[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 157 (Wednesday, September 28, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8186-H8190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SOLID START ACT OF 2022
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 1198) to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve and
expand the Solid Start program of the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 1198
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Solid Start Act of 2022''.
SEC. 2. SOLID START PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 63 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
subchapter:
``SUBCHAPTER II--OTHER OUTREACH PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES
``Sec. 6320. Solid Start program
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall carry out a program,
to be known as the `Solid Start program', under which the
Secretary shall--
``(1) build the capacity of the Department to efficiently
and effectively respond to the queries and needs of veterans
who have recently separated from the Armed Forces; and
``(2) systemically integrate and coordinate efforts to
assist veterans, including efforts--
``(A) to proactively reach out to newly separated veterans
to inform them of their eligibility for programs of and
benefits provided by the Department; and
``(B) to connect veterans in crisis to resources that
address their immediate needs.
``(b) Activities of the Solid Start Program.--(1) The
Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense,
shall carry out the Solid Start program of the Department
by--
``(A) collecting up-to-date contact information during
transition classes or separation counseling for all members
of the Armed Forces who are separating from the Armed Forces,
while explaining the existence and purpose of the Solid Start
program;
``(B) calling each veteran, regardless of separation type
or characterization of service, three times within the first
year after separation of the veteran from the Armed Forces;
``(C) providing information about the Solid Start program
on the website of the Department and in materials of the
Department, especially transition booklets and other
resources;
``(D) ensuring calls are truly tailored to the needs of
each veteran's unique situation by conducting quality
assurance tests;
``(E) prioritizing outreach to veterans who have accessed
mental health resources prior to separation from the Armed
Forces;
``(F) providing women veterans with information that is
tailored to their specific health care and benefit needs;
``(G) as feasible, providing information on access to State
and local resources, including Vet Centers and veterans
service organizations; and
``(H) gathering and analyzing data assessing the
effectiveness of the Solid Start program.
``(2) The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretary of
Defense, may carry out the Solid Start program by--
``(A) encouraging members of the Armed Forces who are
transitioning to civilian life to authorize alternate points
of contact who can be reached should the member be
unavailable during the first year following the separation of
the member from the Armed Forces; and
``(B) following up missed phone calls with tailored
mailings to ensure the veteran still receives similar
information.
``(3) In this subsection:
``(A) The term `Vet Center' has the meaning given that term
in section 1712A(h) of this title.
``(B) The term `veterans service organization' means an
organization recognized by the Secretary for the
representation of veterans under section 5902 of this
title.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Chapter 63 of such title, as
amended by subsection (a), is further amended--
(1) by inserting before section 6301 the following:
``Subchapter I--Outreach Services Program'';
and
(2) in sections 6301, 6303, 6304, 6305, 6306, and 6307, by
striking ``this chapter'' each place it appears and inserting
``this subchapter''.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 63 of such title is amended--
(1) by inserting before the item relating to section 6301
the following new item:
``subchapter i--outreach services program'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following new items:
``subchapter ii--other outreach programs and activities
``6320. Solid Start program.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Takano) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
General Leave
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous material on S. 1198.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise to support S. 1198, the bipartisan, bicameral,
Solid Start Act.
This bill is led by Senator Hassan, and in the House, this
legislative effort is led by my Veterans Affairs' Committee colleague,
Representative Slotkin.
Now, we know that the transition from Active-Duty service to veteran
status can bring not only new opportunities, but also substantial
adjustment and stress. For some veterans, it can pose serious mental
health challenges. In fact, the first year of transitioning out of
military service is a very high-risk period for veteran suicide.
VA initiated its Solid Start program to address the challenges new
veterans may face during this period. VA now
[[Page H8187]]
contacts veterans at three different periods in that first year to
check in, remind veterans of benefits and services for which they are
eligible, and connect them to resources.
Women veterans, like all veterans, deserve to know about all of the
benefits and services they have earned with no exceptions. I have heard
today that some Republican Members of this House are suddenly looking
to oppose this veteran suicide prevention bill, and all because it has
16 words that simply ensure women veterans are told about the range of
benefits and services for which they are eligible; 16 words, when we
are talking about 16 veteran suicide deaths a day.
We are talking about benefits like the GI bill, and compensation for
toxic exposure presumptions, breast cancer screening, treatment for
military sexual trauma, and, yes, the freedom to discuss their options
around pregnancy.
All benefits they have earned through their service because they
chose to serve our Nation. Well, I would say to my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to take your fight against women veterans
elsewhere.
Criminalizing, infantilizing, and denying women veterans--take your
fight elsewhere.
There is no bar that prevents VA providers from discussing a single
benefit with male veterans, but my colleagues want a double standard
for women veterans. This is about two lines in an entire bill meant to
help veterans who have recently left Active Duty. All veterans.
Republicans won't pass this bill unless we delete women from it. I
refuse to do that. Women veterans are veterans.
A conversation with a woman veteran about coming to the VA could
prevent her death from suicide. It could also prevent needless
suffering and possible death from health conditions, including
pregnancy.
Republicans have gotten so extreme with their fear of women having
autonomy over their own bodies and lives that they are willing to play
political games with veterans' lives and tank a veteran suicide
prevention bill.
I would also remind those considering blocking this bill that this
very same language has already passed in the House. Back on June 23 of
this year, this Chamber passed the STRONG Veterans Act of 2022. It
passed under a simple voice vote.
The Senate unanimously passed the Solid Start Act after VA's new rule
on abortion counseling and services had been announced.
September is National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month, and this
legislation would help us better connect veterans with the resources
needed to save lives. Sadly, each day, we are losing roughly 16
veterans to suicide.
I am not willing to let 16 words about women's freedom to discuss
their own benefits contained in this legislation prevent us from saving
the lives of 16 veterans who die by suicide each day. I thank Senator
Hassan and Representative Slotkin for their work on this important
issue, and I am pleased we could take up this bill during Suicide
Prevention Month.
Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S.
1198, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to S. 1198, the
Solid Start Act of 2021. The Solid Start program was created by
President Trump in 2019 to better support veterans as they transition
out of the military.
I know firsthand that leaving the military can be tough. When I left
the military as a young marine, the only TAP program that I got was a
tap on the back and a ``see ya later.''
I am glad that things have improved a lot since then. The Solid Start
program has helped improve servicemembers' transitions even more.
I am a real big fan of the Solid Start program. The STRONG Act, my
bill with Chairman Takano, includes identical language to this bill and
would permanently authorize the Solid Start Program. The STRONG Act
passed the House in June with my full support.
However, earlier this month, Secretary McDonough announced that VA
would begin providing abortions. I believe it is not only immoral, but
it is also illegal. Congress prohibited VA providing abortions in 1992.
Congress has never repealed that prohibition. Just so you know, it has
never been superseded.
Secretary McDonough has claimed that he is taking this action in
defense of women's health, setting aside the fact that abortion is not
healthcare. By making that claim, the Secretary has made it clear that
he views women's health as one and the same with abortion.
Madam Speaker, this bill would require VA to provide women veterans
with, ``information that is tailored to their specific healthcare and
benefit needs.''
We have offered if they would remove that language to just say
``veterans,'' that would not include information about abortion, given
the Secretary's views, that is unacceptable to me and to many others.
Our democracy is based on the rule of law, and I wish the Secretary
would follow the law, especially when it is a matter of life and death.
If he did, I would fully support this bill just like I did in June,
before the VA's new illegal rule.
Instead, I regret that I must oppose it today, and I urge my
colleagues to oppose the bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just respond, that every day my colleagues are making threats
to file a lawsuit to stop the interim final rule. Like the ranking
member believes, as do many on his side of the aisle, that the interim
final rule is illegal based on the 1992 law. I will remind him that in
1996, Congress authorized the VA Secretary to define the medical
benefits package. So I disagree with his interpretation of this interim
final rule as being illegal.
Let me mention one thing further, that I have not seen any lawsuit
yet filed, even though he asserted that he would seek to have this rule
stayed. I am assuming that the delay in filing, since the hearing that
we had, is because he is still looking for a perfect judge to hear it.
In the meantime, they are highjacking this opportunity to once again
blind and gag women veterans under the premise that veterans should not
be allowed to know the healthcare options and benefits that are
available to them.
This is not only an insult to veterans but to the veterans service
organizations that have endorsed and supported this bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Ms. Slotkin), my good friend who serves on the Disability Assistance
and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee.
Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Solid
Start Act, a truly bipartisan bill that I originally introduced on
Veterans Day in 2020.
This bill requires the VA to connect with veterans during their first
year when they transition out of service to ensure they are aware of
the benefits and resources that they have earned.
I was thrilled to see this bipartisan legislation pass the Senate
twice, both times by unanimous consent. It passed the House as part of
the STRONG Veterans Act with overwhelming support by voice vote.
{time} 2030
First, I would like to thank my Veterans Advisory Board back in
Michigan and the other stakeholders in my district who have helped to
craft this bill. I would like to thank The American Legion, Disabled
American Veterans, and the VFW for their support, and the countless
veterans and veteran families in the district who gave me their
feedback to help us craft this bill.
It comes directly from their experience where, overwhelmingly, the
sentiment was in that first year of separation, veterans do not
understand all of the resources from education to healthcare that they
are eligible for.
Madam Speaker, 40 percent of the veterans in Michigan are unconnected
totally from the VA and the resources they are entitled to. This
statistic, coupled with the experience of navigating those challenges
in the VA, are unacceptable. Every veteran I know has their own story
as they transition out of the military, whether it has been 3 years or
three decades.
[[Page H8188]]
I watched this up close with my husband after 30 years of Active Duty
in the Army. Newly separated veterans encounter changes in job status,
lifestyle, housing, healthcare, and education. It is a period of
enormous change, and also a period of vulnerability. Tragically, rates
of veteran suicide are higher in those tumultuous first years than
later after separation.
Veterans are entitled to a variety of resources, but they only can
access them if they know about them. That is why I introduced the Solid
Start Act with my Republican friend, Congressman Joyce.
This bipartisan bill codifies a pilot program, as Mr. Bost said, that
was initiated under President Trump, and it shows great promise. But as
we stand here tonight, this bill has now been unexpectedly thrown into
jeopardy, and it is entirely because of political gamesmanship. Right
now, at the last minute, before we vote on this bill, the Pro-Life
Caucus from the other side of the aisle has acted to stop the bill from
moving to prevent the 16 words that are on this page. This language has
been in the bill since its inception when we created this: ``Providing
women veterans with information that is tailored to their specific
healthcare and benefit needs.''
To be clear, if we pass this bill, then it goes to the President's
desk to be signed into law.
But just so we understand what was meant with the idea of providing
women and veterans with information tailored to them, it is pregnancy
and mental health care, maternity care, mammogram, breast health,
breastfeeding and lactation, menopause, gynecological cancer, pre-
pregnancy health, chronic pelvic pain, birth control, osteoporosis,
prosthetics for women, intimate partner violence, disordered eating,
and sexual assault. I can go on. There is a very long list of specific
health issues that are specific to women.
Instead, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are holding
this bill hostage. The 16 words that they apparently now object to are
essential for women's healthcare and are already covered by the VA.
None of this is controversial. None of this is objectionable. It
doesn't change one thing about veterans' benefits or services. It makes
no changes to what they are entitled to. All it does is require the VA
to reach out to servicemembers three times in their first year from
separation. It increases outreach to veterans.
So let's talk about what this is really about.
Earlier today, a letter went out from Ranking Member Bost and the
Pro-Life Caucus saying that Members, while they supported it
previously, should now turn against it. After publicly supporting this,
they are now leaving it.
And why?
Because they are concerned about VA policy. They are concerned about
the VA's decision to provide veteran women with access to abortion when
they have been raped, when they are the victims of family incest, or
when a doctor confirms that the pregnancy is a risk to the health or
the life of the mother.
It is not abortion on demand and not extreme policies. These are very
basic, commonly accepted instances when a woman veteran has gone
through hell and has no other option.
The other side of the aisle, to be clear, is objecting to this bill
because they object to any exceptions whatsoever on abortion. It is a
political game. It is literally putting politics ahead of the 18
million veterans and 200,000 each year who separate.
It is our responsibility to honor the veterans, male and female. I
find it disturbing that you would play politics in this way. I ask the
other side of the aisle to reconsider and support this bill.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
because I would like to take this time to respond to a few things that
were not said correctly.
One, no one has said anything about a lawsuit, especially from the
ranking member.
Two, the Hyde amendment says: rape, incest, life of the mother. When
you put life and health of the mother, then it expands what can be
distorted and where we are at, and it opens to the point of long-term
abortion, and that has actually been verified by the VA.
There is not a whole list there that we want to remove. We want it to
say: If we believe that men and women are all veterans and should be
considered, then they should be advised as veterans.
But by putting that particular language in at this time after the
administration has violated the law of 1962--now the chairman said
there is another law, but if you look at that law, that law never goes
directly to abortion. And if it was directed towards abortion, then
they would have put it in the law. They would have put it in the law.
They wouldn't have made that broad statement. That is why it is a
misinterpretation of the VA.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, as the former chairman of the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs and the prime author of 14 major laws to assist
veterans, including the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Assistance Act
and several healthcare laws as well, I have always deeply respected and
strongly supported the unique mission of VA healthcare.
Comprised of 172 medical centers and over 1,100 outpatient clinics,
the VA operates the largest integrated healthcare network in the entire
world. VA medical personnel--371,000 professionals and support staff--
are absolutely committed to healing, nurturing, and rehabilitating.
So it is beyond disappointing that President Biden issued an illegal
rule--I was here when section 106 of the Veterans Healthcare Act of
1992 was enacted, and it couldn't have been clearer--to turn the
lifesaving, life-enhancing mission of the VA into new venues for
abortion on demand.
And the word health--Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton couldn't have made
it more clear, and Doe v. Bolton with the companion opinion issued by
the Supreme Court, they defined health. They used the World Health
Organization's definition, and it is everything including any kind of
mental stress. So it is completely wide-open, abortion-on-demand
language. It is not rape, incest, and life of the mother. Health is
included in Biden's rule.
The new Biden VA abortion rule authorizes and forces taxpayers to
fund the violent death of unborn baby girls and baby boys by what?
By beheading, dismemberment, forced expulsion from the womb, deadly
poisons, and other methods at any time until birth.
Abortion, Madam Speaker, is not healthcare unless one construes the
precious life of an unborn child to be analogous to a tumor to be
excised or a disease to be vanquished.
For decades, Madam Speaker, abortion advocates have gone to
extraordinary lengths to ignore, trivialize, and cover up the battered
baby victim. But today, thanks to ultrasound, unborn babies are more
visible than ever before. Today, science informs us that birth is an
event--albeit an important one--but it is not the beginning of life.
Modern science and medicine today treats unborn children with
disability or disease as a patient in need of diagnosis and treatment,
not death by abortion.
Unborn babies are society's youngest patients and deserve benign,
life-affirming medical interventions and not medicines that kill. The
weakest and most vulnerable unborn babies deserve our respect, empathy,
protection, and love.
The legislation before us today will be used to promote the VA's new
abortion-on-demand mission.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and, hopefully, we
will see a change in the policy sometime in the near future that
President Biden has issued.
Mr. BOST. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 9\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, before I yield an additional 3 minutes to
the gentlewoman from Michigan, let
[[Page H8189]]
me just say that if the minority is so insistent and is fervent in
their belief that this interim final rule is illegal, I do not
understand why there has been no lawsuit filed to enjoin the rule.
This is very peculiar that with such passion and with such fervor
they argue that this rule is illegal.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Ms. Slotkin).
Ms. SLOTKIN. Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of talk on the other
side of the aisle, and I just want to be clear. No one in this room is
in the judicial branch, and no one in this room that I am aware of is a
medical doctor.
If you believe that the provisions that the VA has put forward have a
legal problem, then you have the right to take up that case and put it
through the courts. We are the legislative branch. We make laws, and we
pass laws. We are not judge and jury. Take it to a court if you are
concerned. That is your right.
In terms of making decisions on behalf of women, if you want to take
a veterans' bill and make it about abortion, then let's do it. What you
are saying, and you are saying it in front of the American people, is
that you believe a veteran who has been raped, who is the victim of
incest, or who is having a dangerous miscarriage does not deserve
access to abortion.
You are saying--unless you correct me and tell me what you believe a
woman deserves to have when she has been raped, the victim of incest,
or is in the middle of a dangerous miscarriage, if you can't state it
then be clear you believe in no exceptions for women--a cold,
heartless, and violent approach to women's health.
You want to ban all abortions. That is your goal. Many of you have
been open about that, and if you flip the House, we know that you will
put forward a full ban on all abortions for all States. You have been
clear about it.
If you want to turn a veterans' bill into an abortion bill, then
let's do it. Not one of you are a medical doctor. Not one of you.
What the VA guidelines say is that if you have been raped or are the
victim of incest or a medical professional deems that your pregnancy is
a risk to your health. The one in four women in this country who has
had a miscarriage, probably many women in this room, that you are a
better judge of who gets to decide the future of their life and not a
medical doctor? Who do you think you are?
You are politicians. We are all on this floor elected officials and
not medical professionals. If it were your wife or your daughter who is
suffering through a miscarriage, are you going to tell her she can't
until her fever gets high enough or until she is bleeding harder?
That is what is happening in the State of Texas right now. If that is
what you want for veterans, shame on you. Shame on you.
I am sorry we built this bill to be bipartisan. I sought your support
particularly, sir, and you are making it a political issue.
Shame on you. You all have pictures of veterans in your office. You
are proud to show your pride in our veterans. It should be the most
bipartisan issue in the world, and you are making it political. Shame
on you.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. BOST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, if I may, the question is not on
rape, incest, or life of the mother. It is on health, which could then
go to mental health which could spin off to late-term abortions.
This is a very personal issue to a lot of people, and I am sure it is
to everyone on both sides of the aisle. But I have to question who in
this room has ever held a child who has been born after 25 weeks in the
womb? I have. I held one granddaughter who died in the womb and one who
died in my arms after she was out of the womb.
What the VA has done with this rule by tweaking it, they think it is
for the right reasons--right or wrong--which you consider, rape,
incest, life of the mother, it is not. It is rape, incest, life and
health of the mother, which will allow for those late-term abortions.
Madam Speaker, that is life. Our Constitution is very clear. It is
very clear: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the first
being life.
{time} 2045
You can't, if you have ever held a child like that when they died in
your arms, say that is not life.
Unfortunately, it is not us that is making the decision. It is
political. It is the Biden administration, Madam Speaker, and they have
done it through taking the VA.
Anybody that can question me on my support of veterans is out of
their mind. I have served. My father served. My grandfather served. My
son served. My grandson served. And guess what? As of last week, my
granddaughter is now in Navy boot camp.
I will stand for the veterans, but I will not stand for the death of
children regardless of who this administration is or what they believe
is a good political move.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Roy), my good friend.
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend's service, and I
appreciate his passion on this issue.
I listened here as my colleagues want to lecture us about making
decisions about life. Who are my colleagues to decide when life begins?
Talking about where the doctors are in the room, who are my colleagues,
where is God in the room about determining when life begins?
It is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have out-of-
step views about the extent of abortion in this country to terminate
life right up to the point of birth. It is out of step with the
entirety of the world. It is a radical position, and the entirety of
this country knows it.
What we are talking about right now, when we used to be able to have
some peaceful debates in this body, we had the Hyde amendment
recognizing our differences on the issue and trying to pull it out of
the debate of funding, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
refuse to respect the Hyde amendment.
Now, you have an administration making up law. My colleague on the
other side of the aisle wants to lecture about where you go to have a
dispute about law. Oh, run to the courts, they say. Run to Article III.
Well, we are Article I, dadgummit, and we make decisions about the
law every single day. As a Member of this body, I introduced the
ARTICLE ONE Act under President Trump, questioning executive authority.
I subpoenaed records from the White House, questioning unaccompanied
alien children data because I believe in the primacy of Article I.
But we should, dadgummit, on a bipartisan basis believe that we need
to make these decisions, and you don't have the VA arbitrarily making
law and stepping over the 1992 law, which has never been repealed. It
has never been set aside, and to suggest that it has makes a mockery of
the laws that we pass. We should agree on that on a bipartisan basis.
The ranking member is speaking for all of us when he says we are
trying to stand up in support of the Solid Start program, but it has
now been turned on its head by a radical decision by the executive
branch, so now we are no longer going to support this program as it
exists.
As the chairman said, 16 words are the hang-up. Then change the 16
words, and let's fix what needs to be fixed to honor what we know is
the law from the 1992 law.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, what the gentleman from Texas is
suggesting that we do is delete women from S. 1198. That, I will not
do.
Yes, I strongly believe in Article I. The accusation that Secretary
McDonough issued a radical rule, well, what is this so-called radical
rule he is mentioning that he has issued? The rule that Secretary
McDonough issued, the interim final rule, says that abortion is
available based on the 1996 law, which gave him the authority to define
medical benefits available at the VA. That is very clear what Congress
did.
It is under that authority that this Secretary has made not a radical
rule but simply a rule which allows veteran women to enjoy the same
rights that they had when they were serving in the military as Active-
Duty servicemembers. Women serving in the military have access to
abortions when they have been raped, when they are victims of incest,
and, yes, when their pregnancies pose a danger to their life.
[[Page H8190]]
Who is trying to play God here are the Members on the other side of
the aisle who wish to deny women who have worn the cloth of this
country, who have served our country, who fought for all of our
freedoms, to deny them the freedom to be able to consider the full
range of medical procedures that they need in order to preserve their
own life.
What is extreme here is that they want to deny women to even be able
to access abortion counseling, counseling which may save their lives.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to realize that DOD actually
follows the Hyde amendment, which is rape, incest, and the life of the
mother, which is exactly what the chairman just quoted.
What the VA does is rape, incest, and life and health, including
mental health, of the mother, which can be a claim that maybe I am
under stress, all of these things. That is why we need clarification.
Not only do we need clarification, but we need to follow the law.
The argument that the other law allows the VA Secretary to make these
decisions, it never mentioned abortion in there. I think that would
have done that.
Madam Speaker, I am encouraging my Members to vote ``no'' on this
bill. I would love to be able to vote on this bill when we get this
problem straightened out. I believe our veterans deserve to have the
other benefits that are here and available in the bill.
As everybody knows, I did vote for it in the other form before the VA
stepped down this path.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, again, I ask for my colleagues to join me
in passing S. 1198.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, S. 1198.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. BOST. Madam 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 motion will be postponed.
____________________