[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14534-14541]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3057, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT 
        FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, by direction of 
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 341 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 341

       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. 3057) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, 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: 
     beginning with ``or'' on page 113, line 26, through page 114, 
     line 10. Where points of order are waived against part of a 
     section, points of order against a provision in another part 
     of such section may be made only against such provision and 
     not against the entire section. 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. When the committee rises 
     and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be 
     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 gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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.
  Madam Speaker, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate evenly 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Appropriations. The rule also provides one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  I would like to take just a minute, Madam Speaker, to reiterate that 
we bring this rule forward under an open rule. Historically, 
appropriations bills have come to the House governed by an open rule, 
and we continue to do so, in order to allow every Member of this House 
the opportunity to submit amendments for consideration, obviously as 
long as they comply with all of the Rules of the House.
  Madam Speaker, the legislation before us appropriates over $20 
billion, an increase of $73 million, for operations across the globe. 
The bill is fiscally sound while, at the same time, compassionate and 
globally responsive to the needs of those plagued by disease and 
international disaster.
  The bill bolsters the President's Millennium Challenge Corporation to 
$1.75 billion, nearly a quarter of a billion dollars more than in 
fiscal year 2005. The expansion of assistance is meant to help bring 
economic security and the rule of law to some of the most of the 
poorest nations of the world. The Millennium Challenge provides 
assistance through a competitive selection process to developing 
nations that are pursuing political and economic reforms basically in 
three areas, Madam Speaker: ruling justly, investing in people, and 
fostering economic freedom. Economic development genuinely succeeds 
when it is linked to free market economic principles as well as to 
democracy and where governments are committed to implementing reform 
measures in order to achieve these goals.
  Two years ago in his State of the Union address, President Bush 
announced the President's emergency plan for AIDS relief, the largest 
international health initiative in history initiated by a single 
government to address one disease. This bill shows Congress's continued 
support of the fight against HIV/AIDS, as it includes over $2.6 billion 
to continue the fight against that horrendous deadly disease.
  Our resolve to help all those across the globe who fight this disease 
is strong; it is serious. In addition to funding, the Federal 
Government enlists the expertise of various agencies, including the 
Food and Drug Administration, which assures that the medicines we send 
to the developing world are safe and effective to help those with HIV/
AIDS.
  In other foreign assistance, H.R. 3057 funds the Andean Counterdrug 
Initiative at the President's request, $734 million, $9 million more 
than last fiscal year. Economic growth in the area since the start of 
Plan Colombia is proof that the assistance we have provided Colombia 
has made a difference, a very important difference in that country. I 
myself visited in April of last year and was able to see the 
extraordinary progress that the Colombian government and the Colombian 
people have made against the narcoterrorists, and they constantly 
reiterate their gratitude to this Congress for the important 
assistance, Madam Speaker, that we have provided them and continue to 
do so.
  However, we must not take progress in the Andean region for granted. 
If the United States turns its back on the region, a scenario may ensue 
which would require greater U.S. investment and involvement at a time 
when we obviously have significant responsibilities worldwide.
  Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation also provides over $2.5 
billion for military and economic assistance to Israel. We must 
continue to ensure that our friends and allies remain secure. I am 
fully convinced that a strong Israel is necessary not only for Israel, 
but also for the security interests of the United States. We are 
committed to do everything we can so that Israel is safe and secure 
within its borders.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 3057 was introduced by the gentleman from Arizona 
and reported out of the Committee on Appropriations on June 21 by voice 
vote. It is a good bill, essential to our continued commitment to the 
security and safety of all in the United States, and we bring it forth, 
as I stated before, under a very fair and, as a matter of fact, an open 
rule.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from 
Arizona and the gentlewoman from New York for their leadership on this 
important issue, and I obviously would urge my colleagues to support 
both the underlying legislation as well as this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend, from 
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for yielding me this time, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my significant concerns about

[[Page 14535]]

the Foreign Operations bill for fiscal year 2006. The substance of the 
underlying legislation will be addressed later in my statement.
  Madam Speaker, while the rule is similar to that of other 
appropriations bills, I am extremely disappointed that the majority has 
blocked our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) from 
offering an amendment that would have provided $1 billion in emergency 
funding for the Veterans' Administration. All of our colleagues here in 
the House know that the Bush administration and the Republican 
majority, by their own admission, have underfunded the Veterans' 
Administration by $1 billion. Without the emergency funding proposed by 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the VA will shortly run out of 
money, leaving veterans, and there are 86,000 of them coming back from 
Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere, with nowhere to turn. But because 
my friends in the majority on the Committee on Rules did not make the 
Edwards amendment in order, the House will not have an opportunity to 
consider this critical amendment now. Shame on all of us.
  Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation has some admirable 
provisions yet, in several areas, it falls far short of meeting the 
United States' near and long-term policy needs.
  The majority's excuse that the budget constraints prevent greater 
generosity is just that: an excuse. The simple fact of the matter is 
that the Republicans' reckless and irresponsible economic policies have 
left the United States with little room to meet our important 
international and domestic obligations.
  Realize, I think that it is appropriate that we have funding 
allocated to fighting the plagues of our time, HIV and AIDS, malaria 
and tuberculosis. I applaud the current appropriations and encourage 
this body to continue supporting these efforts until these diseases 
have been completely eradicated.
  I am also appreciative of the assistance levels for the Middle East. 
This past April, with the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), I had an opportunity to visit 
Israel and the Palestinian territories, and we met with officials from 
both sides of the conflict. I found them at that time to be committed 
to the pursuit of a fair and just peace and dedicated to ensuring an 
equitable resolution to the many issues that divide the Israelis and 
the Palestinians. The United States must continue to show its 
commitment to Israel, our most reliable ally in the Middle East. This 
legislation does just that. Further, we must be engaged in the region 
and reward positive efforts by the Palestinians with appropriate levels 
of assistance.
  I am also pleased to note that the United States is the leading donor 
of humanitarian assistance to Darfur, with $350 million appropriated in 
this legislation. This assistance is important, but not nearly enough. 
Frankly, the Bush administration has been neglectful of the realities 
on the ground, even while acknowledging that genocide is taking place. 
There should be no action on earth that compels us to act more than 
genocide. However, the House continues to refuse to move the Darfur 
Accountability Act, which provides for sanctions against the regime and 
authorizes the President to use force, if needed, to save the lives of 
innocent civilians.

                              {time}  1100

  Is there a reason vastly more compelling than halting genocide that 
is forcing the United States to merely shake our finger in admonishment 
at the Sudanese Government? The world long remembers those instances in 
which the United States failed to take action to prevent genocide, and 
I fear that this is going to be another one of those times.
  Despite all of the positive provisions in the bill, Mr. Speaker, 
there are several aspects of this bill that project the wrong message 
to the global community. At a time of intense international hostility 
toward many aspects of United States foreign policy, we should not be 
compounding the problem with a ``sore loser'' attitude and a lack of 
commitment to protecting human rights.
  Allow me to expand. Section 528 of the underlying legislation 
withholds 25 percent of funding to the World Bank's International 
Development Association if it fails to continue implementing some 
procurement reforms that are supported by the United States. Once 
again, as with last week's United Nations Reform Act, Republicans are 
insisting on a my-way-or-the-highway approach. This is plain wrong. We 
will never reform these institutions by staying at home and 
complaining. We must accept compromise and continue to press for change 
while remaining a committed participant.
  Mr. Speaker, typically, the foreign operations bill is one of the 
most bipartisan bills that this body passes every year. While I will 
most likely support the underlying legislation, I am greatly concerned 
by the overall amount of money appropriated in this bill. Later today, 
we will hear from the chairman and other Republican leaders who will 
claim that they did the best they could with what they were given. I do 
not doubt that, Mr. Speaker; and I applaud the chairman and ranking 
member of the subcommittee for the hard and dedicated work which they 
do for all of us. Nevertheless, the budget constraints which the 
chairman and others will speak of are the creation of the Republicans' 
fiscal mismanagement.
  I am appalled that we have the money to provide egregious tax cuts to 
extremely wealthy people in our country; yet we do not have the money 
to meet our international humanitarian commitment. We have the money to 
provide billions in tax giveaways to the Bush administration's favorite 
corporate donors; yet we do not have the money to provide the necessary 
assistance to some of the poorest countries in the world. This is 
beyond shameful. It is negligent, and it leads many in the world to 
understandably question the seriousness of our rhetoric on human rights 
and the promotion of democracy.
  Just once, Mr. Speaker, I would like to come to this floor with 
Republicans in the majority and President Bush in the White House and 
say, We do not have the money for tax cuts for millionaires and 
billionaires because we have to fulfill our commitment to improving the 
lives of billions of people around the world, including millions right 
here in our own country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  With regard to some of the many, many points that were made by my 
distinguished friend, and I am certainly not going to address them all 
at this point, but I would like to make two points with regard to this 
foreign aid bill which we are bringing to the floor today with an open 
rule. We are providing over $20 billion in foreign aid in this bill. 
That is an increase of $73 million over last year. We are fulfilling 
our obligations and being quite compassionate as we do so.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding and thank him for his fine 
management of this very important rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule which provides for 
an open amendment process. Any germane amendment that any Member 
chooses to offer will in fact be debated and voted upon here in the 
House. So understand that Members under the rules of the House will 
have an opportunity to amend this legislation as they see fit.
  I was very happy to hear praise for the bill from my good friend from 
Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Mr. Hastings) as well as the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) and an understanding that at the end 
of the day there will be bipartisan support for this legislation.
  We know full well that this is a piece of legislation that is often 
misunderstood by many Americans. There is a belief that somehow we 
expend 10 to 15 percent of the Federal budget on foreign assistance, on 
foreign aid; and

[[Page 14536]]

there is a belief that we are taking our hard-earned tax dollars and 
sending them down a rat hole when, in fact, there needs to be an 
understanding that the foreign operations bill is comprised of less 
than 1 percent of the entire Federal budget.
  I believe that the chairman and ranking member have done a great job 
in putting together a bill, and I will do exactly what the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said and say correctly that with the 
resources that are limited, we frankly have done, I believe, 
extraordinarily well. There is a reason that resources are limited when 
it comes to the Federal budget. It is not, as my friend from Florida 
said, because of reckless and irresponsible policies that President 
Bush and the Republicans have put forward. It is the fact that both 
Democrats and Republicans are regularly saying that we need to bring 
about a reduction in the Federal deficit. We cannot continue to have 
deficit spending.
  Now, the so-called reckless and irresponsible policies that have been 
categorized as that by my good friend are policies that have actually 
brought the Federal deficit to a level that is $73 billion lower than 
had been anticipated and projected in February. First, we saw in April 
a reduction of $50 billion; and then just 2 weeks ago, we got the 
report of an additional $23 billion reduction in the Federal deficit. 
Why? Because of the fact that we have seen strong, bold economic 
growth. We have a 3.5 percent GDP growth rate taking place in this 
country, and we also have seen the unemployment rate at 5.1 percent, 
lower than the average unemployment rate through the 1960s, 1970s, 
1980s and 1990s.
  And so this view, somehow, that we have created more problems when it 
comes to the deficit, we not only have not created more problems; we 
have got the deficit on a downward slope, we are still fighting the war 
on terror, and we are meeting these very important obligations.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) was absolutely right, Mr. 
Speaker, when he talked about the great trip that we took in traveling 
throughout the Middle East, going to Israel and the Palestinian 
territories. We were also in Egypt. I believe that the aid package that 
we have here for both Israel and Egypt is very important, and I would 
like to compliment my friend from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the 
distinguished ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations, for his effort to focus resources on the 
democratization that is taking place in Egypt. We know that for the 
first time ever, we in September are going to see multicandidate 
elections take place in Egypt. I believe that that is a clear sign that 
the policies that we have been pursuing under President Bush in 
creating a chance for 8.5 million Iraqis to vote has been a very 
positive thing.
  We know that today marks the first anniversary of the transition from 
the Coalition Provisional Authority to Iraqi sovereignty, which is a 
very, very important thing to mark. Obviously, we have tragically seen 
terrorist activities take place throughout the past year which have 
been designed to bring about destabilization. But because of what we 
have done, because of the resolve, and the President will be talking 
about this tonight in his nationally televised address from Fort Bragg, 
we as a Nation are determined to see political pluralism, the rule of 
law and the building of democratic institutions; and the effort that 
the gentleman from Wisconsin has put into that when it comes to Egypt 
is, I think, a very, very important one.
  I also want to talk about the issue that was raised by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings), that being the concern that we all have 
over this issue of a shortfall in funding for our veterans. Mr. 
Speaker, we all know, Democrats and Republicans alike, that there is a 
great responsibility that we have to our veterans. Our veterans have 
shed their blood and shared their courage for the good of our country. 
They have given us our enduring freedom, and it is our duty to honor 
our country's commitment to them. It is our duty to do that.
  Now, just this morning at 9 o'clock, we have seen the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh), the very, very distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee that deals with this issue, the Subcommittee on Military 
Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, hold a hearing focusing on the 
need to address this issue. We did, unfortunately, get this report of 
the shortfall, but it is important to note what it is that we have done 
for our Nation's veterans.
  We passed by a vote of 425-1 the military quality of life 
appropriations bill. That legislation includes over $28 billion for the 
Veterans Health Administration, including $21 billion for medical 
services. Medical services are actually funded in the legislation at 
$1.6 billion above the current fiscal year. Over the last 2 years, 
funding for medical care for veterans has increased by 18 percent. That 
does not in any way diminish the fact that we have unfortunately gotten 
this report of the $1 billion shortfall; but, Mr. Speaker, it makes it 
very clear that we as an institution have a responsibility to encourage 
the Veterans Administration to have a degree of accountability.
  When you provide $28 billion in resources, $21 billion for medical 
services, an increase of 18 percent over the last 2 years, it seems to 
me that steps need to be taken to ensure that we, in fact, look at and 
understand this problem of the $1 billion shortfall. We should not 
continue to subsidize what obviously is a problem.
  That is why there is a strong commitment. The White House is 
committed to dealing with this issue. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Buyer), the chairman of the authorizing committee, is very determined 
to deal with this issue. And I believe that we have done the correct 
thing by saying the funds will be available through using surpluses 
that the Veterans Administration has and other operational funds while 
we try to deal with the challenge of this $1 billion shortfall.
  There will be some who will try to claim that we are ignoring the 
problem of the $1 billion shortfall that has been announced if we do 
not defeat the previous question and turn back this rule. Nothing could 
be further from the truth. We face the problem head-on. We are going to 
responsibly deal with it working together in a bipartisan way with the 
executive branch and the legislative branch to ensure that we can 
address this issue.
  I urge support of this rule. I thank my friend for his leadership 
that he has shown on this and a wide range of very important foreign 
policy issues.
  I will close with one point that I raised with the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) when he testified and, that is, I am very proud 
that Speaker Hastert and Minority Leader Pelosi have come together to 
establish a task force, a commission that is geared towards seeing the 
United States House of Representatives directly provide technical 
assistance and other expertise to emerging parliaments in these new 
democracies that are taking place around the world, and there are very 
important resources for that that are included in this bill. I would 
like to thank my colleagues who have been involved in that. I urge 
support of both the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) with whom I serve on the 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for one simple reason: 
it shortchanges our Nation's veterans. I would say to my friend and 
colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, with all 
due respect, our veterans do not need more hearings. They do not need 
your sympathy. They need your action. They need this Congress to act, 
and they need this Congress to act now.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs recently admitted they are $1 
billion short. Last night in the Rules Committee, Democrats offered an 
amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to correct this 
shortfall and to make sure that our veterans get the health care that 
they deserve. As the gentleman from Texas noted in his testimony before 
the committee,

[[Page 14537]]

``There are three basic reasons why VA health funding must be increased 
above present levels.

                              {time}  1115

  ``First, health care inflation is approximately 7 percent a year. 
Second, 86,000 Iraqi and Afghanistan war veterans have needed VA care. 
Third, health care and prescription drug costs have caused a net 
increase of 250,000 veterans per year using the VA health care 
system.''
  Mr. Speaker, despite this glaring need for more veterans health care 
funding, the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules refused to 
provide it on a partisan vote. What are our priorities?
  Yesterday in The Washington Post, it was reported that senior VA 
officials are spending their time making sure that every VA facility 
has a framed portrait of the VA Secretary prominently displayed.
  One senior VA official said that facilities should make the portrait 
their ``highest priority.''
  I have a suggestion for the VA. Maybe their highest priority should 
be providing adequate health care for our veterans. Maybe their highest 
priority should be spending American tax dollars wisely.
  There is a quote from Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural etched into 
the VA building downtown. It says, ``to care for him who shall have 
borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan.''
  Lincoln did not say anything about the framed portrait of government 
officials.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question 
so that we can provide adequate funding for veterans health care.
  During this time of war, our veterans deserve more than nice words. 
They deserve the health care that they have earned.
  I realize that this is not a tax cut for millionaires, something that 
you on the other side of the aisle embrace with urgency, but how can 
you turn your backs on the brave men and women fighting in the wars 
that you voted for?
  Mr. Speaker, this is an outrageous situation that must be fixed 
today, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month. We do not need any 
more hearings. We need to fix it today. We owe the men and women who 
have worn the uniform of this country nothing less.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our support for veterans. A few 
weeks ago, as a matter of fact, on May 25, this House of 
Representatives brought to the floor, considered and passed by a vote 
of 425 to 1 the appropriations bill for the next fiscal year on 
military quality of life. The legislation included over $28 billion for 
the Veterans Health Administration, including $21 billion for medical 
services. Medical services were funded $1.6 billion above the current 
fiscal year. Over the last 2 years, funding for the veterans medical 
care has increased by 18 percent.
  We are very proud of our support for veterans. And I would like to 
say, Mr. Speaker, that I know of no two Members of this House who feel 
and have more concern for the rights of veterans than the chairman of 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Buyer), as well as the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh) of the appropriations subcommittee that funds veterans affairs.
  So this matter brought to our attention now of a shortfall is of 
extreme concern to them. And as we speak, Mr. Speaker, a hearing is 
taking place to fully investigate the causes and the issues of this 
shortfall, a hearing is taking place by the appropriations subcommittee 
dealing with this issue, Military Quality of Life Appropriations 
Subcommittee, called for by the chairman, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Walsh). And so not only are we not ignoring the issue, we are 
proud of our record of support for veterans and will continue to 
support veterans in a way which will make us all proud.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. What my colleague from Florida ignores is 
that we could do something today for those same veterans.
  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, this bill spends a lot of money on foreign 
aid, but there is a major problem with this bill today. And that 
problem is not money that the bill contains. It is money that the bill 
does not contain.
  Last week we were told by the Veterans Administration that after 
continually resisting efforts to increase funding for veterans health 
care, they were finally admitting that there was, in fact, a $1 billion 
shortfall in veterans health care funding for the present fiscal year.
  My understanding is that at the hearing of the Subcommittee on 
Military Construction this morning, the VA amended that number and they 
are now telling us that in addition to the $1 billion shortfall which 
they said they had in this fiscal year, they are saying that they are 
going to need $1.5 billion next year, plus another $1.1 billion if the 
Congress does not take action with respect to co-payments and 
enrollment fees that the Congress has already decided that it will not 
support.
  So in other words, there is a huge hole in the Veterans 
Administration health care funding and it is growing.
  Now, we have had to endure a lot of cynical comments from some 
Members on the other side over the past 2 years because the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I and several others have tried at every 
opportunity to get more money into the budget for veterans health care.
  In fact, I recall at one point the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) 
was called a demagogue by a member of the majority party because he 
stood up and insisted that we fund veterans health care at least a 
billion dollars higher level than it was being funded.
  I think now we recognize, and I would hope our friends on the other 
side of the aisle would recognize, that the numbers which the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and others have been citing are correct and 
that the numbers that the Veterans Administration has been citing are 
not.
  I find it ironic that the majority party even removed from the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairmanship, the gentleman who last 
year recognized along with us that we need higher funding for veterans 
health care. He was rewarded for being frank about the needs for 
veterans by being bounced out of his committee chairmanship.
  I think we ought to take a look at what the facts are. Right now 
medical facilities are literally falling down around their patients. 
One veterans medical clinic had to put up scaffolding around walls to 
protect patients from falling bricks. Physicians at VA hospitals have 
reported that they had to visit neighboring hospitals to borrow 
supplies that they needed to carry out specific medical procedures.
  The VA is proposing two solutions to the problem: diverting $400 
million that was to be used for medical services next year, and using 
$600 million that was supposed to be used to improve hospitals. This, 
in our judgment, is just digging the hole deeper, and it is not the 
first time that we have seen this resistance.
  In fiscal 2002 the administration would not allow the VA to spend 
$275 million that Congress had provided to meet the needs of veterans. 
In fiscal year 2004, the VA Secretary testified that the administration 
had cut his own request by $1.2 billion. They now admit there is a 
shortfall.
  For 2006 the VA bill adds only 2 percent or $661 million for the 
Veterans Health Care Administration. Not nearly enough in light of 
today's revelations.
  I will place into the Record, Mr. Speaker, a listing of our efforts 
over the past 2 years to raise veterans health care.
  In short, I simply want to urge each and every Member of this House 
on both sides of the aisle to vote against the previous question on the 
rule on this bill so that we can try to respond

[[Page 14538]]

to what is obviously an emergency situation and add to this bill the 
money that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) tried to add on the 
floor last week to a previous bill so that we can clean up the 
shortfall in the VA health care budget for this year, and so that we do 
not dig the hole deeper for the following year.
  Even the money that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) was asking 
for last week will not be sufficient for the 2-year problem, but it is 
a whole lot better than hiding the problem under the rug as the 
administration has done for the past 2 years.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I do not think I am incorrect in stating that this discussion 
regarding veterans health care does not belong on a foreign operations 
bill. Clearly there is a venue for discussion of veterans funding. And 
as Members know, we have had a full discussion of that before the House 
and in committee and it was done in a proper way.
  I just want to make sure that everyone understands that we were 
provided additional information after the House had concluded its work 
on the Veterans and Military Quality of Life bill. That prompted us, my 
colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my 
ranking member of the subcommittee, to jointly request an oversight 
hearing which was conducted just this morning for 2\1/2\ hours.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALSH. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would simply say I appreciate the oversight hearing but what we 
need is not so much a hearing but action. Secondly, I would grant to 
the gentleman that the preferred place to deal with this problem is not 
on this bill. The problem is we tried to deal with it on the bill where 
it belongs and we were blocked by the majority for doing so.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WALSH. Reclaiming my time, we can deal with this before the 2006 
budget is implemented. We have time. It is June. We moved expeditiously 
to get the bill passed. We did that.
  We now have new information and we have to respond to that. And the 
questions I can frankly say were aggressive and thorough, and the 
response from the Veterans' Administration, while complete, at least we 
believe complete at this time, was not as thorough as we would like.
  And we asked questions, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and I 
and other members of the subcommittee have asked questions. We want to 
get at what exactly is the anticipated shortfall for 2006. We want to 
make sure that this projected deficit for 2005 is responded to. That 
there is no diminution of care or quality of care in our veterans 
hospitals and that is our responsibility. That is the proper venue for 
this debate. Not on the foreign operations bill. We will have time to 
respond to it.
  We have had discussions with OMB and with the Veterans' 
Administration. We will not rest until we resolve this difference of 
what is needed to meet the needs of our veterans. But I assure the 
House and Members here today that we will get to the bottom of this, we 
will get the proper resolution. And if additional funds are needed, and 
I believe they are, we will find them.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations who has a great deal of dedication 
and skill in this arena.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I rise in opposition to this rule and urge my colleagues to defeat 
the previous question. I am grateful for the Committee on Rules for 
granting an open rule for consideration of H.R. 3057, the FY 2006 
Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
  It is always my preference each year to allow as broad a debate as 
possible on the provisions in the bill and on United States foreign aid 
policy generally.

                              {time}  1130

  I believe this rule will accomplish that.
  However, I did ask the Committee on Rules to grant a waiver to one 
amendment during today's debate, an amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) to provide $1 billion in emergency funding for 
veterans health care. While I do not usually support giving waivers to 
amendments on the foreign operations bill that are not directly related 
to the bill, I wholeheartedly support the gentleman from Texas' effort.
  The administration's recent revelation of a $1 billion shortfall in 
veterans health care funding is already significantly impacting our 
veterans, as facilities across the country deny new requests for 
appointments. This admission, which emerged during a congressional 
hearing last week, comes less than 4 months after Secretary Nicholson 
wrote to the Senate with a bold assertion that the VA ``does not need 
emergency supplemental funds in fiscal year 2005.'' It seems Secretary 
Nicholson was either misleading Congress or simply was not informed of 
the facts; and, frankly, I do not know which poses a greater threat to 
the veterans health care system.
  The nonchalance with which the administration has handled funding for 
veterans health care is unbelievable, especially as our men and women 
in uniform continue to serve in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the 
world. These brave Americans continue to give the ultimate sacrifice to 
defend our freedoms, and we must fulfill our commitment to care for 
them upon their return.
  The gentleman from Texas' effort is not without precedent. The 
Committee on Rules made in order a Republican amendment to the Iraq War 
supplemental on REAL ID, allowing for adoption of this provision 
without any real debate or hearings. The committee also made in order a 
nongermane amendment to the legislative branch appropriations bill, 
arguing that the continuity of Congress was too important not to 
include.
  Given what our veterans have done for this country, the gentleman 
from Texas' amendment is too important not to consider today, and I 
urge defeat of the previous question.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  We will get to the bottom of this problem. We will solve it, and we 
have heard from the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that 
has jurisdiction over the veterans issue to that effect. We will hear 
as well shortly from the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, and when I say we are going to get to the bottom of this and 
solve it, it is coming from the history of the House of Representatives 
that in the last 2 years alone has increased funding for veterans 
medical care by 18 percent. We are very proud of our record, and we are 
going to continue to have a record to be proud of.
  So having said that, I would simply like to remind any colleagues who 
may be following this debate that with this rule what we are doing is 
bringing to the floor the foreign aid bill, the foreign operations 
appropriations bill, which includes about $22 billion, the foreign aid 
bill, includes about $22 billion, and it is almost $100 million over 
the amounts that we appropriated for the current fiscal year. That is 
what we are bringing to the floor again, Mr. Speaker, with this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida, the distinguished gentleman, 
amazes me with his logic. We gave the veterans $2 billion more he said 
last year. What does that have to do with today and the fact that there 
is a $1 billion shortfall? This shortfall that has come to the 
attention of people is a mistake.

[[Page 14539]]

When can this administration say that we were wrong about something? 
The veterans need $1 billion and that is that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards) who has been denigrated for arguing this point over 
the last 2 years.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I think what the House has to decide today 
is what is more important: House procedures that we waive every single 
day for the most insignificant of reasons or taking care of a $1 
billion-plus shortfall in veterans health care programs during a time 
of war.
  Quite frankly, if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), my good 
friend and leader of the House Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life 
and Veterans Affairs, were Speaker of the House, I would withdraw my 
opposition to the vote against the rule that denies us a chance to 
provide adequate care for veterans; but the fact is he is not. The fact 
is that repeatedly this year, not the Committee on Appropriations on 
veterans affairs health care spending, but the House leadership has 
repeatedly said no to adequate funding for VA medical care.
  The gentleman from Florida talked about how proud he was of his work 
on veterans programs this year. Let me just point out that if we go 
back and look at the budget resolution passed on a partisan basis in 
April, that budget resolution directs a cut compared to present 
services of $14 billion in veterans health care over the next 5 years. 
I am not only not proud of that; that is the reason I voted against the 
partisan budget resolution in April that began this process.
  This problem was not created by the Committee on Appropriations. It 
was created by an inadequate budget resolution that was pushed through 
this House in April, strictly on a partisan basis. The fact is, I am 
less interested in how we got here and more interested in how we take 
care of veterans. That is more important than all the partisan 
disagreements we might discuss on the floor this day.
  What are the facts? The facts are that the Veterans Administration 
has now admitted that it has approximately, or say minimally, a $1 
billion shortfall. The fact is that kind of shortfall is delaying 
purchasing equipment that doctors and nurses at our VA hospitals say is 
needed to provide quality care for veterans. That shortfall is going to 
have a direct impact on the quality of care for America's veterans, 
including veterans coming back from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
  If anyone questions how serious this shortfall is, let me just read 
to my colleagues a letter dated May 3 of this year from Barbara 
Watkins, a medical center director for the Alexandria VA Medical Center 
in Virginia. She says: ``Dear Friend: As of April 29, 2005, the 
Alexandria VA Medical Center is no longer scheduling appointments for 
new Non Service Connected veterans.'' In laymen's terms, what that 
means is if you are a veteran that is unemployed, if you are a veteran 
that is making only $10,000 a year or so, perhaps on minimum wage, and 
you have a serious health care concern, you will not be given a medical 
appointment at the Alexandria VA Medical Center. My guess is that this 
kind of cut in services for veterans is occurring all over the country.
  The fact is that in Togus, Maine, quoting the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Michaud), I can tell my colleagues, using Togus VA Hospital in 
Maine, the Togus facility actually had to put up scaffolding over the 
doors to block bricks from falling on patients or staff. This crisis is 
real. It is serious. It is today.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), is correct: we should not 
normally have to deal with this on the foreign aid appropriations bill. 
Frankly, we should have dealt with it in April on the budget resolution 
that underfunded VA medical care. I wish we could have added this money 
in the VA budget that passed recently in the House. The fact is that is 
already through the House, and the problem is that if the Subcommittee 
on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies 
has to deal with it in a nonemergency basis, guess where we will have 
to take $1 billion from to take care of the VA health care crisis?
  It will come out of military construction. That is housing, day care 
facilities for our active duty servicemen and -women and their 
families, or it might have to come out of the defense health care 
budget. That is hospital care and medical care for active duty 
servicemen and -women, members of the Guard and Reserve who are 
fighting the war on terrorism.
  This is not the best place to deal with the veterans health care 
crisis. But if not now, when? If not this bill, what bill? Let us vote 
``no'' on the rule. Let us add $1 billion today to deal with the 
veterans health care funding crisis.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time.
  I would like to give an explanation of how we got here. I have great 
respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), my colleague, and 
his sincerity and his work not only on the commitment of men and women 
who wear the uniform but also our veterans.
  I also extend congratulations. You are either that good, or it was 
the best guess that turned out to be right. What I really believe in my 
heart, since you are my friend, is the latter because we do not 
understand this health financing model as well as we should. So I know 
you just said I really do not want to say how we got here, let us take 
immediate action. First of all, we do not even know how to define the 
word ``adequate.'' To take action, we need to have it based on an 
intellect, and we are not even there yet.
  So what happened here? Let me tell my colleagues how we got here. 
Everybody in this town seems to be throwing out a budget number with 
regard to veterans health. Whether it is the American Legion who has a 
number, whether the independent budget has a number, whether 
Republicans have a number, whether Democrats have a number, whether VA 
has a number or the OMB or the President, everybody seems to have a 
number. So I said wait a minute, time out here.
  I looked back into what we did in the mid-1990s when after the BRAC 
and prior to before we ever created TRICARE for life and we are trying 
to figure out the military health delivery system's budget number, and 
we never could get it right, and we always have to come back in the 
supplementals, right? So what do we do? We held a hearing on the 
finance models on the predictability of these budgets. So we increased 
the predictability.
  What is going on now? The modeling still is wrong. So on June 23, in 
the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs, we held a hearing on the 
finance of how we do the health modeling with regard to what are the 
assumptions that are used in the model, what are the risk adjustments 
that may be necessary, what are the variances, what are the unexpected 
contingencies. All of these things are very important.
  One thing I think is fascinating that we learned was that the model 
that we used, because the VA contracts with the private sector and when 
we contract, the model that is used in the private sector is done on an 
annual basis. In DOD, they use this model, and it is a 2.5 projection. 
In the VA, it is a 2.5 to 3.5, which means we are stressing the model 
itself.
  I just want everybody to know this is extremely important. We are 
stressing the health finance model, which means we need to go back and 
perhaps do more science with regard to how we predict these budgets.
  My colleagues say, Steve, what are you talking about? This is 
extremely important, and we are going to continue our work. Why? 
Because we need to make sure we define the word, what is ``adequate.''
  So when the VA sends this dollar figure to not only the authorizers 
but, more importantly, the appropriators, so when you pass a budget you 
know what that budget is and you have confidence in it.

[[Page 14540]]

  Now there is no hide-the-ball here. The VA conducts a mid-year 
review. When they conducted the mid-year review, unfortunately a week 
after the gentleman from New York's (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman 
from Texas' (Ranking Member Edwards) product is passed by the floor, we 
learned from the mid-year review that they are off on the 2005 budget. 
They are off because of OIF and OEF and dental and personnel and 
increase on demand of services for older veterans, and now they have a 
shortfall with regard to 2005.
  The Secretary informs us and says I have work-around solutions with 
regard to 2005. We in Congress authorize what is called a cushion, 
whether it is DOD health or VA health, and that cushion is around $400 
million that goes from year to year. He says, well, I need to take $380 
million out of the $400 million cushion, and I also then need to 
redirect or reprogram out of the capitalization accounts for 2005.
  I agree with the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) with regard to our oversight 
responsibilities. Matter of fact, the Speaker said maintain our 
oversight to make sure that we maintain the quality of care and the 
services necessary for America's veterans. That is going to be done.
  So as we listen and be a good listener with regard to the Secretary's 
work-around solutions for 2005, it is 2006. That 2006 budget number, I 
will submit there is no one here on this floor, despite whatever number 
they may advocate, that knows exactly what it is today.

                              {time}  1145

  Hearings are very important, and the hearings are going to continue. 
This is, as the Secretary said, evolution. Yes, this is going to be an 
evolutionary process to get it right about 2006. I do not care about 
just 2006, I care about getting it right from 2006 on. I care about 
getting it right in 2006 and beyond because of our commitment to 
veterans.
  So it would be very good and very helpful and very appropriate for us 
to use the right words on this floor. No one owns a cornerstone in 
their advocacy to veterans and what they have done for this Nation. No 
one in this House. We all do. We all respect the service and sacrifice 
of our veterans.
  So let us embrace the challenge of getting into the health modeling 
issue to make sure these issues are right; that we go in and work with 
our Senate colleagues to make sure we get the numbers correct with 
regard to the 2006 budget. And when we do this, we then define what is 
``adequate funding'' for the VA.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to work with my friend, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Edwards) and with the chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Walsh). I respect the leadership of Chairman Walsh, and I also thank 
him for his firmness and for his tough words with the Secretary. I look 
forward to working on this commitment.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to indicate my strong support 
for the bill and particularly for the provisions relative to Armenia 
and the Nagorno Karabakh. Thanks to the chairman of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the ranking Democrat, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and also my friend and co-chair 
of the Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), for their continued support we now have 
$67.5 million in the bill for humanitarian assistance to Armenia, which 
is $12.5 million more than what the President requested; and $5 million 
in assistance for Nagorno Karabakh, which is $2 million more than last 
year. I just want to thank all the members of the subcommittee for 
their continued support.
  It is very important this House continue to recognize the plight of 
the victims of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, and that is why we must 
support the committee's recommendations. It is also significant that 
the President requested and the committee has maintained military 
assistance parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan with $5.7 million 
allocated to each country. By allocating equal levels of military and 
security assistance to both nations, the U.S. Government will preserve 
its credibility as an impartial and leading mediator in the continued 
and sensitive peace negotiations for the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.
  Given the ongoing Azerbaijani blockades and threats to renew military 
aggression against Armenia and Karabakh, it is critically important the 
administration continue to promote balanced, short- and long-term 
policies that elevate regional cooperation and reduce the risk of 
conflict in the South Caucasus region. The members of this subcommittee 
and the leadership on both sides of the aisle have for a long time 
played a major role in trying to provide balanced, short- and long-term 
policies that elevate regional cooperation in the Caucasus, and I thank 
them once again for the assistance levels that are in this legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) was talking 
a moment ago about the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) either being 
lucky or being good, he chose that he was lucky during the last 2 
years. However, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) spoke with 
hospital administrators, and that is how he got his information. And if 
somehow or another we were not so interested in hanging the picture of 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman somewhere rather than 
trying to figure out what hospital administrators need, all of us could 
be good.
  I know this much: At the Veterans Hospital in West Palm Beach, 
Florida, veterans wait 6 months on occasion to get themselves treated, 
and I think that is ridiculous.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule 
so we can consider the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night on a 
straight party-line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the Edwards amendment would provide additional badly 
needed health care funds for our Nation's veterans today. The Edwards 
amendment uses the supplemental authority provided in the 2006 budget 
resolution to correct the current $1 billion shortfall mistake in 
funding for the health care needs of America's veterans, including the 
approximately 86,000 new Iraqi and Afghanistan veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of my colleagues are aware by now of the 
announcement last week by the Bush administration's own Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs that the VA is facing a $1 billion shortfall in 
veterans' health care. This is not news to this side of the aisle. We 
have known all along the funding was woefully inadequate. We have tried 
on numerous occasions to increase funding to care for our returning 
soldiers, but the Republican leadership has ignored our demands and has 
consistently rejected our many attempts to add money to the VA health 
care budget. Maybe now they will listen. Today, they will have a chance 
to show just how much they support our soldiers.
  I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us 
from considering the foreign operations appropriations bill under an 
open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Edwards 
amendment to help our brave returning veterans get the health care they 
need and deserve. However, a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of 
this amendment and, sadly, once again, this leadership will turn its 
back on our wounded veterans.
  We make much of visiting veterans' hospitals. We make much of 
Veterans Day. All of these are appropriate undertakings. But when we 
learn that this administration has made a big

[[Page 14541]]

mistake with reference to veterans in this Nation, we cannot muster 
here in the House of Representatives the oomph to do the things 
necessary for people that are putting their lives on the line for us 
and returning home in need of care.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment immediately prior to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my good friend from Florida, as he was 
wrapping up his remarks, as always with eloquence, talked about the 
``yes'' votes and the ``no'' votes, because just 1 month ago, Mr. 
Speaker, when this House brought forth the bill to fund the Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs, the appropriations bill to fund Veterans' 
Affairs, there was a very interesting ``yes'' and ``no'' vote on this 
floor; 425 yes and 1 no.
  So I simply want to put in context what has been said today. If we 
would be acting with such unfairness on the majority side, if we would 
be neglecting the interests of those men and women who we all hold in 
such admiration, then why was the vote to fund Veterans' Affairs 425-1 
only 1 month ago?
  As we have heard from the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, from the authorizing committee, and the chairman as well of 
the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and 
Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations on these issues 
brought to our attention subsequent to that vote of 425-1, they are 
being addressed. They are being delved into. They will be solved. And 
we will continue to be proud of our record of support for our veterans.
  Now, with regard to what this rule does, the rule we have been 
discussing today, it brings forth for consideration by this body the 
foreign aid appropriations bill, over $20 million in foreign aid. A lot 
of important programs, humanitarian programs; support for allies and 
friends; for poor people throughout the world; for the sick and the 
infirm. It is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker.
  So at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would request that the underlying 
legislation, the foreign operations legislation, be supported, as well 
as the rule that brings it forth, which is an open rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as 
follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 341 Rule for H.R. 3057 Foreign Operations, 
       Export Financing, and Related Programs FY06 Appropriations

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 3 shall be in 
     order without intervention of any point of order and before 
     any other amendment if offered by Representative Edwards of 
     Texas or a designee. The amendment is not subject to 
     amendment except for pro forma amendments or to a demand for 
     a division of the question in the committee of the whole or 
     in the House.
       Sec. 3. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as 
     follows:

  Amendment to H.R. 3057, as Reported Offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new title:

                TITLE VI--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                     Veterans Health Administration


                            medical services

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For an additional amount for necessary expenses for 
     furnishing, as authorized by law, inpatient and outpatient 
     care and treatment to beneficiaries of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs and veterans described in section 1705(a) of 
     title 38, United States Code, including care and treatment in 
     facilities not under the jurisdiction of the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs, and including medical supplies and 
     equipment and salaries and expenses of health-care employees 
     hired under title 38, United States Code, and aid to State 
     homes as authorized by section 1741 of title 38, United 
     States Code; $1,000,000,000, to be available for obligation 
     upon the enactment of this Act and to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2006: Provided, That the 
     amount provided under this heading is designated as making 
     appropriations for the purpose set forth in subparagraph (A) 
     of section 402(a)(1) of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year 2006: 
     Provided further, That amounts made available under this 
     heading may be transferred to other accounts of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs to the extent necessary to 
     reimburse those accounts for prior transfers to ``Medical 
     Services'' after notice of the amount and purpose of the 
     transfer is provided to the Committees on Appropriations of 
     the Senate and House of Representatives and a period of 30 
     days has elapsed: Provided further, That the transfer 
     authority in this paragraph is in addition to any other 
     transfer authority available to the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs.

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________