Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for veterans medical services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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 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. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. BAIRD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

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 asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

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, Jun. 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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this emergency funding bill for veterans health care for two reasons: first, the VA desperately needs the $975 million right now to address a very serious shortfall in VA health care funding, a shortfall that I wish had never occurred; second, unfortunately, the House Republican leadership decided earlier this evening that the House, Republicans and Democrats alike, would not even be allowed to vote on the $1.5 billion emergency funding bill for VA health care that the Senate has already passed on a unanimous basis 96 to zero earlier this week.

For the record, I want to say that I believe the $975 million probably will not cover all of the hole that has been dug for veterans health care for this year. I hope I am wrong; but I was not wrong earlier this year, and I was not wrong last year when I said that the present VA budget would provide cuts in real health care services to veterans during a time of war.

Also I want to say for the record that I appreciate very much the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), whose commitment to America's veterans is genuine, deep, and consistent. Had he not called hearings this week and brought the VA leadership before the House in his Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations, I do not think we would be here on this floor tonight debating additional emergency money for VA health care spending.

I want to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who worked very hard to bring to light this immediate crisis that we are facing. His leadership on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs was instrumental in us being here today.

Having said that, I believe the American people and America's veterans, Mr. Speaker, have a right to know how we got into this $1 billion hole for veterans health care during a time of war, and, most importantly, need to help us understand how not to get into this hole again.

This issue did not just come up. This problem did not just pop up overnight or this week or last week. For 2 years, respected national veterans organizations have been pleading with the administration and Congress to provide adequate funding for the VA health care system. Unfortunately, their pleas were often ignored by the Republican leadership in the House.

As far back as February of 2004, the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, then the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), signed a bipartisan letter saying that unless we funded $2.5 billion more than the administration budget request for VA health care, real services for real veterans would have to be cut this year during a time of war. Did the House leadership salute the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for standing up for veterans? No. In fact, they fired him. They did not just take away his chairmanship of the VA committee; they took him off the committee itself.

What was the crime of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith)? He refused to support an inadequate budget resolution for VA health care for 2005 which the Republican leadership had endorsed. He put his loyalty to America's veterans above blind partisan loyalty to the House leadership, and he was right to do so.

While America's veterans were honoring the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the House Republican leadership was punishing him.

In the spring of 2004, House Republicans passed a fiscal year 2005 budget on a partisan basis, a budget that veterans groups, Democrats, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) had said would require more than $1 billion in cuts to veterans health care services this year. The insight of time has proven that Democrats, veterans groups, including the DAV, American Legion and VFW, were right. The House Republican leadership was wrong: wrong on veterans health care budget resolutions and wrong to put partisanship above loyalty to veterans and veterans health care.

Repeatedly over the past 2 years, House Democrats, myself included, have asked the Republican leadership to join on a bipartisan basis to stop real cuts in veterans health care services during a time of war. Over a year ago, we tried genuinely to increase the veterans health care budget for 2005. The leadership said no.

This year, veterans groups and Democrats pleaded with the Republican leadership to provide more adequate funding for veterans health care. On the 2006 budget resolution, they said no.

Then in May of this year, Democrats and veterans groups pleaded with the Republican leadership one more time to add additional VA health care spending to the Iraqi war supplemental appropriations bill. Once again, the leadership said no.

That was not the last time they said no. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) tried to add an amendment in the Committee on Appropriations increasing funding for VA health care so we would not get into this hole, cutting services for veterans during a time of war. Again, the answer was no.

That is not even the worst of it. The House leadership on a partisan basis pressured Republican colleagues of mine this year to vote for a House budget resolution, and, listen to this, vote for a House budget resolution that would cut present services for veterans by $14 billion over the next 5 years.

Let me repeat that in case anybody did not hear it or believe it, because it is a fact: the House leadership passed a budget resolution in this very room earlier this year that would require a $14 billion cut in present health care services to veterans. And, by the way, that includes over 100,000 veterans of the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars who have needed VA health care. I must wonder which Members of the House leadership will include in their Fourth of July speeches the fact that they pushed through this House a budget resolution this year to cut veterans' health care services by $14 billion over the next 5 years. I hope to join with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis in the years ahead to undo what would be a terribly harmful cut to our veterans and send a destructive message to our active duty servicemen and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Having said all of that, we come today to face a shortfall that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith),

the Republican chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs predicted a year ago, and the VA, American Legion, VFW, and Democrats predicted a year ago. I wish we were voting for a $1.5 billion increase in emergency funding. I think our veterans deserve it. Certainly, the Senate, on a unanimous vote, 96 to 0, endorsed that level of funding.

But, thanks to the goodwill and the genuine leadership of people such as my colleague and friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), we have a chance to take a step forward today, an important step forward, in funding, more adequately funding veterans' health care, and for that I am grateful. I hope we can work together, as the gentleman mentioned a few minutes ago, on a bipartisan basis to see that we never, ever again dig this kind of a hole for veterans' health care in time of war or peace, but certainly we should never do it in time of war.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), a member of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), also a member of the House Veterans Affairs' Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we should not be in this hole. We did not have to be in this hole. I am glad we are taking a partial step to get out of this hole, a hole that we put veterans in, veterans who have served our country in combat, veterans who have been unfortunately denied care this year that they had a right to receive because of inadequate funding in the past. I am glad we are moving forward.

I wish we were moving forward with a $1.5 billion emergency funding bill passed unanimously by the United States Senate. I do not know why the House leadership felt 96 Members of the Senate, including the Senate Republican leadership, were being too generous to veterans. I do not think they were being too generous to veterans. But I am glad we are taking a step forward. And I do genuinely appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from Indiana's (Mr. Buyer) work on this effort.

The most important thing we need to do tonight is learn the lesson of how we got in this hole and how not to get into it again. I have heard some say, well, we have increased veterans funding over the last few years so we should be happy with that and veterans should not complain about it, in effect. But the fact is that there has been an increase of 250,000 veterans a year each year for the last 4 or 5 years into the VA health care system.

You add that to VA health care inflation, drug cost inflation, and the fact is that we have not kept up with even current services for veterans in the budgets we have passed in the last 2 years. For some, not so much in tonight's debate, but in other debates this week, who have suggested, well, these are Democrats being partisan, well, some of those charges were leveled when we said a year ago and 5 months ago and 2 months ago that this budget was going to provide a shortfall for funding.

But let us take it out of the debate of Republicans versus Democrats. Let us go to the respected Disabled American Veterans. Alan Bowers, the national commander of the DAV said, not last week or last month, he said on March 23 of 2004 about the 2005 budget resolution, ``The VA will be required to delay medical care for some veterans and deny it all together for other sick and disabled veterans just to enable it to meet inflationary costs.''

To the veterans of this Nation it is incomprehensible that our government cannot afford to fund their medical care and benefit programs at a time it can afford generous tax cuts costing hundreds of billions of dollars more.

Let us go beyond the Disabled American Veterans. Let us look at the legislative directors of Paralyzed Veterans of America, the AMVETS, the Veterans of Foreign Wars. This is what they said about the 2005 budget resolution passed on a partisan basis in this House over the objection of Democrats. They said passage of the budget resolution as presented ``would be a disservice to those men and women who serve this country and who are currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world in our fight against terrorism.''

No Member of this House questions any other Member's respect for veterans. But we are not talking about good feelings tonight. Good feelings and good intentions do not fund veterans health care. We are talking about budget priorities. And we on the Democratic side of this House believe that adequate funding for veterans health care should trump tax cuts for billionaires. It seems to me that the leadership of America's major veterans organizations agree with us.

I hope, perhaps, from this day forward we can go together on a bipartisan basis to see that we do not ever, ever, ever again cut real services for America's veterans during a time of war.

I encourage my colleagues to vote for this resolution, despite my deep disappointment that the House Republican leadership would deny us even the right to vote on the $1.5 billion emergency funding for veterans hospitals that 96 Senators in a unanimous vote said was needed by our Nation's former service men and women.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 345 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. PUTNAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from New York for pointing out the flaws in the 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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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?

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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. 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. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2361, Department of Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

This bill will provide the Department of Veterans Affairs with supplemental funding of approximately $1.5 billion for fiscal year 2005. Several weeks ago, the House of Representatives unanimously passed H.R. 3130 which provided $975 million in health care funding for the fiscal year. We did that in response to revelations at the time to a line of questioning that I had with Dr. Perlin of VHA at a full committee hearing on health care modeling and forecasting.

We learned that since the spring of this year VA hospitals and clinics were shifting significant amounts of funds into medical services from maintenance and capital equipment accounts. This shifting was driven by underestimates of long-term care requirements and increased use of VA facilities by returning Operations Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans to also include a surge of veterans in categories 1 through 6 and category 7 for health care.

I directed Secretary Nicholson to tell us what additional funds he needed for 2005. I also then immediately informed the Speaker of the House and the majority leader of this issue.

The Secretary returned from meetings with his staff on June 30, bringing to us a number of $975 million. This House acted the very same day in which the Secretary made his request through the President of the United States approving to the penny the VA's request. Yet the number was not even dry on the paper when, in fact, days later we were then informed that number was really $1.275 billion, and they needed an additional $300 million.

The $300 million is for a carryover account which we in Congress permit the VA to utilize. So you will hear this number. What is really important is the $975 million number; and as a matter of fact, just last week the VA said they hold to the number. The additional $300 million is for the carryover account.

The Republican Senate leadership offered a number of $1.5 billion. Now the challenge we have is they passed a number on the Senate interior appropriations bill of emergency supplemental. The House passed a $975 million number that was paid for out of the 2005 budget. As Members go to the interior conference, we have a challenge. We have got moneys which were paid for, the Senate asks for emergency. Now I suppose we are asking for an instruction that is saying make it an emergency supplemental.

So what we are doing is rolling one on top of another. We have $975 million which was paid for out of the 2005 budget. Now we are going to vote for an instruction to the conferees on $1.5 billion on emergency supplemental. So these are issues that conferees are going to have to work out at conference.

But when we look at VHA's forecasting performance which has been the focus at some of our animated hearings in the House, 3 over the last several weeks, in April they provide notice to the Committee on Appropriations that they are going to reprogram $600 million. Then in the latter part of June when we hold our hearing, they testify they are short $975 million, but they have ``work-around solutions.''

Then a few days later while we are on our July break, we learn that the number was short $300 million. They are going to spend down the $975, and the $300 million is the carryover account. We either take care of that in 2005, or we have to include it in the 2006 budget amendment.

If Members watch this, we go from $600 million to $975 million to $1.275 billion. What is it going to be in August? I think that is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) are indicating. So that is why I am going to support the motion to instruct, because there is a loss of confidence here in the House with regard to the number that has been given to us. Patience with the VHA bureaucracy has run out.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

We have. We have held three hearings. Part of the reason dealt with their modeling and their forecasting. For the 2005 budget, they used 2002 data, and they also had false assumptions. So we have informed them that they have every opportunity to get right the 2007 budget because now they tell us about the use of old data and poor measuring criteria. So they have every reason now to get it right. So what are they changing with regard to their assumptions and how are they improving the data with regard to the 2007, because that is what they are doing right now.

So what has occurred is we get the 2005 right. They come with a 2006 budget amendment. We just held a hearing on the 2006 budget amendment, which is just under $2 billion; and then we told them that we are going to do some handholding as they prepare the 2007 budget.

Mr. Speaker, I would say everyone wants the modeling to be correct and for us to reestablish trust and confidence on our predictability of a budget number. When we do that, we bring purity to the process and OMB also brings trust and confidence. I think there is lack of trust and confidence under the budget number, and OMB has proven they are not as good of a caretaker here as they think they are. We will work cooperatively with OMB because they also are part of this process of the pain.

Mr. Speaker, the issue is accountability. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) touched on it and so did the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp). The credibility must be rebuilt, and OMB is integral to this process.

I have asked Secretary Nicholson to review the leadership of the VHA bureaucracy to ensure that the right people are running it, and also its finances and some within the health network.

In particular, I am greatly disappointed and have lost confidence in the leadership and management of the Deputy Under Secretary for Health, for Operations and for Management. In the meantime, Congress will ensure that veterans health care is funded. We will hold VA accountable for its use of these dollars in the performance of its mission.

Over the recess, other Committee on Veterans' Affairs members, staff, and I will personally visit VA health care facilities because there is no substitute for boots-on-the-ground examination.

I will specifically visit a polytrauma center in Minneapolis.

One of the harshest realities of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan is the number of servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with loss of limbs and other severe and lasting injuries. With the body armor which we are providing to our soldiers, they can turn that up, and what is happening is it protects the torso, and they are having now loss of limbs and traumatic brain injuries.

VA has four regional traumatic brain injury rehabilitation centers. One of them is in Minneapolis, one is in Palo Alto, another one is in Richmond, and one is in Tampa. These are very important regional referral centers for individuals who have sustained these serious disabling conditions due to combat. VSOs and others are saying that these individual veterans are not being seen because of cuts in the VA. I find that challenging. I want to make sure these allegations are correct, so I am going to go on the ground to see if it is true.

I have also asked the GAO to review the VA's budget process, and I think that will be very important for some other eyes on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, America's veterans will receive the health care they have earned. $1.5 billion is a significant number for an important constituency, and I anticipate that we will act quickly to provide it. We can all see that only 2 months remain in the fiscal year. Unspent funds from this appropriation will be available for their use as down payments on the 2006 budget supplemental so that all funds will be put to good use.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for his work. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for this motion. I also commend my colleagues in the Senate for their willingness to act quickly to Secretary Nicholson's request and to resolve this matter. I also want to thank the President, because when this was alerted to everyone's attention, the President acted and sent over a number. He also did the 2006 budget amendment.

In the end, those of us who exercise great care to raise and support the military know that our obligation does not end upon one's discharge. We care for the wounds and the injuries. We care for those who are left behind. We care for them to make as whole as possible and to create a climate so that one may take advantage of economic opportunities to live beyond a disability paycheck so that the defenders of liberty may also enjoy the bounties of the liberty for which they fight. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct conferees in order to ensure that the veterans' funding can be done as quickly as possible.