap is.
Let us support it on a bipartisan basis. Let us support the rule and
consider the bill.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
it shall be in order without intertention of any point of
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3136) making
emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2005 for veterans medical
services. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. PUTNAM. 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 noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PUTNAM. 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 216,
nays 191, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 359]
YEAS--216
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
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
Emerson
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
[[Page H5570]]
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
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
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
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reyes
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--26
Berman
Boehner
Butterfield
Cardin
Cramer
English (PA)
Everett
Harman
Higgins
Keller
Kingston
Musgrave
Norwood
Oberstar
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Radanovich
Rahall
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Schiff
Smith (NJ)
Solis
Waters
Wicker
{time} 2030
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 359 on H. Res. 345
concerning the previous question, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay''.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 359, had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________