[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 19666-19673]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2861, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS 
  AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 338 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 338

         Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2861) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived except as follows: under the heading 
     ``State and Tribal Assistance Grants'' beginning with ``, 
     except that, notwithstanding section 1452(n)'' through 
     ``water contaminants''. Where points of order are waived 
     against part of a paragraph, points of order against a 
     provision in another part of such paragraph may be made only 
     against such provision and not against the entire paragraph. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. 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. 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 338 is an open rule which provides 1 
hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and 
ranking minority member.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2861, the Fiscal Year 2004 Department of Veterans 
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies 
Appropriation Act we are hearing today. The rule waives all points of 
order against consideration of the bill and against provisions in the 
bill, except as specified in the resolution.
  After general debate, any Member wishing to offer an amendment may do 
so as long as it complies with the regular rules of the House. The bill 
shall be read for amendment by paragraph and the rule authorizes the 
Chair to accord priority in recognition to the Members who have 
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record.
  Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit 
with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, there is much to be said about what is good in this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this point, and will 
speak about it later.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, part of the cost of waging war is the cost of caring for 
our veterans when they return home. Today, American troops are fighting 
in Iraq and Afghanistan and this body is considering an appropriations 
bill that grossly underfunds the veterans health care.
  It is projected that 600,000 veterans will enroll in the veterans 
health care system this year. However, the veterans health care system 
cannot meet the medical needs of the number of veterans who are already 
enrolled because of inadequate funding.

                              {time}  1030

  More than 235,000 veterans are waiting 6 months or more for doctors' 
appointments. Embarrassingly, many veterans have reported waiting 2 
years before they were able to see a Veterans Affairs doctor. The VA 
has reached capacity at many health care facilities and has closed 
enrollment for new patients at many hospitals and clinics. The VA has 
also placed a moratorium on all marketing and outreach to veterans.
  According to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, because the veterans 
health care system is underfunded, 1.1 million veterans will either be 
pushed out or not even bother to try to access the VA health care. The 
funding allocated for veterans health is simply not enough and our 
veterans pay the price.
  With this bill, we break many promises that we made to the veterans. 
The budget resolution for fiscal year 2004 pledged billions more for 
veterans medical care than has been allocated in H.R. 2861. Whenever 
America's men and women are sent off to war, they leave with the 
promise and the expectation that a thankful and grateful America will 
provide them with quality and accessible health care at least when they 
return home. We break this promise if we do not provide the funds 
necessary to ensure that no veteran waits months for a doctor's 
appointment or is denied admission to the VA health care system.
  Late last night, the Committee on Rules prioritized tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans over the health care needs of America's veterans. 
Along party lines, the committee rejected an amendment by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) that sought to increase the funding for 
veterans medical care by $2.2 million. A small reduction in the tax cut 
for people making more than $1 million would provide the needed 
additional health care funds with no pain to the millionaire. We should 
not accept the proposition that the government is able to pay for a 
$350 billion tax cut for the

[[Page 19667]]

wealthiest Americans but is unable to fund $2 billion more for veterans 
health care needs.
  The Committee on Rules also rejected an amendment by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Evans), again on party lines. This amendment would have increased 
funding for veterans health care by $1.8 billion, bringing the total 
funding level for veterans health care to the level set in the budget 
resolution. Meeting the budget funding levels would ensure that the VA 
is able to continue to treat all of the veterans currently enrolled and 
ensure that the VA is able to maintain nursing home care levels for the 
aging veterans, and indeed, it recognizes the fact that more veterans 
will be coming home from the present wars needing help.
  Mr. Speaker, it is heartbreaking that we have American soldiers in 
Iraq and around the world who will find the system they count on 
crumbling when they return home. We need to fix the inadequacies in the 
underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I 
hope that I can tell the 60,000 veterans in my district that we honor 
our commitment to them and will provide them with the health care we 
promised them.
  I do want to say that I think both the committee chair and the 
ranking member on the committee tried extraordinarily hard in a 
bipartisanship that is really the way our House ought to operate, and I 
want to give them my thanks for their hard work. Nonetheless, I would 
like to call for the defeat of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I am here to speak against the rule on the 
VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  Our troops are beginning to return from their service in Afghanistan 
and Iraq. Sadly, these have not been bloodless wars. None of them are 
in history, and certainly many of these brave men and women will now 
rely upon the VA for their health care. They do not deserve delayed or 
rationed services.
  Ultimately, this Congress did the right thing in approving a budget 
resolution that increased funding for veterans programs by $1.8 
billion. We want to ensure that we keep the promise that we gave our 
veterans and add these funds to the appropriation for veterans health 
care. Please give us the opportunity to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, Sunday is the 50th anniversary of the signing of the 
peace treaty for the Korean War. Veterans have gathered here in 
Washington and elsewhere to commemorate this event. Some of these 
veterans are gathered in the halls of this Congress today.
  It comes down to this, Mr. Speaker, with the vote on this rule: You 
are either for or against veteran health services for veterans. What 
will you say to the veterans watching today and your veterans at home 
tomorrow who are showing great interest in this issue? Do you support 
them or not? Vote no on this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that there is a crisis in 
veterans health care in this country. All too often a veteran who has 
prostate cancer will be told that it is going to be 3 months before he 
can see a specialist. There are delays in seeing almost any specialist 
in the system. Veterans hospitals are in many ways inadequate for the 
demand that they face, and there is no question that if this bill 
passes as is, it will make that situation worse.
  Now how can I say that? After all, the bill has a 6 percent increase. 
Here is how I can say it.
  Inflation, first of all, will cost at least 3 percent more this year 
to serve the same population. In addition, the population which will be 
served, or will be eligible to be served I should say, will increase by 
9 percent this year. So that means that this bill would need to be 12 
percent above last year for veterans health care just to stay even.
  This bill does about half of that. So if you pass this bill as is, 
veterans health care will get worse, not better, in this country, and I 
do not think that makes any sense.
  Members from both sides of the aisle asked the Committee on Rules to 
allow amendments to be offered that could fix this situation, and they 
have been told, ``No, sorry, boys and girls, cannot do it.'' That, I 
think, means that if you want to do anything meaningful besides send 
out a political press release or a nice flowery letter, another one of 
those wonderful resolutions that passed this Congress 430 to nothing, 
if you want to do something to back up all those wonderful flowery 
words, if you want to send your veterans, as the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) says, if you want to send them something other 
than a get well card, you will vote against this rule, and give us the 
chance to boost veterans health care in a meaningful way.
  We want to be able to offer the Edwards amendment which would raise 
the veterans health care budget by over $2 billion, and it would pay 
for it by reducing the size of the tax cut for people who make over $1 
million a year from $88,000 to about $77,000. So we have a choice. What 
is more important to the country, an $88,000 tax cut for someone who 
makes 100,000 bucks a year or putting veterans where we promised we 
would put them, which is first in line immediately for the medical care 
they need?
  Now, I know some people will say, ``You know, this is a bottomless 
pit.'' I have heard it said this is a bottomless pit. How much are we 
going to give the veterans? We did not ask how much the veterans were 
going to give us when they agreed to put everything on the line, and it 
just seems to me that our position ought to be that whatever it takes 
to provide people who wore the uniform of this country under any 
circumstances, whatever it takes to provide them with decent health 
care we are going to do.
  To me, that is a whole lot more important than a number of the tax 
choices that have been made, and I think it is to a lot of people in 
this Chamber as well.
  So I would strongly urge you to vote against this rule. If you are 
not willing to vote against this rule, do not go back home and tell 
your veterans, oh, man, we put you first, we really did. This committee 
has done a a credible job with the resources available, but the 
resources available are pitiful in comparison to need.
  So I would hope Members would recognize that it is no criticism of 
the subcommittee itself to vote against this rule. It is a criticism of 
misplaced institutional priorities in this House, and we ask the House 
to take the only action you can take if you want to correct those 
misplaced priorities, and that is to turn down this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) a member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a defining moment for this Congress. What we are 
talking about here today is a big deal. It is a huge deal. This is 
about veterans and the services that they receive in this country. The 
vote on this rule will show once and for all which Members of this body 
truly support veterans and which Members are merely talking a good game 
when it comes to funding veterans programs.
  This bill woefully underfunds veterans services. It is disgraceful. 
We have young men and women who are bravely serving in Afghanistan and 
Iraq and around the world, and how do we thank them for their 
sacrifices? By cutting important veterans programs and services.
  I know the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Ranking Member Mollohan) did the very best they 
could with the little money they

[[Page 19668]]

had to work with. In fact, they should be praised for crafting this 
bill out of such few resources. They are both dedicated and good public 
servants, and I do not fault them for this problem.
  But I do fault the Republican leadership and the Republicans on the 
Committee on Rules for not making several bipartisan amendments in 
order last night that would have increased veterans spending by at 
least $1.8 billion. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) had an amendment, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) had an amendment, and they were just shut out.
  The Committee on Rules provides waivers all the time, and it could 
have provided waivers for these amendments. Not only did the majority 
fail to provide waivers for these amendments, but in fact, every single 
Republican on the Committee on Rules voted against every amendment to 
increase veterans spending last night.
  Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that the Republican leadership is all 
talk and no action. They talk about funding important programs. They 
talk about their support and their admiration for our veterans. They 
like to pose for pictures with our veterans. They speak at every 
veterans conference, but they do not back up their rhetoric with the 
funds necessary to pay for these programs.
  Frankly, this body is quick to pass authorization bills that 
designate the necessary funding levels, followed by lengthy press 
releases and big press conferences, claiming support for these 
programs, but the Republican leadership does not put its money where 
its mouth is when it comes time to genuinely provide the funds needed 
to run these programs.
  This entire year has been nothing but a history of broken promises, 
to our teachers, our schools, our children and, today, to our veterans. 
It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and it is outrageous that this Congress is 
turning its back on the men and women who have defended this country 
and made it the greatest and freest country in the world.
  We have veterans in our districts who have to wait months and months 
and months to get health care. We have veterans programs that are being 
slashed, but it does not have to be this way.
  I truly believe that this is a defining moment for this body. A yes 
vote on this rule is a vote against veterans. This rule prohibits any 
opportunity to increase veterans spending. So if my colleagues want to 
live up to their rhetoric, if they actually support our veterans, then 
join me in voting against this rule. Send this flawed rule back to the 
Committee on Rules and force the majority at a minimum to give us a 
vote but, more importantly, to give our veterans what they deserve.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time 
as he may consume to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Pryce), my colleague from the Committee on Rules, who has 
helped us to guide this bill through the Congress the last three years. 
She does a great job and knows the bill very well and is very capable 
at this.
  I would like to first of all, Mr. Speaker, talk a little bit about 
the rule. This rule provides for the customary protections usually 
afforded all appropriations bills at this stage of the process. It is 
an open rule but it waives points of order against unauthorized 
appropriations because so much of this bill is unauthorized.
  The Appropriations subcommittee is appropriating funds for NASA, much 
of which is unauthorized; EPA, much of which is unauthorized; HUD 
programs, National Science Foundation, and we have heard a lot about 
veterans, and we will continue to hear more about veterans.

                              {time}  1045

  But there are a lot of items in this bill that are of critical 
importance to these Departments; and this would, in effect, provide the 
authorization required for this current year.
  Most of the focus has been on veterans issues in this bill, and 
rightly so. It is the priority for the subcommittee each and every year 
that we provide for funding for this area. But I would like to talk a 
little bit about some of the other aspects of the bill, the other 
Departments that are funded in this bill.
  HUD is the Department that provides for housing for all Americans. We 
have fully funded the section 8 housing voucher program, which allows 
individuals to live where they would like and take their housing 
vouchers with them to help pay for their rent. It is a very popular 
program. It is fully funded. Of our allocation, which was only about a 
$3 billion increase over last year, a billion of that goes just to fund 
the cost increases in the section 8 housing voucher program. No new 
vouchers, but it is fully funded. And I would remind my colleagues that 
thousands of American veterans live in section 8 housing, and they 
benefit substantially from that portion of the bill, as all other 
Americans do.
  In the AmeriCorps program, which has had a lot of discussion and 
debate of late, the subcommittee provides them with about a $100 
million increase over last year's budget. We raised the cap. We allow 
AmeriCorps to put on an additional 5,000 volunteers, which is something 
the President wants. We go from 50,000 to 55,000. Our only hope is that 
they will hire that many, as opposed to last year when they had a cap 
of 50,000 and they put on 67,000 volunteers. So there are problems over 
at AmeriCorps and National Corporation that they are working on trying 
to fix. We are going to provide them with additional funds this year; 
and, hopefully, we will get it right this year.
  The Environmental Protection Agency. We provide for about $8 billion 
in funding for that agency. We maintain the level of enforcement that 
we maintained last year, which was an increase over the prior year. We 
have added back about $.5 billion in funds to the EPA to provide for 
clean water, wastewater improvements, and combined sewer overflow 
conversions so that we can help clean up our Nation's water. There is a 
tremendous demand out there. This will not cover the problem; but of 
our $3 billion increase in allocation, about $.5 billion of it went to 
clean water SRF and State and tribal assistance grants.
  NASA is really a status quo budget because we are waiting to hear 
what happens with the Gehman Commission. They will be reporting back to 
the Congress probably in August, and we expect that that will have some 
major ramifications for NASA. The administration will have to weigh in 
on that, and possibly we could be dealing with that in a supplemental 
later in the year. I do not know. I do not know what the administration 
will want us to do. But we did not deal with those issues in this bill. 
As I said, it is a status quo budget for NASA.
  National Science Foundation. The Congress has asked us to double 
National Science Foundation over a 5-year period. We could not do that 
with this allocation. We have provided for in the last several years 
almost double-digit increases in the National Science Foundation. 
Everybody agrees these are important investments for the country, but 
we provided for about a 5 percent increase in National Science 
Foundation.
  That brings us to veterans. And I describe this bill, the VA-HUD and 
independent agencies bill, as a train, and the engine that pulls the 
train through the Congress is the veterans funding. It is the most 
important priority of the subcommittee. It has the largest advocacy 
group. It has the broadest support within the Congress.
  Now, as I said, we had about a $3 billion increase in our allocation 
over last year's enacted level, and $1.3 billion of that goes toward 
the veterans medical care. There is also a $1 billion increase for 
veterans mandatory programs for veterans benefits, so a $2.3 billion 
increase just for veterans out of the about $3 billion that we got as 
an increase. Actually, the mandatory is separate, but an overall 
increase in veterans, counting discretionary and mandatory, is about a 
$2.5 billion increase.

[[Page 19669]]

  Mr. Speaker, we have increased veterans spending in the last 5 years 
by almost 50 percent, 49 percent. I do not believe there is any other 
Department in the Federal Government that has experienced a 50 percent 
increase in the last 5 years. This subcommittee has bent over backwards 
to try to meet the needs of our veterans.
  Now, we will hear, and it is accurate, that the number of veterans 
actually coming into the VA has increased beyond that number. But I 
would submit that most of the new veterans coming in are coming in for 
prescription drugs. They are what we refer to as category 7s and 8s.
  The Congress has, in its wisdom, dramatically expanded eligibility 
for access to the veterans health agency. Many of the new veterans that 
are coming in are not indigent and they are not service connected, but 
they are eligible under the new broadened eligibility rules that the 
Congress put in place. That is putting an additional burden on the VA. 
It is creating long waiting lines.
  There are a couple things that can happen that the administration can 
do. One of the things the Secretary is talking about relates to one of 
the problems we are experiencing. A category 7 and 8 looking to come in 
for prescription drugs cannot get them until they have a physical, even 
if they have had a physical by their own personal doctor. Now, that it 
is a double cost. It is a cost possibly in Medicare; it is also a cost 
in the VA if they need to get two physicals. There is some discussion 
about waiving that initial physical for veterans when they come to the 
VA if it is just for prescription drugs. So that would reduce the 
waiting time.
  Also, there was in this bill when we first brought it to the Congress 
a fee requirement, a $250 premium and a $15 copay, which has been 
stripped from the bill. So those additional fees that were in the bill 
are no longer in the bill. We just do not have the allocation that some 
people would like us to have, the amount of funds some people would 
like us to provide. The budget resolution that we passed required us to 
raise veterans spending for health care even higher. The problem was we 
did not have the resources to do that.
  There was an assumption in that budget resolution for $7.5 billion 
more than we actually had. It was supposed to come from mandatory 
savings, from waste, fraud, and abuse savings; but that was knocked out 
in the conference so we did not have those additional funds. Now, we 
went back and rescinded $5 billion from defense to provide the 
Committee on Appropriations with an additional $5 billion, which we did 
do, which provided some relief; but we still came up about $2.5 billion 
less than what was assumed available in the budget resolution. So it 
squeezed us.
  Now, I do not stand back from the commitment that this bill has made 
to veterans. We have increased mandatory spending. We have increased 
discretionary spending. It is clearly the priority. We have increased 
veterans health care 50 percent in the last 5 years. As I said, no 
other Department, no other agency in the Federal Government has 
experienced that kind of growth.
  This is a bill we can be proud of. This is a bill that maintains its 
commitment and maintains its promise to veterans, but it also provides 
the necessary resources to make the investments in our Nation's 
intellectual and technological future by making investments in the 
National Science Foundation. On NASA, we are waiting for the report and 
we will respond to that. Environmental protection, we think this is a 
strong vote of support for protecting our environment, which is a 
priority for our party and for all parties in this country, certainly 
for the President. It provides an increase for AmeriCorps, and it also 
fully funds our Nation's public housing program, which, to me, is as 
important a commitment as our commitment to the veterans.
  We have an obligation, I think, in this country. This is a very 
competitive society. Some people do not compete as well as others. 
There is a need out there for public housing, and this Congress stands 
behind that commitment to those individuals that, until they can get on 
their feet and manage their own housing costs, we need to stand behind 
them.
  So it is a very complex bill; we have limited resources, but a full 
desire to meet our commitments that we have. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of 
this bill, and I urge its support and support of the rule. It is a good 
rule. It is an open rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to say to the 
gentleman, the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh), that we do know what a wonderful job that he does with 
what he has been given, but we do believe we could make the bill a 
little better if we were allowed the Edwards amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Reyes).
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I know you know about veterans issues, because I was 
honored to serve as your ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Benefits. As I sit here and listen to my good friend and colleague 
trying to deal with a very difficult situation, trying to put the best 
face he possibly can on this, the thought occurs to me that if we are 
interested in doing right by our veterans, and I spoke earlier about 
the sacrifices that today are being made by the families of our 
veterans and current members of the armed services, it occurs to me 
that no amount of parliamentary gerrymandering that talks about 
unauthorized appropriations and those kinds of fancy words can make 
this issue go away.
  Yes, there have been increases in the VA budget, but I would remind 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that not too long ago we were 
in a situation where we had a surplus. I spoke about putting our 
veterans at the head of the line. Instead, we put tax cuts before our 
veterans. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) is absolutely 
correct, we do not have the resources today. Why do we not have the 
resources? Because we prioritized tax cuts ahead of our veterans and 
ahead of so many other programs.
  Those of us that continuously have an opportunity to go visit with 
today's heroes, heroes that we talk about on the floor of this House, 
heroes that we talk about in our respective committees, and I am 
talking about the men and women that are laying down their lives in 
Iraq and other parts of the Middle East and around the world in serving 
proudly for our country, we go to Walter Reed Hospital and to Bethesda 
and we see the results of those sacrifices. Why can we not increase the 
budget of the Veterans' Administration that takes care of today's 
heroes? Because we are not even taking care of yesterday's heroes.
  Veterans today are not coming in just to get prescription drugs. They 
are coming in because they need attention after putting their lives on 
the line for this country. They deserve better. They deserve to have us 
do our job for them, if nothing else. Vote against this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as we speak from the comfort and security 
of this House Chamber, tomorrow's veterans are putting their lives on 
the line in Iraq today. That is why this rule is shameful.
  With this rule, the House Republican leadership has guaranteed 
inadequate funding for veterans health care during a time of war. And 
to add insult to injury, the House Republican leadership has broken its 
recent promises with this rule to veterans. How? By ensuring that we 
cut VA health care funding by $1.8 billion less than they promised our 
veterans just a few weeks ago.
  Do not listen to just my voice; more importantly, listen to the 
voices of America's veterans' leaders. Let us go to Ron Conley, the 
national commander of the American Legion. He said this: ``I have 
visited over 60 VA medical facilities across the country only to find 
that budgetary shortfalls are preventing hundreds of thousands

[[Page 19670]]

of Americans from receiving timely access to quality health care.'' He 
goes on to say that to fund VA medical care short of that 
recommendation in the House budget resolution ``sends a chilling 
message to those who served in the liberation of Iraq.''
  Shameful, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  1100

  Let us talk about broken promises. It would be wrong to break 
promises to veterans in any year, but to do so in a time of war is 
absolutely inexcusable. The VFW in its national press release just a 
week ago calls this bill without the amendment that has been prohibited 
with this rule to increase veterans funding by $2.2 billion ``a clear 
betrayal of the assurances made to America's veterans by the House 
Republican leadership.'' VFW Commander in Chief Ray Sisk said on July 
17, ``The House leadership has deceived us.''
  The national legislative directors of AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans, and 
Veterans of Foreign Wars said this:
  ``This represents a flagrant disregard to promises made to veterans 
by this Congress.''
  I think I know what is happening. The Republican leadership is 
carrying out the will of its majority leader, Tom DeLay, who said not 
long ago that in time of war nothing is more important than tax cuts. I 
would hope, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. DeLay would tell that into the eyes 
and into the faces of the 20,000 soldiers from my district that are 
presently putting their lives on the line in Iraq. This rule that 
prohibits a $2.2 billion increase in veterans health care guarantees 
broken promises to our veterans in time of war, and it guarantees 
inadequate funding for veterans health care. That is shameful.
  Vote ``no'' on this rule and in doing so let us support America's 
veterans.


                announcement by the speaker pro tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would remind all 
persons in the gallery that they are here as guests of the House and 
that any manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings or 
other audible conversation is in violation of the rules of the House.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time 
as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. There 
is nothing extraordinary about it at all. This is a standard rule for 
consideration of an appropriation measure. It is an open amendment 
process. For my colleagues, I would like to explain exactly what it is 
that we have done. The subcommittee, very ably chaired by our friend 
from New York (Mr. Walsh), worked its will, went through its 
subcommittee process, worked through the full committee, and it had a 
number of very important items focused obviously at its number one 
priority, dealing with the veterans of this Nation. Do I wish that more 
could be done for veterans? Absolutely.
  I was just having a conversation with my friend from Connecticut (Mr. 
Simmons), subcommittee chairman on the authorization committee. 
Obviously, we would like to be able to do more. We live within the 
constraints of the 302(b) allocations, and I believe that the gentleman 
from New York did a phenomenal job with those limitations that have 
been imposed on him.
  There are a lot of other issues that are included in this measure, 
Mr. Speaker, some that are important to me. I happen to be privileged 
to represent the Jet Propulsion Laboratory just above Pasadena, 
California, in La Canada-Flintridge. They are phenomenal projects that 
they have been pursuing, the Prometheus Project, the Jupiter program. 
They have been involved on the cutting edge of exploration, which is 
improving the quality of life for all of us. Important funding for that 
is included in this measure.
  As the full Committee on Appropriations worked out its package, they 
came to the Committee on Rules and asked for, as is usually the case, a 
waiver to simply protect the work product of the subcommittee and the 
full committee. Chairman Young, who does such a great job, was 
supportive of that request that came forward to provide the protection 
for the bill itself. And then, Mr. Speaker, what we did is we made in 
order what is called an open rule. An open rule means that any Member 
can offer a germane amendment that relates to this appropriations bill. 
That means they can offer striking amendments, cutting amendments. 
Those are in order. Those amendments are in order.
  That is why, while I am very sympathetic, very sympathetic, with the 
concerns that have been raised by my colleagues as it relates to 
veterans, we need to recognize everything that has been done for 
veterans. The dedication that the United States Congress and our 
government has made to those who have sacrificed for our country is 
very strong. I was just telling the gentleman from Connecticut that my 
father was a drill instructor, Mr. Speaker, in the United States Marine 
Corps. He passed away 6 years ago this past March 3. I miss him 
greatly, but he inspired me. The service that he provided to our 
country inspired me. I cannot in any way turn my back on that kind of 
dedication, that kind of commitment to our country. I believe that this 
measure does effectively address the challenges that we have, and I 
hope very much that we will at some point be able to do more. I 
appreciate the work of so many of our colleagues on this.
  But I think that we need to move ahead and get this bill done. 
Chairman Young has done a phenomenal job with the appropriations 
process, but we have a lot of work ahead of us so I hope we are able to 
move quickly. I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me this time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I extend my heartfelt gratitude 
to the honorable gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time. I 
do not believe that there is any Member of all of us who does not love 
veterans. I really believe that you genuinely love veterans and that 
you probably have some of them in your district. So I believe that you 
love them. I am here simply to say, help my disbelief.
  We have hospitals closing that were inspired and created specifically 
to accommodate health care for veterans. We have veterans in my 
district, if you would care to talk to some in yours, who have endured 
long waits just to have an opportunity to see a doctor in a VA 
hospital. If you really love your veterans, give up your seat in 
Congress to a veteran so that they can go down to the attending 
physician's office and go out to Walter Reed or Bethesda whenever they 
have a toe ache or a headache and then that would be showing your love 
for a veteran.
  In 1789, General and President George Washington, whose picture hangs 
on the wall here in the Chamber, said: ``The willingness with which our 
young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, 
shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of 
earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.''
  We pass feel-good legislation not to desecrate the flag. We pass 
resolutions to support our troops. If we truly, genuinely, without 
hypocrisy want to support our troops, vote against the rule. If any of 
you care to notice, many of our young women and men who are in war 
right now will come back hopefully in this country, but many will be 
maimed, many will be without limbs, many will suffer post-traumatic 
stress disorder, in need of dire medical care. We are closing down 
veterans hospitals around this country. That is just devastating that 
we are shutting out the people who fought for the freedom of the United 
States of America. We come in here and pledge allegiance to the Flag on 
a daily basis, pretending to support those who preserve the freedom for 
this country.
  The President's budget requested a $1.4 billion increase when it 
really needed at least $2.5 billion, even to meet its own definition of 
current services, which includes serving fewer veterans and further 
rationing services like nursing home care. It meets the

[[Page 19671]]

shortfall by proposing poorly defined management efficiencies, 
including outsourcing a significant part of the workforce. The 
President's budget also contained a number of legislative initiatives 
designed to limit veterans' use of health care services by increasing 
copayments for medication and outpatient visits and levying a new 
enrollment fee. Give me a break.
  This rule is atrocious. It reeks with hypocrisy. It reeks with 
inhumaneness. I would encourage anybody in the name of the veteran to 
vote against the rule.
  In 1789, General and President George Washington spoke these words:

       The willingness with which our young people are likely to 
     serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly 
     proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier 
     wars were treated and appreciated by this country.

  This bill shortchanges veterans.
  I do not believe we should be balancing the budget on the back of 
veterans. By not allowing priority 8 veterans to claim the benefits 
they deserve for serving this nation only because they were lucky 
enough to escape combat without injury is wrong.
  The President's budget requested a $1.4 billion increase when it 
really needed at least $2.5 billion even to meet its own definition of 
current services, which includes serving fewer veterans and further 
rationing services like nursing home care.
  It meets the shortfall by proposing poorly defined management 
efficiencies, including outsourcing a significant part of its 
workforce.
  The President's budget also contained a number of legislative 
initiatives designed to limit veterans' use of health care services by 
increasing copayments for medication and outpatient visits and levying 
a new enrollment fee.
  Congress has not had the stomach for the Bush legislative 
initiatives, but hasn't replaced the funds they were designed to 
create.
  Ultimately this body agreed to accept the Senate budget numbers that 
increased VA discretionary funds, including medical care by $1.8 
billion in fiscal year 04.
  This level of funding would allow VA to fill the funding deficiencies 
left from our rejection of Bush's legislative initiatives, restore a 
vital nursing home program and fund much-needed construction.
  We must not break our promises to veterans. The VA-HUD appropriations 
bill will not meets veterans' needs. Its increase from last year is 
$1.4 billion, which does not keep pace with hospital inflation or the 
growth in the numbers of veterans enrolled.
  Even the President's own Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery 
for Our Nation's Veterans acknowledged the problem, stating that 
``There is persistent concern about the inability of VA to provide care 
to enrolled veterans . . . .''
  The President's Task Force also noted that ``the Federal Government 
has been more ambitious in authorizing veteran access to health care 
than it has been in providing the funding necessary to match declared 
intentions.''
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. ``To bind up the Nation's wounds, to care for those who 
have borne the battle.'' Those are the words of our greatest Republican 
President. It was the beginning of a national promise, a promise, an 
obligation, a sacred obligation to look after those who bore the 
battle. The result is today we have in the VA excellent doctors and 
nurses, excellent facilities as far as they go, but it is not far 
enough.
  Patients have unacceptable waits. And when it comes to medical care, 
to delay is to deny. Those who served in uniform did not wait to serve. 
This bill effectively cuts veterans health care. Do not just take my 
word for it. The DAV, the VFW, Paralyzed Vets say this cuts health 
care. The rule denies waivers to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), and the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Evans) to try to address this. That is reason enough 
to justify defeating this rule. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) 
and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have done their 
best; but we must not forget, these cuts were not an accident. They did 
not happen in the Committee on Appropriations just yesterday. They are 
the deliberate result of a partisan budget that was rammed through 
Congress a few months ago. It was passed with some empty promises to 
some of our colleagues that veterans would be taken care of later.
  But this budget, despite the words of the chairman, who a moment ago 
said, ``We would like to do more,'' this budget that was rammed through 
Congress months ago cut veterans benefits.
  Here is what they said: You know, we found several trillion dollars 
of money that we don't need. It's your money, Americans. We'll give it 
back to you. You know how to spend it better than we do.
  I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether these young and old millionaires who 
get 80, $90,000 will spend it better than the government to take care 
of those veterans, to see that they do not have to wait at their local 
clinic at Fort Monmouth; or Brick, New Jersey; or Lyons Hospital in New 
Jersey. Do they know how to spend it better?
  Defeat this rule. We owe it to those who served in the Second World 
War, in Korea, in Vietnam, in the Gulf War and in a number of other 
actions; and we owe it to the new veterans who are coming home every 
day. Defeat this rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. This bill critically 
underfunds veterans health care, affecting the lives of more than 26 
million veterans in our country and 75,000 veterans in my State of 
Connecticut. For over 200 years our veterans have made sacrifices for 
our country. Some of them continue their sacrifices after they come 
home. They may require continued care, rehabilitation, help with job 
training, college, promises that were made to them when they 
volunteered to serve. Shamefully, we are going back on those promises 
now.
  This bill breaks the promise by the House Republican leadership to 
veterans by providing $2 billion less than the budget resolution. The 
administration recognized the shortfall in their budget request, but 
claimed that they made up much of the difference implementing so-
called, quote, management efficiencies by outsourcing a large portion 
of the medical care workforce. Outsourcing medical care will in all 
likelihood mean inadequate care for many of the 2.3 million veterans 
currently receiving benefits for service-related disabilities. It could 
mean longer lines for the more than 134,000 sick and disabled veterans 
who have already been waiting more than 6 months to simply get an 
appointment at veterans hospitals.
  In my State, almost 2,000 veterans will be frozen out of VA 
enrollment entirely. I am troubled that the President has made no 
attempt to request emergency funding to restore enrollment for new 
priority 8 veterans. If this is not an emergency, then what is?
  The respect and the fair treatment of veterans is an issue that hits 
close to home to me, Mr. Speaker, because my dad, an immigrant to this 
country from his native Italy, was a veteran. He proudly served in the 
United States military. He would find it unconscionable that this 
Republican Congress would renege on a commitment they made to our 
soldiers at the very moment our men and women are securing the peace 
overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, you cannot support our troops and not support our 
veterans. Mr. President, you cannot support our troops and not support 
our veterans. You cannot pay for today's military services by cutting 
the funds for those who served in the past. It is wrong. We should 
honor the legacy of sacrifice made by American soldiers by supporting 
our veterans and the services that they rely on. We owe our veterans 
better.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, despite the Republicans' promise to 
veterans during the budget process, we find ourselves with a VA-HUD 
appropriations bill that is shamefully inadequate. We have cut the $3.4 
billion increase that we promised veterans in half. Even though the 
Committee on Appropriations took out the President's recommendations to 
impose new enrollment fees and copayments on veterans, they did this by 
simply shifting funds and adding no new money.

[[Page 19672]]



                              {time}  1115

  Therefore, we have a new $264 million hole in the VA budget. Chairman 
Smith and Ranking Member Evans had an amendment to restore $1.8 
billion. But it was denied a waiver by the Committee on Rules. Mr. 
Edwards had an amendment that would have added $2.2 billion to VA 
health care for all veterans including priority 8 veterans, they were 
recently shut out of VA health care altogether, but it was also denied.
  A few weeks ago some of my Republican colleagues held a press 
conference in order to calm the fears of the veterans across America 
who were concerned that their health care system would not be 
adequately funded. They assured the veterans that funding veterans 
service was a priority of the Republican Party. A priority of the 
Republican Party. We now know that their words were empty. Their 
promises were nothing, nothing but empty rhetoric.
  We can find money for a massive tax cut. We can find money for 
Pakistan. We can find money for Turkey. We are spending $4 billion a 
month in Iraq. We can find money for veterans health care. You just do 
not want to. Shame on you. I feel sorry for you when you go home in 
August and explain to your veterans why you turned your back on them, 
why you gave them an inadequate health care budget when you promised to 
do better.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I rise 
in opposition to this rule because without an amendment that we 
presented to the Committee on Rules last night, we cannot fix the VA/
HUD appropriations bill, and that bill needs to be fixed. That bill 
needs an additional $1.8 billion that was carried in the budget 
resolution that we passed in this body just a few months ago.
  Over 30 years ago, I went to infantry OCS at Fort Benning, Georgia 
and I learned there that an officer's word is his bond and I have 
carried that with me through 3\1/2\ in Vietnam, 37 years in the U.S. 
Army, 10 years in the Central Intelligence Agency, and 3 years in this 
body. An officer's word is his bond. And we pledged in April that we 
would fund veterans health care adequately. This bill does not fund 
veterans health care adequately. It does not help us keep the promise. 
It does not allow me to keep my word, which is my bond. Vote against 
the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George 
Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of defeating this rule and keeping our 
promises to our veterans.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the most powerful statement made in this 
debate this morning is the deafening silence of House Republicans. I 
hope veterans all across America have noticed that only one Republican 
out of over 200 in this House had the courage to say that we should 
have just the right to be able to vote for an amendment to increase 
veterans health care spending this year by $2 billion. Deafening 
silence. Broken promises to veterans in time of war, inadequate funding 
for veterans health care. That is what Republicans are saying when they 
vote yes on this rule.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In closing, when Members of Congress met in the subcommittee to write 
this appropriations package, planning the most effective and efficient 
way to fund many of these programs, they did not pick random funding 
level. Quite the contrary. The gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) 
and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) had a good solid record 
of success to guide them upon which to build. They were able to look at 
all of the significant battles that Congress has fought and won for our 
veterans in the past, the measurable steps we have taken to provide 
better and better and better benefits and care for our veterans.
  In the fight to enhance veterans access to high-quality health care, 
we have won many battles. Through the Veterans Benefits and Health Care 
Improvement Act, we ensured quality medical staff through competitive 
compensation for VA nurses. Through the Veterans Millennium Health Care 
and Benefits Act, the House has increased access to geriatric 
evaluation, nursing home care and adult day care.
  In our fight to improve job training, education and employment 
placement for veterans, we have won many battles as well. Through the 
Jobs for Veterans Act, Republicans have provided a new system of 
incentives and accountability measures aimed at enhancing economic 
security. Through the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Benefits 
Improvement Act, the House has provided veterans with assistance in 
starting and growing small businesses.
  In our fight to enhance veterans survivor benefits, we have won many 
battles. Through the Survivor Benefits Improvement Act, Republicans 
have provided $100 million in new health care benefits for surviving 
spouses and extension in life insurance coverage to families in their 
time of need. In our fight to improve the overall quality of life for 
veterans and their loved ones, we have won many battles. Through the 
homeless veterans law, we have provided $1 billion to help homeless 
veterans receive housing vouchers and assistance for those veterans 
undergoing treatment for mental illness and substance abuse.
  Today we are here to add to that long list of successes. Today we are 
claiming victory. Today we have an opportunity to make greater gains 
for our veterans and their communities by approving this significant 
funding plan. This bill provides $27.2 billion in total budgetary 
resources for the Veterans Health Administration, a $1.4 billion 
increase over last year. A $1.4 billion increase over last year, that 
is not a cut, Mr. Speaker.
  This package includes nearly $16 billion for medical services, $4 
billion for medical facilities, $408 million for veterans medical and 
prosthetic research. In addition, this plan makes significant 
investments in America's communities. There is more in this bill than 
what we have just discussed today. Over $2 billion to assist low-income 
families in making down payments as they purchase a home, invest in 
their communities, and achieve the American dream; $850 million for 
safe drinking water, nearly $16 million for NASA further space 
exploration.
  In nearly every way, this funding package builds on our past 
successes for our veterans and for our own communities.
  Is it everything on our Christmas list? No, it is not. Is it 
everything that we had ever hoped to provide our veterans, their 
families and America's communities? Not even close. But is this 
progress? Yes, sir, this is progress. It is one more achievement that 
will encourage us to return and fight harder tomorrow, next month, and 
next year for more for our veterans and for our communities.
  Mr. Speaker, America's veterans have served our Nation in invaluable 
ways. Repaying them for upholding our values of liberty and freedom 
seems nearly impossible, but we will continue to try. Each year we will 
work harder and harder to reward their sacrifices. Each year we make 
progress, and each year we fall short because, very honestly, freedom 
has no price tag. We can never repay what we owe them. But step by 
step, bit by bit, we can continue to make gains in honoring their 
service with better health care, enhance access to housing and job 
opportunities and more generous benefits for their loved ones, and that 
is what this plan does. It places us one step further in the ongoing 
and never-ending quest to reward those who have upheld the liberty we 
all enjoy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass the rule and 
approve the underlying bill.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule 
provided for consideration of the VA/HUD appropriation bill with great 
sadness.

[[Page 19673]]

  Sadness knowing that our veterans will not receive the health care 
they have earned.
  Early this morning I joined my esteemed (bi-partisan) colleagues on 
the House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Chris Smith and Ranking 
Member Lane Evans before the Rules Committee in support of their 
Amendment that would have added $1.8 billion dollars in funding for 
veterans health care for the 2004 budget.
  This amendment was ruled out of order.
  Mr. Chairman is ensuring that the VA is able to continue offering 
health care for all veterans currently enrolled--is that out of order?
  Our veterans deserve better than this.
  Many are old and frail and unable to afford any other form of health 
care.
  Have no doubt if we pass this budget without this amendment we are 
handing the Department of Veterans Affairs serious challenges.
  These challenges will include deciding which veterans will and will 
not be served.
  Mr. Speaker it is time for us to put our money where our mouth is and 
support our veterans.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
H. Res. 338, the rule providing for consideration of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. 
I am again disappointed by the lip service being paid to veterans by 
the Republican leadership. This bill falls far short of giving the VA 
adequate resources to meet the health care needs of America's veterans. 
The Independent Budget authored by AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, 
Paralyzed Veterans of American, and Veterans of Foreign Wars 
recommended $27 billion for veterans' health care, a $3.3 billion 
increase over the current level. That was the nonpartisan 
recommendation of America's veterans, the men and women who fought and 
served for our Nation.
  But our veterans came under attack when the President's budget only 
recommended a $1.4 billion increase to $25.7 billion and dared to ask 
certain veterans to pay a fee to enroll in VA health care and pay 
increased copayments. The House took a step forward when it passed a 
budget resolution in April that provided $27 billion in funding for VA 
health care, but the resolution still funded this increase by charging 
veterans enrollment fees and raising copayments. While, I am pleased to 
learn that the Appropriations Committee did not include the President's 
proposal to impose new fees and increase copayments, I am sorely 
disappointed that the Committee shortchanged veterans what was promised 
in the budget resolution by only providing $25.2 billion for veterans' 
health care.
  I am equally disappointed that the Rules Committee did not make in 
order an amendment offered by Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Smith 
and Ranking Member Evans that would have increased funding for 
veteran's health care by an additional $1.8 billion to match the $27 
billion in the budget resolution we passed in April. Additionally, the 
Rules Committee did not make in order an amendment by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to increase funding above the Appropriations 
Committee figure by an additional $2.2 billion to $27.4 billion. 
Veterans need these increases to insure that they are no longer turned 
away from their own health care system.
  This debate is yet another reason for this House to consider 
legislation to make veterans health care funding mandatory. Our 
veterans deserve better than bickering over discretionary funding. They 
deserve a Congress that will live up to its pledge by providing health 
care to all veterans, by ensuring that it is accessible, and by fully 
funding the VA health care system.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this 
rule that will again deny veterans the health care funding that they 
deserve. I have said many times before that veterans were promised by 
the Federal Government that for their service to the country they would 
be provided a lifetime of health care services, as well as their own 
health care service network. It is time for us to no longer say we will 
support our veterans, but to actually act to support our veterans.
  Mr. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 resolution are postponed.

                          ____________________