[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 167 (Wednesday, October 31, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H12337-H12347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MOTION TO GO TO CONFERENCE ON H.R. 3043, DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH 
 AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2008

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule XXII and by 
direction of the Committee on Appropriations, I move to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3043) making appropriations for the 
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for 
other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) for the purpose of debate only. And I yield 
myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, the motion is self-explanatory. This will enable us to 
go to conference with the other body on the Labor, Health and Human 
Services and Education bill and begin the process by which we can deal 
with the conference reports on the seven bills so far completed action 
by the Senate.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss what appears to be one of the 
most highly unusual decisions made by the leadership of the House by 
way of combining the Labor, Health and Human Services bill with 
Military Construction, VA, and all those programs that relate to 
veterans, and the DOD bills into one package to be sent to the 
President.
  It is my understanding that included in this package may be disaster 
funding relief that could affect wildfires in the West. There may be 
other popular items that the majority may attempt to air-drop into 
conference. In theory, the bill itself is supposed to focus upon health 
care for our citizens across the country, labor programs and education 
programs, not defense, not veterans programming or other related 
programs. This package would exclude any DOD bridged supplemental 
funding for our troops.
  Last year, a bipartisan group of Members demanded that the 
administration send a full-year supplemental

[[Page H12338]]

request for activities related to the global war on terror. Now that 
the administration has provided the full-year request, the House and 
Senate leadership have refused to provide this critical funding for our 
troops who are serving in harm's way.
  Additionally, instead of moving the Labor-HHS bill, the DOD bill and 
the MilCon-VA bills through the process by regular order and holding 
separate conferences, this omnibus package would be carried as part of 
the Labor-HHS bill.
  Frankly, as I talk to my colleagues who know the appropriations 
process around this place pretty well, they can't quite believe why 
we're doing this. For each of these bills passed the House separately 
and individually, they've got programs that are highly supported. There 
is little doubt that regular order would work if the leadership would 
allow it to work.
  Let me be clear on this. The President has already indicated that he 
will sign a freestanding MilCon bill, and he will sign a freestanding 
Defense bill. Especially it's important to note that the MilCon bill 
includes funding for veterans as well, with a commitment for his 
signature. By not moving these bills individually, the majority is 
using our veterans as well as our troops essentially as political 
pawns.
  Yesterday, I had a conversation with the President's Chief of Staff, 
Josh Bolten. He clearly indicated that if this package makes its way to 
the White House, it will be vetoed by the President in this form. 
Apparently the President delivered a similar message to our Members and 
the press at the White House yesterday morning.
  Personally, I think it's outrageous that the majority is proceeding 
in this way with funding for our troops and our veterans simply to try 
to push through a 10-plus billion dollar increase in the Labor and 
Health and Human Services programs. To me, this is nothing more than 
essentially, at least some would describe it as political blackmail, as 
well as a poke in the eye to our troops, our veterans, our Members, as 
well as our President.
  To the Democrat majority who conceived this misbegotten, ill-
conceived legislative strategy, let me say this: You are not only 
making a mockery of the legislative process, you are intentionally 
undermining a strong bipartisan desire to fund our troops, provide 
medical care for those troops, as well as provide funding for our 
veterans. This approach is kind of like the SCHIP package on steroids. 
And I believe that it, too, will fail.
  I do not intend to sign the conference report or vote for it when it 
reaches the floor. I will also be supporting the President's veto, 
should he decide to veto this package. Clearly, this is in excess, and 
it's a fundamental violation of what I think should be the tradition of 
the appropriations process.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman is a good friend of mine. And I don't 
mind his pulling my leg, but from way over there, it's a little bit of 
a stretch.
  Let me simply recite a few facts. If we take a look at the past 
history to see how these bills have been handled in the past, the 
gentleman talks about having a separate military construction bill. The 
fact is, over the last 5 years, when our Republican friends controlled 
this House, on three occasions they tied the military construction bill 
to other bills. And on one occasion, they never managed to pass a 
military construction bill at all. Only once in the past 5 years did 
they pass a freestanding military construction bill. So, I will stack 
our record against theirs any time.
  There is another substantial difference between us on that score. In 
the 2007 budget and in the bill before the Congress now, we've added $7 
billion in additional funding for veterans health care, money which the 
administration itself opposed. So, I make no apology for what we have 
done on that score.
  Let me also point out the gentleman is objecting to the possibility 
that we will combine the labor, health, education bill, the defense 
bill and the military construction bill into one piece. If we do that, 
that would mean that 90 percent of the dollars in the bill would be 
security related. The President has asked us to send him a defense bill 
and to send him a military construction bill. That is exactly what we 
would be doing. In addition to that, we would be sending the largest 
domestic bill, so that together we would be sending, in essence, 71 
percent of the appropriation part of the budget down to the White 
House. I make no apology for that.
  I would also point out that, while the gentleman has a newfound 
objection to omnibus appropriation bills, during the 12 years in which 
the Republicans controlled this body, 56 times they sent omnibus 
appropriation bills to the President for his signature.

                              {time}  1545

  During the Bush administration, they sent omnibus appropriation bills 
to the President 27 times. The President had no objection whatsoever 
when they came from a Republican Congress. I find it interesting that 
he now professes objection because we are doing what his Republican 
Party did in spades for so long.
  In fact, last year, the other side, when they controlled this House, 
they avoided sending an omnibus appropriation bill to the President 
because on the domestic side of the ledger, they didn't bother to send 
him any at all. So we had to spend the first 6 weeks when we were in 
control of this body cleaning up last year's Republican business.
  I would also point out, lest we take lectures from the administration 
and OMB, Mr. Nussle, who is the President's new budget director, he was 
chairman of the Budget Committee for 6 years. Since 1976 when the 
Budget Act was passed, Congress failed to pass a budget resolution four 
times. Three of those four times occurred when Mr. Nussle was chairman 
of the committee. So I don't think I am going to take any lectures 
about the newfound interest of the new budget director in having timely 
consideration of any matter related to the budget.
  I would also point out that during Mr. Nussle's tenure of 6 years, 
the Republican Congress passed three omnibus appropriations and one 
omnibus CR. So it seems to me that this is a debate about, if not 
nothing, at least very little. I would simply say that what we ought to 
be looking at is not what kind of a ribbon we have on the package, but 
we ought to be taking a look at the contents of the package. And I make 
no apology whatsoever about the contents of this package.
  Now, if we take a look at the President's statement, his veto 
pronouncement yesterday, he says that the Congress has wasted time 
voting on efforts to change direction in Iraq. I would suggest that the 
President has wasted 5 years of the country's influence by the way he 
has handled Iraq in the first place. The President objects to the fact 
that in all of the domestic appropriation bills, we are some $20 
billion above his budget suggestion, about 2 percent. That 2 percent 
difference is the difference between having a President and having a 
King. And I would point out, he wants to spend 10 times that much money 
in Iraq in just 1 year.
  The President says that Congress has gone it alone on SCHIP. I would 
suggest the President has gone it alone in Iraq. He has gone it alone 
without our allies. He is going it alone now without the support of the 
American people. So I would be careful, if I were the President, 
referring to someone ``going alone'' on anything.
  I would also point out that the President says the Labor-H bill is 
bloated. Well, as a practical matter, if we were to pass the 
President's budget, we would be cutting vocational education by 50 
percent. We would be accepting the idea that we ought to cut the 
National Institutes of Health grants by 1,100 grants over the past 2 
years. We would be accepting the fact that we ought to allow No Child 
Left Behind to become a hollow shell in terms of financing. The 
President is, in fact, objecting to our increase for special education, 
an item which the Republican Party in this House took the lead on in 
putting in the bill in the first place.
  So it seems to me the President, his priorities are not supported by 
the country. So he is falling back on a process argument. I don't think 
anybody is going to be especially impressed.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I just might mention that

[[Page H12339]]

during the time that the chairman and I have worked together in the 
Appropriations Committee, we have talked many a time about process 
where we both happen to think it is very important. But the fact is 
that all three of these bills, the Defense bill, the MILCON and 
veterans bill, indeed, Labor-HHS, all passed this House separately. We 
could carry these bills in regular order. It is frankly a sham to 
suggest that it is a requirement to bring these packages together.
  Mr. OBEY. Would the gentleman yield if I yield him a minute of my 
time? I ask unanimous consent to give the gentleman a minute of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I would simply ask the gentleman, with the exception of 
last year when you were chairman, or last term when you were chairman, 
where were your speeches when your party brought those 56 omnibus 
appropriation bills to the floor? Where were your objections then?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Obey, I know that you speak on the floor 
a lot more than I do, and I appreciate the talent with which you do it. 
But in the meantime, we are talking about regular order, trying to 
change the appropriations process so it makes sense, not destroy our 
committee. I would suggest we are on a pathway to destroy this 
committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Are you saying that it didn't make sense when your party 
did what we are doing today 56 times? Is that what you are saying?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. What I am suggesting, Mr. Obey, is that 
there are, in this place even, there are people who sometimes use data 
and statistics for their purposes versus other purposes. This is our 
committee and I would hope we would run it in regular order.
  Mr. OBEY. I find the gentleman's conversion interesting.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly don't 
intend to lecture my good friend from Wisconsin on this process. He 
works hard. Between him and Mr. Lewis, they probably have forgotten 
more and have also understood more about this process maybe than any 
other two Members that have ever served. But the fact is when 
Congressman Lewis was the chairman, we actually took veterans out of 
the appropriations bill they had been in for years because we thought 
they had been used in a way that was not appropriate.
  We took veterans out of VA-HUD and made it part of Veterans and 
Military Quality of Life for the specific reason that we didn't want to 
see that process that had gone on for too long continue. In 2005, the 
first year we did that, Chairman Lewis and his committee brought that 
bill and every other bill to the floor one bill at a time. In fact, 
this is the first time since 1987, 20 years ago, that we have been in 
this part of October without a single appropriations bill having passed 
the House floor.
  Clearly, if we were voting to go to conference on Labor, Health and 
Human Services, the motion before us, I would have some enthusiasm for 
getting at least one conference started. I would also be arguing that 
the conference we should be going on would be the ones for the bills 
that have been over here the longest, and one of those two bills 
following Homeland was, I think we call it now Military Construction 
and Veterans. But it is still a military quality of life bill. It still 
affects military families. It still affects retirees. It still affects 
veterans. And it is a bill that not only the President has said he 
would sign but this House passed 138 days ago. The Senate passed it 
almost 2 months ago and named their conferees 2 months ago.
  This is a bill that does have increases for veterans. Every bill in 
the 10 years I have been here has had significant increases for 
veterans, none more so than this, to the point that the increases for 
veterans and military families and military construction in this bill, 
about $18.5 million a day, so if today we just multiplied that by 31, 
that is how much money hasn't been spent in the last month on military 
families, on military retirees, on military veterans, on people serving 
that would have been affected by military construction. It's high time 
we went to conference on that bill.
  But what we don't want to start here is a process where we take our 
veterans and our military families and our retirees and we use them as 
a vehicle to have another political debate. As I understand, all I know 
is what I hear on the floor and read in the paper on this, that the 
plan is to take three bills, two of which almost every Member of this 
Congress voted for, add to them a bill that was as divisive in floor 
debate as any bill we debated, and have this three-car pile-on or this 
three-car pileup, this three-bill pileup that I think sets an 
unfortunate precedent for how we use veterans and military families.
  I wish we were going to conference on a number of bills today, and I 
wish we were committed to do these bills in the way that both the 
chairman and the ranking member have argued effectively over years now 
that we should be doing these bills.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman says that he finds this a precedent. I repeat, we are 
doing with Military Construction what the Republicans did in 4 of the 
last 5 years, considering Military Construction in association with 
other bills. I do welcome, however, the newfound expression of support 
for veterans by the now minority party. Over the last 2 years, we had 
to drag them kicking and screaming into voting for higher funding for 
budgets for veterans' health care than their own President wanted. In 
fact, when their committee chairman agreed with us 2 years ago that we 
needed to add a billion dollars to veterans' health care, they 
responded by removing that committee chairman from the committee 
because he wasn't following the party line.
  I don't think veterans will have much trouble determining who has 
been on their side the last 5 years and who hasn't.
  With that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee.
  Madam Speaker, this bill does, in fact, combine various other 
appropriations measures. But those measures in their totality clearly 
reflect the top priorities of the American people. In fact, every one 
of those bills separately passed with significant Republican support by 
significant bipartisan majorities in this House.
  The reason that this bill in its totality makes sense and should, 
with all due respect, attract the support of my friends from the other 
side of the aisle is because it does, in fact, fund the global war on 
terror. It funds our defense. It funds military construction. But it 
also funds America's other priorities. It funds our troops but it also 
takes care of our veterans, the largest increase in veterans health 
care in the 77-year history of the VA. It funds our defense with a 
robust military. But it also funds the war on cancer with increased 
investments in the NCI and the NIH.

                              {time}  1600

  It funds our military so that we can achieve global stability, but it 
also gives working families and middle-class taxpayers a little bit of 
a break, actually, more than a little bit of a break, a significant 
break on their college expenses so that our kids can compete in a 
globally competitive environment.
  I would conclude, Madam Speaker, by suggesting that the differences 
between where the administration is and where we are should not be 
minimized. They are significant. As the chairman said, this 
administration is arguing over a $22 billion increased investment with 
one hand, and, on the other hand, telling the American people they have 
to come up with another $200 billion for Iraq. We are spending $12 
billion a month in Iraq. The difference between where the 
administration is and where we are on these other priorities is 2 
months in Iraq.
  We want $880 million in increased investment for LIHEAP so that 
senior citizens don't have to shiver in the cold because their heating 
costs are too high. That is 2\1/2\ days in Iraq, that $880 million. If 
we want to invest $1 billion in medical research for people with

[[Page H12340]]

cancer, with Alzheimer's, with Parkinson's, that's 3 days in Iraq.
  Our $1 billion investment covers an entire year. The administration's 
strategy covers 3 days in Iraq. We want $1.4 billion for the entire 
year for improved health care access. With this administration, the 
equivalent cost is 4 days in Iraq. We want $1.8 billion in increased 
investments to keep American streets safe with additional law 
enforcement and additional police. The administration says we can't 
afford to keep America's streets safe but is willing to spend an 
equivalent amount over 5 days in Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, this bill reflects the priorities of the American 
people. Separately, the components passed with overwhelming Republican 
support. This should be a bipartisan effort. It should be a bipartisan 
effort because, number one, it supports our troops, provides for robust 
defense, and takes care of our priorities here at home as well.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
Republican leader of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague from California 
for yielding.
  Let me say that my colleague from California, the former chairman of 
the committee, and the current chairman of the committee, Mr. Obey from 
Wisconsin, are two Members who spent their entire careers working 
through this appropriation process. They deserve the thanks and respect 
of all the Members.
  The motion here to go to conference is not about the Labor, Health 
and Human Services bill. That is not the issue. The issue isn't whether 
we have omnibus bills. We have had omnibus bills long before I got here 
and they will be going on long after I have been here. The issue here 
is the fact that the plan is to move this bill to the Senate to get a 
conference report, to package the Labor, Health and Human Services bill 
with the Defense appropriation bill and the Military Quality of Life 
bill.
  Why is this happening? Because our friends in the majority want to 
continue to play political games here in Washington, DC. We went 
through political games last week with the SCHIP vote, a bill that 
there was some attempt to work with us, but not really. No changes were 
made. We are going through the same process of having this bill vetoed 
again. Why? Because the majority refused to reach out and work with us 
in a bipartisan manner to resolve the few differences, the few 
differences we had in the SCHIP bill. But here we go again. Here we go 
again.
  Madam Speaker, the majority knows and the President has made clear 
that he will veto this bill. To pass a bloated Labor, Health and Human 
Services bill on the backs of our troops and our veterans is not the 
right thing to do. It's a political trick. You're daring the President 
to veto this bill. Well, guess what? You know and I know that the 
President is going to veto this bill. Yet, here we go, playing 
political games once again.
  As I said last week, I said last month, and probably the month before 
that, the American people are tired of all the political games. They 
want us to find some way to resolve our differences and to deal with 
the issues that they care about. There are a lot of important issues in 
the Labor, Health and Human Services bill that are very important to 
our country. There's a lot of important issues in the Defense 
appropriation bill. They help fund our troops and give them the tools 
that they need. Certainly, when it comes to the Military Construction 
Quality of Life bill, taking care of our veterans is very important. 
But you know and I know that this is not more than a political trick.
  Let me tell you what; it makes me sick, makes me sick to watch this 
process continue, playing political games, and nothing gets done. 
Congress is at the lowest approval rating in history, and what is going 
on? We are continuing to play political games. That is why the American 
people are sick of this process, and it ought to stop.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, there was an old comedian who used to say: When 
somebody says it's not about the money, it's about the money. When the 
gentleman says it isn't about the Labor, Health and Education bill, 
it's about the Labor, Health and Education bill.
  The gentleman objects to the fact that we are doing what has been 
done in this institution for many years. We are taking the bills that 
are finished in both Houses at this time and we are trying to get them 
to the President in the fastest possible way. And the way to do that is 
to send them down together.
  Now, the President wants to cherry-pick. He wants to pick and choose. 
He said you have got to send me 11 separate bills. He didn't send us 11 
separate bills. The President sends us one omnibus budget. He put all 
the departments together in one document and sent them down to us. We 
are sending him back whatever proposals we can put together in the 
fastest possible time.
  Madam Speaker, he says that the Labor-Health bill is bloated. Well, 
let me compare it to the President's budget. The President says that he 
is the ``great decider'' and that he is going to decide how much money 
is going to be in this bill and we have got to live within that limit 
or else he's going to veto anything else we send him. If we live under 
the President's budget, we would cut vocational education by 50 
percent. Anybody think that is a good idea? If we live under the 
President's budget, we would eliminate all student aid but Work-Study 
and Pell Grants. Anybody here really believe that is a good idea?
  In all my years in Congress, I never heard anybody say: Obey, why 
don't you guys get together and cut cancer research. Yet, that is what 
this previous Republican Congress and the President have done the last 
2 years; they have cut 1,100 grants out of the National Institutes of 
Health, medical research grants. If you want to live under the 
President's budget on law enforcement, we would cut what the committee 
has in its bill by one-third. The President wants us to cut handicapped 
kids' education by $300 million. Mr. Walsh, the ranking Republican 
member of the Labor-Health Subcommittee, led the objection to that, and 
in fact persuaded the committee to put a higher number in the bill than 
I had put in in the chairman's mark; yet the President says we ought to 
follow his budget for Labor-Health. If we do, we will cut rural health 
by 54 percent.
  He also wants us down the line to cut the Clean Water Revolving Fund 
by 37 percent. He wants us to cut disabled housing assistance by 47 
percent. He has ordered his Secretary of Veterans Affairs to send us a 
letter indicating that they don't want the $4 billion that we have 
added to veterans health care.
  So you don't think this is about priorities? You bet you, it's about 
priorities. I submit to you, the teachers of this country, the school 
kids of this country, the parents of this country, and the veterans 
aren't going to be fooled. Veterans aren't going to be very thrilled if 
you take care of their needs so long as they are in Iraq, but the 
minute they get home you forget the help their kid's need to get an 
education, you forget the help their wife's needs or husband's needs if 
they run into medical problems.
  Veterans are whole people, just like everybody else. This Congress 
has an obligation to meet all of their needs, not just their needs so 
long as they are wearing the uniform and then forget them once they 
take it off. That is not the American way. It shouldn't be the 
Congress's way. That is why we are proceeding as we are proceeding.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to address 
their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am going to be calling upon my colleague, who is the 
ranking member of the MilCon-VA bill in just a second. But I wanted to 
mention it is very interesting to see my colleague, the chairman, to 
use statistics and data for his own purposes.
  We have, over the last 12 years, had nine omnibus appropriations 
bills, and where those bills were put together in packages, I objected 
to that procedure all along the line. But, as a matter of fact, as a 
matter of fact, negotiations had taken place on the part of both sides 
of the aisle, and the President signed those bills. He didn't suggest 
he would be vetoing those bills.
  Data can be used for one's purpose, but we ought to be accurate and 
recognize that facts are facts.

[[Page H12341]]

  Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), the ranking member of the MilCon-VA 
bill.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam Speaker, this really is an unprecedented move. We 
were originally told that it would be scheduled for first thing this 
morning. Then it was rescheduled for early this afternoon. And once 
again, the matter was so controversial that it had to be pulled again 
and we find ourselves discussing it now at this moment.
  I frankly wish my friend from Wisconsin would pull the motion again, 
because there is only one way to understand this process. This is, as 
the Republican leader said, a political stunt. If it is allowed to 
proceed, the result will be predictable. The President will veto the 
product of this conference committee, because it will attempt to spend 
billions and billions of new dollars on domestic programs we cannot 
afford, just when a balanced budget is within sight again. The 
President will veto the bill, the President's veto will be sustained, 
and we will be back to the drawing board.
  While all of this is unfolding, much-needed funds for our veterans 
clinics and for our servicemembers and their families will be delayed, 
not to mention essential funding for our Nation's defense in the global 
war on terror, for our troops in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq who are 
risking their lives for our country even as we speak. These key 
national security expenditures will have to wait even longer than they 
have already waited.
  The other result of this process will be just as predictable. Some 
people in this town, in this very House, will have gotten what they 
wanted: more political theater, more attempts to link good policy with 
excessive spending in an attempt to score political points.
  Madam Speaker, does the Democratic leadership of this Congress want 
to pass appropriation bills or do they just want to make new campaign 
commercials?
  Four and one-half months ago the House of Representatives passed the 
Military Construction-VA bill with an overwhelming 409 votes. The 
Senate passed its version of MilCon-VA with only one dissenting vote on 
September 6, 8 weeks ago. The President has expressed his willingness 
to sign the bill. Mr. Edwards and I, along with our subcommittee, have 
stood ready to go to conference for almost 2 months. Why, other than 
politics, have these funds for military quality of life and for our 
Nation's veterans been delayed?
  Mr. Edwards and I, as chairman and ranking member, have worked along 
with our Senate counterparts and our staffs to craft a compromise 
between the two versions of MilCon-VA. Only a few outstanding issues 
remain. We are ready to go with this essential bill. The same is true 
for the Defense appropriations bill.
  That means we could have bills on the President's desk within a 
matter of days. Funds for vital infrastructure for our troops, child 
development centers and veterans programs could be in the pipeline 
within a matter of days. Do we really want to hold our present and 
former troops hostage for political games?
  So I urge my friends on the other side the aisle to reconsider this 
unprecedented maneuver. Send the bills by regular order according to 
the established rules. Let's get the funds to our troops without 
further delay.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I think this is a sad day for our country, because we 
put into place several years ago what we called a bridge fund. I call 
it the ammo, the armor, the equipment fund. That was a fund that we 
added to the Defense bill to carry our troops over during the winter 
months before that spring supplemental, before that extra funding came 
about in the springtime of the next year.
  That is important for them, and that gave them a certain confidence 
level that they were going to be funded without having to take money 
out of the cash register for the next year, have to delay training 
exercises, have to delay the equipping of forces back here in the 
United States.
  And you know something? We had a bill that was ready to go here. The 
Defense appropriations bill is something that clearly would sail 
through, the President would sign it, and there was no risk in this 
bill that would fund our operations and our warfighting in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  The Democrat leadership now has injected risk, because you have 
hooked it up with a bill that the President said he is going to veto. 
That injects risk into this very, very difficult operation.
  So what do we have with our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our 
marines in Afghanistan and Iraq? We have got the uncertainties of war, 
the dangers of war. We have got the uncertainties that attend their 
families back here in the United States. And now the Democrat 
leadership has injected another uncertainty, an uncertainty that they 
will be funded fully in these difficult months.

                              {time}  1615

  So you took away this bridge fund, what I call the ammo, the armor, 
the equipment fund, and the answer you have given us is, well, if the 
President caves, then the troops will get the money. Holding our 
troops, our forces, hostage during a time of war is something that this 
body has never done.
  I would hope that the Democrat leadership would make an about-face on 
this. I would hope you would adopt the great position of Democrat 
Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson, who said, ``In time of war, the best 
politics is no politics.''
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I yield myself the time simply to respond to something said by the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). Mr. Wicker implied that the 
delay that took place in bringing this to the floor today was because 
of supposedly some turmoil about how this bill was packaged.
  In fact, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) will tell you, 
the reason for the delay is because I spent all day defending two 
Republican amendments to this bill that the Senate wanted to reject. 
And until I got agreement to quit horsing around with those amendments, 
I refused to bring this bill to the floor.
  And now I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. It really is disingenuous when I listen to my colleague 
from California talk about ammo, armor and equipment from the folks who 
brought our young men and women into a battle without appropriate ammo, 
without armor, and without the appropriate equipment that they needed 
to be able to fight this war from the outset. In fact, it has been the 
Democratic majority over and over and over again who have increased 
that funding for our troops in the field.
  Let me also say to our distinguished minority leader, and you should 
not be fooled by the commentary, this issue is about the Labor, Health, 
Education and Human Services bill. And the folks who are playing games 
are the minority and the Republicans on that side of the aisle.
  This is bill where we know that we will increase funding for veterans 
health care, offer pay raises for active duty soldiers, provide 
additional support for military families. Let me just tell you what 
this President wants to veto: the investment in lifesaving medical 
research, the investment in increased education funding, and he would 
like to veto our being able to strengthen job training in this Nation.
  Two or three examples, my friends. The President's budget cuts 
funding for medical research at the National Institutes of Health. He 
would cut that by $480 million. That is 800 fewer research grants than 
last year to study deadly diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, leukemia, 
Parkinson's, heart disease. We rejected that on our side of the aisle. 
We invest $1 billion above the President's request or roughly the cost 
of three days in Iraq. That's what the President wants to veto.
  Let's take a look at the Centers for Disease Control. When the 
chairwoman testified before the committee, she said we face as a nation 
the issue of the daily health challenges: 4 million seniors living with 
Alzheimer's, 583 women diagnosed with breast cancer every single day, 
and 176,000 teens who will

[[Page H12342]]

struggle their entire lives with diabetes. And so if we fail to pass 
the Labor-HHS appropriation conference report, we cut that CDC budget 
by $475 million. The President wants to veto that $475 million for 
those efforts.
  Let's take a look at what he said last month, that is the President: 
``Don't go backwards when it comes to educational excellence. We have 
come too far to turn back.'' Yet he will recall millions in Perkins 
loans funds and cut the special education program by $291 million. 
Going backwards is exactly what he is proposing to do.
  We invest $5.9 billion in education, the cost of just 18 days in 
Iraq. What will we do with it? We will benefit 8.5 million students to 
prepare our Nation for the 21st century economy.
  Let's talk about the President last week. An additional $42 billion 
from Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will in the 
next decade cost $2.4 trillion, or $8,000 per man, woman and child. 
Let's fight for people, not dollars, and the people of this Nation 
understand that.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the ranking member of the Veterans Committee, Steve Buyer.
  Mr. BUYER. I have come to the floor because what is clear is there 
are no disagreements with regard to the VA-Milcon appropriations bill. 
There is no disagreement between the House, the Senate or the White 
House, which means that weeks ago we should have appointed conferees 
and we should have voted on this bill if in fact our priority, in a 
bipartisan way, is clearly that of the troops.
  So I come to the well really bothered here today. The word 
``gamesmanship'' has been used. The word ``partisanship'' has been 
used. When it comes to funding our troops, those words should never be 
used. A few years ago, almost 2\1/2\ years ago, I met with Republican 
leadership and I wanted to get politics out of the military health 
delivery system and the VA. That is when I said get HUD out of VA and 
let's combine this. So what we have done by doing VA and MilCon, we do 
this so the authorizers and the appropriators can work together on the 
seamless transition issues so we get politics out of the arena.
  And now to take this bill to which there are no disagreements and to 
attach it to a vehicle where there are disagreements, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter) is absolutely correct, it places the bill 
at risk.
  The last speaker talked about HHS. I am here to talk about funding 
veterans and our troops and the dependents and their families. We 
shouldn't be playing these games with the White House if our priorities 
are truly with America's most precious assets, and that is the men and 
women who wear the uniform, and to care for those who keep the watch 
fires burning and their children. So let's don't play these games.
  I have to agree with John Boehner. There is a reason the American 
people look at Congress with a 14 percent approval rating. It is 
because of these types of games.
  We are better than this. We are better than this. So let's come 
together like we passed this bill 138 days ago and keep our 
bipartisanship and send this bill to the President.
  Mr. OBEY. May I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 9 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from California has 11\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman and appreciate the 
opportunity to make a few remarks here.
  Madam Speaker, a lot has been said here. The minority leader came 
down and said this makes him sick. Another speaker came down and said 
we are somehow holding the troops hostage. Another Member comes down 
and says this is a sad day. You know, I think all that rhetoric may be 
nice, but what we are trying to do here is run the government. As has 
been stated several times, when the Republicans were in charge, they 
put bills together and got them passed. And now all of a sudden to take 
a stand here like this has never happened is, I think, a tad bit 
disingenuous.
  But we have to ask ourselves now that everyone is bringing the troops 
in here: What are the troops fighting for? They are not fighting for a 
Defense bill. They are not fighting for a VA bill. They are fighting 
for our country. And what is our country? Our country is a country that 
makes investments in its own people. They are fighting for America 
because it's a great place to live. It's a great place to get educated. 
It's a great place to get health care. And for us to say somehow they 
are just fighting for only a portion of our society, I think is a bit 
disingenuous, too. I bet if we talked to some of the troops and we 
asked them what it means to be an American, they would say it means to 
be free and to be able to achieve the American Dream. And you achieve 
the American Dream by being healthy, by being educated, by having 
access to this great country. That is what we are trying to do here.
  We have a great bill. This Labor-HHS bill is great. It is called the 
people's bill. Just like the VA bill is the people's bill. This all 
goes together. This is one cohesive investment that we need to make in 
our country; and we are asking the Republicans, Madam Speaker, to join 
us.
  You can't hide behind the President. Article I, section 1 creates 
this body. We are the ones who fund the government. If the President 
wants to veto this, help us override the veto.
  These are all good bills. And when those veterans get home, as Mr. 
Obey stated, they need the same exact kind of attention and their 
families need the same exact kind of attention that every other citizen 
gets. They want high quality, low-cost education. They want high 
quality, low cost health care, and they want an opportunity for their 
kids to live the American Dream. Is that too much to ask? That's the 
question: Is that too much to ask?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a 
member of the committee.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to 
speak on behalf of our Nation's veterans, more than 100,000 of whom 
live in my congressional district.
  Madam Speaker, 138 days ago, 4\1/2\ months ago, this House passed the 
Veterans-MilCon appropriations bill; and 55 days ago, the Senate passed 
their version. Since that time the party in control, the Democrats, 
have sat on their hands refusing to appoint conferees and take action 
to fund our Nation's heroes. Leader Boehner has actually appointed 
conferees to the conference, and virtually every Republican Member has 
implored the Speaker to move forward. Our troops are too important to 
play political games.
  Just this past week, I heard from a woman in my district whose son is 
being treated in the spinal cord injury unit down in Tampa. Let me 
share with you that she is not a Republican. She is a dyed-in-the-wool 
Democrat. Her comment to me was that she was ashamed that the increased 
appropriation that was in the very good bill that we passed here, she 
was ashamed that those funds have not yet been freed up.
  October 1 was the beginning of the Federal year. We have veterans in 
need of services. We have veterans in need of increased staffing at the 
various hospitals. Combining these bills clearly is an effort to have 
people vote on something that will come back and be certainly not what 
the American public wanted.
  You know, when your side won in November, Madam Speaker, I think 
Americans thought, oh, good, things will be done differently. They are 
not only not being done differently, they are being done worse than 
before. That is not what the American public wants.
  The American public wants to have our military funded. They want to 
have our veterans, whether it is from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, or 
those currently coming back from OIF and OEF, deserving to have good-
quality care at the veterans hospitals. And to have that as a separate 
bill, not be held hostage.
  Mr. OBEY. Does the gentleman have any remaining speakers?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Not on this portion, no.
  Mr. OBEY. Then could I ask the gentleman to give his summary remarks. 
I have only one remaining speaker.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I would speak just for a 
moment by way of saying that I think in many ways we have demonstrated 
if we

[[Page H12343]]

are not careful with our rhetoric, we can undermine the opportunity we 
have for bipartisan consideration of very important work in the House.
  One of the most positive experiences I have had as a member of the 
Appropriations Committee has been to sit in that subcommittee that 
deals with Labor-HHS. I have been very, very impressed with the amount 
of nonpartisan, bipartisan support for fundamental research, for 
example. Earlier it was suggested that there is not that base of 
support. It is when we get this partisan confrontation on the floor 
that polarizes us that we tend to become confused about the real work 
that is positively done within our subcommittees.

                              {time}  1630

  Madam Speaker, I must say I would hope that we can do all that we 
possibly can to try to bring both sides together relative to those 
research items that I feel have such high priority.
  Beyond that, I'm going to be later raising a question by way of a 
motion to instruct conferees that would suggest that the Labor-HHS bill 
ought to be dealt with by itself. Where the members of that 
subcommittee worked so hard and have such expertise in this arena to 
set their work out and complicate it with VA-HUD over issues that 
relate to veterans is absolutely undermining the appropriations 
process.
  So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Let me state once more that I find somewhat disingenuous concerns 
expressed about the so-called delay that this process will provide for 
veterans health care. I would like to know where that same concern was 
when last year the now-minority party never even passed a Military 
Construction bill. Last year, they completed their session, they walked 
out of town, shut the doors and said good-bye, and they never passed 
any bill whatsoever to provide veterans health care.
  So we took over in January, and the very first action we took was to 
clean up that mess and add over $3 billion to veterans health care. 
That was our top priority. And then we followed it up in the regular 
appropriation bill by adding again more than $3 billion. So I will take 
a backseat to no one in terms of our expression of concern for 
veterans.
  But let me say, we're not just going to take care of veterans as long 
as they wear the uniform. We're also going to try to take care of their 
kids' needs for a decent college education. We're going to try to take 
care of their families' needs in terms of medical research. We're going 
to try to take care of their housing needs. We're going to try to take 
care to see that there's decent law enforcement so they can live in 
communities where kids can actually grow up into adulthood. As the 
gentleman from Ohio said, we're going to treat veterans as a whole 
person. That's the purpose of trying to pass all of these bills.
  Let me simply say I think these bills have been bipartisan. The 
Labor-Health-Education bill, one of the speakers indicated that it was 
the most contentious bill on the floor. We got 53 Republican votes for 
that bill. I hardly think that we would have done that if it had been a 
partisan product. In fact, if you average all of the appropriation 
bills that we passed in this House, we got 65 Republican votes on 
average for every appropriation bill that passed. That means that we 
passed these bills on average by exactly two-thirds, which is exactly 
what it takes to override a Presidential veto.
  Now we're simply trying to get these bills to the President as fast 
as we can and in a way which does not enable him to have an easy time 
of cherry-picking. That's what we're trying to do.
  I sat down with the President's budget director, Mr. Nussle, and I 
said, Look, why don't we right now, even while the Senate is working, 
sit down and try to work out a bipartisan compromise for all these 
bills? He said, Dave, I'm new at the job, but he said, so far I don't 
find anybody in the White House that has the slightest bit of interest 
in compromise. I said, Well, that's too bad. I hope that changes. 
Please call me if it does. But meanwhile, if the President wants to 
veto something, why don't we at least sit down and try to figure out 
which bills he wants to veto so maybe we can agree on which ones to 
send him first. I got no takers on that either.
  So we're proceeding the way we're proceeding because we're playing 
off what the President of the United States has said and done, and so 
far all we've heard is my way or no way. I don't believe that the 
Republican Members of this Congress came here to walk in lock step, and 
certainly we didn't on this side of the aisle. We will find out as the 
process unravels.
  And so with that, I would simply urge that we support this motion.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The motion was agreed to.


         Motion To Instruct Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct 
conferees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Lewis of California moves that the managers on the part 
     of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of 
     the two Houses on the bill, H.R. 3043, be instructed to 
     disagree to any proposition in violation of clause 9 of Rule 
     XXII which:
       (1) Includes any additional funding or language not 
     committed to the conference;
       (2) Includes matter not committed to the conference 
     committee by either House; or
       (3) Modifies specific matter committed to conference by 
     either or both Houses beyond the scope of the specific matter 
     as committed to the conference committee.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I can't help but mention that 
the preceding discussion must be very enlightening to Americans across 
the country who may be interested in what we have to say here. It's 
always been my personal belief that the vast percentage of problems 
that we face as a people have very little to really do with partisan 
politics if we can get people together at the subcommittee level to 
really talk with each other about finding solutions, but clearly, 
clearly, Madam Speaker, it has to be apparent to almost everybody who 
had listened today that one side of the aisle in this body seems to 
believe that the only solution to every problem around is to throw more 
money at it. That clearly is not the case. Many a solution is found by 
way of people working together, not just throwing money at some wall.
  Madam Speaker, in this motion to instruct conferees, I really repeat 
the point that the subcommittee members who work within the Labor-HHS 
community have great expertise in the programs within this arena. They 
spend a lot of energy and time applying themselves to that work.
  Today we're in a process where we're going to tie that piece of work 
to a combination of two other bills. It's totally unnecessary. The 
Defense bill passed the House by very sizeable bipartisan numbers. 
Indeed, the MilCon-VA bill did the same. To suggest that we can't go 
forward with Labor-HHS as a separate product, I think this is a very 
unhealthy reflection on the work of that subcommittee.
  This motion says the conference can only conference the Labor-HHS 
bill. They cannot consider adding Defense, MilCon-VA, or other matters 
outside the scope of the Labor-HHS conference. The Members who serve on 
the Labor-HHS subcommittee should be making decisions in an open 
conference regarding the disposition of programs and funding levels in 
that bill, not other appropriations bills related to the troops, 
veterans, or other items outside the scope of that conference.
  Members serve on subcommittees and have the expertise I suggest 
because they work within those subcommittees. The people on Labor-HHS, 
very talented in their work, spend relatively

[[Page H12344]]

little of their time in the Defense arena, as well as the arena that 
deals with MilCon and veterans.
  To air-drop Defense appropriations conference reports and the MilCon-
VA bill into this process is absolutely unprecedented, in my view, and 
is a disservice to our Appropriations Committee.
  Politicizing these bills and circumventing the normal practice of 
this and other committees does nothing more than undermine the American 
people's faith in their government.
  Let's move beyond purely partisan politics and send the President a 
freestanding Labor-HHS bill, as well as individual Defense and MilCon-
VA appropriations.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Is the gentleman sure he doesn't want to yield back? Could 
I inquire of the gentleman how many speakers he intends to have on 
this?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I think maybe there are two or three.
  Mr. OBEY. All right. We'll try to do the same.
  Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Let me simply say, Madam Speaker, that what the gentleman is saying 
is that he wants to prevent us from doing something on this bill which 
his party did 56 times in the time that they controlled this House over 
the past 12 years, and I don't find that especially persuasive.
  He also wants to prevent us from producing more than one bill at a 
time, and yet the President signed omnibus appropriation bills 27 times 
since he's been President, when they came from his own party. Now, 
because one might come from the Democratic Party, he wants to make a 
Federal case out of it. I don't think people are going to be very 
impressed with that either.
  I find it very interesting that out of all of the motions that the 
minority could have offered, they haven't offered a single motion, and 
nothing in this motion today would in any way reduce by one dime any of 
the funds that we appropriated in the Labor-Health-Education bill. They 
argue that the bill is bloated, and yet when we give them an 
opportunity to offer motions to reduce spending for any specific item 
they don't take advantage of it.
  That is exactly the same experience we had when the subcommittee 
considered the bill, and in fact, virtually every Republican motion and 
every Republican speech was on behalf of an effort to increase funding 
for a number of items, whether it be vocational education, which I 
agree with, or whether it be Pell Grants or whether it be special 
education.
  So I find it interesting that after all of that rhetoric about so-
called bloated funding for this bill they choose to argue an arcane 
process issue.
  All they're really saying is, when you consider Labor-Health, don't 
even think of moving forward with Military Construction, don't even 
think of moving forward with Defense, don't even think of addressing 
the problem of California wildfires, don't even think of adding 
additional funding for MRAPs. Well, if they're comfortable with that, 
fine. I don't think we ought to let procedural theology get in the way 
of doing what's needed for American families and American veterans and 
American fighting men and women.
  So, with that, I would simply urge a ``no'' vote on the motion.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3\1/2\ 
minutes to Judge Carter of Texas, a member of the committee.
  Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees.
  I've been sitting here listening to what's been said here today and 
trying to figure this all out. I think everybody, I think the American 
people are trying to figure it all out. It's an interesting process to 
analyze how the Congress is working on this appropriation process.
  But when you really look down as to what we're doing here, we're 
trying to solve three problems this week on this issue of 
appropriations. We've got three areas that we're going to look at.
  We've got a problem that we want to resolve. We want to fund the 
Department of Defense and the job that they do defending our Nation, 
and we've got an appropriations bill that deals with that, deals with 
protecting our soldiers in the field, getting their mission done and 
all the things that go attached to the Department of Defense.
  We've got a second issue we want to deal with. We want to take care 
of those veterans that have served us so well and so proudly over the 
years, make sure that we fund the programs that are necessary for them 
and to do the necessary military construction of the various bases 
around the world that is necessary to make sure we're providing for our 
active duty military what they need. We have those two bills that we've 
got to deal with this week.

                              {time}  1645

  We have a third bill, which is the Labor-HHS bill, that deals with 
issues of labor, health and human services. All those are important 
bills. Let's figure out how we can best get this done. The American 
people gave us a little survey this last week. They told us the one 
thing they are mad at us about is they say, why don't you just get 
something done? Why don't you get through the bull and get down to 
doing the job? That's their number one complaint.
  Let's look at this. What's the best way to do this? We've got a 
Defense bill that there is really no obstacles for that anybody can 
find. Everybody is pretty much okay on that. We've got a MilCon-
Veterans bill. In fact, we made an agreement when we had that little 
fight over earmarks that we would let those go without even discussing 
the earmarks, because they were going to go fast track through and be 
done very quickly. Nobody has got a complaint with that.
  Then we have got one bill that a third branch of government has a 
serious complaint with and has the ability to actually veto. Let's see. 
Is it an efficient way to do our job this day, to take the two bills we 
can get done very simply and attach it to a bill that has a major 
roadblock on it? Is that doing our business efficiently? It seems to be 
not a good idea to me, but maybe it is. But why would we want to do 
that? We can pass two easily. The third, we're going to have a long 
discussion about and a fight and maybe a veto. We could get it done if 
we separated them apart, but we're putting them together. Why do we do 
that? Maybe it's because they've got people on their side of the aisle 
that won't vote for the Defense bill. There are 89 of them that said 
they won't. So maybe this would coerce them to do it. Or maybe they 
think they can roll over the President and the Republicans on the issue 
of spending. Who knows. But let's get down and do it efficiently and 
just deal with Labor-HHS today.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say I am hearing some conflicting priorities on 
the floor today. We have heard that the appropriations process is not 
moving fast enough, despite the fact that under the leadership of 
Chairman Obey in the House, we passed every single one of our 
appropriations bills, I believe in record time. We are hearing that the 
appropriations process isn't moving fast enough on the one hand, and 
now we have a motion to instruct the conferees to actually slow it 
down, to take pieces out of this bill, to stop it. You can't have it 
both ways. We are trying to get things done. We are trying to move our 
priorities forward.
  Now, I understand that some of my friends don't want to deal with the 
labor, health and human services aspects of this bill, and they are 
concerned with the President's argument that we have plenty of money to 
fund Iraq but can't afford veterans health care here at home and 
educational priorities here at home and low-income heating for the 
elderly here at home.
  I understand those arguments, but let me suggest to my colleagues 
that they read a study that was just released yesterday by Harvard 
Medical School. That study shows there is, in fact, a critical 
connection between the VA pieces of this bill and the health and human 
services aspects of this bill. The two should be considered together. 
That study found that, today, there are 2 million veterans who have no 
health insurance. And they aren't eligible for

[[Page H12345]]

VA benefits. Not eligible for VA benefits and too poor to afford health 
insurance. The number of uninsured veterans jumped to 1.8 million in 
2004, and the population of uninsured veterans is increasing at twice 
the rate of the general population.
  Now, the Labor-H aspects of this bill provides $1.4 billion above the 
President's request for programs to improve health care access. So 
taken in its totality, this bill, without segregating the human 
services components, taken in its totality, this bill protects our 
troops in the field and also provides access to veterans at home who 
may not qualify for veterans benefits. As has been stated before, our 
veterans are a whole. They come back from the war, the last thing they 
should worry about is not having health insurance. It's the labor, 
health and human services aspects of this bill that could provide 
additional access to health care, and that is why this bill ought to be 
considered as it is.
  I would make one other point. We have already considered these bills 
separately. Each of these components were, in fact, debated, 
deliberated and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the 
Appropriations Committee and then debated again, deliberated again and 
passed with significant Republican support on the floor of the House.
  There is no reason to move backwards. There is no reason to delay. 
There is no reason to stop this process. We want to get these bills to 
the President. We should do so.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
ranking member on the Labor and Education Committee, Buck McKeon from 
California.
  Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees. 
I am disappointed to be standing here under these circumstances.
  A full month into the new fiscal year, the Democrats have failed to 
send a single spending bill to the President for his signature or veto. 
The President laid out his positions early this year, asking the 
Congress to adhere to fiscally responsible spending caps.
  Democrats have been unwilling or unable to control their spending, 
passing bills that topped these spending targets by billions of 
dollars. Now, rather than moving separate bills to support our troops 
and veterans, Democrats are holding these bills hostage to the swollen 
Labor, Health and Human Services and Education spending bill.
  As the former chairman of the Education Committee, I know firsthand 
the arguments the other side will make on funding in that bill. So 
let's focus on the facts. Republicans are strong supporters of programs 
that support education, health care and workers. Our fiscally 
responsible spending targets allow significant resources for these 
programs. Republicans have a strong record when it comes to funding 
education.
  At the same time, we know that the achievement gap in our schools is 
not caused by a lack of funding, but by a lack of accountability. 
Throwing money at the problem is not the answer. Our committee is a 
case study in how the priorities of Democrats diverged from those of 
the American people.
  Democrats have failed to act on the No Child Left Behind, the higher 
education, and job training bills this year. Yet, they have passed 
bills to strip workers of the right to a secret ballot election, 
overturned six decades of civil rights law, and created new entitlement 
spending at the expense of low- and middle-income college students. The 
worst may be yet to come.
  When Democrats finally take up higher education reform, we may see 
prisoners getting Pell Grants and drug dealers getting Federal aid. The 
Democrats have, quite simply, got their priorities in the wrong place. 
It's time to get back to work and fund these three bills separately for 
our troops, our veterans, and our students.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Speaker, I have only one remaining speaker, so I 
would ask the gentleman to finish.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 24 minutes. 
The gentleman from California has 21 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I would yield to my colleague 
from Florida, former chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Bill 
Young, for as much time as he may consume.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to applaud Chairman Obey for the statements 
that he has made since the beginning of this session of Congress that 
we are going to pass all of the appropriations bills individually, 
separately, and send them to the President, individually and 
separately. I think that is a great idea. As a former chairman of this 
Appropriations Committee, I wish I could have done the same thing.
  I understand the frustration that Chairman Obey has in not being able 
to move the bills the way that he wants to move them. I experienced the 
same frustration. Mr. Obey is right. We did have omnibus bills during 
the time that we were the majority party. The reason we had the omnibus 
bills is because our partners in the Senate refused to pass their 
bills.
  Now, Chairman Obey has said so many times that we just didn't do our 
job. In the House, we did our job. In the House we passed our 
appropriations bills just like Chairman Obey did this year, but it 
takes two Houses to approve a bill and to send it to the White House.
  The frustration is that without appropriations bills, the government 
shuts down. It's pure and simple. Article I of the Constitution of the 
United States, section 9, says that the administration can't spend any 
money that has not first been appropriated by Congress. So in order to 
meet that constitutional responsibility, we have had, on occasion, the 
need to create an omnibus appropriations bill because the Senate 
refused to pass their bills. Now, I will concede that during our 
chairmanship the Senate was a Republican Senate. It was controlled by 
the Republicans.
  Today, the United States Senate still refuses to pass all of their 
appropriations bills, and today the Senate is controlled by the 
Democrats. So it just seems like the Senate is the Senate, no matter 
who controls them politically. But in the case that we are debating 
today, there is absolutely no good government reason to combine these 
three bills. Combining these bills will slow them down.
  It has been suggested by some of the speakers we ought to move ahead. 
The Defense appropriations subcommittee was scheduled to conference 
tomorrow morning to send the bill to the Senate and to the White House. 
I understand the Labor-HHS Subcommittee was also scheduled to 
conference tomorrow. These bills could have been conferenced and, by 
the way, the Military Construction Veterans' Affairs Committee was also 
prepared to conference, and the President said that he would sign that 
bill, he would sign the Defense bill. He expressed his concern about 
the Labor-H bill.
  I voted for all three of them. I voted for the Defense bill, I voted 
for the Military Construction Veterans Affairs bill, and I also voted 
for the Labor-HHS bill. I think we ought to handle these bills 
individually to speed up the process, not to slow it down.
  By combining these three bills, we all know that it will slow down 
the process. How long would it slow it down? I don't know, but I do 
know this, that there is already talk about conducting the 
appropriations process on these bills on a continuing resolution if it 
gets slowed down too much. That's not good.
  We have done CRs, and we know that, and we know the reason for them. 
But there is no good reason to put these bills on a CR. They are ready 
to conference. They are ready to come back to the House and go to the 
Senate and go to the White House. They are ready. There would be no 
delay.
  It's just not right because there is no good government reason to do 
this. It's just not right to do it. I suggest that we should join in 
supporting Chairman Obey when he says that these bills should be done 
individually, separately and sent to the President in that fashion, 
individually and separately.
  I support this motion because, if this motion does not pass, and if 
we appoint Labor-HHS conferees to conference the Defense bill, I mean, 
they are all very, very talented members, and they all

[[Page H12346]]

have great knowledge, but, you know, none of them sat through the 
hearings. None of them sat through the justifications. None of them sat 
through the markups.
  So to have the Labor-HHS members who are outstanding members on both 
sides of the aisle, to have them conferencing a large bill as 
complicated as the Defense bill, that's just not right. It's really 
interesting that the bills that the leadership would add to the Labor-
HHS bill make up 80 percent of the dollars to be appropriated.

                              {time}  1700

  The Labor-HHS bill, which becomes the vehicle, is only 20 percent of 
the appropriations.
  This is not right. I'm not going to suggest why the majority 
leadership made this decision. But I'm going to say, emphatically and 
without fear of contradiction, there is no good government reason for 
combining these three bills, because they are ready to be conferenced 
and sent to the President without any delay whatsoever.
  And I thank the gentleman for yielding and for the good job that he 
does in his role on the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. OBEY. Can I inquire how many speakers the gentleman has 
remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I have one additional speaker to close.
  Mr. OBEY. Just one?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Yes, sir.
  Mr. OBEY. Then I'm the last speaker on our side.
  How much time remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 24 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I simply want to repeat what the gentleman from Ohio 
said earlier. We often see politicians try to wrap themselves in the 
flag, and we often try to see politicians pose for holy pictures every 
time the issue of veterans comes up. And America's very good at 
saluting veterans and playing the band when they go off to war. We 
haven't been as good in dealing with their problems after they come 
home.
  And so what we intend to do in the Military Construction bill, in the 
Defense bill, in the Labor-Health bill, and in a number of other 
appropriation bills is we intend to deal with all of the problems faced 
by veterans and their families and other families in this country.
  When veterans come home, they aren't just worried about whether or 
not they're going to get veterans health care. They also want to know 
whether the kids are going to be able to go to decent schools, taught 
by qualified teachers in decent classrooms. So we are going to be 
trying to see to it that programs such as title I and handicapped 
education are much more adequately funded than they would be under the 
President's budget.
  Impact Aid, that directly affects many military families. We're 
trying to make sure that we do a better job funding that program than 
the President did in his budget.
  Medical research, believe it or not, veterans need the results of 
medical research just as much as and probably more so than many other 
Americans. We're going to see to it, in our bill, that we don't 
experience a cutback of 1,100 grants in military research around the 
country.
  I would suggest that this motion simply says that the new minority 
does not want us to do something which they did 56 times when they ran 
this House, namely, combine appropriation bills for the purpose either 
of efficiency or to strengthen our capacity to meet our obligations 
around the horn.
  I also think something else is going on. Under the budget rules of 
the House, the President does not have the right to veto a budget 
resolution; he only has the right to veto appropriation bills. But what 
he is trying to do, by asserting that he, and he alone, will determine 
what the overall number is for appropriations, he is trying to 
indirectly position himself so he can veto a budget resolution. He's 
never had that power. The Congress never gave him that power, and the 
Constitution certainly doesn't.
  So I would suggest that one of the probably unintended consequences 
of the motion of the gentleman from California is that it would, 
inadvertently, transfer additional power to the executive branch. I 
don't think that's wise.
  Having said all of that, I want to make one more point. I know the 
gentleman from Florida would never want to misstate or misquote any 
other Member, but I was somewhat stunned to hear him suggest that I 
have said that we must pass these appropriation bills singly. In fact, 
I have said many times on this floor just the opposite.
  I've said that, unlike the previous chairman, who was extremely 
concerned about passing each of these bills separately, that while I 
would prefer to do it that way, I would be happy, if that didn't work, 
to pass them in minibuses or omnibuses or any other kind of bus you can 
find, so long as we deliver the goods, and so long as the goods are the 
right goods for the American people. And that's the philosophy I have.
  So I would simply suggest, we've had more debate than I'd expected 
today on procedural niceties. I would suggest that we simply recognize 
that we've got an obligation to get on with completing our 
appropriations business. This is the most effective way we can do it.
  All three of these bills passed the House on a bipartisan basis, and 
I have no reason to expect that they won't do the same when they come 
back from conference.
  I do want to say that I agree with not all, but some of the comments 
made about our esteemed colleagues in the other body, but that's a 
discussion for another day.
  And with that, if the gentleman has one remaining speaker, then I'm 
prepared to yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my 
time to the ranking member of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee, Jim Walsh of 
New York.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. I thank my friend from California for yielding 
time, and I rise in strong support of this motion to instruct 
conferees.
  Before I do that though, I'd like to comment, just make a couple of 
comments on some of the debate that's occurred, specifically, the 
notion that the Republican Party, when we were in the majority, did not 
pass our military quality of life and veterans bills. And I know the 
chairman knows this, but we did. In the House, we did. We passed our 
bills overwhelmingly. And we ran into a little problem with the other 
body. And I know the chairman feels our pain there because he has been 
and will continue to be running into problems with the other body, and 
I will work with him on those. But we did conscientiously work to 
resolve these issues here in the House. And I think historically, at 
least in my brief time here, we have done that. But the Senate is the 
Senate, and they do what they do. We do it our own way, and I think we 
do it very effectively regardless of the party in power in the House.
  I would also mention, because the chairman did a little bit of 
crowing about the things that they are doing in this bill and they've 
done in the other bills, we passed, year after year after year, record 
increases in veterans health care spending. And they were needed 
because we have so many veterans coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan 
with severe injuries, both physical and mental. But we stepped up to 
the plate and we did it in a bipartisan way. And we passed record 
increases. I think, on average, 10 percent increases per year; faster 
growth than any other budget in the Federal Government. So we are 
second to none in our support of veterans. And we will continue to 
support those bills that the other party passes if they are truly 
bipartisan. And I think this one, the Military Construction and VA bill 
is.
  Back to the motion to instruct the conferees. Quite simply, what this 
motion says is that the conferees on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education and Related Agencies appropriations bills should not add 
material to the conference report that was not approved by either House 
or the Senate. This should not be controversial, but based on what has 
happened here today, it is.
  The reality is that this majority should not be combining a bill that 
has received a veto threat with two other bills that have not.
  I've supported the Labor-H bill throughout this process. Chairman 
Obey has been fair, and I've worked with him shoulder to shoulder to 
bring this bill forward. He has fought for Republican and Democratic 
initiatives

[[Page H12347]]

and measures equally, and I thank him, and he has my respect for that. 
But I was not consulted when it came to putting these three bills 
together.
  I voted for the Military Construction-VA bill. I voted for the 
defense bill. They are all good bills, in my humble opinion. The Senate 
has passed all three bills, as has the House. There is no reason why 
these three bills cannot be conferenced individually, sent to the 
President individually and accepted or rejected individually. But most 
assuredly, by combining them, they are all doomed to fail. If the 
President vetoes any of the three freestanding conference reports, we 
in the House, and our colleagues in the other body, will have an 
opportunity to override that veto.
  Frankly, I see the effort to attach the Defense and Military 
Construction-Veterans bills to the Labor-HHS bill as nothing more than 
posturing and, in fact, brinksmanship.
  Madam Speaker, the resulting bill would represent everything that is 
wrong with Washington. The confusion that will ensue in the country 
will only serve as a shining example of why this Congress today enjoys 
its lowest approval ratings in generations.
  The people of New York's 25th Congressional District sent me to 
Washington to represent their interests and to solve problems. This 
effort to combine these bills creates a problem.
  This Congress has produced less than a handful of bills in 10 months, 
and no appropriations bills to date. We can pass and have signed two 
bills easily, the Veterans bill and the Defense bill. But instead, by 
combining these bills to Labor-H, we will bring them all down. It is a 
plan to fail, just like the SCHIP bill was.
  As I said, I support the Labor-HHS bill and I will likely continue to 
support it as a freestanding bill.
  I understand politics and I understand political strategy, but 
putting funding for veterans health care and our military at risk to 
score points is beyond the pale.
  I know there are some Members of Congress and some individuals in the 
White House who would like to see this government continue to operate 
on a continuing resolution as we have this past year. I don't. We can 
pass these bills stand-alone, but we can't pass them lashed together.
  This process hurts the credibility of the Appropriations Committee, a 
committee that has historically been nonpartisan and task oriented.
  Mark my words, if we continue along this path, we will be operating 
on a CR again in 2008. And for a third year in a row, no Member 
requests will be honored in the Labor-HHS bill, and for a third year in 
a row, the Appropriations Committee will fail to meet its 
responsibilities.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 191, 
nays 222, not voting 19, as follows:

                            [Roll No. 1026]

                               YEAS--191

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--222

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Butterfield
     Carson
     Cubin
     Hensarling
     Jindal
     Latham
     LaTourette
     McCrery
     Miller (NC)
     Paul
     Ryan (WI)
     Schiff
     Sestak
     Stark
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weller
     Wilson (OH)

                              {time}  1736

  Messrs. KUCINICH, HONDA, WATT, BISHOP of Georgia, SPRATT, KLEIN of 
Florida, MARSHALL, OBERSTAR, STUPAK and DONNELLY, and Ms. BERKLEY and 
Ms. MATSUI changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. HASTERT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to instruct was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.




                          ____________________