Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 63 (Friday, May 19, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 63 (Friday, May 19, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H2894-H2902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

0915
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5385, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION,
MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 821 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 821

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. 5385) making appropriations for the military
quality of life functions of the Department of Defense,
military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2007, 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 for title IV. During consideration of the bill
for amendment, the Chairman of the Committe of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment

[[Page H2895]]

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 considereed as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 821 is an open rule. It provides one hour of
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the
ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee. It waives all
points of order against consideration of the bill. Under the rules of
the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. This rule
waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting unauthorized
appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriation bill,
except as specified in the resolution. It authorizes the Chair to
accord priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their
amendments in the Congressional Record, and it provides one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 821 and the
underlying bill, H.R. 5385, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans
Affairs Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007.
First, I want to thank and recognize Chairman Walsh and Chairman
Lewis for all of the work they have put into this bill. The committee
did a great job of staying within the framework of the President's
budget request and ensuring the needs of our veterans, those currently
serving and their families.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill totals $136.1 billion, which is an
increase of almost $14 billion over last year's level, more than 10
percent. Of this $136 billion, the bill provides $41.4 billion in
mandatory spending and $94.7 billion in discretionary spending.
The bill provides $77.9 billion for veterans' programs, marking
approximately a 10 percent increase over the 2006 enacted level.
Particularly important is the $32.7 billion for veterans' medical
services, 11 percent more than the 2006 enacted level and $38 million
above the President's request.
Additionally, the committee followed the recommendations of various
veterans groups to make sure more funds are provided to meet the needs
of veterans returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. I must also
emphasize to the veterans back home in the 11th Congressional District
of Georgia, northwest Georgia particularly, and all across this
country, that this bill does not, I want to repeat, it does not contain
any new fees for veterans' medical services or prescription drugs. It
does, however, increase mandatory veterans' benefits by $4.2 billion
over the 2006 level.
So, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5385 also includes significant increases in
funding to improve the lives of our veterans and their families. It
provides an additional $25 million to open a minimum of 10 new
community based outpatient clinics and an additional $20 million to
make facility improvements to existing State veterans' homes.
Further, this bill increases basic medical research by $13 million;
and it includes an additional $12 million to begin upgrades to VA
medical research facilities nationwide.
In regards to military construction, this bill provides $10.6
billion: $5.6 billion for active duty construction, a billion dollars
in construction for our reserve components, and $4 billion for the
construction of housing for our servicemembers and their families.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5385 provides $21 billion, an increase of
$1 billion over current levels, to fund the health defense program
allowing for the ongoing preparation of our brave soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines, while caring for their families back home.
Without question, we are again in a tough budget year; and while the
underlying bill may not be perfect, it does ensure that scarce
resources are allocated in the most effective, efficient and
responsible manner possible.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this debate. I encourage my colleagues
to support the rule and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us will allow the House to
consider the fiscal year 2007 Military Quality of Life and Veterans
Administration Appropriations bill. All Members know that the support
in this bill for military housing, for veterans' health care, and for
retiree benefits is part of the promise we made to the men and women
when they joined our Armed Forces.
As we consider this bill, there should be little disagreement over
the tremendous demands being placed on the Veterans Administration and
on the military construction accounts.
In 1995, the VA treated 2.6 million veterans and their families. By
the end of this year, that number will have more than doubled to an
estimated 5.4 million people. This places additional stress on the many
hospitals and the VA network. These World War II-era buildings are
badly in need of upgrades at the cost of billions over the next 5 to 10
years.
It was for this reason, increased strain in time of war, that the
Democrats have consistently criticized the administration's less-than-
adequate funding for veterans and veterans' health care.
Last year, the administration admitted to accounting errors which
underestimated the demand for veterans' services by $3 billion in
fiscal years 2005 and 2006. It turned out that the administration had
failed to account for the new veterans, those returning from the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan. After Democrats, the American Legion, the
Disabled American Veterans and many other veterans organizations
expressed outrage, steps were taken retroactively to address the
shortfall.
With that backdrop, this year's appropriations bill does increase
veterans' medical services by $2.6 billion over last year's amount.
Unfortunately, it does so by employing a budget gimmick.
This year's shortsighted budget did not provide full funding to meet
this Nation's veterans' health care needs in a time of war. So the
Military Quality of Life Appropriations Subcommittee was forced to
boost money for veterans using money originally designated for military
housing and then pay for military housing by declaring that money
emergency funding.
In truth, it was no emergency. It was simply a shell game that
ignored the principle of shared sacrifice upon which our Nation has
relied in every other time of war, except this one. These budget
gimmicks should come as no surprise. Even to the casual observer, this
majority has shown disregard for budget matters. After all, 3 years
into the Iraq War, the administration and this majority continue to
fund it with ``emergency spending.''
We are using a credit card to pay for war and sending the bill to our
children and our grandchildren. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the
only reason this bill comes close to meeting the health needs of so
many veterans is because of this gimmick. And the bill pays for
construction of some housing for military families, but again only
because of this gimmick. Many Members on both sides of the aisle are
frustrated with this approach.
Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government cannot go back on our
responsibility to support our troops, assist their families, and
continue our commitment to the veterans. This responsibility is
particularly important in a time of war. With troops fighting the war
in Iraq, they should not be the only ones to make sacrifices; they must
be shared by all Americans. No loopholes for a select few, no kicking

[[Page H2896]]

the can down the road for another generation to deal with by way of
increasing the national debt.
In cities and towns across America, our constituents notice when
Congress uses these gimmicks. My local paper, in fact, hit on this very
theme of sacrifice in time of war earlier this week, and I include for
the Record an editorial from the Sacramento Bee. Its title says it all:
``Where's the Sacrifice.'' I could not agree more.

[From the Sacramento Bee, May 16, 2006]

Where's the Sacrifice?

The Republican majority in Congress wants to go into the
November elections bragging that they've cut taxes again. The
House and Senate just extended record-high Bush tax cuts
until 2010. They call it a political victory.
Will the American people really buy this one-note chant
again?
It represents the triumph of rigid ideology over practical
reality.
At a time of war, these members of Congress are demanding
sacrifice only of the young people fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The tax cuts of 2001, 2002 and 2003 have given
us record-high deficits and debt, driving this country into a
financial mess political leaders are passing on to future
generations.
The tax cutters rely on two fallacious arguments.
The first is the ``starve the beast'' idea. Tax cuts, the
theory goes, will reduce government revenues and choke off
government spending, making government smaller. Even
conservative economists now reject that hypothesis. For
example, economists William Niskanen and Peter Van Doren of
the Cato Institute show convincingly that since 1981, for
each one percentage point decline in tax revenues, federal
spending increases by about one-half percent of GDP.
Government spending grows because tax cuts make government
look cheaper than it actually is, so people want more of it.
A tax increase does a better job of reducing government
because it forces people to pay for government services.
At least ``starve the beast'' proponents were honest in
saying that tax cuts would reduce government revenues.
Today you have members of Congress actually saying the
opposite: ``Lower tax rates equal more federal revenue.'' The
facts show otherwise. Bush tax cuts have contributed to
revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of
the U.S. economy since 1950. Where revenues typically have
been 17 percent to 20 percent of the economy, in 2004 they
were 16.3 percent, according to the Congressional Budget
Office.
A CBO report, ``Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary
Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates,'' shows that
a 10 percent cut in income tax rates lowers revenues by $775
billion over 10 years.
So when tax cut proponents say that tax cuts benefit the
Treasury, take it with a grain of salt.
The tax cut vote was a party line vote. Voters know whom to
blame for the nation's financial mess come November.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies.
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for his leadership on getting this rule together and also to
Chairman Dreier and the members of the Rules Committee for their help
and support.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that we can be very proud of. After all,
we are a Nation at war, and the way we treat our veterans of past wars
is a very clear signal to our current active duty people as to how they
will be treated in the future. And the commitments we have made in the
past are being met in this bill.
One of the key issues always in the Military Quality of Life and
Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill is veterans' medical care, the
Veterans Health Administration. We have provided almost a 13 percent
increase in veterans' medical care in this bill, a remarkable increase,
although consistent with the last 6 or 7 years where we have
dramatically ramped up funding.
No other budget within the Federal Government's entire purview has
received the increases that the Veterans Health Administration has.
Clearly Congress, especially the House, establishes its priorities by
the funds it provides, it allocates, it appropriates on the
discretionary side of the budget. If that is any indication, our
commitment to our Nation's veterans is the highest priority of the
House of Representatives and indeed the Congress.
We have also provided additional resources for the benefits
administration to make sure that we bring down the time frames that
veterans are forced to wait until their benefits issues are resolved.
We are working on reducing those delays.
We have also mandated that the Veterans Administration create a
minimum of 10 new veterans' outreach clinics. This is part of the CARES
Commission statement. People all over the country, veterans all over
the country, are benefiting from these new veterans' clinics. The
quality of health care has improved dramatically. We are getting to the
veterans much sooner, and the process that they follow, they can be
treated at the clinics or, if it is a more serious health issue, they
can then be referred to the hospital.

{time} 0930

But we are getting veterans into the system much sooner, and the view
on the part of veterans and their service organizations is that this is
a very important major improvement and breakthrough in veterans care.
Additionally, we provided more money for mental health.
One of the real focuses of this subcommittee has been not only mental
health, which it has been, but also the transition from active duty to
veterans status. What we found is that because of the difficulties,
very serious challenges to find a safe place for our soldiers in
Afghanistan or in Iraq, many of them are coming back with very serious
mental health issues, post-traumatic stress disorder and other issues
that have caused great stress on the soldier, sailor, airman, marine
and their families, additionally, when they return.
One of the things that we will require is that all of our active duty
people enter into a dialogue with our mental health professionals
within the service while they are active in the field.
Currently, if a soldier has a concern about their mental health, or
they are upset or they are depressed or they are anxious about things
and they want to get some advice, they have to voluntarily go forward,
step forward. People worry about a stigma. How does that affect my
record in the future if I go and seek out help?
What we have stated, stipulated in this bill, is that every one of
our active duty people will have, as part of their service, a regular
routine of working with mental health professionals, psychiatrists,
psychologists, counselors, so that there is no stigma, that everybody
is in the mix. That way we think that our folks who are in very
stressful situations, very dangerous situations, will be more at ease
in how they go about getting this very important aspect of their health
in order.
Additionally, this subcommittee is responsible for the defense
health, TRICARE for Life, et cetera. While the increase is not as
substantial as it is in veterans, it is a healthy increase. My view is
that as we go forward into conference with the Senate, hopefully we
will be able to add additional resources within the defense health
portion of this budget to make sure that we are meeting needs.
Our subcommittee traveled last year to Europe. We visited Landstuhl
hospital in Germany. It is truly remarkable the quality of care that
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines are receiving there.
In the field, the Medevac units, the quality of care in the combat
zone is beyond description. It is that good. In the history of war,
there has never been health care like we are providing today. We can be
very proud of that. But we have to make sure that the resources are
there, that they are allocated to make sure that those needs are met.
One last point, and that is on the military construction, we have a
lot of money in this bill to roll out the 2005 BRAC. The Army, which is
very dependent upon this, asked us to get as much money forward as we
could, so we did. That was a priority for us, Army is going through
transformation, they are going through BRAC. We have people moving from
Europe to the U.S., from one place in Asia to another, from places in
Asia back to the U.S., and it is all part of this process.
We want to make sure that they had the resources up front so that
they could get this moving and meet the commitments that they have
made,

[[Page H2897]]

not only to us, to the taxpayers, but to the troops.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that we can all
be very, very proud of. It has been a bill that we have worked very
closely on in a bipartisan way with my opposite number on the
Democratic side, Mr. Edwards, we have collaborated well.
I would like to, just again, thank the Rules Committee for the rule.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of representing
over 40,000 soldiers from Texas who have fought for our country in
Iraq. I have one of the larger veterans populations in America, and
that is why I am grateful to have the privilege to work with Chairman
Walsh in my position as ranking member of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs.
I will talk about the substance of the bill that will be on the floor
in a few moments after the rule debate is over. But let me just list
four reasons why I oppose this particular rule to bring our bill to the
floor.
First, as I understand this rule, it could possibly leave as much as
a half a billion dollars in vital military construction programs during
a time of war at risk to a technical point of order on this floor. This
whole issue evolved late last night, so perhaps someone could clarify
this.
I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Republican and
Democratic alike, to not use such a technical budget question to put at
risk critical infrastructure that is needed to support our troops
during a time of war; whether they are serving here at home, or they
are in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.
I don't understand why the Rules Committee, which on a daily basis,
bill after bill after bill, bills that are far less important than
supporting our veterans or military troops, military construction and
defense health care, that the Rules Committee waives technical points
of order on a routine basis. I am not sure if my understanding is
correct why they didn't do the same for something as important as half
a billion dollars investment in military infrastructure.
The second reason I oppose this rule and urge my colleagues to vote
against this rule is that the Obey amendment was not allowed. The Obey
amendment would have protected that $500 million of military
construction funding by paying for it, following the pay-as-you-go
principle, rather than putting it under emergency spending, which could
allow Members of this House potentially to strike that crucial funding.
Secondly, I was disappointed the Rules Committee refused to protect
my amendment that I intended to bring on this bill today, that would
have brought defense health care spending back up to the level that
President Bush said is needed this year to maintain the quality of care
for our troops and our retirees that Mr. Walsh referenced, and that we
all should have a right to be proud of.
As a consequence of that Rules Committee decision, we could end up
passing this bill today at a funding level that is $735 million below
administration's designation of what is needed to maintain military
health care quality this year. That could be a tragedy to have any risk
of reducing military health care services, especially during the time
of war.
The next reason I oppose this rule is that Congressman Farr's
amendment was not protected. It was an amendment that was going to add
$1.8 billion to veterans programs, important veterans programs. I will
talk later in cooperation with Chairman Walsh about what I think is
good in this bill for veterans and some of the increases for veterans
health care spending, which he and I and members of the committee all
supported.
But Mr. Farr wanted to go a step further and say we should not be
freezing VA research, health research dollars. He wanted to say it is
not right to say to a combat veteran who is making $29,000 a year, that
you weren't wounded in combat, you haven't earned the right to get VA
health care in a VA hospital because you are too wealthy.
That is kind of ironic, because just earlier this week, the House
voted to give Lee Raymond, the just retired ExxonMobil CEO who got a
$400 million retirement package, gave him a $2 million dividend. Mr.
Farr wanted to say if we can give Mr. Lee Raymond of ExxonMobil and all
of his hundreds of millions of dollars of platinum parachute retirement
programs, a $2 million dividend tax cut, shouldn't we able to say to
veterans making $30- or $35,000 a year, you too have earned the right
to get VA health care, along with other veterans?
Mr. Farr wanted to have an amendment that enforced the law that we
passed on a bipartisan basis in the late 1990s that said the VA
shouldn't reduce the number of beds for veterans nursing home care.
These amendments don't take away any good things from the amendment
of the bill, which I will talk about during the bill's debate. But my
objection is with the Rules Committee setting one standard for
unimportant bills that will, for partisan reasons, and unimportant
reasons, will waive technical points of order on bills coming to this
floor and do it routinely.
Yet when we come to amendments intended to try to guarantee military
construction during a time of war, intended to try to help more
veterans get better health care and nursing home care, the Rules
Committee, on a partisan basis, said, no, we are not going to allow
Democrats to have those kinds of amendments offered and protected on
the floor.
For all of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
rule today.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from
Texas, Judge Carter, talking about concerns that he has, I want to make
sure that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand
that the committee, for the first time ever, for the first time ever,
used a veterans service organization's independent budget as a baseline
for this fiscal 2007 funding, and essentially adopted the veterans'
group recommendations to increase funds by 6.3 percent.
In regard to defense health, the defense health program is increased
by $1 billion over the last year. So the total funding of $21 billion
for defense health is the same as the budget request.
I want to also say, Mr. Speaker, that I had the distinct honor of
traveling last summer with subcommittee chairman Walsh, as we visited
some of our cemeteries in Europe, at Anzio and Normandy, our fallen
soldiers in World War II and also Bella Woods, for the Marines that
fell during World War I.
To see the compassion of Chairman Walsh and what he and our
colleagues that served, that have the honor of serving on his
committee, on both sides of the aisle, was a moving, moving experience
for me. I know how important the work of this subcommittee is.
I commend Members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in
bringing this good budget. I wish we could do more, but I think the
compassion is there on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Carter).
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to rise to say that one of the
great blessings in my life that has been bestowed upon me is that I
have been given a district now where we have almost 50,000 of the
people who stand on the wall and defend our Nation, Fort Hood, Texas.
It has made me realize the real duty that we have to the American
soldier, the American military personnel. Being on this subcommittee
and being able to try to do what is good for these men and women who
give their duty, honor, to our Nation every day, is a great blessing to
me personally.
This bill that we have got here today is an honest attempt, within
the resources, to do a great job for our military. I think, quite
frankly, we have done a great job.
I would urge, and I listened to what Mr. Edwards had to say. Mr.
Edwards and I worked together. He also is a very good friend of Fort
Hood.
I would urge my colleagues, as they look at, as we proceed in this
debate, that they, first and foremost, keep in mind that soldier,
sailor, airman and marine, that stand on the wall every day and defend
this Nation's freedom. As they look for technical challenges and other
things that may occur, hopefully, will be corrected, that they will
take that soldier's best interest in mind first.

[[Page H2898]]

This is, if there is a piece of legislation that goes to the Congress
at any time, that thinks about the individual guy carrying a rifle,
this is it.

{time} 0945

If we can, we have to; and we must make sure they have the best
health care, the best living facilities, the best facilities on post,
the best equipment, the best that we can give them. I think we have
done our very best to do that, and so I rise to speak on behalf of the
American soldier and ask this House to keep the American soldier in
mind in this debate.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas to respond to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, let me make two comments.
First, let me say I fully associate myself with the views expressed
by my friend and colleague, the Representative of Fort Hood, Mr.
Carter. We all should consider our troops as the number one priority in
whatever decisions are made today. That is far more important than any
technical budget issue that can be brought up, especially during a time
of war.
In terms of the gentleman from Georgia, he said that this budget
provides the same amount of funding, in so many words, for defense
health care as requested by the administration. I think if the
gentleman will look more carefully into the budget request, what he
will find is that, in addition to the appropriated funds, the
administration had proposed an additional $735 million in fees that I
hope this Congress will clearly, vociferously oppose.
Our subcommittee certainly didn't endorse those fee increases. Those
fee increases would put a 200 percent health insurance premium on men
and women who have served our military for 20 and 30 years. But as a
consequence of Congress not having made the decision and, in fact, the
Armed Services Committee having passed a bill recently saying that we
will not increase those fees, in effect, this bill will fund defense
health care this year by $735 million less than President Bush said was
needed to maintain our quality health care system for our troops and
for our military retirees.
That is why I had hoped the Rules Committee in all of its wisdom
would have been willing to do what it does on a regular basis, to
protect my $735 million amendment to get defense health care spending
back where President Bush says it needs to be, to protect my amendment
from a technical budget point of order. Unfortunately, the Rules
Committee chose to weigh in on the side of budget technicalities that
it ignores on a regular basis and didn't weigh in on the side of
protecting our present quality of defense health care for our troops.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, the minority
member of the subcommittee, I very much respect. I very much respect
the work that he has done.
I mentioned that trip last summer. Of course, Representative Edwards
was a part of that. Representative Carter, my good friend from Texas,
was also a part of that trip when we visited those military cemeteries
and looked at MILCON construction in Europe and the importance of all
these things we do.
I agree with what the gentleman said in regard to the administration
proposing to increase fees for our military retirees under age 65,
certain categories of veterans in copays and deductibles, to be able to
raise, I think he mentioned the figure of 700 and something million
dollars. He was opposed to it, the subcommittee was opposed to it, the
entire committee was opposed to it, and we rejected it as we did last
year when the administration wanted to do that.
I commend him, and I commend the chairman and the entire committee
for their work in regard to that. We are not really in any disagreement
in regard to the points that he just made, and I commend him for his
work.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I am not even going to talk
about the fact that on this side of the aisle we feel that this bill is
short by at least $1.8 billion in providing the kind of health and
medical care that we think ought to be provided for our veterans.
But I want to talk about two other problems in the bill. Because this
bill, first of all, continues the fiction that somehow it is likely, or
desirable, that $735 million in additional fees will be laid onto our
retired military. I do not believe that that should happen, and I do
not believe that will happen. And if it doesn't, then this bill has a
$735 million hole that it is going to have to fill.
Secondly, this bill has a very interesting budget gimmick that
essentially allows this bill to come to the floor $500 million above
the budget resolution that was adopted just 2 nights ago by the
Republican majority.
Here is what happened. The administration sent down in the military
construction bill their request to move ahead with about 310 military
infrastructure projects. What the committee did was to designate 20 of
those projects, and there is nothing emergency about those projects,
but they need to proceed. What the committee did was essentially to
take 20 of those projects and simply label the expenditures for those
projects as being emergency.
Why did they do that? Because it then made room in the bill for the
committee to add projects of their own totaling $507 million. So that
is a $507 million gimmick which allows this bill to come to the floor
in reality $507 million above the Republican budget resolution.
As a result of the rule which is now being brought to the floor,
there will be several choices that people will have to make. Members
will now be free to strike the emergency designation for those
projects. If they do, then the bill has to be taken off the floor
because it exceeds the budget cap, unless the committee itself moves to
simply take all of those projects out of the bill. As a result, if
those projects are taken out of the bill, we then have a hole in the
administration request. If they aren't taken out of the bill, then we,
in effect, are $507 million above the budget that the Republicans
pledged their loyalty to just 2 days ago. And in addition to that, down
the line you are still going to have to find $735 million to make up
for the fiction that there is some possibility in this place that those
additional fees ought to be laid on our retired military.
I think this is another quaint example of the majority party fealty
to their own budget resolution and we are forced to encounter these
ridiculous budgetary gimmicks because the majority party refused to fix
the problem. I offered an amendment in committee to try to fix the
problem, at least to fix the problem of the $507 million. I simply
suggested that we support an amendment which would cut the size of the
tax cut for people making a million dollars, and they are going to get
a $114,000 tax cut this year. We simply suggested that if you can cut
the size of that $114,000 tax cut by 1,400 bucks, you could pay on the
square, without any gimmicks, for that $507 million.
That is what we should have done. But the majority party thought that
it was more important to deliver a $114,000 tax cut to millionaires
than it was to play straight with the budget process and to play
straight with their own budget resolution and to play straight with the
American people.
Very interesting. Very interesting.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers at this time,
so I will reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting
me to speak on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, am sad that we don't have maximum flexibility
under the way the rule is structured to speak to the needs of American
veterans; and I will vote against it. But I hope that we can spend this
time also focusing on some broader issues.
Luckily, there is a provision that will permit me to provide an
amendment today to help with the cleanup of the vast toxic legacy that
America faces in every State of the Union from unexploded munitions and
military toxins, from training exercises, from old military depots,
from having shells lobbed by generations of cadets at West

[[Page H2899]]

Point that have been in the Storm King Forest. Every State in the
Union, over 3,000 sites, have been identified as areas that need
cleanup.
I want to say I appreciate what Mr. Walsh, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Farr
have done with this important military quality of life committee in
starting to focus on this. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the real problem is
that Congress has been missing in action when it comes to cleaning up
this toxic legacy.
I had a Member of this body yesterday tell me, well, we really don't
need to put more money in it. He wasn't sure that it was worth it.
Let's just have barbed wire around them, keep people out and save the
money for things that are more important. This is a Member that I
deeply respect but who betrayed a tragic lack of understanding of
exactly the scope and magnitude of this problem and what would be the
benefit of handling it properly.
I could tell this gentleman that there were dozens of cases where
innocent civilians, in some cases children, have been killed because
bombs have turned up in the back of a subdivision that people have just
walked away from. Or the gentleman rototilling his yard in Five Points,
Texas, rototilling up a bomb. Or three times since I have been in
Congress we have had to pull firefighters out of forest fires because
bombs were exploding, generated by the heat.
Now these are not things that we can simply walk away from. There are
areas where munitions break down over time and the toxic leaks into the
groundwater which creates a larger problem.
There is also the notion that there are 10 million, 20 million, 30
million acres or more, nobody knows exactly how much, polluted or
potentially polluted that is not available for hunting and fishing,
that is not available for redevelopment, for housing, for industrial
use, to be put back on the tax rolls.
Ultimately, this is a responsibility that the Department of Defense
and the Federal Government is going to have to assume. Putting up
barbed wire and walking away doesn't solve the problem.
But one of the things that I would hope would focus attention by
Members of this assembly is not just the long-term benefits, not just
cleaning it up, not just returning it to productive use but think about
who is at risk, because it is our soldiers, their families, the
employees of these bases and their neighbors that are most at risk.

{time} 1000

What is to be solved by kicking the can down the road and ignoring
it?
Last, but by no means least, if we get the technology right that will
enable us to find out whether it is a hubcap or a 105-millimeter shell
that is buried under the ground, that just doesn't help us clean up
these 3,000 sites in the United States. That same technology would save
the lives of our soldiers right now who are at risk every day in Iraq
from roadside bombs, from land mines. That is how I lost my first
constituent in Iraq, was a young man killed by a land mine.
By Congress continuing to be missing in action not taking a
significant step to clean up this toxic explosive legacy, we are not
just putting at risk the environment, we are not just putting at risk
children who are playing in subdivisions or firefighters who will fight
in the next forest fire where there are bombs and toxic legacy, they
are putting at risk our soldiers, our men and women overseas who won't
benefit from the techniques and the technology.
I appreciate what the subcommittee has done trying to train the
attention. It is time for this body to step up and agitate to make
their job a little harder and for our friends on the Appropriations
Committee in Defense appropriations to invest in doing this right.
I oppose the rule. I look forward to bringing an amendment later in
the debate to be able to at least put a little bit of money to deal
with the problem in other parts of the United States now.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the gentleman for his passion on this issue and the very
clear presentation that he made. I want to remind him and my colleagues
that I think we authorized an additional $250 million in the Defense
Authorization Bill of 2007 which we passed last week.
In regard to specifically, he mentioned about the technology that
could be used for ferreting out improvised explosive devices, and he
mentioned, of course, that the first soldier from his district was
killed by one of those devices. And I know that Members on both sides
of the aisle have certainly experienced that. This particular Member
from the 11th of Georgia has experienced it as well. So it is an
important issue, and it is clear that we are doing everything we can to
try to defend against these cowardly attacks of improvised explosive
devices.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time for
purposes of closing.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I understand
the gentleman has no additional speakers.
Mr. GINGREY. I have no additional speakers.
Ms. MATSUI. Then I will proceed to my closing.
Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members for a ``no'' vote on the
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend
the rule so we can consider three important amendments that were not
included in this rule. These amendments will help fix the funding
shortfalls in this bill.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of these amendments and
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. The first amendment by Ranking Member Obey would pay for
the $507 million cost for 20 routine military construction projects
instead of designating them as ``emergency spending'' so that the
funding would not count against the bill's allocation.
The Obey amendment pays for the 20 projects by reducing the tax cuts
for people making more than $1 million a year by $1,400 or 1 percent.
The second amendment by subcommittee Ranking Member Edwards provides
the $735 million needed to fully fund the Defense Health Program
throughout the next year. The cost of the amendment is offset by
reducing by 2 percent the tax cut for those making over $1 million
annually.
The third amendment by Representative Farr, would increase veterans
health care by $1.82 billion and pay for it by reducing the average tax
cut for those with incomes above $1 million a year by about $5,000,
leaving them with $109,025,
Mr. Speaker, these amendments together will help us meet the
obligations we have to the members of our military, our veterans and
their families. This Nation made a promise to those serving in the
military that they would receive quality health care in return for
their valiant service to this country, and now that wounded soldiers
are returning to their homes, they deserve the best medical treatment
and care available.
We can fix this today if we allow these amendments to be considered
on the floor. But the only way that will happen is if we defeat the
previous question.
I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us
from considering the Military Quality of Life Veterans Appropriations
bill under an open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote on
these important amendments.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank Subcommittee
Chairman Walsh, ranking minority member Edwards, and Chairman Lewis for
leading the committee in the production and shepherding of this bill.
We can never do enough for our veterans. I think we all want to, but
understand that this bill represents a victory for our serviceman and
women in all stages of service, from recruitment to retirement.
I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and underlying bill.
And so I rise, again, in support of the rule, and as I say, in support
of the underlying bill in recognition of its importance to the men and
women who have and will continue to serve and protect America. Our
servicemen and women put their lives on the line each and every day and
we have a responsibility to support

[[Page H2900]]

them in any and every way possible as they make these significant
sacrifices for the safety and security of this great Nation. We must
provide them with everything that they need, not only to succeed in
their military duty, but also to enjoy the quality of life that they
and their families so much deserve.
Again, Mr. Speaker, with spending totaling $94.7 billion, this bill
includes significant increases to the veterans medical care and
benefits, military construction and the Defense Health Care Program. I
encourage, then, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
both this rule and the underlying bill for the sake of those who spend
their lives defending ours.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I could not be
present today because of a family medical emergency and I would like to
submit this statement for the Record in opposition to the previous
question and H. Res. 821, the rule providing for consideration of the
FY2007 Military Quality of Life appropriations bill (H.R. 5385).
The Veterans' Administration has treated more than 144,000 returning
veterans from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and nearly
30,000 veterans are waiting in line for their first appointment--nearly
double the number last year. However, funding for veterans and military
retiree health care has barely kept pace with the increasing demand. As
a result our young men and women will return home from Iraq and
Afghanistan to a health care system that is struggling to take care of
current veterans--let alone new ones.
While the bill before us today is certainly an improvement over last
year's bill, it still under-funds critical programs and services that
our veterans and military retirees rely on. For instance, even as the
Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 5122) we passed last week rightfully
rejected the President's plan to increase fees for military retirees,
this bill still falls $735 million short of the level needed to ensure
that military retirees do not face having their TRICARE fees doubled or
tripled. In addition, this bill uses a budgeting gimmick to designate
$507 million for 20 military construction projects as emergency
spending so that the committee could keep the overall total under the
bill's allocation level--jeopardizing this critical funding by leaving
it vulnerable to procedural points of order that could strip it from
this bill. Finally, this bill provides $25.4 billion for veteran's
medical services--$2.6 billion more than last year, but still $400
million below the recommendation of the Independent Budget and $2.8
billion below the level recommended by the House Veterans Affairs
Committee Democrats.
Unfortunately, Democratic amendments to address these shortcomings
were rejected by Republicans on the Appropriations Committee and are
blocked from being considered here today by this rule. These pragmatic
measures would have made this a stronger bill that fulfils our promise
to our military retirees and veterans. I urge the defeat of the
previous question and this rule so that we can debate critical
amendments to ensure that veterans and military retirees get the
timely, quality, and affordable health care they deserve.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:

Previous Question Statement H. Res. 821--Rule for H.R. 5385 FY06
Military Quality of Life--VA Appropriations

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendments
printed in section 3, which may be offered only in the order
specified, may be offered only by the Member designated or a
designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject
to amendment except pro forma amendments for the purpose of
debate, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of
the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
All points of order against such amendments are waived.
Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 are as
follows:
(a) Amendment to be offered by Representative Obey of
Wisconsin.

Amendment to H.R.5385, As Reported

Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin

Page 58, line 20, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows
through line 25 and insert ``2011.''.
Page 59, line 4, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows
through line 9 and insert ``2011.''.
Page 59, line 13, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows
through line 18 and insert ``2011.''.
Page 59, line 22, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows
through page 60, line 2, and insert ``2011.''.
Page 60, line 6, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows
through line 11 and insert ``2011.''.
Page 60, line 15, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows
through line 20 and insert ``2011.''.
At the end of title IV (page 60, after line 20), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 401. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of
$1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the
amount of tax reduction resulting from the enactment of
Public Laws 107-16, 108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by
1.23 percent.
____

(b) Amendment to be offered by Representative Edwards of
Texas

Amendment to H.R. 5385, As Reported

Offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas

Page 19, line 8, strike ``$21,065,163,000'' and insert
``$21,800,163,000''.
Page 19, line 9, strike ``$20,218,205,000'' and insert
``$20,953,205,000''.
At the end of title I (page 35, after line 2), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 136. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of
$1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the
amount of tax reduction resulting from the enactment of
Public Laws 107-16, 108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by
1.78 percent.
____

Amendment to H.R. 5385, As Reported

Offered by Mr. Farr of California

Page 39, line 22, strike ``$25,412,000,000'' and insert
``$26,875,000,000''.
Page 41, line 1, strike ``$3,277,000,000'' and insert
``$3,390,000,000''.
Page 42, line 2, strike ``$412,000,000'' and insert
``$460,000,000''.
Page 42, line 14, strike ``$1,480,764,000'' and insert
``$1,553,764,000''.
Page 44, line 21, strike ``$69,499,000'' and insert
``$77,499,000''.
Page 45, line 13, strike ``$283,670,000'' and insert
``$399,000,000''.
At the end of title II (page 56, after line 8), insert the
following new section:
Sec. 223. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of
$1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the
amount of tax reduction resulting from the enactment of
Public Laws 107-16, 108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by
4.4 percent.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.

[[Page H2901]]

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. GINGREY. 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 211,
nays 186, not voting 35, as follows:

[Roll No. 173]

YEAS--211

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
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)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NAYS--186

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

NOT VOTING--35

Andrews
Beauprez
Bishop (GA)
Bonner
Cubin
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Diaz-Balart, L.
English (PA)
Evans
Fattah
Fossella
Gohmert
Kennedy (RI)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lewis (GA)
Manzullo
McCrery
McKinney
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Oberstar
Pearce
Platts
Reynolds
Rogers (MI)
Sanders
Schmidt
Smith (WA)
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thomas
Young (AK)

{time} 1034

Mr. RANGEL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216,
noes 187, not voting 29, as follows:

[Roll No. 174]

AYES--216

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

NOES--187

Ackerman
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell

[[Page H2902]]

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

NOT VOTING--29

Andrews
Beauprez
Bishop (GA)
Bonner
Cubin
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
English (PA)
Evans
Fattah
Gohmert
Kennedy (RI)
Larson (CT)
Lewis (GA)
Manzullo
McCrery
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Pearce
Platts
Reynolds
Sanders
Schmidt
Smith (WA)
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thomas
Young (AK)

{time} 1043

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________