[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8820-8828]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5385, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, 
 MILITARY QUALITY OF LIFE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 821 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 821

       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. 5385) making appropriations for the military 
     quality of life functions of the Department of Defense, 
     military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2007, 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 for title IV. During consideration of the bill 
     for amendment, the Chairman of the Committe 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 considereed 
     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 (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), 
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, H. Res. 821 is an open rule. It provides one hour of 
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the 
ranking minority member of the Appropriations Committee. It waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill. Under the rules of 
the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. This rule 
waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
comply with clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting

[[Page 8821]]

unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an 
appropriation bill, except as specified in the resolution. It 
authorizes the Chair to accord priority and recognition to Members who 
have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and it 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 821 and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 5385, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans 
Affairs Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2007.
  First, I want to thank and recognize Chairman Walsh and Chairman 
Lewis for all of the work they have put into this bill. The committee 
did a great job of staying within the framework of the President's 
budget request and ensuring the needs of our veterans, those currently 
serving and their families.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill totals $136.1 billion, which is an 
increase of almost $14 billion over last year's level, more than 10 
percent. Of this $136 billion, the bill provides $41.4 billion in 
mandatory spending and $94.7 billion in discretionary spending.
  The bill provides $77.9 billion for veterans' programs, marking 
approximately a 10 percent increase over the 2006 enacted level. 
Particularly important is the $32.7 billion for veterans' medical 
services, 11 percent more than the 2006 enacted level and $38 million 
above the President's request.
  Additionally, the committee followed the recommendations of various 
veterans groups to make sure more funds are provided to meet the needs 
of veterans returning from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. I must also 
emphasize to the veterans back home in the 11th Congressional District 
of Georgia, northwest Georgia particularly, and all across this 
country, that this bill does not, I want to repeat, it does not contain 
any new fees for veterans' medical services or prescription drugs. It 
does, however, increase mandatory veterans' benefits by $4.2 billion 
over the 2006 level.
  So, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5385 also includes significant increases in 
funding to improve the lives of our veterans and their families. It 
provides an additional $25 million to open a minimum of 10 new 
community based outpatient clinics and an additional $20 million to 
make facility improvements to existing State veterans' homes.
  Further, this bill increases basic medical research by $13 million; 
and it includes an additional $12 million to begin upgrades to VA 
medical research facilities nationwide.
  In regards to military construction, this bill provides $10.6 
billion: $5.6 billion for active duty construction, a billion dollars 
in construction for our reserve components, and $4 billion for the 
construction of housing for our servicemembers and their families.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5385 provides $21 billion, an increase of 
$1 billion over current levels, to fund the health defense program 
allowing for the ongoing preparation of our brave soldiers, sailors, 
airmen and marines, while caring for their families back home.
  Without question, we are again in a tough budget year; and while the 
underlying bill may not be perfect, it does ensure that scarce 
resources are allocated in the most effective, efficient and 
responsible manner possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this debate. I encourage my colleagues 
to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us will allow the House to consider the 
fiscal year 2007 Military Quality of Life and Veterans Administration 
Appropriations bill. All Members know that the support in this bill for 
military housing, for veterans' health care, and for retiree benefits 
is part of the promise we made to the men and women when they joined 
our Armed Forces.
  As we consider this bill, there should be little disagreement over 
the tremendous demands being placed on the Veterans Administration and 
on the military construction accounts.
  In 1995, the VA treated 2.6 million veterans and their families. By 
the end of this year, that number will have more than doubled to an 
estimated 5.4 million people. This places additional stress on the many 
hospitals and the VA network. These World War II-era buildings are 
badly in need of upgrades at the cost of billions over the next 5 to 10 
years.
  It was for this reason, increased strain in time of war, that the 
Democrats have consistently criticized the administration's less-than-
adequate funding for veterans and veterans' health care.
  Last year, the administration admitted to accounting errors which 
underestimated the demand for veterans' services by $3 billion in 
fiscal years 2005 and 2006. It turned out that the administration had 
failed to account for the new veterans, those returning from the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. After Democrats, the American Legion, the 
Disabled American Veterans and many other veterans organizations 
expressed outrage, steps were taken retroactively to address the 
shortfall.
  With that backdrop, this year's appropriations bill does increase 
veterans' medical services by $2.6 billion over last year's amount. 
Unfortunately, it does so by employing a budget gimmick.
  This year's shortsighted budget did not provide full funding to meet 
this Nation's veterans' health care needs in a time of war. So the 
Military Quality of Life Appropriations Subcommittee was forced to 
boost money for veterans using money originally designated for military 
housing and then pay for military housing by declaring that money 
emergency funding.
  In truth, it was no emergency. It was simply a shell game that 
ignored the principle of shared sacrifice upon which our Nation has 
relied in every other time of war, except this one. These budget 
gimmicks should come as no surprise. Even to the casual observer, this 
majority has shown disregard for budget matters. After all, 3 years 
into the Iraq War, the administration and this majority continue to 
fund it with ``emergency spending.''
  We are using a credit card to pay for war and sending the bill to our 
children and our grandchildren. Nonetheless, it must be noted that the 
only reason this bill comes close to meeting the health needs of so 
many veterans is because of this gimmick. And the bill pays for 
construction of some housing for military families, but again only 
because of this gimmick. Many Members on both sides of the aisle are 
frustrated with this approach.
  Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government cannot go back on our 
responsibility to support our troops, assist their families, and 
continue our commitment to the veterans. This responsibility is 
particularly important in a time of war. With troops fighting the war 
in Iraq, they should not be the only ones to make sacrifices; they must 
be shared by all Americans. No loopholes for a select few, no kicking 
the can down the road for another generation to deal with by way of 
increasing the national debt.
  In cities and towns across America, our constituents notice when 
Congress uses these gimmicks. My local paper, in fact, hit on this very 
theme of sacrifice in time of war earlier this week, and I include for 
the Record an editorial from the Sacramento Bee. Its title says it all: 
``Where's the Sacrifice.'' I could not agree more.

                [From the Sacramento Bee, May 16, 2006]

                         Where's the Sacrifice?

       The Republican majority in Congress wants to go into the 
     November elections bragging that they've cut taxes again. The 
     House and Senate just extended record-high Bush tax cuts 
     until 2010. They call it a political victory.
       Will the American people really buy this one-note chant 
     again?
       It represents the triumph of rigid ideology over practical 
     reality.
       At a time of war, these members of Congress are demanding 
     sacrifice only of the young people fighting in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan. The tax cuts of 2001, 2002 and 2003 have given 
     us record-high deficits and debt, driving this country into a 
     financial mess political leaders are passing on to future 
     generations.
       The tax cutters rely on two fallacious arguments.
       The first is the ``starve the beast'' idea. Tax cuts, the 
     theory goes, will reduce government revenues and choke off 
     government

[[Page 8822]]

     spending, making government smaller. Even conservative 
     economists now reject that hypothesis. For example, 
     economists William Niskanen and Peter Van Doren of the Cato 
     Institute show convincingly that since 1981, for each one 
     percentage point decline in tax revenues, federal spending 
     increases by about one-half percent of GDP. Government 
     spending grows because tax cuts make government look cheaper 
     than it actually is, so people want more of it. A tax 
     increase does a better job of reducing government because it 
     forces people to pay for government services.
       At least ``starve the beast'' proponents were honest in 
     saying that tax cuts would reduce government revenues.
       Today you have members of Congress actually saying the 
     opposite: ``Lower tax rates equal more federal revenue.'' The 
     facts show otherwise. Bush tax cuts have contributed to 
     revenues dropping in 2004 to the lowest level as a share of 
     the U.S. economy since 1950. Where revenues typically have 
     been 17 percent to 20 percent of the economy, in 2004 they 
     were 16.3 percent, according to the Congressional Budget 
     Office.
       A CBO report, ``Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary 
     Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates,'' shows that 
     a 10 percent cut in income tax rates lowers revenues by $775 
     billion over 10 years.
       So when tax cut proponents say that tax cuts benefit the 
     Treasury, take it with a grain of salt.
       The tax cut vote was a party line vote. Voters know whom to 
     blame for the nation's financial mess come November.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his leadership on getting this rule together and also to 
Chairman Dreier and the members of the Rules Committee for their help 
and support.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that we can be very proud of. After all, 
we are a Nation at war, and the way we treat our veterans of past wars 
is a very clear signal to our current active duty people as to how they 
will be treated in the future. And the commitments we have made in the 
past are being met in this bill.
  One of the key issues always in the Military Quality of Life and 
Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill is veterans' medical care, the 
Veterans Health Administration. We have provided almost a 13 percent 
increase in veterans' medical care in this bill, a remarkable increase, 
although consistent with the last 6 or 7 years where we have 
dramatically ramped up funding.
  No other budget within the Federal Government's entire purview has 
received the increases that the Veterans Health Administration has.
  Clearly Congress, especially the House, establishes its priorities by 
the funds it provides, it allocates, it appropriates on the 
discretionary side of the budget. If that is any indication, our 
commitment to our Nation's veterans is the highest priority of the 
House of Representatives and indeed the Congress.
  We have also provided additional resources for the benefits 
administration to make sure that we bring down the time frames that 
veterans are forced to wait until their benefits issues are resolved. 
We are working on reducing those delays.
  We have also mandated that the Veterans Administration create a 
minimum of 10 new veterans' outreach clinics. This is part of the CARES 
Commission statement. People all over the country, veterans all over 
the country, are benefiting from these new veterans' clinics. The 
quality of health care has improved dramatically. We are getting to the 
veterans much sooner, and the process that they follow, they can be 
treated at the clinics or, if it is a more serious health issue, they 
can then be referred to the hospital.

                              {time}  0930

  But we are getting veterans into the system much sooner, and the view 
on the part of veterans and their service organizations is that this is 
a very important major improvement and breakthrough in veterans care. 
Additionally, we provided more money for mental health.
  One of the real focuses of this subcommittee has been not only mental 
health, which it has been, but also the transition from active duty to 
veterans status. What we found is that because of the difficulties, 
very serious challenges to find a safe place for our soldiers in 
Afghanistan or in Iraq, many of them are coming back with very serious 
mental health issues, post-traumatic stress disorder and other issues 
that have caused great stress on the soldier, sailor, airman, marine 
and their families, additionally, when they return.
  One of the things that we will require is that all of our active duty 
people enter into a dialogue with our mental health professionals 
within the service while they are active in the field.
  Currently, if a soldier has a concern about their mental health, or 
they are upset or they are depressed or they are anxious about things 
and they want to get some advice, they have to voluntarily go forward, 
step forward. People worry about a stigma. How does that affect my 
record in the future if I go and seek out help?
  What we have stated, stipulated in this bill, is that every one of 
our active duty people will have, as part of their service, a regular 
routine of working with mental health professionals, psychiatrists, 
psychologists, counselors, so that there is no stigma, that everybody 
is in the mix. That way we think that our folks who are in very 
stressful situations, very dangerous situations, will be more at ease 
in how they go about getting this very important aspect of their health 
in order.
  Additionally, this subcommittee is responsible for the defense 
health, TRICARE for Life, et cetera. While the increase is not as 
substantial as it is in veterans, it is a healthy increase. My view is 
that as we go forward into conference with the Senate, hopefully we 
will be able to add additional resources within the defense health 
portion of this budget to make sure that we are meeting needs.
  Our subcommittee traveled last year to Europe. We visited Landstuhl 
hospital in Germany. It is truly remarkable the quality of care that 
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines are receiving there.
  In the field, the Medevac units, the quality of care in the combat 
zone is beyond description. It is that good. In the history of war, 
there has never been health care like we are providing today. We can be 
very proud of that. But we have to make sure that the resources are 
there, that they are allocated to make sure that those needs are met.
  One last point, and that is on the military construction, we have a 
lot of money in this bill to roll out the 2005 BRAC. The Army, which is 
very dependent upon this, asked us to get as much money forward as we 
could, so we did. That was a priority for us, Army is going through 
transformation, they are going through BRAC. We have people moving from 
Europe to the U.S., from one place in Asia to another, from places in 
Asia back to the U.S., and it is all part of this process.
  We want to make sure that they had the resources up front so that 
they could get this moving and meet the commitments that they have 
made, not only to us, to the taxpayers, but to the troops.
  As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that we can all 
be very, very proud of. It has been a bill that we have worked very 
closely on in a bipartisan way with my opposite number on the 
Democratic side, Mr. Edwards, we have collaborated well.
  I would like to, just again, thank the Rules Committee for the rule.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of representing 
over 40,000 soldiers from Texas who have fought for our country in 
Iraq. I have one of the larger veterans populations in America, and 
that is why I am grateful to have the privilege to work with Chairman 
Walsh in my position as ranking member of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs.
  I will talk about the substance of the bill that will be on the floor 
in a few

[[Page 8823]]

moments after the rule debate is over. But let me just list four 
reasons why I oppose this particular rule to bring our bill to the 
floor.
  First, as I understand this rule, it could possibly leave as much as 
a half a billion dollars in vital military construction programs during 
a time of war at risk to a technical point of order on this floor. This 
whole issue evolved late last night, so perhaps someone could clarify 
this.
  I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Republican and 
Democratic alike, to not use such a technical budget question to put at 
risk critical infrastructure that is needed to support our troops 
during a time of war; whether they are serving here at home, or they 
are in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere.
  I don't understand why the Rules Committee, which on a daily basis, 
bill after bill after bill, bills that are far less important than 
supporting our veterans or military troops, military construction and 
defense health care, that the Rules Committee waives technical points 
of order on a routine basis. I am not sure if my understanding is 
correct why they didn't do the same for something as important as half 
a billion dollars investment in military infrastructure.
  The second reason I oppose this rule and urge my colleagues to vote 
against this rule is that the Obey amendment was not allowed. The Obey 
amendment would have protected that $500 million of military 
construction funding by paying for it, following the pay-as-you-go 
principle, rather than putting it under emergency spending, which could 
allow Members of this House potentially to strike that crucial funding.
  Secondly, I was disappointed the Rules Committee refused to protect 
my amendment that I intended to bring on this bill today, that would 
have brought defense health care spending back up to the level that 
President Bush said is needed this year to maintain the quality of care 
for our troops and our retirees that Mr. Walsh referenced, and that we 
all should have a right to be proud of.
  As a consequence of that Rules Committee decision, we could end up 
passing this bill today at a funding level that is $735 million below 
administration's designation of what is needed to maintain military 
health care quality this year. That could be a tragedy to have any risk 
of reducing military health care services, especially during the time 
of war.
  The next reason I oppose this rule is that Congressman Farr's 
amendment was not protected. It was an amendment that was going to add 
$1.8 billion to veterans programs, important veterans programs. I will 
talk later in cooperation with Chairman Walsh about what I think is 
good in this bill for veterans and some of the increases for veterans 
health care spending, which he and I and members of the committee all 
supported.
  But Mr. Farr wanted to go a step further and say we should not be 
freezing VA research, health research dollars. He wanted to say it is 
not right to say to a combat veteran who is making $29,000 a year, that 
you weren't wounded in combat, you haven't earned the right to get VA 
health care in a VA hospital because you are too wealthy.
  That is kind of ironic, because just earlier this week, the House 
voted to give Lee Raymond, the just retired ExxonMobil CEO who got a 
$400 million retirement package, gave him a $2 million dividend. Mr. 
Farr wanted to say if we can give Mr. Lee Raymond of ExxonMobil and all 
of his hundreds of millions of dollars of platinum parachute retirement 
programs, a $2 million dividend tax cut, shouldn't we able to say to 
veterans making $30- or $35,000 a year, you too have earned the right 
to get VA health care, along with other veterans?
  Mr. Farr wanted to have an amendment that enforced the law that we 
passed on a bipartisan basis in the late 1990s that said the VA 
shouldn't reduce the number of beds for veterans nursing home care.
  These amendments don't take away any good things from the amendment 
of the bill, which I will talk about during the bill's debate. But my 
objection is with the Rules Committee setting one standard for 
unimportant bills that will, for partisan reasons, and unimportant 
reasons, will waive technical points of order on bills coming to this 
floor and do it routinely.
  Yet when we come to amendments intended to try to guarantee military 
construction during a time of war, intended to try to help more 
veterans get better health care and nursing home care, the Rules 
Committee, on a partisan basis, said, no, we are not going to allow 
Democrats to have those kinds of amendments offered and protected on 
the floor.
  For all of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
rule today.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my good friend from 
Texas, Judge Carter, talking about concerns that he has, I want to make 
sure that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand 
that the committee, for the first time ever, for the first time ever, 
used a veterans service organization's independent budget as a baseline 
for this fiscal 2007 funding, and essentially adopted the veterans' 
group recommendations to increase funds by 6.3 percent.
  In regard to defense health, the defense health program is increased 
by $1 billion over the last year. So the total funding of $21 billion 
for defense health is the same as the budget request.
  I want to also say, Mr. Speaker, that I had the distinct honor of 
traveling last summer with subcommittee chairman Walsh, as we visited 
some of our cemeteries in Europe, at Anzio and Normandy, our fallen 
soldiers in World War II and also Bella Woods, for the Marines that 
fell during World War I.
  To see the compassion of Chairman Walsh and what he and our 
colleagues that served, that have the honor of serving on his 
committee, on both sides of the aisle, was a moving, moving experience 
for me. I know how important the work of this subcommittee is.
  I commend Members on both sides of the aisle for their hard work in 
bringing this good budget. I wish we could do more, but I think the 
compassion is there on both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Carter).
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to rise to say that one of the 
great blessings in my life that has been bestowed upon me is that I 
have been given a district now where we have almost 50,000 of the 
people who stand on the wall and defend our Nation, Fort Hood, Texas.
  It has made me realize the real duty that we have to the American 
soldier, the American military personnel. Being on this subcommittee 
and being able to try to do what is good for these men and women who 
give their duty, honor, to our Nation every day, is a great blessing to 
me personally.
  This bill that we have got here today is an honest attempt, within 
the resources, to do a great job for our military. I think, quite 
frankly, we have done a great job.
  I would urge, and I listened to what Mr. Edwards had to say. Mr. 
Edwards and I worked together. He also is a very good friend of Fort 
Hood.
  I would urge my colleagues, as they look at, as we proceed in this 
debate, that they, first and foremost, keep in mind that soldier, 
sailor, airman and marine, that stand on the wall every day and defend 
this Nation's freedom. As they look for technical challenges and other 
things that may occur, hopefully, will be corrected, that they will 
take that soldier's best interest in mind first.
  This is, if there is a piece of legislation that goes to the Congress 
at any time, that thinks about the individual guy carrying a rifle, 
this is it.

                              {time}  0945

  If we can, we have to; and we must make sure they have the best 
health care, the best living facilities, the best facilities on post, 
the best equipment, the best that we can give them. I think we have 
done our very best to do that, and so I rise to speak on behalf of the 
American soldier and ask this House to keep the American soldier in 
mind in this debate.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas to respond to the gentleman from Georgia.

[[Page 8824]]


  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, let me make two comments.
  First, let me say I fully associate myself with the views expressed 
by my friend and colleague, the Representative of Fort Hood, Mr. 
Carter. We all should consider our troops as the number one priority in 
whatever decisions are made today. That is far more important than any 
technical budget issue that can be brought up, especially during a time 
of war.
  In terms of the gentleman from Georgia, he said that this budget 
provides the same amount of funding, in so many words, for defense 
health care as requested by the administration. I think if the 
gentleman will look more carefully into the budget request, what he 
will find is that, in addition to the appropriated funds, the 
administration had proposed an additional $735 million in fees that I 
hope this Congress will clearly, vociferously oppose.
  Our subcommittee certainly didn't endorse those fee increases. Those 
fee increases would put a 200 percent health insurance premium on men 
and women who have served our military for 20 and 30 years. But as a 
consequence of Congress not having made the decision and, in fact, the 
Armed Services Committee having passed a bill recently saying that we 
will not increase those fees, in effect, this bill will fund defense 
health care this year by $735 million less than President Bush said was 
needed to maintain our quality health care system for our troops and 
for our military retirees.
  That is why I had hoped the Rules Committee in all of its wisdom 
would have been willing to do what it does on a regular basis, to 
protect my $735 million amendment to get defense health care spending 
back where President Bush says it needs to be, to protect my amendment 
from a technical budget point of order. Unfortunately, the Rules 
Committee chose to weigh in on the side of budget technicalities that 
it ignores on a regular basis and didn't weigh in on the side of 
protecting our present quality of defense health care for our troops.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, the minority 
member of the subcommittee, I very much respect. I very much respect 
the work that he has done.
  I mentioned that trip last summer. Of course, Representative Edwards 
was a part of that. Representative Carter, my good friend from Texas, 
was also a part of that trip when we visited those military cemeteries 
and looked at MILCON construction in Europe and the importance of all 
these things we do.
  I agree with what the gentleman said in regard to the administration 
proposing to increase fees for our military retirees under age 65, 
certain categories of veterans in copays and deductibles, to be able to 
raise, I think he mentioned the figure of 700 and something million 
dollars. He was opposed to it, the subcommittee was opposed to it, the 
entire committee was opposed to it, and we rejected it as we did last 
year when the administration wanted to do that.
  I commend him, and I commend the chairman and the entire committee 
for their work in regard to that. We are not really in any disagreement 
in regard to the points that he just made, and I commend him for his 
work.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I am not even going to talk 
about the fact that on this side of the aisle we feel that this bill is 
short by at least $1.8 billion in providing the kind of health and 
medical care that we think ought to be provided for our veterans.
  But I want to talk about two other problems in the bill. Because this 
bill, first of all, continues the fiction that somehow it is likely, or 
desirable, that $735 million in additional fees will be laid onto our 
retired military. I do not believe that that should happen, and I do 
not believe that will happen. And if it doesn't, then this bill has a 
$735 million hole that it is going to have to fill.
  Secondly, this bill has a very interesting budget gimmick that 
essentially allows this bill to come to the floor $500 million above 
the budget resolution that was adopted just 2 nights ago by the 
Republican majority.
  Here is what happened. The administration sent down in the military 
construction bill their request to move ahead with about 310 military 
infrastructure projects. What the committee did was to designate 20 of 
those projects, and there is nothing emergency about those projects, 
but they need to proceed. What the committee did was essentially to 
take 20 of those projects and simply label the expenditures for those 
projects as being emergency.
  Why did they do that? Because it then made room in the bill for the 
committee to add projects of their own totaling $507 million. So that 
is a $507 million gimmick which allows this bill to come to the floor 
in reality $507 million above the Republican budget resolution.
  As a result of the rule which is now being brought to the floor, 
there will be several choices that people will have to make. Members 
will now be free to strike the emergency designation for those 
projects. If they do, then the bill has to be taken off the floor 
because it exceeds the budget cap, unless the committee itself moves to 
simply take all of those projects out of the bill. As a result, if 
those projects are taken out of the bill, we then have a hole in the 
administration request. If they aren't taken out of the bill, then we, 
in effect, are $507 million above the budget that the Republicans 
pledged their loyalty to just 2 days ago. And in addition to that, down 
the line you are still going to have to find $735 million to make up 
for the fiction that there is some possibility in this place that those 
additional fees ought to be laid on our retired military.
  I think this is another quaint example of the majority party fealty 
to their own budget resolution and we are forced to encounter these 
ridiculous budgetary gimmicks because the majority party refused to fix 
the problem. I offered an amendment in committee to try to fix the 
problem, at least to fix the problem of the $507 million. I simply 
suggested that we support an amendment which would cut the size of the 
tax cut for people making a million dollars, and they are going to get 
a $114,000 tax cut this year. We simply suggested that if you can cut 
the size of that $114,000 tax cut by 1,400 bucks, you could pay on the 
square, without any gimmicks, for that $507 million.
  That is what we should have done. But the majority party thought that 
it was more important to deliver a $114,000 tax cut to millionaires 
than it was to play straight with the budget process and to play 
straight with their own budget resolution and to play straight with the 
American people.
  Very interesting. Very interesting.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers at this time, 
so I will reserve the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, am sad that we don't have maximum flexibility 
under the way the rule is structured to speak to the needs of American 
veterans; and I will vote against it. But I hope that we can spend this 
time also focusing on some broader issues.
  Luckily, there is a provision that will permit me to provide an 
amendment today to help with the cleanup of the vast toxic legacy that 
America faces in every State of the Union from unexploded munitions and 
military toxins, from training exercises, from old military depots, 
from having shells lobbed by generations of cadets at West Point that 
have been in the Storm King Forest. Every State in the Union, over 
3,000 sites, have been identified as areas that need cleanup.
  I want to say I appreciate what Mr. Walsh, Mr. Edwards and Mr. Farr 
have done with this important military quality of life committee in 
starting to focus on this. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the real problem is 
that Congress has been missing in action when it comes to cleaning up 
this toxic legacy.

[[Page 8825]]

  I had a Member of this body yesterday tell me, well, we really don't 
need to put more money in it. He wasn't sure that it was worth it. 
Let's just have barbed wire around them, keep people out and save the 
money for things that are more important. This is a Member that I 
deeply respect but who betrayed a tragic lack of understanding of 
exactly the scope and magnitude of this problem and what would be the 
benefit of handling it properly.
  I could tell this gentleman that there were dozens of cases where 
innocent civilians, in some cases children, have been killed because 
bombs have turned up in the back of a subdivision that people have just 
walked away from. Or the gentleman rototilling his yard in Five Points, 
Texas, rototilling up a bomb. Or three times since I have been in 
Congress we have had to pull firefighters out of forest fires because 
bombs were exploding, generated by the heat.
  Now these are not things that we can simply walk away from. There are 
areas where munitions break down over time and the toxic leaks into the 
groundwater which creates a larger problem.
  There is also the notion that there are 10 million, 20 million, 30 
million acres or more, nobody knows exactly how much, polluted or 
potentially polluted that is not available for hunting and fishing, 
that is not available for redevelopment, for housing, for industrial 
use, to be put back on the tax rolls.
  Ultimately, this is a responsibility that the Department of Defense 
and the Federal Government is going to have to assume. Putting up 
barbed wire and walking away doesn't solve the problem.
  But one of the things that I would hope would focus attention by 
Members of this assembly is not just the long-term benefits, not just 
cleaning it up, not just returning it to productive use but think about 
who is at risk, because it is our soldiers, their families, the 
employees of these bases and their neighbors that are most at risk.

                              {time}  1000

  What is to be solved by kicking the can down the road and ignoring 
it?
  Last, but by no means least, if we get the technology right that will 
enable us to find out whether it is a hubcap or a 105-millimeter shell 
that is buried under the ground, that just doesn't help us clean up 
these 3,000 sites in the United States. That same technology would save 
the lives of our soldiers right now who are at risk every day in Iraq 
from roadside bombs, from land mines. That is how I lost my first 
constituent in Iraq, was a young man killed by a land mine.
  By Congress continuing to be missing in action not taking a 
significant step to clean up this toxic explosive legacy, we are not 
just putting at risk the environment, we are not just putting at risk 
children who are playing in subdivisions or firefighters who will fight 
in the next forest fire where there are bombs and toxic legacy, they 
are putting at risk our soldiers, our men and women overseas who won't 
benefit from the techniques and the technology.
  I appreciate what the subcommittee has done trying to train the 
attention. It is time for this body to step up and agitate to make 
their job a little harder and for our friends on the Appropriations 
Committee in Defense appropriations to invest in doing this right.
  I oppose the rule. I look forward to bringing an amendment later in 
the debate to be able to at least put a little bit of money to deal 
with the problem in other parts of the United States now.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman for his passion on this issue and the very 
clear presentation that he made. I want to remind him and my colleagues 
that I think we authorized an additional $250 million in the Defense 
Authorization Bill of 2007 which we passed last week.
  In regard to specifically, he mentioned about the technology that 
could be used for ferreting out improvised explosive devices, and he 
mentioned, of course, that the first soldier from his district was 
killed by one of those devices. And I know that Members on both sides 
of the aisle have certainly experienced that. This particular Member 
from the 11th of Georgia has experienced it as well. So it is an 
important issue, and it is clear that we are doing everything we can to 
try to defend against these cowardly attacks of improvised explosive 
devices.
  Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time for 
purposes of closing.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I understand 
the gentleman has no additional speakers.
  Mr. GINGREY. I have no additional speakers.
  Ms. MATSUI. Then I will proceed to my closing.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members for a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend 
the rule so we can consider three important amendments that were not 
included in this rule. These amendments will help fix the funding 
shortfalls in this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of these amendments and 
extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. The first amendment by Ranking Member Obey would pay for 
the $507 million cost for 20 routine military construction projects 
instead of designating them as ``emergency spending'' so that the 
funding would not count against the bill's allocation.
  The Obey amendment pays for the 20 projects by reducing the tax cuts 
for people making more than $1 million a year by $1,400 or 1 percent.
  The second amendment by subcommittee Ranking Member Edwards provides 
the $735 million needed to fully fund the Defense Health Program 
throughout the next year. The cost of the amendment is offset by 
reducing by 2 percent the tax cut for those making over $1 million 
annually.
  The third amendment by Representative Farr, would increase veterans 
health care by $1.82 billion and pay for it by reducing the average tax 
cut for those with incomes above $1 million a year by about $5,000, 
leaving them with $109,025,
  Mr. Speaker, these amendments together will help us meet the 
obligations we have to the members of our military, our veterans and 
their families. This Nation made a promise to those serving in the 
military that they would receive quality health care in return for 
their valiant service to this country, and now that wounded soldiers 
are returning to their homes, they deserve the best medical treatment 
and care available.
  We can fix this today if we allow these amendments to be considered 
on the floor. But the only way that will happen is if we defeat the 
previous question.
  I want to assure my colleagues that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us 
from considering the Military Quality of Life Veterans Appropriations 
bill under an open rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote on 
these important amendments.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank Subcommittee 
Chairman Walsh, ranking minority member Edwards, and Chairman Lewis for 
leading the committee in the production and shepherding of this bill.
  We can never do enough for our veterans. I think we all want to, but 
understand that this bill represents a victory for our serviceman and 
women in all stages of service, from recruitment to retirement.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and underlying bill. 
And so I rise, again, in support of the rule, and as I say, in support 
of the underlying bill in recognition of its importance to the men and 
women who have and will continue to serve and protect America. Our 
servicemen and women put their lives on the line each and every day and 
we have a responsibility to support them in any and every way possible 
as they make these significant sacrifices for the safety and security 
of this great

[[Page 8826]]

Nation. We must provide them with everything that they need, not only 
to succeed in their military duty, but also to enjoy the quality of 
life that they and their families so much deserve.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, with spending totaling $94.7 billion, this bill 
includes significant increases to the veterans medical care and 
benefits, military construction and the Defense Health Care Program. I 
encourage, then, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
both this rule and the underlying bill for the sake of those who spend 
their lives defending ours.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I could not be 
present today because of a family medical emergency and I would like to 
submit this statement for the Record in opposition to the previous 
question and H. Res. 821, the rule providing for consideration of the 
FY2007 Military Quality of Life appropriations bill (H.R. 5385).
  The Veterans' Administration has treated more than 144,000 returning 
veterans from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and nearly 
30,000 veterans are waiting in line for their first appointment--nearly 
double the number last year. However, funding for veterans and military 
retiree health care has barely kept pace with the increasing demand. As 
a result our young men and women will return home from Iraq and 
Afghanistan to a health care system that is struggling to take care of 
current veterans--let alone new ones.
  While the bill before us today is certainly an improvement over last 
year's bill, it still under-funds critical programs and services that 
our veterans and military retirees rely on. For instance, even as the 
Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 5122) we passed last week rightfully 
rejected the President's plan to increase fees for military retirees, 
this bill still falls $735 million short of the level needed to ensure 
that military retirees do not face having their TRICARE fees doubled or 
tripled. In addition, this bill uses a budgeting gimmick to designate 
$507 million for 20 military construction projects as emergency 
spending so that the committee could keep the overall total under the 
bill's allocation level--jeopardizing this critical funding by leaving 
it vulnerable to procedural points of order that could strip it from 
this bill. Finally, this bill provides $25.4 billion for veteran's 
medical services--$2.6 billion more than last year, but still $400 
million below the recommendation of the Independent Budget and $2.8 
billion below the level recommended by the House Veterans Affairs 
Committee Democrats.
  Unfortunately, Democratic amendments to address these shortcomings 
were rejected by Republicans on the Appropriations Committee and are 
blocked from being considered here today by this rule. These pragmatic 
measures would have made this a stronger bill that fulfils our promise 
to our military retirees and veterans. I urge the defeat of the 
previous question and this rule so that we can debate critical 
amendments to ensure that veterans and military retirees get the 
timely, quality, and affordable health care they deserve.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:

   Previous Question Statement H. Res. 821--Rule for H.R. 5385 FY06 
              Military Quality of Life--VA Appropriations

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order to consider the amendments 
     printed in section 3, which may be offered only in the order 
     specified, may be offered only by the Member designated or a 
     designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject 
     to amendment except pro forma amendments for the purpose of 
     debate, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
     All points of order against such amendments are waived.
       Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 are as 
     follows:
       (a) Amendment to be offered by Representative Obey of 
     Wisconsin.

                  Amendment to H.R. 5385, As Reported

                    Offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin

       Page 58, line 20, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows 
     through line 25 and insert ``2011.''.
       Page 59, line 4, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows 
     through line 9 and insert ``2011.''.
       Page 59, line 13, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows 
     through line 18 and insert ``2011.''.
       Page 59, line 22, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows 
     through page 60, line 2, and insert ``2011.''.
       Page 60, line 6, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows 
     through line 11 and insert ``2011.''.
       Page 60, line 15, strike ``2011:'' and all that follows 
     through line 20 and insert ``2011.''.
       At the end of title IV (page 60, after line 20), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 401. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of 
     $1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the 
     amount of tax reduction resulting from the enactment of 
     Public Laws 107-16, 108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by 
     1.23 percent.
                                  ____

       (b) Amendment to be offered by Representative Edwards of 
     Texas

                  Amendment to H.R. 5385, As Reported

                    Offered by Mr. Edwards of Texas

       Page 19, line 8, strike ``$21,065,163,000'' and insert 
     ``$21,800,163,000''.
       Page 19, line 9, strike ``$20,218,205,000'' and insert 
     ``$20,953,205,000''.
       At the end of title I (page 35, after line 2), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 136. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of 
     $1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the 
     amount of tax reduction resulting from the enactment of 
     Public Laws 107-16, 108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by 
     1.78 percent.
                                  ____

       (c) Amendment to be offered by Representative Farr of 
     California

                  Amendment to H.R. 5385, As Reported

                   Offered by Mr. Farr of California

       Page 39, line 22, strike ``$25,412,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$26,875,000,000''.
       Page 41, line 1, strike ``$3,277,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,390,000,000''.
       Page 42, line 2, strike ``$412,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$460,000,000''.
       Page 42, line 14, strike ``$1,480,764,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,553,764,000''.
       Page 44, line 21, strike ``$69,499,000'' and insert 
     ``$77,499,000''.
       Page 45, line 13, strike ``$283,670,000'' and insert 
     ``$399,000,000''.
       At the end of title II (page 56, after line 8), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 223. In the case of taxpayers with income in excess of 
     $1,000,000, for the calendar year beginning in 2007, the 
     amount of tax reduction resulting from the enactment of 
     Public Laws 107-16, 108-27, and 108-311 shall be reduced by 
     4.4 percent.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools

[[Page 8827]]

     for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to 
     offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. GINGREY. 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. GINGREY. 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 211, 
nays 186, not voting 35, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 173]

                               YEAS--211

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     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)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--186

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

                             NOT VOTING--35

     Andrews
     Beauprez
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonner
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     English (PA)
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fossella
     Gohmert
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lewis (GA)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McKinney
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Oberstar
     Pearce
     Platts
     Reynolds
     Rogers (MI)
     Sanders
     Schmidt
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thomas
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1034

  Mr. RANGEL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 216, 
noes 187, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 174]

                               AYES--216

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     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)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg

[[Page 8828]]


     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--187

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

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Andrews
     Beauprez
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonner
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     English (PA)
     Evans
     Fattah
     Gohmert
     Kennedy (RI)
     Larson (CT)
     Lewis (GA)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Pearce
     Platts
     Reynolds
     Sanders
     Schmidt
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thomas
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1043

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________