[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 24 (Thursday, February 7, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H1399-H1403]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 840, VETERANS' ACCESS TO CHILD CARE 
 ACT; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF H. RES. 86, PROVIDING AMOUNTS FOR THE 
 EXPENSES OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS AND THE SELECT 
     COMMITTEE ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CONGRESS; AND PROVIDING FOR 
             CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 105 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 105

       Resolved, That at any time after 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. 840) to amend title 38, United States Code, to 
     direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide child 
     care assistance to veterans receiving certain medical 
     services provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. 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 chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 116-3. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, 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. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  House Resolution 86 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     legislative day of February 15, 2019, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 
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.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 105, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 840, the Veterans' Access to Child Care Act, under a structured 
rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  The rule makes in order 21 amendments, each debatable for 10 minutes. 
The rule also provides for adoption of H. Res. 86, a resolution 
providing interim funding for our two new select committees.
  Lastly, the rule provides suspension authority through next Friday, 
February 15.
  Mr. Speaker, the Veterans' Access to Child Care Act would make 
permanent the VA's childcare pilot program, allowing more veterans to 
access cost-free childcare when they receive mental or other intensive 
healthcare treatment through the VA.
  A nearly identical piece of legislation passed in the House last year 
under a Republican majority with bipartisan cosponsors and without 
objection. It is my hope that this Congress will support these efforts 
to make it easier for our brave servicemembers to get the care they 
need while supporting their families.
  Millions of working families across the Nation are struggling to 
afford the rising cost of childcare. Families in my own State of New 
York often pay upwards of $15,000 each year to place one child in a 
childcare center. Some parents may find themselves owing their entire 
salary each month to provision of daycare. This cost can be so 
debilitating that parents are being driven out of the workforce--many 
of them women.
  For veterans, these struggles can be even more acute. Many veterans 
are primary caregivers to their children or even their grandchildren. 
These brave men and women rely on the VA for their healthcare, but many 
of them are forced to miss appointments or forgo treatment altogether 
because they

[[Page H1400]]

have no childcare options. For many, that can be devastating. We have 
seen the harm that can be done when military veterans do not receive 
high-quality mental health services.
  This Nation is facing a crisis. Each day, 20 American veterans take 
their own life. Studies have shown that mental health disparities are a 
leading cause of high suicide rates among veterans who struggle with 
depression or post-traumatic stress.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs has shown that the suicide rate 
has increased faster among those veterans who have not recently 
received treatment through the VA system. Addressing inadequate access 
to lifesaving mental health and intense health services is critical as 
we seek to reform our veterans' healthcare system, and we know that 
making care more accessible will save lives.
  Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs operates a pilot 
program to provide cost-free childcare to help primary caregivers 
seeking mental health treatment at selected VA facilities across the 
country. This program has been extended by Congress several times and 
has provided care for more than 10,000 children already.
  Congress now has an opportunity to extend not only this pilot, but to 
expand this essential service to every VA facility in the Nation. This 
will allow thousands more veterans to receive cost-free childcare, 
ensuring that they never have to choose caring for their family over 
caring for their own mental health well-being.
  This legislation is especially important for female veterans across 
the Nation, many of whom are single parents or primary caregivers. An 
increasing number of female veterans have been in combat. One in five 
female veterans seen by the VA report military sexual trauma.
  It is clear that female veterans face unique health challenges and 
unique barriers to accessing the care they need. This legislation will 
work to dismantle those barriers so the VA can build on the progress we 
have made in treating female veterans.
  For many veterans, it is not only essential that they receive mental 
and intensive healthcare, but that they receive care quickly. When 
facing a serious mental health crisis, veterans shouldn't have to worry 
about their babysitter dropping out or how they will pay for a day of 
daycare or how they will find someone to take care of their child while 
they go to the hospital and receive services. We must ensure that the 
men and women who have laid their lives on the line for our Nation have 
timely access to the lifesaving services they need and that we have 
promised to provide.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and the 
underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I want to thank my friend from New York for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to have the opportunity very often, so I 
want to make sure I do it while the gentleman and I are together today 
to tell him I agree with absolutely everything Mr. Morelle had to say. 
It doesn't happen very often on the Rules Committee.
  If you are ever having a good day and you need to bring some discord 
into your life, I want you to head upstairs to the third floor, where 
there is a 9-to-4 majority-minority distribution, and you can find 
discord up there every day of the week. It doesn't matter whether it is 
Republicans leading the institution or Democrats leading the 
institution.

  Last night, we had a chance to come together and talk about something 
that unites us all; but I oppose the rule today, Mr. Speaker, because 
this is a bill that passed the Congress last year, and when we passed 
it last year, we passed it unanimously through the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee. All the Republicans and all the Democrats voted ``yes.'' 
Then we brought it to the House floor, and we passed it unanimously 
here on a voice vote.
  But the difference between the bill we have before us today and the 
bill we had before us last year is that, when we made new promises to 
our veterans for much-needed benefits last year, we went and we found 
ways to pay for those promises--not controversial ways, not divisive 
ways, but ways that we agreed to unanimously at the committee and the 
full House level. When the bill reappeared this year, those pay-fors 
were miraculously absent.
  I am concerned about that for two reasons, Mr. Speaker, and I think 
this body should reject this rule and give us a chance to improve this 
bill. We tried to improve it with an amendment last night, and the 
amendment was nongermane.
  For folks who are new to the institution, understand that, if the 
committee that sends the bill to the House floor decides they are not 
going to pay for it, then any effort to try to pay for it is 
nongermane. So, once a committee sends a bill that is flawed to the 
Rules Committee, unless there is a waiver of the House rules to allow a 
pay-for amendment, pay-for amendments are not in order.

                              {time}  1230

  So what happens is we are making a new commitment of about $120 
million to our veterans, a wonderful commitment.
  Again, I agree with absolutely everything the gentleman from New York 
had to say. His heart for veterans is pure, and his words were true.
  But that $120 million commitment we are making, Mr. Speaker, gets 
folded into the Veterans' Affairs budget that we don't increase by one 
penny, which means we now have to go cut $120 million worth of other 
veterans' benefits in order to pay for this veterans' benefit.
  That is not what anybody on this floor wants to do. In the Budget 
Committee today, we were talking about the caps, talking about how to 
deal with caps. Nobody wants to dip into the already promised benefits 
that we have made to American veterans.
  But the mystery to me is that, in this Chamber that America perceives 
as being so divided, in this town that America perceives as being so 
broken, we came together last year, unanimously, to do it the right 
way; and with new House leadership this year, Mr. Speaker, we have 
instead chosen to do it the easy way.
  I think our veterans deserve better, but, more importantly, I know 
the Members of this institution can do better. We have, and we can 
again.
  I hope my friends will reject this rule and give us a chance to go 
back, pay for this, make sure there are not unintended consequences of 
cutting other veterans' benefits that every man and woman in this 
Chamber supports.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I appreciate the comments by my distinguished and 
wholly entertaining colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall). I do want to just make a couple of points related to his 
comments.
  First of all, as the gentleman indicated, the amendment that he 
talked about was not germane, not before the House, and that was ruled 
such yesterday. But, as it relates to the paygo rule, we are entirely 
in compliance with that. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office 
advised us that there is no direct spending in the bill.
  As my mother is often wont to say: You can't be holier than the 
church. CBO has ruled on it and indicated that the bill does not add a 
single penny to our deficit or to the national debt, period.
  I do, Mr. Speaker, however, find it somewhat ironic. I was thinking 
about this just yesterday after our conversation in the Rules 
Committee, and I do note that the appropriation over the next 5 years, 
$120 million--that is million with an M, not billion with a B, and 
certainly not trillion with a T. And I do find it ironic to some agree 
that the gentleman and his colleagues last year would enact a tax cut 
which provided that 83 percent of its benefits went to the wealthiest 
Americans.
  And, if we were here each day, Mr. Woodall and I, for 365 days a 
year, for the next 30 years--10,000 days, 10,000 times--that tax bill 
would have spent more money than this would during that time, if we did 
this for 10,000 days. Think about it.
  The work that we do here: authorized spending on a program for 
veterans, not our wealthiest Americans; those who are struggling; those 
who have,

[[Page H1401]]

during their time, provided great service and sacrifice to our country; 
those who have kept us safe. And I know Mr. Woodall and I share an 
appreciation for all the work our veterans do.
  But this is a policy bill, Mr. Speaker. It is not an appropriations 
bill, and it has no direct spending. What it does: It helps save the 
lives of veterans, and it helps put them on a safer, more sound bearing 
for the future.
  The cost for implementing it is, as I said, $120 million over the 
next 5 years. And it seems to me, it seems to my colleagues, that this 
is appropriate given the priorities we have for our Nation and for our 
veterans.
  So the next step, as the gentleman knows, is to provide funding 
through the appropriation process, and I hope that this Congress does 
invest in our veterans, particularly those who have challenging health 
issues, whether they be physical, mental, or behavioral, who also 
happen to be the parents or caretakers of our young children.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is not like me to correct the Chair because he serves the entire 
House, but, I will tell you, it is entirely possible that Mr. Morelle 
and I could yield each other time back and forth today. That is the 
nature of this institution's support for veterans.
  And, I have to tell you, that is what hurts me the most about the way 
this bill has come to the floor. My friend is exactly right, Mr. 
Speaker, when he says that the CBO says this: There is no direct 
spending in this bill at all.
  I just want you to think through that with me. We are promising 
veterans new benefits that cost money, and the scorekeeping institution 
of the United States House of Representatives says this bill will cost 
nothing.
  Now, why is that true? It is true because there are other laws on the 
books, the budget caps that are on the books that say: If you add one 
penny of veterans funding in this category, you have got to cut a penny 
from this category.
  When we did this bill last year, we all recognized that. I am not 
telling anybody anything they don't already know, and it pains me to 
see the defense of this bill as ``we didn't have to,'' ``they didn't 
make us,'' ``it is not required.'' All of those arguments were true 
last year, too. They didn't make us. We don't have to. It is not 
required.
  It is just the right thing to do. And we came together, and we did 
it.
  You have a different vantage point of this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, than 
I do. From your chair, it may look like that bipartisanship breaks out 
across this Chamber in mass quantities every day of the week, but, from 
my position behind this podium, we don't find that many things that 
both spend money and save money, those things that make new promises 
while revising old promises that weren't working as well, those things 
that make promises today but pay for them today instead of passing the 
bill on to our children and grandchildren.

  And we did that together last year. We did it together. How can folks 
forget? Yes, we have lots of new freshmen in this Chamber, but we came 
together last year, unanimously, to do this bill right, to tell 
veterans: We do want to serve you better; we are going to create a new 
benefit; and we are not going to force cuts to other benefits as a 
result.
  I am not going to give up on bipartisanship breaking out in this 
Chamber again and again and again, and I am certainly not going to give 
up on the bipartisan commitment that we have to serving our veterans. 
There are only so many days in a year. There are only so many weeks in 
a Congress. We cannot waste them doing a halfway job when we could have 
done the job right.
  In this case, it is not as if we don't have a roadmap of how to do 
the job right. We did it. It is not as if we thought about doing it; we 
voted unanimously together to do it.
  Yet, in this new day, we have chosen a different path, an inferior 
path. I just challenge my colleagues, as Paul Ryan used to say: Raise 
your gaze. This is a good idea. This is a good programmatic policy. But 
we need to pay for it, not cut veterans' benefits in order to squeeze 
it in.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the gentleman whether or not 
there are other speakers or whether I should use this opportunity to 
close.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would welcome my friend to close, but, in 
the spirit of bipartisanship, I will be happy to begin that process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is a different job in the minority. The power that Mr. Morelle has 
to open this debate and close this debate, it lends credence to his 
words. As I stipulated at the beginning, everything he said was true. 
It is what he didn't say that we can do better on.
  I will say this one more time because, again, for new Members of this 
Chamber, you may not understand how the Rules Committee works. If a 
committee does not pay for legislation, if a committee just makes 
promises and does not find a way to pay for it, it is not appropriate, 
under House rules, to then try to add a pay-for. It requires a waiver 
from the Rules Committee of House rules in order to include a pay-for 
in a bill that is not already paid for. We offered that amendment last 
night. It was rejected on a party-line vote in the Rules Committee. Mr. 
Speaker, if we defeat the previous question today, we will offer a 
solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, the amendment that we will offer if the 
previous question is defeated would add the language that, by 
collecting fees on housing loans that would pay for this new childcare 
benefit so that we don't have to go deep into the Veterans' Affairs 
budget, cutting other benefits in order to pay for this, so we don't 
have to violate budget caps and borrow from our children and from our 
grandchildren, so that we can make promises to men and women who 
deserve and need this benefit and know that we have come together and 
done the heavy lifting to pay for it today.
  I hope my friends will unite, as we did last year, in approving this 
funding language, unite in defeating the previous question, so that I 
can bring this amendment up and we can do this in the same honorable, 
bipartisan, collaborative way that we unanimously passed this very same 
language just a few short months ago.
  I urge my friends: Know that we can do better.
  Mr. Speaker, while I contemplated yielding back, I am going to 
reserve my time just in case there are any more speakers who have been 
affected by my words and want to come and join this effort that we have 
today. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I am still learning this. The 
lingo on the floor of the House is much different than the lingo on the 
floor of the New York State Assembly, where I had the privilege of 
serving, and I do appreciate the gentleman's help through this. He has 
me at a bit of a disadvantage.
  I do want to just reiterate before I yield that, in fact, this is a 
policy that we set with this bill and this rule. It will be up to the 
appropriators to make a decision about whether this is a priority as 
they go through this process and determine whether there will be 
funding for it in the appropriations bill.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me say that the gentleman from New 
York is doing an excellent job. He has translated the great leadership 
of the New York legislature and brought it here to the House. We thank 
the gentleman for his service.
  I have been affected by the gentleman from Georgia's comments. We 
have been on this floor together, and I know that we have a heart of 
service. As well--coming from Georgia, coming from Texas--we know 
veterans and we certainly know Active-Duty persons as well.
  So I rise to support the policy underpinnings of this legislation 
that has been so well articulated by the gentleman from New York.

[[Page H1402]]

  And it is important to note, just as background: When this government 
was wrongly shut down, we lost $11 billion, $3 billion that we will 
never see again and $8 billion that we may see again. But, in the 
course of that, all of us interacted with our veterans, many of them 
devastated because some of them were in positions that caused them to 
be furloughed. That means they were not getting a paycheck.
  Some of them, of course, are disabled veterans or veterans who are 
engaged in the veterans' health system.
  And we know that these veterans have pride. So this bill is an 
authorizing bill that affirms that pride, that allows veterans--many of 
them young veterans, having been in the Afghanistan war, having been in 
the Iraq war, having been in Syria--many of them young with young 
children, that they can go to get their medical care--that is well 
needed--by now having childcare during their medical care visits.
  And I am glad the gentleman from New York made it clear over and over 
again that this is an authorizing bill. There is no need for paygo. 
There is no need for the offset. That will be handled. This is a policy 
point.
  This is Democrats, hopefully joined by Republicans, to affirm our 
commitment to the service of veterans. But, as I do that, maybe the 
gentleman from Georgia would join me in reconsidering the new tax cuts 
by the GOP, which would cost $3.8 trillion to the deficit this second 
round and create $3.2 trillion in the Federal deficit over a decade.

                              {time}  1245

  Maybe my good friend will join me and indicate that our veterans are 
more important, that services to our families are more important, and, 
therefore, let's reconsider this deficit-busting GOP tax bill.
  But as relates to this policy, I am grateful to the leadership of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee. I thank the gentleman from New York in the 
Rules Committee for bringing forward this thoughtful, smart veterans 
bill. Remember, you have been hearing us talk about smart border 
security, and we are working on that right now to keep the government 
open, but this is a smart bill.
  I have a veterans hospital in my area, formerly in my district, and I 
know how important Medicare is.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the rule, and I rise to support the 
underlying legislation, which is authorizing legislation to help 
veterans have childcare when they go to get their medical care.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is troubling to me that we have those things that 
divide us, that permeate these conversations that could be uniting. 
Again, I don't think we have that many opportunities where we are able 
to come together as an entire institution unanimously to support 
legislation, so I deeply regret we have missed that opportunity.
  I want to encourage my friends on the other side of the aisle not to 
fall under the same trap that I think Republicans fell into just 8 
short years ago. Every single conversation we have now in the Rules 
Committee, the tax cuts come into it.
  The fact that so many of my Democratic friends didn't want tax cuts 
for the American people isn't a mystery to me. I got not one Democratic 
vote on the entire bill. I get it. One team thought it was a good idea, 
one team didn't, but we cannot use that disagreement as an excuse not 
to do the very best that we can on each and every bill going forward.
  I will give you that example from the Republicans experience. I was 
categorically opposed to the Federal takeover of healthcare that was 
the Affordable Care Act. I was categorically opposed to the way that 
small businesses lost options. And my friends that were promised they 
could keep their doctor and they could keep their plan, those promises 
were broken.
  But I still came together with my Democratic friends on the floor to 
find additional dollars for veterans healthcare and plus-up those 
accounts, to find additional ways to serve veterans who had not been 
served through healthcare and plus-up those accounts. The fact that we 
disagree on really big important issues does not mean we cannot come 
together and do the very best that we can.
  And with that in mind, I want to give credit where credit is due. I 
have talked a lot about how we unanimously passed this bill last 
Congress. It is true. We unanimously passed it out of committee, and we 
unanimously passed it on the floor of the House. But what that means 
is, it came to the floor of the House on the suspension calendar, which 
meant no amendments were made in order.
  The way that my friends on the other side of the aisle have brought 
the bill up, amendments are made in order, and the Rules Committee made 
21 different amendments in order. We passed the bill unanimously under 
our leadership, but there was not an opportunity to improve it.
  My friends on the other side have chosen a different path that does 
allow an opportunity to improve it, but doesn't allow the opportunities 
that I am seeking to pay for it.
  I don't have to demean my friends or their intentions because their 
intentions are pure, and they are thoughtful, honorable Members of this 
institution. The fact that we disagree about policy does not mean we 
have to disagree about the motives of one another. And when we have 
these opportunities to do not just good but better; not just good, but 
good in a way that we don't pass the bill on to our children and our 
grandchildren, we take care of that bill today.
  I will close with this, Mr. Speaker. Again, I can't disagree with any 
of the words my friend from New York tells because the half of the 
story that he tells is absolutely true. This is an authorizing bill 
where we make a new promise to veterans.
  If this bill passes the floor of the House today, it then goes to the 
Appropriations Committee to fulfill this promise that we all celebrate 
today, and the Appropriations Committee will have not one new penny to 
pay for this new promise.
  We have all been in this business long enough to know what happens to 
promises that folks don't put any money behind and what happens to 
promises that don't get paid for. The law prevents the Appropriations 
Committee from funding this new promise, unless they cut dollars from 
existing veterans promises today.
  This bill is doing all the right things for all the right reasons. 
Let's not make another veteran have to pay in a cut for what we are 
promising to one of his brothers or sisters in a new benefit.
  Defeat the previous question; allow us to pay for this bill; and 
let's put our money where our hearts and our mouths are.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his indulgence 
and his patience as I hopefully will get the training wheels off at one 
of these points, but I appreciate his comments.
  I do want to note that this bill, the amendment which the gentleman 
speaks of, will not have been germane in the previous Congress either, 
and it was not ruled germane during the Rules Committee deliberations.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank all my colleagues for the words 
of support for H.R. 840, the Veterans' Access to Child Care Act. The 
Veterans' Access bill, I want to especially thank the sponsor, 
Congresswoman Julia Brownley and Chairman Mark Takano of the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, as well as the ranking member, Mr. Roe, for their 
work in supporting our Nation's veterans.
  I am proud that this rule provides for the consideration of so many 
diverse ideas, including minority and bipartisan amendments, something 
that would not be allowed in the previous Congress. I am proud we have 
taken this bipartisan approach, and I appreciate all the work that 
Chairman McGovern has done to make sure that that is part of the work 
that we do.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 5 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in the report

[[Page H1403]]

     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution if 
     offered by Representative Bilirakis of Florida or a designee. 
     That amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as 
     follows:
       At the end, add the following:

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF REQUIREMENT TO COLLECT FEES FOR HOUSING 
                   LOANS GUARANTEED BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS.

       Section 3729(b)(2) of title 38, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``September 30, 2028'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``December 31, 2028''.

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________