Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

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

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

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

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

Mr. EDWARDS. 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. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say in response to the comments of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), he cannot name one Democrat in this House that was approached in putting together this bill dealing with veterans health care. If that is not partisan, I do not know what is. What were the Republicans afraid of in working with Democrats to come up with a bill to fix the problem that the Republican leadership created? By the way, the same leadership passed a budget resolution this year cutting veterans health care benefits by $14 billion over the next 5 years. Forgive me if I do not trust that same leadership coming forward with this bill tonight.

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I believe we have a moral obligation to support our veterans, especially so during a time of war. This amendment is out of the regular order of business, but I could think of no better reason to waive the rules of the House, which we do on a daily basis here, than to support our veterans, that are being underfunded in their health care by over $1 billion in this fiscal year. Democrats tried during the budget resolution last year to add additional funding for VA health care because of the needs there. I tried an amendment in the Committee on the Budget this year, and we were voted down on a partisan basis. We tried an amendment in the Committee on Appropriations offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and we were voted down on a partisan basis. Now the Veterans' Administration leadership, part of the Bush administration, has admitted we have more than a $1 billion shortfall this year in VA health care funding. What that means, Mr. Chairman, is that every day that passes, there are veterans that are not receiving the VA health care they need and they deserve. What I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, is that, on a bipartisan basis, Members of the House and Senate, Members of the House, Republican and Democrat alike, recognize the need to fund this veterans health care. Let us do it today. Let us not wait until after a week- long vacation next week. Veterans do not delay in serving our country when we ask them to do their duty. We should not delay in fulfilling our moral obligation to provide quality health care for our veterans. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if no Member of the House objected to this amendment, if we accepted this amendment on a bipartisan basis, is there anything that would prohibit this amendment from becoming part of this appropriation bill, if no Member of the House objected, if on a bipartisan basis we accepted it?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, could I ask the Chair, or the gentleman from Michigan, for whom I have great respect, were there other points of orders against this bill that were waived in the rule that brought this bill to the floor?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would direct my question to the Chair. The point of order being raised now on my amendment to support veterans health care is that it is contrary to some of the process rules of the House. Could I inquire of the Chair as to whether there were other rules of the House that were waived in bringing this bill to the floor for debate today?

Mr. EDWARDS. So all points of order against the bill. Some points of order were waived, but apparently the majority is not going to allow us to waive a point of order to help us bring $1 billion to veterans health care.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, to be clear on the parliamentary inquiry, if we could on a good faith bipartisan basis, say, look, this is not the typical way we want to do business, but we did not get it done in the Committee on the Budget or Committee on Appropriations, so we could do it now, without an objection today, we could pass in this bill $1 billion in emergency funding for VA health care without objection. Is that correct?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I think what the House has to decide today is what is more important: House procedures that we waive every single day for the most insignificant of reasons or taking care of a $1 billion-plus shortfall in veterans health care programs during a time of war. Quite frankly, if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), my good friend and leader of the House Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, were Speaker of the House, I would withdraw my opposition to the vote against the rule that denies us a chance to provide adequate care for veterans; but the fact is he is not. The fact is that repeatedly this year, not the Committee on Appropriations on veterans affairs health care spending, but the House leadership has repeatedly said no to adequate funding for VA medical care. The gentleman from Florida talked about how proud he was of his work on veterans programs this year. Let me just point out that if we go back and look at the budget resolution passed on a partisan basis in April, that budget resolution directs a cut compared to present services of $14 billion in veterans health care over the next 5 years. I am not only not proud of that; that is the reason I voted against the partisan budget resolution in April that began this process. This problem was not created by the Committee on Appropriations. It was created by an inadequate budget resolution that was pushed through this House in April, strictly on a partisan basis. The fact is, I am less interested in how we got here and more interested in how we take care of veterans. That is more important than all the partisan disagreements we might discuss on the floor this day. What are the facts? The facts are that the Veterans Administration has now admitted that it has approximately, or say minimally, a $1 billion shortfall. The fact is that kind of shortfall is delaying purchasing equipment that doctors and nurses at our VA hospitals say is needed to provide quality care for veterans. That shortfall is going to have a direct impact on the quality of care for America's veterans, including veterans coming back from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. If anyone questions how serious this shortfall is, let me just read to my colleagues a letter dated May 3 of this year from Barbara Watkins, a medical center director for the Alexandria VA Medical Center in Virginia. She says: ``Dear Friend: As of April 29, 2005, the Alexandria VA Medical Center is no longer scheduling appointments for new Non Service Connected veterans.'' In laymen's terms, what that means is if you are a veteran that is unemployed, if you are a veteran that is making only $10,000 a year or so, perhaps on minimum wage, and you have a serious health care concern, you will not be given a medical appointment at the Alexandria VA Medical Center. My guess is that this kind of cut in services for veterans is occurring all over the country. The fact is that in Togus, Maine, quoting the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), I can tell my colleagues, using Togus VA Hospital in Maine, the Togus facility actually had to put up scaffolding over the doors to block bricks from falling on patients or staff. This crisis is real. It is serious. It is today. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), is correct: we should not normally have to deal with this on the foreign aid appropriations bill. Frankly, we should have dealt with it in April on the budget resolution that underfunded VA medical care. I wish we could have added this money in the VA budget that passed recently in the House. The fact is that is already through the House, and the problem is that if the Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies has to deal with it in a nonemergency basis, guess where we will have to take $1 billion from to take care of the VA health care crisis? It will come out of military construction. That is housing, day care facilities for our active duty servicemen and -women and their families, or it might have to come out of the defense health care budget. That is hospital care and medical care for active duty servicemen and -women, members of the Guard and Reserve who are fighting the war on terrorism. This is not the best place to deal with the veterans health care crisis. But if not now, when? If not this bill, what bill? Let us vote ``no'' on the rule. Let us add $1 billion today to deal with the veterans health care funding crisis.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the fact that there is a funding crisis in VA hospitals this year to the tune of $1 billion should be a surprise to no one. On March 23, 2004, the legislative directors of the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars said that 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 the fight against terrorism. The bottom line is, this House on a partisan basis, through the budget resolution, has underfunded VA medical care. Veterans groups knew it, Democrats in this body knew it, Democrats in the other body knew it. In fact, I made a specific effort in the emergency appropriation bill for Iraq to get additional funding for VA hospitals this year, but was rebuffed by the House leadership that said that money was not necessary. As the gentleman from Wisconsin has pointed out, that money is necessary. We have a crisis. It is inexcusable for the leadership of the Veterans Administration to testify just a few months ago, 2 months ago, that they did not need any extra money to provide adequate health care for veterans. Now, just 60 days later, they admit there is a $1 billion crisis in funding. We need to find out why the VA misled the Congress; and, most importantly, we need to address this problem. I would welcome a bipartisan effort in trying to address the funding needs for veterans.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Chair to recognize me at this point so that we could call up the amendment which I have at the desk that would provide $1 billion of emergency funding to the VA health care system this year to meet the funding shortfall that the VA leadership has just admitted to as of yesterday.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, this emergency funding for veterans health care, the need for it, was just admitted yesterday by the administration leadership. For that reason, this amendment was not in the unanimous consent order.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this appropriations bill fails the values test of equal opportunity and fairness that the American people would expect of us. The bill's failure is rooted in the flawed priorities of the House leadership, which has said in its budget resolution that it is okay to cut education, job training, and health programs so that someone making $1 million a year can receive every dime of his or her $220,000 annual tax cut. That is not okay. It is wrong. These flawed priorities not only offend Americans' sense of fairness, they undercut our constitutional promise of equal opportunity for all Americans. It makes no sense. There are 7.6 million unemployed Americans, but this bill cuts job training programs. It makes no sense. Our Nation faces an ever more competitive world, but this bill does not allow college student loans and grants to even keep up with the inflationary cost of higher education. The result, millions of hardworking students who have earned the right to go to college will not be able to afford to do so, thus undermining their future and our Nation's future. It makes no sense. Over 43 million Americans, most of them from working families, have no health insurance, but this bill cuts services from maternal and child health along with rural health programs. It makes no sense. Parents yearning to have more commercial-free quality television programming for their small children will be deeply disappointed to learn that this bill guts funding for public broadcasting. Our labor, health and human service programs are about helping people help themselves. Yet this bill, after inflation and population growth, cuts $5.9 billion from these important programs. That is a lot of bootstraps that decent, hardworking people will not have to pull themselves up and their family's future up. Cutting programs that help millions of hardworking middle- and low- income American families make a better life for themselves in order to pay for a $220,000 annual tax cut for a privileged few reflects neither faith-based nor pro-family values. The bottom line is this bill fails the American family values test of equal opportunity and fairness. This bill fails American children, seniors, and families. It fails our Nation's future. We can do better and American families deserve better.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, just to follow up on the last comment of my colleague who has served our Nation so well in service in the military, let me just point out that Vice President Cheney did not serve our country in the military. And I do not think any one of us in this room would have the right, based on that, to question his allegiance to our country or his commitment to our servicemen and -women. I do not want to get into a partisan debate between Republicans and Democrats over military service. What I do want to do is raise one simple question: Should this House not have the right to vote on the Obey amendment, which would provide a $2.6 billion increase for veterans health care, education, and other programs? Should we not have the right during a time of war to vote on that? Now, the gentleman from Georgia said in his comments that this rule waives points of order against the bill. My follow-up question is if the House Committee on Rules waives points of order against the bill to pass the bill, would it not be fair to say why do we not waive one point of order against an amendment in order to help veterans receive better health care? This would not be the first time, if my Republican colleagues will check the record, that they would have waived a point of order to allow a tax measure to be part of an appropriations bill. It has been done multiple times by this leadership in this House. The point has been made that VA health care has been increased by, I believe, 40 percent over the last 5 years. And that is correct, and I think that has been a bipartisan effort. In fact, it has taken Congress a lot of increases over the President's requests over the last 5 years in order to get to that 40 percent increase. But what that fact does not paint a true picture of is that during that time period there has been an increase in the number of veterans needing VA health care of 31 percent. So that means over the last 5 years, including during a time of war, we have only had a 9 percent increase in VA health care spending to cover all of the inflationary cost for that health care. And we all know health care budgets, whether they are within the VA or the private system, are going up at 5, 6, 7, 8 percent a year. Let us look at the inflationary costs in the VA health care that, frankly, make the Obey amendment very critical in trying to improve health care for our veterans. First is just a mandated 2.3 percent salary increase, which is the minimum increase we probably will pass this year, will take $247 million out of the VA health care budget. For prescription drugs, last year alone prescription drugs in the VA went up $548 million. So that is nearly $800 million we are talking about in inflationary costs. The fact is that this year, according to the Bush administration, we will expect a net increase of 300,000 veterans needing VA health care services. Many of those, tens of thousands of those, would be veterans of the Iraqi and Afghanistan war. Using the administration's own numbers, a little over $6,400 per veteran per year for VA health care times 300,000 veterans, that alone would require a $1.94 billion increase in VA health care funding for fiscal year 2006 just to meet inflationary costs and the increase in the number of veterans needing that care. The fact is, and I think we all know this, we can talk statistics and percentages, that VA hospitals today all over the country are using capital equipment and other equipment budgets just to keep the lights on and to pay salaries. We all know, as Members of Congress who visit our VA hospitals back home, they are underfunded and are having to cut corners, which should not have to be cut, especially during a time of war. Through all this debate we might forget what the Obey amendment does. It prevents a $500 million cut in medical administration for VA care. It prevents a $417 million cut in dollars needed to keep the lights on and run our VA hospitals. It prevents a cut in VA health care research dollars. That is what this amendment is all about, not a partisan debate. Let us vote against this rule, vote against the previous question, and allow the veterans of America during a time of war to have the right for Congress to vote on increasing our commitment to quality care for our veterans.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I am proud of the work the subcommittee did on a bipartisan basis to take limited dollars and use them wisely and focus them on high priorities. But, clearly, the reason I supported the Obey amendment and am sorry it was not allowed by the Committee on Rules is because it would allow a significant increase in resources and provide mental health care services and funding for the operations of our hospitals. And I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her great leadership over the years in standing up and fighting for our men and women who have served our country in uniform.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers on this side, so I yield back the balance of my time.