Making emergency supplemental appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs 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, 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 thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and for her leadership on this important issue. I also want to acknowledge the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). He and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) have been such champions for America's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach this 4th of July, we remember the sacrifice, the vision of our Founding Fathers, the courage, the imagination, and the intellect and values they presented in the Declaration of Independence. Since then, our country has always been about shared sacrifice in time of war and in time of peace. That is, up until now.

As Americans, we make a simple yet sacred promise to our veterans: You take care of us and we will take care of you. How we repay the service of our veterans speaks volumes about the character of our country. Unfortunately, under Republican leadership, the Congress is failing to keep faith with the veterans who have defended our freedom with their very lives.

Veterans of this country deserve some answers. Why does the Republican leadership in Congress find billions of dollars of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans but does not find enough money for the veterans who risk their lives for our Nation? Why are veterans' affairs initiatives consistently underfunded and shortchanged, forcing thousands of veterans to wait months for health care? Why did the Bush administration suddenly discover a shortfall when we had been talking about this for months? Democrats and veterans organizations have been saying that the VA has been underfunded for more than 2 years now.

The answer is simple: The shortfall is the direct result of the failed budget policies and misplaced priorities of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. Republicans here have either been in denial about the plight of our veterans or it simply has not been a priority for them.

This did not have to happen. Veterans across our country did not have to hear that the government had underfunded their health care. Our veterans did not have to give up only part of their patriotism and bravery in defending our Nation. Let today be the day when we begin to enact a GI Bill of Rights, and we can begin by responding to the call from the Senate.

The reason that we are here this evening, and the effect of the motion that is made to the Committee on Rules on the previous question, would say that if we defeat the previous question, the resolution offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) would come to the floor and would fund by $1.5 billion the needs for veterans' health care.

Senator Craig said in a unanimous vote that the appropriators in the Senate voted to authorize the Senate to quickly take up the $1.5 billion emergency supplemental if the House approves such a measure. So a vote ``no'' on the previous question says ``yes'' to bringing up the Edwards resolution, which would immediately send it to the Senate, where they would take it up immediately, pass it, and send it to the President's desk.

Instead, the Republicans are advocating a different position, which is to once again shortchange America's veterans. On a battlefield, Mr. Speaker, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a Nation, let our pledge be that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind. We can support our veterans with a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and a 'yes' on the Edwards resolution, and a ``yes'' for our veterans. That would be the appropriate observation of the 4th of July.

Mr. Speaker, I support the President's call for flying the flag on the 4th of July. Let us fly the flag and fund veterans' benefits.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach this Fourth of July, we remember the sacrifice of our Founding Fathers--the courage, the imagination, the intellect, and the values they presented in the Declaration of Independence. And since then, our country has always been about shared sacrifice--when it came to war, and when it came to peace. That is, up until now.

As Americans, we make a simple yet sacred promise to our veterans: ``You have taken care of us, so we will take care of you.'' How we repay the service of our veterans speaks volumes about our national character. Unfortunately under Republican leadership, the Congress is failing to keep faith with the veterans who have defended our freedom with their very lives.

Veterans in this country deserve some answers. Why does the Republican leadership in Congress find billions in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, but does not find enough money for the veterans who risked their lives for our Nation? Why are Veterans Affairs initiatives consistently underfunded, forcing thousands of veterans to wait months for health care? Why did the Bush Administration suddenly discover a shortfall, when Democrats and veterans have been saying that the VA was underfunded for more than 2 years now?

The answer is simple: this shortfall is the direct result of the failed budget policies and misplaced priorities of the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress.

This did not have to happen. Veterans across our Nation did not have to hear that their government had under funded their health care; our veterans did not give only part of their patriotism and bravery in defending our Nation.

For more than two years, Democrats and veterans' organizations have stood together, calling for adequate funding.

We have sent letters, we have offered amendments, and we have launched a discharge petition to try to force a vote on additional funding for veterans' health care. We have tried time and time again, only to be rebuffed by the Republicans in Congress every step of the way. Vote after vote failed on the party line.

For our latest attempt, we sent a letter, signed by every single Democrat, to President Bush calling for an emergency supplemental to fund VA health care.

It seems that our voices were finally heard. Democrats have made this too hot for the Republicans to handle.

The truth has come out. The Bush Administration and the Republicans in Congress are finally admitting to what we've been saying for 2 years.

And today we have a chance in taking the first step in righting a wrong. The problem is that once again, the Republicans are a day late and dollar short.

The Senate Appropriations Committee has authorized the Senate to quickly take up a

$1.5 billion emergency supplemental if the House passes the same.

The Chairman of the Senate Veteran's Committee has stated, and I quote, ``Clearly there is a disagreement here on the number, but it's clear that we all want to do the right thing for our veterans. We do not want to leave the Department of Veterans Affairs short of funds. Working with our colleagues in the House, I'm sure we can achieve that objective.''

The VA desperately needs this funding. And to get it done today the House must pass $1.5 billion for our veterans.

The ultimate fix would be what veterans and the Ranking Democrat on the Veterans Affairs Committee, Lane Evans, have been calling for. They are correct, the only way to assure funding for VA health care: make it mandatory.

But let us start today by voting no on the previous question, so we can offer an amendment that would increase the amount for veterans to $1.5 billion to match the Senate amount.

Caring for our veterans shouldn't be a partisan issue. It should be our number one priority. Our veterans deserve better.

We must fulfill our sacred obligations to those who have worn this Nation's uniform.

My wish is that today's vote will lead to a renewed bipartisan commitment for our veterans.

Let today be the beginning of a new chapter, let today be the day when this government no longer ignores the promises we've made, and provide the support our veterans have earned and deserve.

Let today be the day when we begin ending the Disabled Veterans' Tax for every single veteran.

Let today be the day when we begin fully ending the Military Families Tax.

Let today be the day when we begin to enact a new GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century.

On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a Nation, let it be our pledge that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his leadership in bringing this rule to the floor that provides for consideration of several suspension bills, including a very important one.

I have heard a lot of bellyaching tonight about what happened before and why we should have done something else, and why did we not do something this way and why did we not do it that way. I suspect that when all the bellyaching is over, that we will have a near unanimous, if not unanimous, vote, at least I hope we do, to provide these resources.

We have a very logical process that we follow. It is according to our rules and according to our traditions. In the Committee on Appropriations we hold hearings in the spring, we take testimony, we provide oversight, we then receive our allocation, and provide the resources every year to meet the needs of our Nation. Again this year, as we did last year, and the year before, and the year before, and the year before, and the year before, the Veterans Administration receives the highest increase of any budget within the entire Federal budget. Year after year after year.

The House has the power of the purse. We set our priorities with the money that we have. Clearly, year after year this budget, the Veterans Administration budget, has been our highest priority. Whether you are a Republican or you are a Democrat, that is the way most Members believe. I feel that. I hear that from my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, members of my subcommittee and members of the full committee. And that is the way we have proceeded. It is not a partisan issue, and I hope we will not make it one tonight. Because at the end of the day, literally, that will be your last vote, and I hope we are all together on it.

What has happened since we had these hearings is that we move rapidly. I think everybody noticed that tonight. The appropriation bills for 2006 are complete. We moved rapidly. But the Veterans Administration has a midyear annual review, which they had just recently. Ensuing hearings by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, providing oversight, determined that there was a shortfall. The Veterans Administration brought that forward, about $1 billion, or $975 million. They also explained that they had a work-around solution, $600 million out of capital and $375 million in anticipated reserve that they would utilize to fill that void.

We then held additional hearings, the subcommittee and the Senate authorization committee and the House authorization committee, and what we

have found is that we have an accurate picture now of what that shortfall is. We also have an accurate sense of the Congress that we do not want to work-around solution. We want to provide those resources so that the Veterans Administration does not have to set aside repair and maintenance and acquisition of equipment, MRIs or computers or research equipment or laboratory equipment. We do not want them to have to do that.

So we are going through our normal procedure. And parts of that procedure, when you have to go back and take a look-back at a budget, is a supplemental budget request. This supplemental budget request will be presented for the consideration of the House tonight. The request is to provide that shortfall, $975 million, to the Veterans Administration to meet the needs to complete 3 more months of this year.

Now, people say, well, $1 billion, how could they be off $1 billion? My colleagues, this is a $30 billion-plus budget. This $1 billion means they were off by 3 percent, 3 percent, in their estimation. Now, is that unforgivable? Of course not. Is it a mistake? It sure is. And we have a way to resolve that mistake, to fix it, to correct it, and again to show our commitment to our Nation's veterans, especially in a time of war.

We are sending a signal not only to our current veterans, but we are sending a signal to those heroes that are out there in the field today, in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the globe. We want them to know that the commitments we have made to them we will keep, even if it has to be in an extraordinary measure like this.

So I would welcome additional comment. I would welcome the opportunity of those individuals who looked ahead and offered additional resources. But I would ask you to look at the logic of what we are doing. Look at the thread of logic through this whole process. We want to do this right, and I think we have done it right. So let us have the debates tonight. If you feel compelled to say ``I told you so,'' go ahead. But stick with us and vote for this bill and support our veterans in a process that is reliable and is predictable and has a thread of logic all the way through it.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the Senate attached this 2005 funding to an 2006 bill, which will not take effect within the 2005 year. If they take up this bill on a stand-alone basis, the President can sign it tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

After all the speeches and the rhetoric, really the big difference here is the dollar amount. We all realize there is a shortfall. We all support closing the gap. So the issue is $1.5 billion that the Senate acted on. One Member said it was 3, but I think most people, at least on the opposite side of the aisle, agree that it is $1.5 billion. We believe it is $975 million. So everything else really at this point is rhetoric. We just need to try to address that. And I tried for the life of me to figure out where this $1.5 billion figure came from. I know the Senate is working with that figure, because everything we have heard from the Veterans Administration was that they had a work-around solution to come up with $600 million out of their capital fund and $375 million out of their reserve fund to close this gap in different lines of health care within the hospital system, and that would add up to that $975 million.

The $1.5 million is still a big question mark, and the only thing I can come up with is that, in a conversation I had with OMB Director Bolten, he mentioned that there may be, they do not know but they are working on it, a shortfall in 2006, in 2006, of somewhere between $1.1 and $1.6 billion. And that is 2006. No one, no one, has ever mentioned the fact that there is a shortfall in 2005 of $1.5 billion. So we have what I think is a number that is provided through a logical process, through testimony in the hearings presented by the head of the health administration and the Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary.

This, I believe, is as close to what we can get as what the gap is. Let us support it on a bipartisan basis. Let us support the rule and consider the bill.