[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14965-14975]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 345 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 345

       Resolved, That it shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of Thursday, June 30, 2005, for the Speaker 
     to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules. The 
     Speaker or his designee shall consult with the Minority 
     Leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for 
     consideration pursuant to this resolution.
       Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, 
     to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment 
     of the House and Senate during the month of July.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman

[[Page 14966]]

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 345 provides that suspensions will be 
in order at any time on this legislative day. The resolution also 
provides that the Speaker or his designee shall consult with the 
minority leader, or her designee, on any suspension considered under 
the rule. Additionally, the rule provides that it shall be in order, 
any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider 
concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment of the House and 
Senate during the month of July.
  Mr. Speaker, the leadership of this House set out a positive and 
aggressive legislative plan for this week on behalf of the American 
people. The goal of this plan has been to pass a number of bills that 
will allow for USAID to foreign nations, transportation and 
infrastructure improvements for our Nation, improved housing for those 
in need, and important funding for executive agencies and our judiciary 
along with the District of Columbia.
  I want to particularly commend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) and his Committee on Appropriations and the staff for sticking 
to the time table that they laid out at the start of this session. As 
of today, the House has passed all 11 appropriations bills prior to the 
July 4 district work period. And I note that the ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations is also on the floor and we certainly 
appreciate the work that he and his committee members and staff have 
also put into that. It is a tremendous accomplishment that the House 
has completed its appropriations work prior to the July 4 work period.
  We now await action from the Senate so that we may finish the 
appropriations process and avoid a cumbersome omnibus funding bill at 
the end of the year.
  This week we have spirited debate, particularly on the previous two 
appropriations bills, the Foreign Operations appropriations bill and 
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development appropriations 
bill.
  I understand that Members on both sides of the aisle have differing 
viewpoints on how to address these issues, and we have had the 
opportunity to hear that spirited debate from both sides of the aisle 
on all of these issues. But some of this legislation that also needs to 
be considered this week has broad support among Members of both the 
majority and minority. In an attempt to make sure that this important 
work is completed by the end of this legislative week, we are here 
today to pass a rule to provide a process for consideration of these 
bills under rules that would require them to pass by a two-thirds 
majority. This will allow us to consider items in a timely manner and 
ensure that last minute issues are resolved prior to adjournment for 
the Fourth of July work period.
  This balanced rule provides the minority with the ability to consult 
with the Speaker on any suspension bill offered, ensuring that input 
and views are duly considered before any legislation considered under 
the rule is brought to the floor.
  I am proud of the accomplishments of this House over the last weeks 
and months. I now ask my colleagues to support this rule so that we may 
continue the work of the American people in a timely fashion this 
evening. Completing consideration of these suspensions ensures that 
Congress may accomplish as much as possible before we return to work in 
our home States and districts and observe our Nation's birthday.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this balanced rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman the Florida (Mr. 
Putnam), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida has explained, this rule 
would do two things. It would allow the House to consider legislation 
under suspension of the rules, and it would waive a provision in the 
Congressional Budget Act that prohibits the House from adjourning for 
more than 3 days unless it has completed consideration on 
reconciliation.
  Mr. Speaker, in general, I think far too much of the legislation 
passed around here is done by suspension, a process that waives all 
House rules and prohibits all amendments, and even precludes a motion 
to recommit. Having that said, however, I must add that tonight is 
somewhat different.
  I would ordinarily have more concern about allowing yet another day 
for considering legislation in this manner, but I do realize that in 
limited instances, it may be necessary to waive this rule in order to 
expedite legislation that is truly emergency in nature. It is evident 
today that two of the four items which are to be considered under 
suspension are indeed particularly urgent.
  One is the temporary extension of the highway bill. Without this 
legislation, the highway programs will be shut down and significant 
layoffs will occur. I am hopeful, as I am sure many of my colleagues 
are as well, that this will be the last time that we will have to pass 
a short-term extension of this bill. The conferees must finish their 
work on the highway authorization bill quickly so we can begin building 
and repairing our Nation's decaying highways and infrastructure.
  The other critical bill before us today is the emergency supplemental 
bill for veterans medical care. We Democrats attempted to address this 
emerging veterans crisis earlier this week when we advocated for the 
Edwards amendment and also in March when the gentlewoman from Oregon 
(Ms. Hooley) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) brought in a 
resolution asking for an amendment to be approved by the Committee on 
Rules to include $1.3 billion more. They were turned down.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs is being flooded with veterans 
from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, four times as many as had 
originally been budgeted for. Trying to help 103,000 of our brave men 
and women with a budget designed to assist just over 25,000 has 
produced a shortfall in the Veterans Department funds of more than $1 
billion this year, a staggering sum.
  The gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Edwards) amendment would have filled 
in a shameful gap between our Nation's professed support for its 
veterans and its actual action on their behalf; but, Mr. Speaker, the 
Republican majority in our House was not concerned with this chasm 
separating rhetoric from reality.
  As I said, the Edwards amendment was voted down on a party-line vote. 
Not a single Republican voted for the necessary health care for our 
wounded veterans; and on the emergency supplemental bill, as I 
mentioned before, the Baird-Hooley amendment to provide $1.3 billion 
that was in March was not allowed by the Committee on Rules on a party-
line vote.
  This issue is not about Republicans or Democrats. It is about our 
soldiers. We have a patriotic duty to uphold our end of the bargain and 
properly care for the fighting men and women of this country.
  This is a sacred bond of trust, a contract that the majority has 
violated; but my fellow Americans believe that refusing to care for our 
veterans after having voted to send them to war is the height of 
hypocrisy, and the public is outraged.
  As a result, House Republicans have reversed course. They received 
the wake-up call. They have come back to the table so we can hammer out 
the funding we need to care for our troops, as we should have earlier 
this week and in March.
  This is a pattern that has become all too familiar. The majority does 
something unpopular, the public gets incensed, and the majority backs 
off. It has happened over and over with the ethics crisis in the House. 
It happened with the recent Republican attempt to

[[Page 14967]]

kill public broadcasting in America; and now less than 7 days later, 
they are at it again, having to fess up to the fact that their 
priorities are out of step with the American people, their values are 
out of the mainstream.
  Have they had a change of heart regarding the issue before us? 
Perhaps, or perhaps they just do not want to go home to July 4th 
parades in their districts before they have dealt with the tangible and 
pressing need of the veterans they will be saluting.
  Let me say I find it absolutely scandalous that the Veterans 
Administration failed to tell us of this shortfall.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, while I give my friends on the right credit for 
admitting their error and working to fix it, I regret to report that 
their proposed solution is just not good enough.
  They have proposed increasing veterans spending by $975 million, 
which is still $25 million short of what the Veterans Affairs 
Department says it needs just this year, and more than half a billion 
dollars short of what the Senate pledged yesterday. Their bill does 
nothing to address the issue of veterans funding in 2006, where we are 
told there will be another more than $1 billion deficit.
  I hope and pray we do not have to have this embarrassing debate again 
next year and can instead solve this problem now. We should always 
remember, Mr. Speaker, that it is easy to make the right decision when 
the whole world is watching, but what defines our character is what we 
do when no one is watching.
  The Members of the majority have repeatedly been coerced by popular 
pressure into doing what is right when all eyes are on them. Now, both 
I and my colleagues on the Democratic side implore them to do something 
more: to summon the courage and the wisdom to do what is right when the 
only eyes on them are their own.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and certainly understand the 
importance that she has placed on us rectifying the situation with 
regard to veterans funding and as it relates to highway spending.
  I am glad that the House by unanimous consent, before we took this 
rule up, adopted the extension of the existing highway authorization. 
So I am glad we have taken that off the table. It is precisely the type 
of immediate action that we need to take before we go home for the 
district work period.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  We have actually done some good things for veterans over the last 4 
years. I would like to point those out.
  We have passed concurrent receipt legislation which we have been 
trying to get done for a period of time. Death and survivor benefits 
have certainly been very helpful to servicemembers over the past 4 
years. The VA budget has been increased from $48 billion to $68 
billion, a 42 percent increase; and nearly 5 million veterans receive 
health care benefit services this year, which is about 1 million more 
than 4 years ago. So many good things have happened.
  I realize that the current shortfall is really unacceptable and would 
like to comment that even though this was due to an actuarial 
miscalculation, certainly was unintentional and certainly is fixable, 
we do find that some of our rural veterans are really struggling for 
health care.
  Many of these people have to travel long distances; and the older 
they get and the sicker they get, the more difficult it is to get them 
health care. They often have to have a friend, a child, drive them down 
one day. The next day they come back, and it may be for very routine 
issues such as blood pressure, adjustment of medications and so on.
  What I am saying here at this particular time is that this seems to 
be a neglected group, and ofttimes our rural veterans are the people 
who really serve our country in the highest number, highest 
percentages.
  What we would like to propose is that legislation that I have 
introduced, H.R. 1741, the Rural Veterans Access to Care Act, would 
establish a pilot program to assist highly rural or geographically 
remote veterans who are enrolled in the VA and are obtaining primary 
health care at a medical facility closer to home, in other words, their 
local hospital. If they need to adjust their medications, they can go 
and check there, and VA reimburses them for that. This would, I think, 
in some cases save money. It certainly would provide a lot more 
services for those who badly need the health care.
  I would just like to make that comment, and I thank the gentleman for 
his time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out two things: first 
of all, in response to my dear friend from Nebraska, when he mentioned 
that the majority, or that this body, had passed or fixed concurrent 
receipt, he neglected to mention that was following a Democratic 
discharge petition that essentially shamed the majority into doing 
something that the administration had opposed, the Republican majority 
had opposed. They finally did it in the late term of the last Congress, 
just in time for an election; but they still did not put in a permanent 
fix for it.
  When the gentleman talked about the other things that the majority 
party has supposedly done for veterans, he neglected that just a couple 
of weeks ago, right here on this floor, the majority party rejected the 
gentleman from Mississippi's (Mr. Taylor) passionate request that we 
provide additional TRIO health care access to Guardsmen and Reservists. 
They rejected that.
  So to come here and say look at what all we have done for veterans is 
mighty hypocritical when you know the full record.
  Let me talk about what happened this past March. I have worked in VA 
hospitals as a clinical psychologist with returning veterans. We had 
Task Force Olympia coming back to my region, and I said we have got 
thousands of soldiers coming back and it is a logical, reasonable 
question to say do we have the resources in place to treat those 
soldiers and their families when they come back.
  I worked with the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), and we held a 
whole series of meetings with veterans and their families, and the 
veterans said, we are not getting the care already that we need. We 
talked to staff within the veterans hospital, and they told us, we are 
not meeting the demands of the people already back home, let alone do 
we have the capacity to meet the demands of thousands coming back.
  Based on that information and other information we had gleaned from 
prior hearings within this Congress, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. 
Hooley) and I offered an amendment to the supplemental appropriations 
bill to provide $1.3 billion to make sure that those veterans came back 
and got the care they needed.
  The distinguished gentleman from Florida was part of the Committee on 
Rules that voted unanimously to not allow that amendment to be brought 
to the floor. Had we brought that amendment to the floor and passed it 
as part of the emergency supplemental, we would not be having this 
debate, veterans would not be waiting in lines, their families would be 
receiving the services they need, and we would be honoring our 
commitments to the men and women who served.
  Instead, what we are doing now months later is trying to jerryrig 
something that we could have solved. You have let the veterans and 
their families down. It is a historical fact. It is a current reality, 
and it is shameful.
  The President in his speech the other night said let us all wave 
flags on July 4th. We are all for the flag and we are all for our 
soldiers; but when the rubber meets the road, when the time comes to 
armor the Humvees, to equip our soldiers, to adequately provide for 
their health care before they deploy, to take care of them when they 
come back, you folks are AWOL.

[[Page 14968]]

  We could do the right thing tonight. We could do the right thing 
tonight, pass a bill through the House that would immediately be taken 
up by the Senate and immediately pass and get the money into the system 
that it needs. We are not going to do that; and, yet again, we are not 
going to do the right thing because of the opposition of the majority 
party which will then somehow claim that they stood up for veterans, 
and I think that is a disgrace, and it is inaccurate compared to the 
historical record.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman attempted to give his version of the history. The 
history speaks for itself.
  Concurrent receipts is an issue that was never brought to the floor 
under the Democratic majority. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Bilirakis), a champion for veterans, filed that bill year after year 
after year for over a decade. It did not get a hearing until the 
Republicans took over. It was the Republican majority that passed it. 
It is under Republican leadership that funding per veteran has nearly 
doubled.
  Where the rubber meets the road, as the gentleman put it, has been in 
funding and support for America's soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines 
and our veterans; and it is unfortunate that we had this actuarial 
model problem, but the fact of the matter is this rule allows us to fix 
it tonight. I hope my colleagues will support that rule. Because of 
that fact, it is freeing up those funds for our veterans to correct 
this problem. It is also allowing us to move forward on other issues 
before we go home for the 4th of July work period.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Baird) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the report from the 
Committee on the Budget hearing in which the majority denied our 
efforts to add the $1.3 billion back in March.

       The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
     of the bill. The Committee anticipates that the waiver 
     includes: Rule XIII, clause 4 of House rules (requiring a 
     three-day layover of the committee report and requiring the 
     three-day availability of printed hearings on a general 
     appropriation bill); Section 306 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act (prohibiting consideration of legislation within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget unless reported 
     by the Budget Committee); and Section 401 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act (prohibiting consideration of 
     budget-related legislation, as reported, that is not subject 
     to annual appropriations).


                            committee votes

       Pursuant to clause 3(b) of House rule XIII the results of 
     each record vote on an amendment or motion to report, 
     together with the names of those voting for and against, are 
     printed below:
     Rules Committee Record Vote No. 10
       Date: March 14, 2005.
       Measure: H.R. 1268, Making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, 
     and for other purposes.
       Motion by: Mrs. Slaughter.
       Summary of motion: To make in order and provide the 
     appropriate waivers to the amendment offered by Rep. Hooley 
     to add $1.3 billion in funding to the FY06 Supplemental 
     Appropriations bill to provide health care and readjustment 
     assistance to the veterans of Iraq and the War on Terror. 
     Specifically, the amendment would provide $1.2 billion for 
     the Veterans Health Administration and $100 million for the 
     reintegration of Army National Guard members being released 
     from active duty.
       Results: Defeated 3 to 9.
       Vote by Members: Diaz-Balart--Nay; Hastings (WA)--Nay; 
     Sessions--Nay; Putnam--Nay; Capito--Nay; Cole--Nay; Bishop--
     Nay; Gingrey--Nay; Slaughter--Yea; McGovern--Yea; Hastings 
     (FL)--Yea; Dreier--Nay.
     Rules Committee Record Vote No. 11
       Date: March 14, 2005.
       Measure: H.R. 1268, Making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, 
     and for other purposes.
       Motion by: Mr. McGovern
       Summary of motion: To make in order and provide the 
     appropriate waivers to the amendment offered by Rep. Tierney 
     to establish a select committee to study, among other things, 
     the bidding, contracting, and auditing standards in the 
     issuance of government contracts; the oversight procedures 
     and forms of payment and safeguards against money laundering; 
     the accountability of contractors and government officials 
     involved in procurement; and the allocation of contracts to 
     foreign companies and small businesses.
       Results: Defeated 3 to 9.
       Vote by Members: Diaz-Balart--Nay; Hastings (WA)--Nay; 
     Sessions--Nay; Putnam--Nay; Capito--Nay; Cole--Nay; Bishop--
     Nay; Gingrey--Nay; Slaughter--Yea; McGovern--Yea; Hastings 
     (FL)--Yea; Dreier--Nay.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, all I can say to our Republican friends on the 
other side of the aisle is: ``Welcome Aboard,'' even if you are a 
little short and even if you are a little late.
  The fact is that for the last 3 years we have had a history of 
resistance by the majority party in this House to efforts by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and me to add funding for veterans 
health care above the amounts that the Republican majority saw fit to 
provide.
  Example: fiscal 2005, the budget resolution. We asked that $1.3 
billion more be made available for veterans health care. We were turned 
down. In a continuing resolution for fiscal 2005, we tried to add $2.5 
billion for veterans health care. We were turned down.

                              {time}  1930

  As recently as a month ago, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) 
was called a demagogue by a member of the majority party because he was 
insisting that the VA estimates were too low and that we needed more 
money.
  Now the VA belatedly admits that they have found a problem. The only 
problem is even under their story they found it in April and they did 
not reveal it until now. I would suggest that the VA also has a history 
of trying to chisel on veterans' benefits. Three years ago, they sent 
out instructions to veterans' service officers not to engage in 
outreach in order to inform veterans what they were entitled to, and we 
had to scold them day by day on this House floor to try to get them to 
back off, and they are still being penurious about it.
  The sad fact is that tonight what we ought to do is to take what the 
Senate did. We ought to take the $1.5 billion that the Senate 
Appropriations Committee reported out unanimously, every Republican, 
every Democrat, $1.5 billion, and they suggested that if we passed 
that, we could pass it immediately, no need for a conference, and we 
would be in great shape.
  We were told yesterday we should not bother with bringing funding up 
on the Treasury Transport bill because we wanted to rush bills through 
that could be signed faster. Well, the best way to get a bill through 
this place immediately is to take the same number the Senate is taking 
and pass it.
  Let me also simply say that I find amusing this scramble by the 
majority party leadership to finally get on board in a recognition that 
veterans need more funding. It was just 6 months ago that the majority 
party dumped the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) from his 
chairmanship of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs because he had been 
too insistent on adding money for veterans' health care. So when he got 
out of line, you dumped him and you substituted someone you thought 
would be more compliant with party leadership.
  The gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) pointed out to me that this 
message was on a billboard in a veterans hospital in her district. It 
reads: ``Important: We regret to inform you that, due to budget issues, 
we can no longer supply meals to patients. Please bring a meal from 
home if you are going to be in the short-stay unit. We apologize for 
any inconvenience.''
  Well, I think this Congress ought to apologize for the inconvenience 
that they have caused veterans for the past 3 years by refusing to 
recognize that these budgets are inadequate. We are oh so good at 
praising the soldiers when the bands are playing and they are going off 
to war. We have an obligation to be just as enthusiastic in meeting 
their needs when they come home.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I hope we 
would vote against the previous question so we can adopt the $1.5 
billion solution which the Senate, on a unanimous basis in the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, indicated was necessary.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to

[[Page 14969]]

comment, as the gentleman is aware, that this rule allows us to move 
that funding as expeditiously as possible. It requires a two-thirds 
vote from the House to move forward. I am hopeful that he and the rest 
of his side will support us on this rule so that we can get that fix 
through. We can then restore the full funding to the veterans that they 
require.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Walsh), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his 
leadership in bringing this rule to the floor that provides for 
consideration of several suspension bills, including a very important 
one.
  I have heard a lot of bellyaching tonight about what happened before 
and why we should have done something else, and why did we not do 
something this way and why did we not do it that way. I suspect that 
when all the bellyaching is over, that we will have a near unanimous, 
if not unanimous, vote, at least I hope we do, to provide these 
resources.
  We have a very logical process that we follow. It is according to our 
rules and according to our traditions. In the Committee on 
Appropriations we hold hearings in the spring, we take testimony, we 
provide oversight, we then receive our allocation, and provide the 
resources every year to meet the needs of our Nation. Again this year, 
as we did last year, and the year before, and the year before, and the 
year before, and the year before, the Veterans Administration receives 
the highest increase of any budget within the entire Federal budget. 
Year after year after year.
  The House has the power of the purse. We set our priorities with the 
money that we have. Clearly, year after year this budget, the Veterans 
Administration budget, has been our highest priority. Whether you are a 
Republican or you are a Democrat, that is the way most Members believe. 
I feel that. I hear that from my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, 
members of my subcommittee and members of the full committee. And that 
is the way we have proceeded. It is not a partisan issue, and I hope we 
will not make it one tonight. Because at the end of the day, literally, 
that will be your last vote, and I hope we are all together on it.
  What has happened since we had these hearings is that we move 
rapidly. I think everybody noticed that tonight. The appropriation 
bills for 2006 are complete. We moved rapidly. But the Veterans 
Administration has a midyear annual review, which they had just 
recently. Ensuing hearings by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
providing oversight, determined that there was a shortfall. The 
Veterans Administration brought that forward, about $1 billion, or $975 
million. They also explained that they had a work-around solution, $600 
million out of capital and $375 million in anticipated reserve that 
they would utilize to fill that void.
  We then held additional hearings, the subcommittee and the Senate 
authorization committee and the House authorization committee, and what 
we have found is that we have an accurate picture now of what that 
shortfall is. We also have an accurate sense of the Congress that we do 
not want to work-around solution. We want to provide those resources so 
that the Veterans Administration does not have to set aside repair and 
maintenance and acquisition of equipment, MRIs or computers or research 
equipment or laboratory equipment. We do not want them to have to do 
that.
  So we are going through our normal procedure. And parts of that 
procedure, when you have to go back and take a look-back at a budget, 
is a supplemental budget request. This supplemental budget request will 
be presented for the consideration of the House tonight. The request is 
to provide that shortfall, $975 million, to the Veterans Administration 
to meet the needs to complete 3 more months of this year.
  Now, people say, well, $1 billion, how could they be off $1 billion? 
My colleagues, this is a $30 billion-plus budget. This $1 billion means 
they were off by 3 percent, 3 percent, in their estimation. Now, is 
that unforgivable? Of course not. Is it a mistake? It sure is. And we 
have a way to resolve that mistake, to fix it, to correct it, and again 
to show our commitment to our Nation's veterans, especially in a time 
of war.
  We are sending a signal not only to our current veterans, but we are 
sending a signal to those heroes that are out there in the field today, 
in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the globe. We want them to know that 
the commitments we have made to them we will keep, even if it has to be 
in an extraordinary measure like this.
  So I would welcome additional comment. I would welcome the 
opportunity of those individuals who looked ahead and offered 
additional resources. But I would ask you to look at the logic of what 
we are doing. Look at the thread of logic through this whole process. 
We want to do this right, and I think we have done it right. So let us 
have the debates tonight. If you feel compelled to say ``I told you 
so,'' go ahead. But stick with us and vote for this bill and support 
our veterans in a process that is reliable and is predictable and has a 
thread of logic all the way through it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time and for her leadership on this important issue. I also want to 
acknowledge the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). He and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) have been such champions for 
America's veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, as we approach this 4th of July, we remember the 
sacrifice, the vision of our Founding Fathers, the courage, the 
imagination, and the intellect and values they presented in the 
Declaration of Independence. Since then, our country has always been 
about shared sacrifice in time of war and in time of peace. That is, up 
until now.
  As Americans, we make a simple yet sacred promise to our veterans: 
You take care of us and we will take care of you. How we repay the 
service of our veterans speaks volumes about the character of our 
country. Unfortunately, under Republican leadership, the Congress is 
failing to keep faith with the veterans who have defended our freedom 
with their very lives.
  Veterans of this country deserve some answers. Why does the 
Republican leadership in Congress find billions of dollars of tax cuts 
for the wealthiest Americans but does not find enough money for the 
veterans who risk their lives for our Nation? Why are veterans' affairs 
initiatives consistently underfunded and shortchanged, forcing 
thousands of veterans to wait months for health care? Why did the Bush 
administration suddenly discover a shortfall when we had been talking 
about this for months? Democrats and veterans organizations have been 
saying that the VA has been underfunded for more than 2 years now.
  The answer is simple: The shortfall is the direct result of the 
failed budget policies and misplaced priorities of the Bush 
administration and the Republican Congress. Republicans here have 
either been in denial about the plight of our veterans or it simply has 
not been a priority for them.
  This did not have to happen. Veterans across our country did not have 
to hear that the government had underfunded their health care. Our 
veterans did not have to give up only part of their patriotism and 
bravery in defending our Nation. Let today be the day when we begin to 
enact a GI Bill of Rights, and we can begin by responding to the call 
from the Senate.
  The reason that we are here this evening, and the effect of the 
motion that is made to the Committee on Rules on the previous question, 
would say that if we defeat the previous question, the resolution 
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) would come to the 
floor and would fund by $1.5 billion the needs for veterans' health 
care.

[[Page 14970]]

  Senator Craig said in a unanimous vote that the appropriators in the 
Senate voted to authorize the Senate to quickly take up the $1.5 
billion emergency supplemental if the House approves such a measure. So 
a vote ``no'' on the previous question says ``yes'' to bringing up the 
Edwards resolution, which would immediately send it to the Senate, 
where they would take it up immediately, pass it, and send it to the 
President's desk.
  Instead, the Republicans are advocating a different position, which 
is to once again shortchange America's veterans. On a battlefield, Mr. 
Speaker, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a Nation, 
let our pledge be that when they return home, we leave no veteran 
behind. We can support our veterans with a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question, and a 'yes' on the Edwards resolution, and a ``yes'' for our 
veterans. That would be the appropriate observation of the 4th of July.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the President's call for flying the flag on 
the 4th of July. Let us fly the flag and fund veterans' benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, as we approach this Fourth of July, we remember the 
sacrifice of our Founding Fathers--the courage, the imagination, the 
intellect, and the values they presented in the Declaration of 
Independence. And since then, our country has always been about shared 
sacrifice--when it came to war, and when it came to peace. That is, up 
until now.
  As Americans, we make a simple yet sacred promise to our veterans: 
``You have taken care of us, so we will take care of you.'' How we 
repay the service of our veterans speaks volumes about our national 
character. Unfortunately under Republican leadership, the Congress is 
failing to keep faith with the veterans who have defended our freedom 
with their very lives.
  Veterans in this country deserve some answers. Why does the 
Republican leadership in Congress find billions in tax cuts for the 
wealthiest Americans, but does not find enough money for the veterans 
who risked their lives for our Nation? Why are Veterans Affairs 
initiatives consistently underfunded, forcing thousands of veterans to 
wait months for health care? Why did the Bush Administration suddenly 
discover a shortfall, when Democrats and veterans have been saying that 
the VA was underfunded for more than 2 years now?
  The answer is simple: this shortfall is the direct result of the 
failed budget policies and misplaced priorities of the Bush 
Administration and the Republican Congress.
  This did not have to happen. Veterans across our Nation did not have 
to hear that their government had under funded their health care; our 
veterans did not give only part of their patriotism and bravery in 
defending our Nation.
  For more than two years, Democrats and veterans' organizations have 
stood together, calling for adequate funding.
  We have sent letters, we have offered amendments, and we have 
launched a discharge petition to try to force a vote on additional 
funding for veterans' health care. We have tried time and time again, 
only to be rebuffed by the Republicans in Congress every step of the 
way. Vote after vote failed on the party line.
  For our latest attempt, we sent a letter, signed by every single 
Democrat, to President Bush calling for an emergency supplemental to 
fund VA health care.
  It seems that our voices were finally heard. Democrats have made this 
too hot for the Republicans to handle.
  The truth has come out. The Bush Administration and the Republicans 
in Congress are finally admitting to what we've been saying for 2 
years.
  And today we have a chance in taking the first step in righting a 
wrong. The problem is that once again, the Republicans are a day late 
and dollar short.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee has authorized the Senate to 
quickly take up a $1.5 billion emergency supplemental if the House 
passes the same.
  The Chairman of the Senate Veteran's Committee has stated, and I 
quote, ``Clearly there is a disagreement here on the number, but it's 
clear that we all want to do the right thing for our veterans. We do 
not want to leave the Department of Veterans Affairs short of funds. 
Working with our colleagues in the House, I'm sure we can achieve that 
objective.''
  The VA desperately needs this funding. And to get it done today the 
House must pass $1.5 billion for our veterans.
  The ultimate fix would be what veterans and the Ranking Democrat on 
the Veterans Affairs Committee, Lane Evans, have been calling for. They 
are correct, the only way to assure funding for VA health care: make it 
mandatory.
  But let us start today by voting no on the previous question, so we 
can offer an amendment that would increase the amount for veterans to 
$1.5 billion to match the Senate amount.
  Caring for our veterans shouldn't be a partisan issue. It should be 
our number one priority. Our veterans deserve better.
  We must fulfill our sacred obligations to those who have worn this 
Nation's uniform.
  My wish is that today's vote will lead to a renewed bipartisan 
commitment for our veterans.
  Let today be the beginning of a new chapter, let today be the day 
when this government no longer ignores the promises we've made, and 
provide the support our veterans have earned and deserve.
  Let today be the day when we begin ending the Disabled Veterans' Tax 
for every single veteran.
  Let today be the day when we begin fully ending the Military Families 
Tax.
  Let today be the day when we begin to enact a new GI Bill of Rights 
for the 21st Century.
  On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. 
As a Nation, let it be our pledge that when they return home, we leave 
no veteran behind.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from New York called this frustration 
bellyaching. It is not. In my office last month was a wounded veteran 
from Iraqi Freedom. His leg had been nearly blown off by an IED. He had 
been repeatedly and routinely denied care just as a default to say 
``you are not service-connected here.'' I saw the leg. It was damn near 
blown off.
  Because of shortfalls in funding, the people who have served this 
country and nearly gave their lives, but did give their limbs, are not 
getting the care they need. It is more than bellyaching to stand up for 
them. I would invite the gentleman from New York to do something we do 
not do very often here. Let us step out of the box and stop the 
partisan fighting.
  Here is the situation here today. If we pass the $975 million that 
the majority is putting forward, there is no way the Senate can 
conference that before the July 4th recess. The other body has said 
that if we pass $1.5 billion in the House, the same bill as theirs, it 
will be on the President's desk and can be signed and we can do 
something substantive rather than symbolic before July 4th. What is 
wrong with doing that for our veterans?
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BAIRD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, the Senate attached this 2005 funding to an 
2006 bill, which will not take effect within the 2005 year. If they 
take up this bill on a stand-alone basis, the President can sign it 
tomorrow.

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is different. The gentleman 
may be right.
  My point is we have tried repeatedly on our side of the aisle to get 
additional funding for the veterans. We had hearings before the 
Committee on the Budget. The $1.3 billion figure that the gentlewoman 
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and I tried to add and were defeated by the 
majority, we did not draw out of thin air. It came from hearings before 
the Committee on the Budget. Veterans groups, as the gentlemen know, 
roundly criticized the majority budget as woefully underfunding 
veterans' needs. This did not come as a surprise. We saw it coming. We 
tried to tell you it was coming. You denied it repeatedly; and the sad 
part is for all of our bickering and complaining here, the people who 
suffered were the soldiers, and they are suffering today. We need to 
solve this problem.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for pointing out the flaws in the

[[Page 14971]]

argument. If we pass the $975 million tonight, the Senate can take it 
up tomorrow. The relief is there immediately. It is not a game of 
political one-upsmanship or the Polk County fair where we have this 
bidding contest going on.
  The $975 million is out there before the July 4 break. It will be on 
the Senate's desk for them to take up. That is the responsible approach 
for this House to adopt at this point in the week as we continue to 
work through all of our avenues of support to get all of this 
assistance and help and rehabilitation to the veterans in need.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that if we pass $1.5 billion, we can 
do the same thing, take the Senate bill and get it finished tomorrow.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Corrine Brown).
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have been on the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 13 years, and let me say one thing: 
we do not have a shortage of money here in this Congress. We pass 
whatever we want whenever we want. The problem is, and I rise on behalf 
of all of the veterans, the problem is that there is not the will. The 
veterans are not the priority.
  What I said in committee I say on this floor today. We can send $1.5 
billion over to the Senate. They can pick it up, pass it, and tomorrow 
morning the President will be taking pictures, taking credit for it; 
but who wins will be the veterans.
  I am reminded of the words of the first President of the United 
States, George Washington, whose words are worth repeating at this 
time: ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve 
in any war, no matter how justifiable,'' and we are going to question 
that, ``will be directly proportionate as to how they perceive the 
veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated.''
  Now let us not sham them. Everybody knows that the veterans need $3 
billion; not $1 billion, $3 billion. That is what the independent 
budget says. The other side of the aisle is not surprised. They know 
what they need.
  Why is it we cannot come together and give them something more than 
this lip service? You all talk a great talk. Let us all come together 
and walk the walk for the veterans tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of veterans everywhere. What has been 
introduced here today is a sham. The emergency supplemental sent over 
by the President and accepted by the Republican leadership is wholly 
inadequate. This $975 million breaks down with money for many needed 
accounts; however, why should we believe their numbers now?
  They lied to us when submitting their budget in February, they lied 
to us when they came to our committees in April, they did not discuss 
any issues with the minority members of the Veterans Committee. What do 
we know that the Senate does not? Why is there more than $500 million 
less for veterans in this bill? Why are we still trying to balance the 
budget on the backs of the veterans?
  The 3 surgical operating rooms at the White River Junction VA Medical 
Center in Vermont had to be closed on June 27 because the heating, 
ventilation, and air conditioning system was broken and had not been 
repaired due to the siphoning of maintenance funds to cover the budget 
shortfall.
  The Community Based Outpatient Clinics needed to meet veterans' 
increased demand for care in the North Florida/South Georgia VA 
Healthcare System have been delayed due to fiscal constraints. As of 
April, the Gainesville facility has nearly 700 service-connected 
veterans waiting for more than 30 days for an appointment. As a result 
of cost cutting measures to make up for the shortfall in FY 2005, the 
Portland, Oregon, VA Medical Center is delaying all non-emergent 
surgery by at least six months. Veterans in need of knee replacement 
surgery won't be treated because of the budget shortfall.
  The goal of the Republicans and President Bush is to delay funding to 
veterans health. By passing this level of funding, we are guaranteed a 
conference. That will delay funding. Our veterans cannot wait! Support 
our Veterans! Defeat the Previous Question and fully fund veterans 
health care! I am reminded of the words of the first President of the 
United States, George Washington, whose words are worth repeating at 
this time:

       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.

  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, we are asking young Americans, men and 
women alike, to fight a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan. As we debate 
funding for veterans tonight, if the Congress is going to err, should 
we not err a little bit on the side of veterans rather than erring on 
the side of shortchanging them?
  I must say I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and 
his effort in this process to fix a hole in veterans funding that I 
believe was created by repeated denials of the Republican House 
leadership at a real cost of providing quality health care for our 
veterans. It has been going on for 2 years, not 1 or 2 weeks, but 2 
years.
  I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his efforts this 
week. This bill would move it a step forward. But why in the world 
would the House Republican leadership refuse to even consider the $1.5 
billion funding level that I think is needed to adequately fund VA 
health care during a time of war?
  Let me put this debate in perspective. Over a year ago, the 
Republican chairman of the VA committee, the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith), stood up and said in a bipartisan letter to the House 
Committee on the Budget that if you do not add $2.5 billion in 2005 to 
the VA health care budget, we are going to have to cut veterans 
services during a time of war, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) said that was wrong, and he was right to say it would be wrong.
  How did the House Republican leadership honor the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) for standing up for veterans? Did they salute him? 
No, they fired him. They not only fired him from his position as 
chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, took him off the 
Committee on Veterans Affairs' altogether.
  Now the same leadership that punished a Member of the House for 
standing up for veterans during a time of war is asking us on a few 
minutes' notice to support the funding level for the VA health care 
crisis that is nearly $600 million less than that approved on a 
bipartisan basis by the United States Senate.
  If we are going to err, why not err on the side of veterans? The same 
people who provided the numbers that put together this bill, it was put 
together on a partisan basis. I was not approached as ranking member of 
the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs to 
help determine what the number should be.
  If this had been done on a bipartisan basis today, perhaps we could 
have all come up with a number that we all could have agreed upon.
  If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) had his way, I think it 
would have been done in a bipartisan way. But the decision to make this 
a partisan bill tonight was made by the same House Republican 
leadership that chose a year ago to turn its back on veterans when it 
fired the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for saying we should 
adequately fund veterans health care.
  Let us err on the side of honoring our veterans tonight, not 
shortchanging them. And the Senate, the other body, has made it 
perfectly clear that it would take up immediately the bill that we 
would like to have voted on the House tonight to add $1.5 billion to VA 
health care spending for the year 2005.
  It is a sad day when Members of this House are punished for standing 
up for veterans. Let no one on the Republican side of the aisle say 
these are just Democrats making partisan fights. We have been accused 
of that for the last 2 years by some who now want to say you were 
right, our numbers were wrong.

[[Page 14972]]

  We should come together tonight. I would plead on a bipartisan basis 
to support the $1.5 billion funding level for veterans health care that 
the Senate has already adopted on a bipartisan basis. I would urge the 
House Republican leadership to stop punishing and intimidating Members 
of this House who will put their loyalty to veterans above their 
loyalty to partisanship. Let us do the right thing.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman continues to say this is a partisan issue. I would 
venture to agree with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh): the vote 
on this will be anything but partisan. I would venture to say that the 
support for restoring the $975 million mistake that the VA made will be 
a very broad, bipartisan, nonpartisan vote because I cannot imagine 
that anybody would stand in the way of that money finding its way into 
the veterans' hands, and the medical clinics and hospitals that so 
desperately need it.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has identified the need as 
being $1.5 billion. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) 
has identified the need as being $3 billion. The VA and the 
administration has said it is $975 million. If we as a House pass that 
$975 million, get it into the hands of the people who need it, if we 
find between now and the end of the fiscal year, because that is the 
number that has been stated that is needed for the remainder of the 
fiscal year, but we will be back here in a week, and if we find that 
more is needed, without question it would be given again on a broad 
bipartisan vote.
  But we believe that the correct number based on the new actuarial 
study, based on the request of the Secretary, based on the request of 
the administration is $975 million. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Corrine Brown) believes it is $3 billion, but she is only willing to 
put half of that up by asking for $1.5 billion. We are willing to fund 
all that we believe the VA has requested to get them through the 
remainder of this fiscal year. This is not a partisan issue. This is an 
issue of huge importance to all of our veterans. I think that all of us 
on a broad bipartisan basis should pass this rule which allows us to 
get this money to them.
  I want to correct another issue that continues to be repeated by the 
other side of the aisle. The Senate has not passed a penny for the 
veterans. It has been reported out of their committee. What we are 
doing here tonight allows the entire House to act on this 
appropriations request and get it over there to the Senate as quickly 
as possible.
  As usual, we are ahead of the Senate on this issue, and we are acting 
as quickly as possible to get them the request the administration has 
made for the remainder of the fiscal year. It has not been taken up by 
the Senate. It has not passed out of the Senate, it has only come out 
of committee. We have put this thing on the fast track to get veterans 
the help they need.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, I echo the sentiments of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards), who has been a tireless advocate of veterans 
benefits. I am a veteran and a son of a veteran who has a son who just 
became a veteran, so I echo the gentleman's sentiments.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our veterans, our troops, and 
H.R. 3130. Since I was elected, we have buried five soldiers in the 
Third Congressional District. As we drape our Nation's flag over their 
coffins, are we supposed to tell their families that our budget 
prevents them from getting promised benefits? As we celebrate July 4 
and march in parades alongside the heroes of World War II, Vietnam, 
Korea, and the Persian Gulf, are we supposed to tell these veterans 
that last week's accounting error will prevent them from being seen by 
a doctor? And that not only will they have to travel 5 hours to see a 
doctor, but once they get there, they will be turned away?
  They did not turn away when we called upon them to serve our country. 
They did not turn away from putting their lives on the line for our 
freedoms. We cannot turn away from them now.
  It should not take an emergency or bad press coverage for this 
administration to care about the health of our Nation's veterans. In a 
time of war, bringing our troops home safely and taking care of our 
veterans is our number one priority.
  This administration has let our Nation's heroes suffer because of a 
mismanaged budget. This is absolutely shameful and unacceptable. No one 
should ever let the troops and veterans be an afterthought. We need to 
provide this money now. We need to guarantee all future funding for the 
Veterans Administration so our Nation's heroes never have to suffer 
from a mismanaged budget again.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in response to the 
comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), he cannot name one 
Democrat in this House that was approached in putting together this 
bill dealing with veterans health care. If that is not partisan, I do 
not know what is.
  What were the Republicans afraid of in working with Democrats to come 
up with a bill to fix the problem that the Republican leadership 
created? By the way, the same leadership passed a budget resolution 
this year cutting veterans health care benefits by $14 billion over the 
next 5 years. Forgive me if I do not trust that same leadership coming 
forward with this bill tonight.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas is a champion for veterans and 
has been for years, and I do not take anything away from him on that. 
But the fact of the matter is that for the last 10 years, veterans 
funding per veteran has doubled under Republican leadership. The 
funding overall has continued to grow. It has grown, as the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh) pointed out, at the highest rate of any 
agency in the government. As I said earlier, the vote on this issue 
will not be a partisan one. Every Member is committed to move this 
funding to the veterans as quickly as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me quickly point out that this should 
come as no surprise. The President's budget for 2005 cut veterans 
appropriated funding $248 million below the Congressional Budget Office 
estimate of what was needed to keep pace for inflation in 2005 and 
$13.4 billion below current services over 5 years. For 2006, the 
President's budget called the even deeper cuts. Excluding the proposal 
to impose new and unrealistic fees, it cut funding for veterans 
appropriated programs $759 million below current services necessary to 
keep pace with inflation, $18 billion below inflation over 5 years.
  Democrats have offered alternatives every year on this floor that 
would have covered the shortfalls the V.A. has identified. In 2005, we 
offered a budget resolution with $2.5 billion more than the President 
requested. In 2006, we offered a budget resolution with $2.3 billion 
over the President's request. And every year the outyear funding that 
we proposed was also substantially more than they proposed, and that is 
a problem we are not even discussing tonight because consistently what 
has happened here is there has been a little plus-up in the near term 
and a flattening out in the long term, and we inherit the consequences 
and episodes like this.
  If we had passed the resolutions that Democrats supported and brought 
to this floor, we would not be here tonight discussing this bill.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Florida for yielding me this time.

[[Page 14973]]

  I always take a keen interest in these debates on veterans' health 
care issues. I actually work in a veterans' health care facility. I 
volunteer once a month; I see patients. And I have been doing it for 
years, and we have seen for years a tremendous explosion in demand for 
access to our veterans' health care system. And some of it has been 
generated by this Congress. We relaxed some of the access requirements. 
Some of it has been generated by the high cost of prescription drugs. A 
lot of the new patients coming into the system are people who do not 
have a prescription drug benefit. And, of course, now we have increased 
demand with the consequence of the war.
  And I want to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) on this 
rule. I think it is a good rule, and I want to commend the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh). He has worked very hard to address this 
shortfall. And, personally, I think we, as a Congress and as a 
Committee on Appropriations, need to take a very close look at the bill 
that we have already passed to address the 2006 needs, and this 
situation that we are dealing with today, I think, is the right thing 
for us to do. It is the best thing for our veterans. I know in the 
State of Florida, where I work and where I live, it has more than 
doubled, the number of veterans that have come into the system in the 
last 6 years, and it is truly breathtaking the number of people who are 
coming into the veterans system on a regular basis.
  So I commend the author of this supplemental, and I believe it is the 
right thing for us to do for our veterans. We are in a state of war, 
and we need to send a signal to young people who want to enlist, to 
people who are serving and the people who have served that the Congress 
is going to stand with them and we are going to address these needs 
properly.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman 
from New York have repeatedly said that this will be a nearly unanimous 
passage. That may be true because the only thing we can unanimously 
agree on is the lower number. The Republicans will not agree on the 
higher number, which is what the veterans need. The Democrats will 
agree on the lower number because it is all they are really willing to 
give us. But if they truly cared for the veterans, they would agree 
with us and we would have unanimous vote on the $1.5 billion.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Before I start, I will insert in the Record the news release from 
Senator Craig, Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman, and the New 
York Times editorial today called ``The True Cost of War.''

  Senate to Quickly Take Up $1.5 Billion Measure for Veterans If Sent 
                             From the House

       Washington, DC--The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee 
     retreated its position today that the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs need $1.5 billion to fill a spending gap for the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs. In a unanimous vote, the 
     appropriators voted to authorize the Senate to quickly take 
     up a $1.5 billion emergency supplemental if the House 
     approves such a measure.
       That action came after the Bush Administration indicated 
     earlier today that the agency needs $975 million.
       ``Clearly there is disagreement here on the number, but 
     it's clear that we all want to do the right thing for 
     veterans. We do not want to leave the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs short of funds,'' said Sen. Larry Craig who serves on 
     the Appropriations Committee and is Chairman of the Senate 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs. ``Working with our colleagues 
     in the House, I'm sure we can achieve that objective.''

                [From the New York Times, June 30, 2005]

                          The True Cost of War

       In anger and embarrassment, Congressional Republicans are 
     scrambling to repair a budget shortfall in veterans' medical 
     care now that the Bush administration has admitted it vastly 
     underestimated the number of returning Iraq and Afghanistan 
     personnel needing treatment. The $1 billion-plus gaffe is 
     considerable, with the original budget estimate of 23,553 
     returned veterans needing care this year now ballooning to 
     103,000. American taxpayers should be even more furious than 
     Congress.
       The Capitol's Republican majorities have shown no 
     hesitation in signing the president's serial blank-check 
     supplemental budgets for waging the war, yet they repeatedly 
     ignored months of warnings from Democrats that returning 
     veterans were being shortchanged. One Republican who warned 
     of the problem--Representative Christopher Smith of New 
     Jersey--lost his chairmanship of the Veterans' Affairs 
     Committee after pressing his plea too boldly before the House 
     leadership.
       But partisan resistance melted in a flood of political 
     chagrin once the administration admitted the budget error, 
     which was first discovered in April but only now disclosed. 
     The explanation offered--the gaffe was due to using dated 
     formulas based on prewar calculations--left Republicans 
     sputtering all the more.
       All wars necessarily involve mismanagement, even successful 
     ones. But there is no excuse for treating the needs of 
     wounded and damaged warriors as a budgetary afterthought. 
     Congressional Republicans were far from innocent victims of 
     administrative ineptitude or deception. After years of 
     approving record tax cuts and budget deficits, they stuck to 
     this year's pre-election script of fictitious ``budget 
     tightening'' that underestimated inevitable expenses and 
     shortchanged returning veterans with higher health care 
     enrollment fees and drug co-payments. The only comfort for 
     the American public is that unlike many of the war's 
     problems, this one can be repaired, providing partisan combat 
     is suspended in the Capitol.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be asking Members to vote 
``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, 
I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to 
immediately consider H.R. 3136, legislation introduced by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
that provides an immediately desperately needed $1.5 billion in funding 
for veterans medical service. This amount is the same level that was 
approved by the Senate last night and is what is needed to fully care 
for our Nation's veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the White House and the VA were not 
honest about this shortfall in the first place because if they had 
been, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said, we would 
not need to be here tonight. But I think now even the most skeptical of 
my colleagues in the House realize that our veterans' health care 
system is in a serious crisis. And while it is encouraging that after 
feeling the pressure brought to bear by the American people that the 
Republican leadership has reversed course and agreed to take some 
action, it is unclear to me why they are providing only $975 million 
instead of the full amount needed. How can we believe the same people 
who told us there was no problem?
  Senator Craig is asking the leadership of this body to pass a bill 
and let him have that $1.5 billion out of here so they can finish work 
on this in the morning. Clearly, clearly, we must do that for our 
veterans. Remember, we have a contract with them. When we sent them off 
to war, we guaranteed that we will meet their needs.
  So please vote ``no'' on the previous question, and we can vote today 
for full funding of our veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of closing, I yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), 
distinguished chairman of the Military Quality of Life and Veterans 
Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Committee on 
Appropriations; who has been a champion for veterans funding, who has 
been there year in and year out. He shepherded, along with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and other Members of this House, 
the first concurrent receipt bill in the history of this country, 
double-digit funding increases for veterans, a doubling of funding for 
veterans over the last decade, a real champion for the veterans.

[[Page 14974]]


  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  After all the speeches and the rhetoric, really the big difference 
here is the dollar amount. We all realize there is a shortfall. We all 
support closing the gap. So the issue is $1.5 billion that the Senate 
acted on. One Member said it was 3, but I think most people, at least 
on the opposite side of the aisle, agree that it is $1.5 billion. We 
believe it is $975 million. So everything else really at this point is 
rhetoric. We just need to try to address that. And I tried for the life 
of me to figure out where this $1.5 billion figure came from. I know 
the Senate is working with that figure, because everything we have 
heard from the Veterans Administration was that they had a work-around 
solution to come up with $600 million out of their capital fund and 
$375 million out of their reserve fund to close this gap in different 
lines of health care within the hospital system, and that would add up 
to that $975 million.
  The $1.5 million is still a big question mark, and the only thing I 
can come up with is that, in a conversation I had with OMB Director 
Bolten, he mentioned that there may be, they do not know but they are 
working on it, a shortfall in 2006, in 2006, of somewhere between $1.1 
and $1.6 billion. And that is 2006. No one, no one, has ever mentioned 
the fact that there is a shortfall in 2005 of $1.5 billion. So we have 
what I think is a number that is provided through a logical process, 
through testimony in the hearings presented by the head of the health 
administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary.
  This, I believe, is as close to what we can get as what the gap is. 
Let us support it on a bipartisan basis. Let us support the rule and 
consider the bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     it shall be in order without intertention of any point of 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3136) making 
     emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2005 for veterans medical 
     services. The bill shall be considered as read for amendment. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
     60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  Mr. PUTNAM. 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PUTNAM. 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. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 191, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 359]

                               YEAS--216

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Berman
     Boehner
     Butterfield
     Cardin
     Cramer
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Harman
     Higgins
     Keller
     Kingston
     Musgrave
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Smith (NJ)
     Solis
     Waters
     Wicker

                              {time}  2030

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 359 on H. Res. 345 
concerning the previous question, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay''.

[[Page 14975]]


  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 359, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________