A bill to repeal a requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition of alternative fuels.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Let me begin by saying to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) that I salute his focus on the importance of increasing the funding for State extended care facilities, long-term care for America's veterans. That is exactly why, as the chairman of this subcommittee, I have worked on a bipartisan basis with our other subcommittee members and with Mr. Wamp, the ranking member, to increase by 94 percent above President Bush's request of funding for this program, 94 percent above the President's request. So I have no problem with the intent of what he is trying to accomplish, because we've been working on this very issue for months this year, and the bill product is proof of the success of that effort.

The reason I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment is that it would take funding out of the very account that is needed to address one of our veterans' and veterans service organizations' highest priorities in the entire VA budget, and that is to reduce the unconscionable backlog of veterans who are waiting to have their claims processed, including a backlog for combat wounded veterans to have their benefit cases considered.

Right now, there are nearly 400,000 veterans waiting to get their claims processed. What this amendment would do is take enough money out of that budget that would require the VA to cut 250 claims processors. Maybe that sounds like a rounding error to some, but to America's veterans, to 390,000 of them to be exact who are waiting for the processing of their benefits they earned by service and even by their sacrifice to our country, that's a significant cut, and it would do great harm to one of the highest priorities of our veterans service organizations.

I'd like to finish first.

So I wish the gentleman would withdraw the amendment and that we would continue to work in good faith as we already have this year, and that's evidenced by the 94 percent increase above the President's request for these.

I cannot go along with cutting funding that could lead to the loss of 250 claims processors that would link them to an already 6-month delay. For 6 months our veterans are having to wait to get their claims considered.

Our servicemen and -women, Mr. Chairman, didn't delay when Uncle Sam sent them to combat. They went to all parts of the Earth and into harm's way when our country asked them to do so. They didn't ask for a 6-month delay. For the National Guardsmen, the 500 I met last Sunday afternoon in my hometown of Waco, many of whom are going back to Iraq for their second and third tours of duty, they didn't wait 6 months when their country called on them to duty, and I don't think it's right to ask 390,000 veterans to wait 6 months.

We desperately need to get that waiting time down, and I think, though well intended and for a good cause--and it is well intended and it is a good cause--that this amendment that I have strongly supported could do harm to 390,000 veterans. That's why I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

If I have some time remaining, I'd be glad to yield to the gentleman.

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman never identified where he would cut the money from specifically, and this is the account that funds our claims processors that are desperately needed. I'd be happy to continue to work with the gentleman in a good faith, bipartisan effort to look for every dollar we can find for extended care facilities, but let's not take that out of the hide of nearly 400,000 veterans who have been waiting 6 months to get their benefits started.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Let me just commend Mr. Buyer for not only his leadership on veterans affairs over the years but for this amendment. I think this is a reasonable, responsible amendment, and I'll be glad to support it.

Well, the gentleman talked a few minutes ago about how we've worked together; and I think 10 minutes ago was an example of that where I accepted the gentleman's $7 million amendment.

On this one, I think the gentleman's explanation about all the problems that have occurred are the perfect reason why I have real concerns about an amendment that already has technical problems in it, an amendment that could deal with up to $150 million coming out of minor construction projects, which are so important for our VA hospitals and clinics, I think this just isn't the right way to handle an amendment of that magnitude.

I think the gentleman knows me well; and I will work with him and Mr. Wamp in all good faith and see, as we go to conference, if there are places we can find reasonable funding sources for solar applications. But taking $150 million, for example, would be 15 percent of the VA's minor construction project. And the very intent of that funding is to prevent in the VA system what Americans were outraged at in the Army hospital system at Walter Reed.

And the gentleman's question is what amount is reasonable?

Well, what's not reasonable, I would say to the gentleman, is trying to decide at 10:25 at night an amendment that has already had technical difficulties, an amendment we haven't had a hearing on in our subcommittee--we had 20 hearings over 100 hours, this issue never came up.

So my intention is to object to the unanimous consent request, but in good faith, just as I showed a few minutes ago on the $7 million amendment, let's continue to work together and see if we can find a way. I think having solar panels at VA facilities is something that can be an excellent idea, but this isn't the way to bring about that policy.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I object.

Yes, I object.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I think anyone who has listened to this debate over the last few minutes at 10:30 at night understands this isn't about partisanship at all. But I think what the American people would object to is going from $150 million to $75 million to whatever other number that we might pull out of our hat this late in the evening on a measure that wasn't considered for 1 minute in the 19 hearings we held covering over 100 hours.

I salute the gentleman, my friend and colleague. I salute the gentleman for his goal of trying to encourage the VA, and I want to encourage the Department of Defense as well, to use solar energy, to lessen our energy costs and our dependence upon foreign energy supplies. That is a worthwhile goal.

But, Mr. Chairman, appropriation bills are about setting priorities. And let me tell you my priority, and I'm proud to defend this priority. My priority is that I never want one American veteran to ever have to live in the unconscionable conditions that Army soldiers had to live in at Walter Reed Annex 18 last year. The American people were deeply offended by what they saw.

So our committee has worked on a bipartisan basis in good faith to see that we plus-up the minor construction accounts in the VA to provide the kind of renovation so that we don't see that kind of nightmare occurring in the VA system that occurred in the Army medical system. And despite the worthiness of the gentleman's goals, even though it's so late at night and talking about sums such as $150 million, the fact is that loss of money for minor construction could cause the VA to have to cancel 25 to 30 significant construction projects to help provide better care, more modernized facilities for our veterans. So that is why I object to this amendment.

And I do look forward to working with the gentleman. If he wants to work in good faith, that will be my commitment to him. But it ought to be on a carefully thought-out process, weighing not only the pluses of his laudable goals but the minuses of where he would take that money from. That's the right way to handle the American taxpayers' dollars.

I yield.

Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that the Rules Committee allowed any Member to offer any amendment to this bill with the only request that it be preprinted in the Congressional Record so the public and veterans organizations could see what those amendments would be. And this kind of confusion at this time of night is probably a good example of why that was a smart rule to require that kind of preprinting.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Surely.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part:

``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that is not authorized. The amendment therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I would just say briefly I think the Chair has received plenty of advice on this point of order, and now I would like to ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas, my colleague. She has been a champion for fighting for more funding in the VA for mental health care services for our veterans. Because of that, and the support of others in this House, which she has been a real leader in this effort, we will have added $900 million above the last year funding level for specialty mental health care services for our veterans.

The VA will have a great deal of discretion in how to spend that money. I would imagine the importance of the VA health care center in Houston and the number of veterans there, that it should be one of the beneficiaries of this funding.

I know because of this being an appropriation bill, there were technical reasons why there was a point of order that potentially lodged against this amendment. But that point of order will not keep us from working closely together to fulfill your goal of seeing that we have first-class quality mental health care services for veterans in underserved areas and urban areas across our country.

We look forward to that.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Will the gentleman yield first?

Let me just take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to thank Mr. Filner. While I chair the appropriations subcommittee for veterans, he is the chairman of the full Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He has been a leading voice in fighting for mental health care services for our veterans and a broad range of services and benefits for our veterans. Without his leadership, we would not have $3.8 billion in specialty mental health care mandated in this bill, a $900 million increase over the year before.

I certainly look forward to working with the chairman of the authorizing committee in the months ahead on the programs that he has fought so hard for.

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I do. I would also like to move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, my father was a naval aviator in World War II. My father passed away 4 months ago. Had it not been for the courage of Filipino veterans, my father might have been killed, because instead of the war ending before he was deployed, had it not been for their heroism in the Pacific, my father might have been deployed, and like so many other Americans in that war, he might have ended up giving his life to the country.

I have been deeply moved by Mr. Honda and Mr. Filner's passionate dedication on behalf of these great citizens of the world who sacrificed, many of them giving the ultimate sacrifice, on behalf of our country and our victory in World War II. Because of the legislative process, there are times when we simply, despite all of our intentions, cannot solve every problem on an appropriations bill, because the rules of this Congress require an authorization process as well.

We can't solve this problem tonight, but because of Mr. Filner and because of Mr. Honda, I think we are a giant step closer to addressing this injustice that has existed for so long.

My commitment to Mr. Filner and Mr. Honda is to work as the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with the chairman of the authorizing committee and on a bipartisan basis to find appropriations available so that if we can get an authorization for those appropriations, we can finally bring about justice for these people who did so much for our country and for the world.

With that, I would like to yield, Mr. Chairman, to Chairman Filner.

I will be honored to yield to the Speaker, who has been such an eloquent voice on this issue.

If I could reclaim my time, let me just say, Mr. Chairman, in the presence of Speaker Pelosi, what I said earlier this evening. While she has been gracious in commending others for working for veterans over the last 2 years, she made a commitment to America's veterans 4 years ago and said if she became Speaker, we would have unprecedented increases in funding for veterans health care and veterans benefits. $16.8 billion later and a 21st century bill of rights, we can all stand, and I say gratefully, Speaker Pelosi has kept her promise to those great Americans who have kept their promise to serve, and I thank her deeply for that.

With that, I yield to Mr. Filner.

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. But let me just salute the gentleman for his focus on the importance of providing cemeteries of honor, hallowed ground for our servicemen and women who served in uniform.

For the record, let me say that for that very reason, in this bill we provided $83 million for the expansion of existing national cemeteries. We increased by 41 percent funding for our State veterans cemetery program, from $32 million to $45 million, and based on appropriations from our subcommittee in recent years, the Arlington National Cemetery, the most hallowed of hallowed grounds is being expanded as well.

I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment. I think the proper way to make these decisions is careful analysis, looking at the numbers of veterans, how far they have to go to various national and State cemeteries, and I look forward to working with him and other Members of this House in the months ahead to see how we can do this in a proper way so that we can honor our veterans.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

I thank my colleague from Texas. I will not object to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I won't take 5 minutes. Let me just clarify for the record, we have no projects or programs in this bill, the VA and military construction bill, named after anyone currently serving in Congress. And so for that reason, I am glad to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Stupak and Mr. Barrow. This is a glitch in the writing of the law done in years past that causes a problem when we increase the miles reimbursement rate for veterans who need to travel, in some cases, hundreds of miles to get to a VA hospital. It actually increases the deductible. That is not the intention of the VA. That is not the intention of the Congress. This amendment corrects that.

I hope we can take this principle and talk about it as we go into conference committee, and I have even had some brief conversations with the VA. My hope is that we could actually address this issue, fix it, so that we don't have veterans who, in effect, even though we have a 41.5 cent reimbursement rate, after deductible is considered, some of them might have a 10 cent-per-mile rate or a 20 cent-per-mile rate.

The reason we need to fix that completely is that for many veterans-- while this may not sound like a lot of money to others, for veterans this is a difference truly between being able to afford to drive to a clinic or drive to a hospital and get the health care they desperately need and deserve.

So I know Mr. Wamp, who takes a back seat to no one in his caring for veterans, and anyone who's heard him speak tonight on the floor knows why I have such great respect for his commitment to our veterans, I know that he and I can work closely together with Mr. Stupak, with Mr. Barrow, with the VA and see if we can't take the principle embodied in this amendment and move it even further.

The gentlemen have done a great benefit for hundreds of thousands of veterans out there.

I'd be glad to.

Thank you, Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Barrow.

I yield back.

I'm glad to support this amendment and thank Mr. Wamp for bringing it to the floor.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to express gratitude to Mr. Murphy and also to Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania.

I think what he just said was so important. Our veterans have given their lives to protect our right to vote as citizens of this country. Many others have made sacrifices, have physical and mental wounds that they will pay for to the last days of their lives. And I just don't think it is right or proper for the VA to be making it more difficult for veterans who've done so much to protect our right to vote to make it more difficult for them to vote.

Many of our veterans in our VA hospitals are long-term patients there with significant disabilities. Our country ought to be doing outreach to make it possible for them to cast the vote that they fought for in combat.

So for all of those reasons, I salute the gentleman for this amendment. I strongly support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment for one fundamental reason, it would do harm to America's service men and women and our military families during a time of war.

I would not, at any time, question the motives of the gentleman from Arizona. He is a person of integrity, he has been consistent in his principled position on the issue of earmarks, but the best of intentions can't stop the worst of results. And the worst of the worst would be to undermine our military readiness and the quality of life for our troops and their families at any time, but especially so during a time of war.

Let me list some of the harm that would be done. And this isn't a full list, but just some:

Nine quality of life facilities, such as chapels and community centers in our military bases, bases from which forces are being deployed for the second and third time to Iraq and Afghanistan, those would be eliminated.

Fifteen Guard and Reserve training facilities would be eliminated.

Seven active duty training facilities would be eliminated. These are facilities that, on a bipartisan basis, after careful thought, this subcommittee worked with the Department of Defense to say that, you know what, we have been dishonoring our 18- and 19-year-old military recruits. Because when they come in, instead of thanking them, we put them in barracks that we would be ashamed to have our sons and daughters living in. This amendment would stop those new barracks from being built.

Seven fire stations would be eliminated. Isn't it enough that our men and women have to be in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan? Must they and their families also be put in greater harm's way back at home because we can't build fire stations that are desperately needed?

And I know something about this because at one time I represented the largest Army installation in the world, Fort Hood, Texas. It has had one division continually in Iraq since this war began. And their base commander came to me and said, you know what, the bureaucratic process at the Pentagon and OMB killed our desperate need for a new fire station. I'm glad Congress, in that case, exercised its constitutional authority to do what was right to protect those great Americans and their families.

Let me give you some more specifics of what harm this amendment would do.

It would kill a new communications facility at a naval base for a security force unit that is in charge of safeguarding nuclear weapons.

It would kill funds to expand and upgrade a readiness center for a National Guard engineer battalion that has deployed soldiers to Iraq to disarm IEDs.

It would kill new housing for an Air and National Guard unit. The current

housing has mold, leaking roofs, poor ventilation, and numerous code violations.

I reject the notion outright that some unelected, unaccountable bureaucrat sitting in an office in the basement of the White House Budget Office has a monopoly on wisdom because they do not. And many times, even despite their good efforts, the fact is administration budgets, Mr. Chairman, are often started and put together a year or year and a half before we come to this floor. I think it would be wrong to deny us, this Congress, with our constitutional duty to fund appropriations bills, to say that we can't benefit from the judgment of time and changing needs during a time of war to provide for training facilities and quality of life facilities for our troops.

This is a bad amendment. But worse than that, it is an amendment that would do great harm to our service men and women, the quality of their housing, the quality of their training. And for that reason, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--in all due respect to the author of this amendment, who is a decent and honorable man who cares about our military and our armed forces--I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to soundly reject this ill-advised, dangerous amendment.

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

I thank the gentleman.

I heard a few minutes ago a description of an ideal world where every decision made by the executive branch is perfectly motivated. I wish that were the real world, but I certainly wouldn't want to bet the family nest egg on it.

Let me explain, Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues, how the real world works. And I did represent the largest Army installation for 14 years; I worked closely with them. And what would happen is some bureaucrat at OMB would turn down a high-priority project requested by the top military commander--at Fort Hood, that was a Three Star General. So when I would meet with that Three Star General at Fort Hood, I would say, what are your greatest unmet needs? One year it was a fire station. This year it was a chapel that Congressman Carter and I worked on. We responded to the highest priority needs of the military commanders with their boots on the ground. I put a lot more faith in that commander's judgment than in some unaccountable, unnamed bureaucrat. I would like to hear the names of these bureaucrats at OMB that are so perfect in their knowledge, in their wisdom, in their homework.

Let me give you a specific real world example where this committee, on a bipartisan basis, took an initiative. We hear in our hearings each year from the top noncommissioned officers. We

ask, what are your top quality of life needs? For 3 years in a row our top noncommissioned officers testified before Mr. Wamp and me and said, it is day care centers. We have spouses who are deployed one, two, three times to Iraq and Afghanistan. The remaining spouse is left at home with small children and desperately needs affordable, accessible day care for their kids.

But you know what? There weren't a lot of lobbyists over there at OMB fighting for young mothers that are, in effect, single mothers while their husbands are in Iraq, or young, single dads while their wives were serving in Afghanistan. And our committee exercised its authority under the Constitution to say that that's not right, we're going to support these military families.

I reject this amendment, again, as I said, as being harmful to our military families. In this case, you know what happened on day care centers? After we added $134 million in a congressional initiative in the FY08 supplemental bill, the Pentagon came back and said, you're right, we made a mistake, we want to add to that.

We should reject this amendment and support our troops.

Will the gentleman yield?

Does the gentleman know that less than one-half of 1 percent of this bill is made up of earmarks, less than one-half of 1 percent of the funding in this bill is made up of earmarks?

For the record, that is correct.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say I support this amendment. It does state the obvious: We should not take private property for private use without just compensation.

Also, Mr. Chairman, because we had no other Members on our side to finish our discussion on the previous debate, let me just say briefly in response to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), his comments, there was no confusion about that amendment. It was very clear that the direct impact of that amendment would have been to hurt our troops. It would have killed fire stations designed to protect our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and marines and their families.

It would have cut out training facilities, it would have cut out daycare centers, it would have cut out all sorts of important facilities to help our troops have a better quality of life and to train effectively during a time of war, and it's because of that and because of the responsible process that our subcommittee has gone through to vet these projects carefully, that I am confident that later this morning when the House votes on that amendment, that that amendment will be soundly defeated for all the right reasons.

This process in this subcommittee has been a good one, a solid one, and I think the protest to the contrary will be made clear tomorrow when Republicans and Democrats alike join to overwhelmingly reject the Flake amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to strike the last word.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. In my opinion, the gentleman's amendment would weaken the protections that the Davis-Bacon Act provides to American workers. For myself, I'd like to ensure that construction workers who are building barracks for our troops or hospitals for our veterans are there because they are motivated and skilled at their trade, not because think were the cheapest workers that a contractor could find somewhere.

I heard the gentleman offer some estimates that he came up with. I don't know the source of all of those. I am sure there are differences of opinion, but I do know the Economic Policy Institute has done a study that found a growing body of evidence suggesting that ending Davis-Bacon will not reduce costs on government contracts.

I guess one could make the argument that if we could mandate--this is government money--we mandate that these jobs all be paying minimum wage, perhaps we could save some money. I don't think that would be very good policy for our Veterans Administration, for our Department of Defense, or for our country.

Finally, on I think a broader point, there may be some that think that our country's present day economic problems are that the middle class is just making too much money. I couldn't disagree more. The problem with our economy today is that men and women who are willing to get up and go work hard every single day are struggling to just make enough money to help educate their children, buy clothes for their family, and put food on the family table.

I don't see an amendment that would take money out of the pockets of a lot of these hardworking middle class families that are the backbone and heart and soul of our American economy and our private market system. I don't see taking money out of their pockets helping them or our economy.

So, with great respect for the gentleman, who has been consistent in this arena, I must strongly oppose this amendment.

Briefly.

Well, the point of Davis-Bacon, reclaiming my time, is to see that the workers, American workers, who build our VA hospitals, renovate our Department of Defense facilities, build new barracks and housing for our troops that are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today, that they are paid a fair wage, a livable wage.

We can have honest differences on this. I tend to believe from my vantage point that providing that kind of honest wage brings in better workers and more quality work.

The gentleman might disagree with that, but we will agree to disagree on that.

The bottom line is I think the middle class is the strength of our Nation's economy, and the sooner we put dollars back into the pockets of those families willing to work hard for that living, the sooner we will get this economy off the wrong track and back on the right track.

For all of those reasons, I again oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is late at night, now early in the morning actually, so I am going to

be brief. But I want to end as I began, by thanking Mr. Wamp, the ranking member of this VA Appropriations and Military Construction Subcommittee.

There are a lot of people in Washington and a lot of people in America who think that bipartisanship is not only an endangered species, but an extinct species in Washington. I think this process, over 100 hours of hearings, 19 different hearings, the product tonight, a good product, is perfect proof that bipartisanship for the most important of causes is still alive and well in Washington, D.C.

I want to again salute Speaker Pelosi and Mr. Obey and Mr. Spratt, as well as the second ranking Democrat on our subcommittee, Mr. Farr of California, who has been there every step of the way for our veterans, our troops and their families. He has made a great contribution to this bill.

Finally, I would just finish by saying my hope and prayer is that what we have before this House is a bill that is worthy of the sacrifice of our service men and women and their families.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would provide $7 million of the amount appropriated in the Department of Veterans Affairs' VA Minor Construction account. These moneys shall be used for the VA to install alternative fueling stations at 35 of its medical facility campuses across the country. This is one of many measures that can be taken to address the impact of the rising energy prices and to alleviate our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

We have an energy crisis in this country, and unfortunately, some are not taking action before we leave on this August break. The House will recess, and we'll go 5 weeks, and we'll not be taking up meaningful energy legislation, but we have an opportunity tonight.

It was in 2007 that President Bush issued executive order 13423, ``strengthening Federal environment, energy and transportation management,'' mandating a reduction of the amount of petroleum consumption for Federal transportation.

In compliance with the President's order, the VA has taken steps to install E-85, ethanol fueling stations, at six VA medical centers--in Altoona, Pennsylvania, in Augusta, Georgia, in Cleveland, Ohio, in Danville, Illinois, in Little Rock, Arkansas, and most recently in San Francisco, California.

I would think that Speaker Pelosi would want other VA facilities in other States and members' districts to have the very same fueling stations that are available at the San Francisco VA medical center in her own congressional district.

According to the VA, it has nearly 11,000 vehicles that collectively travel more than 100 million miles a year. The VA acquired over 1,000 Alternative Fuel Vehicles in FY 2007, and 99 percent of these are flexible fuel vehicles that can use E-85. The installation of alternative fuel stations at more VA sites would have a huge impact on the reduction of greenhouse gases and in the amount of petroleum consumed. Based on recent discussions with the Department, I am confident that, if funding is provided, the VA could install alternative fueling stations at the 35 additional sites.

Mr. Edwards knows full well that he is about $662 million above the President's request and nearly $361 million more than in FY 2008.

So, again, in facing the tremendous energy challenge in this Nation, we must act collectively in a bipartisan fashion to reduce our dependence on bad actors around the world that control our energy supplies. There are more than a dozen alternative and advanced fuels in production and that used today, one of which is E-85, an 85 percent ethanol mixture, which in the United States is based primarily on corn. Investing in the use of alternative transportation fuel services is one way to help increase the supply of American-made fuel.

I think Mr. Edwards and I would agree we're anxious to get to nonedible fiber--cellulosic ethanol.

This use of renewable domestic energy sources will contribute to an enhancement of energy security, and it will reduce the reliance on foreign oil. The installation of alternative fueling stations on VA campuses will reduce greenhouse emissions and the VA's gasoline costs, and it will provide funds for direct health care services for the men and women who have taken the oath to defend the freedoms and our way of life.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to thank Chairman Chet Edwards. I would like to thank Zach Wamp. And to my good friend from Texas that I've worked with for many years, we have a challenge in front of us with regard to an amendment. And the challenge is that I've prepared an amendment that $150 million, Mr. Chairman, would be dedicated under the minor construction account--for which there's a lot of dollars here--for the installation of appropriate solar electric energy roof applications.

Now, we had several meetings, Chairman Edwards, with a lot of lawyers, and the lawyers were looking at the applications of the rules and the processes. The interesting thing is, when we drafted the amendment--we're having the conversation that you said we didn't have time to do in private, so we're having to do it in public. So I have to do it now before we actually get into the details of the amendment.

So when I did the amendment, we put it at the end, on page 41 here, line 14. Now, when I put it there on the applications of solar, my assumption is that when you then look at all the general authorities, section 316, that's about colocation authority; section 2404, that's administration; 2406 is acquisition; 8102 is also acquisition--one is acquisition of land, 2406; 8102 is acquisition of medical facilities; 8103, that's minor construction. All these other sections have nothing to do with solar.

So my assumption, Mr. Chairman, when I put this in here, I did not put at the end of the amendment ``at VA medical facilities.'' My assumption is that, well, we're not going to put it on tombstones, we're not going to put it in a parking lot, and it doesn't apply anywhere else.

But when I talked with the lawyers, they're like, you know, Steve, you just can't do it like that. And you need to actually have at the end the words ``at VA medical facilities.'' So now I've got myself in a bit of a jam.

Now, Mr. Edwards, we can do this several ways: I could offer the amendment. I could then present all the arguments of solar and what the VA is presently doing in the 16 sites that they're proceeding with. And if you say, well, but I don't like the amount, I could do a UC, we could agree to a particular amount, we could add the language. We go to conference. If you say, nope, we're not going to have anything, okay. Well, what could I do? I could look at your language--which is general language--and say, well, that's fine; whatever you do at conference, that's fine with me. I'll just go down and I'll work with the Secretary. I'll negotiate with the Secretary and I'll take whatever those monies are and we'll do it that way.

But what I want to do with you, Chairman Edwards, is that you and I have worked together a lot over the years. And you and I are in agreement when it comes to alternative sources of energy. So let's be practical. If you want to say to me, Steve, don't do $150 million; lower the amount, add the language, we'll work this out in conference and we'll work with the Secretary, that's how we work these things out.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

I would like to reclaim my time and now have a conversation with the chairman. You said you wanted to have one.

I'm going to give great deference here, which way do you want me to go?

Reclaiming my time, when I make the UC to add ``at VA medical facilities,'' what amount do you feel is reasonable?

I yield to the chairman.

What amount do you think is reasonable?

I reclaim my time. I will offer the amendment, we'll go through the procedures, we'll talk about solar, and we'll work with you as we go to conference. If it's not there, I'll just go right down Pennsylvania Avenue and I'll work with the administration and we'll get the number necessary to fund the 16 sites. That's how the town works.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would provide $150 million of the amount appropriated in the Department of Veterans Affairs minor construction account for the installation of solar electronic roof applications.

Qualified solar technologies to be considered included, but not limited to,

distributed thin-film solar, amorphous crystalline, nano photovoltaic, and technology systems. What we're trying to do is harness the energy of the sun.

Alternative and renewable sources, such as solar power--whether it's wind, geothermal, hydrogen, biomass--all of these are extremely important. They play an important role in addressing rising energy prices and alleviate our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

We have an energy crisis in this country. Peak oil is approaching year 2037. We need to rebalance the Nation's portfolio. And in order to do that, we increase our Nation's energy supply to bridge ourselves beyond the alternative energy future in which we seek. We must begin to act and to take decisive measures to address the impact of high energy costs on the Department of Veterans Affairs.

VA medical centers consume large amounts of energy, especially for advanced technologies such as CAT scans, MRIs, that are necessary to provide state-of-the-art medical technologies.

Between 2005 and 2007, VA's energy costs increased by 20 percent. Last year, the VA identified 16 potential sites for solar projects. It's in Calverton, New York; Gustine, California; Phoenix, Arizona; Fresno, California; West Los Angeles, California; Loma Linda, California; Long Beach, California; Dallas, Texas; Palo Alto, California; Sheridan, Wyoming; Reno, Nevada; Tucson, Arizona; Syracuse, New York; Buffalo, New York; West Haven, Connecticut; and Albany, New York. Yes, I am on the floor asking that we fund 11 Democrat districts and five Republican.

Last year, when they identified these, they did feasibility studies with regard to these 16 sites. This summer, the VA plans to move forward to install rooftop solar systems at two sites, Loma Linda and Dallas.

Solar technologies, they diversify our energy supply, they reduce our dependence on imported fuels, improve our air quality, and offset greenhouse gases.

And I'm also interested that, as we move toward American-made energy solutions, that we buy solar systems that are made in America, not ones that are made in China or in Germany or in other places. We should do it here.

At this point, I would like to clarify the amendment. I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my amendment, after the word ``applications,'' insert the following: ``At VA medical facilities.''

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the amount of $150 million and insert the amount of $75 million.

Mr. Chairman, it is important that we continue to invest now to reduce the energy costs into the future. The opportunity to employ this technology at the VA, the second largest department within the Federal Government, is now.

Now, I had hoped that we could have done this tonight. I'll continue to work with you, Mr. Chairman.

To the country, this isn't a good message to send. I will speak with the Secretary in the morning. I will work with him. I will let him know that you're sending down $662 million above the President's request, $361 million more than FY08. And because he has, right now, these 16 projects, I believe there's more than sufficient funds here to move on solar applications.

I would have hoped that we could have done this in a bipartisan fashion; that is really unfortunate. And I will work with the Secretary to ensure that alternative sources of energy are used in the VA.

With that, I yield back my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would like to speak on the point of order.

First, it's very unfortunate that solar would be kicked out on an attempt of a technicality. Let me go right to the point of order.

The amendment refers to title 38, U.S. Code, Section 8103. It provides VA the authority to ``construct'' and ``alter.'' So you can see that in the very first line; so 8103(a)(1) ``may construct or alter any medical facility.'' Now, it's any medical facility as the Secretary considers necessary for use of the site. Section 8101 of title 38, United States Code, defines the term ``alter'' with respect to medical facility means to repair, remodel, improve, or extend. So this section 8103 is general authority. Specific authority would come under--and this is minor construction. So under general authority, the Secretary has great discretion. With regard to specific authority, it would come under Section 8104. That would be designations of CBOCs, anything above $10 million comes under Section 8104.

What I refer to, and this is what the Parliamentarians make sure everybody has, it's the House Practice guide, the Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House. So when I go to page 84, the authorization from specific statutes in this paragraph, Mr. Chairman, so this was page 84, and it's entitled under Authorization From Specific Statutes Or General Existing Law; so what I have done is refer to the general law, not the specific. This is the general law. ``Authorization for a program may be derived from a specific law providing authority for that particular program or from a more general existing law,'' which means organic law, or ``authorizing appropriations for such programs.''

So what's happened over the years, it's not like the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Edwards.

Mr. Chairman, we don't bring that annual VA authorization bill. So what has happened over the decades, Mr. Chairman, is that we have always relied on the 8103 as the general authority provision.

Now, if you say, well, Steve, when you look at this amendment, when you look at the amendment, because you don't put ``VA facility'' at the end, well, then we might interpret that as applications to all other sections. Mr. Chairman, that's why I said the mistake that was made was, was that all of these other sections don't even apply to solar. There's only one of these sections that would apply to solar, and that is the medical facilities section, and that is the 8103.

So my appeal to you is that by putting this solar amendment here at the end of the paragraph, there is only one section here in which it applies to, and that's section 8103.

So when the chairman said you don't have the authorization, I would appeal to the Chair that general authority exists within the minor construction statute for us to do this, and that would be my argument on the point of order.

I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw my motion to appeal the ruling.

Part of the challenges that we have been dealing with, some have to do with fiction. The Speaker was just on the floor and referred to promises. If the Speaker would not leave the floor--Madam Speaker?

How fascinating. You see, the Speaker was just on the floor, Mr. Chairman, and spoke fiction. While there had been anecdotal accounts of such promises which she has referred to, there have been no official written accounts of these promises. CRS has done an extensive research of the papers and writings of both President Roosevelt and General MacArthur and have not found any written proof that these promises were made.

It is very unfortunate that the Speaker would not have stuck around to listen to that. Several requests for her to stay on the floor, she turns and just walked on out. Now, why would she do that? She doesn't want to hear the truth. It is better to stand on the floor and just say this.

I appreciate the chairman having withdrawn the amendment since the Parliamentarians were about to rule in my favor, so I appreciate that, that the comments were parliamentary and permissible on the floor.

Let me say, the challenge that we have had here in the committee is that when Mr. Filner brought his bill he needed an offset, and the offset is that in order to come up with $1 billion, he used the Hartness decision. And that would take $1 billion from American veterans. Now, that is what got us all into this.

Now, the gentleman brings an amendment and tries to say, oh, no, I don't want to use the Hartness decision. The Hartness decision is extremely important, Mr. Chairman, and I want to address it here for a moment. Because in the committee itself, when I tried to strike the offset, I was defeated on a party-line vote. And there would be a tough vote here on the floor if we were going to vote to repeal Hartness.

The Hartness decision is that we give a pension to individuals who served during a period of war, are elderly, severely disabled, and indigent. It is bothersome to me that we would deny these individuals that pension to then give to someone else. Therein lies the challenge.

Chairman Edwards and I had a good conversation, and it is the offset with which many of us are uncomfortable about, and we are trying to figure out how best to navigate our way through this issue. And in the same spirit in which we are going to work on solar, we are going to work on this issue. But we are not going to repeal Hartness.

Hartness comes from a 2006 United States Court of Appeals veterans claims decision that overturned the Department of Veterans Affairs decision that denied an 86-year-old legally blind World War II veteran, Robert A. Hartness, a VA benefit called a special monthly pension. That is what they wanted to overturn.

The court reversed the VA's denial of benefits to Mr. Hartness, and required the VA to begin making those payments. The court held that the U.S. law requires an award of the special monthly pension to a veteran eligible for VA nonservice-connected disability pension if, in addition to being at least 65 years of age, he or she has a minimum disability rating of 60 percent or more, or is considered permanently housebound.

The VA determined Mr. Hartness to be 70 percent disabled due to loss of vision, and the VA has also determined that this offset would affect about 20,000 who would file for this type of decision.

So I am most hopeful, I know there is some agreement among myself and other members on both sides of the aisle that if we want to address the issue regarding the Filipino War Veterans of World War II issue, that should be addressed as a standalone. Let's do not repeal or overturn the

Hartness decision because you need $1 billion and so we are going to take it from World War II elderly, disabled, housebound veterans. That is a little bizarre and disturbing to me.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer and withdraw an amendment on this particular bill.

The amendment has to do with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, calling upon them to increase the number of medical centers specializing in posttraumatic stress disorder in underserved urban areas, which shall include using the services of existing health care entities pursuant to the authority in section 1703.

This particular amendment has to do with ensuring the cooperation with existing health care institutions used by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a).

I would like to see these facilities located in an area defined as a HUBZone and as well in an area that covers rural areas. I would like to see, according to my amendment, that these facilities would be located within a State that has sustained more than 5 percent of the total casualties suffered by the United States Armed Forces in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I am very pleased that, under the leadership of Chairman Edwards, longstanding leadership, that the legislation that we have before us includes more dollars for mental health and substance abuse, and as well some $3.8 billion, and also it includes $200 million to address the question of fee-based services in the Veterans' Affairs medical system. It also has additional money, $5 billion, for medical facilities and $165 million for extended care.

My amendment was to recognize the plain facts of combat, as we have seen more and more soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan wounded not only physically but mentally. Most of these soldiers have seen--94 percent of the soldiers in Iraq have reported receiving small arms fire, 86 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported knowing someone who was seriously injured. Some similar numbers we are finding in Afghanistan because we have seen an increased amount of combat in Afghanistan.

And so, Mr. Chairman, my concern is to ensure that we have the right kind of facilities for our soldiers that are returning. So I offer this amendment because I thought it was very important to include hospitals like Riverside General Hospital, the only historically black hospital I believe remaining in the United States, founded and organized by a World War II veteran, or family of a World War II soldier.

I would hope that as we move toward the conference, since this amendment is now being withdrawn as I conclude my remarks, I am hoping that we will be able to work with the committee and ensure that we have the opportunity to make this work.

I'd like to yield to the chairman, if I could. I'd like to yield to the gentleman about the amendment that I have that has to do with providing post-traumatic stress disorder facilities in collaboration with existing facilities.

I think this is a good amendment. I am offering and withdrawing it in cooperation with the committee. I won't go down to 1600 Pennsylvania and work with the White House, but I would like to work with this committee and this chairman, and thank him for his leadership, as well as Chairman Filner, who has been more than powerful, if you will, on the issues of veterans.

This has to do with putting these facilities in historically underserved areas and, as I indicated to you, Riverside Hospital has an initial grant. We are having some difficulty in making sure they get their moneys from the last time. But I think we need more of these facilities.

I yield to the gentleman.

If I could reclaim my time and say that the underpinnings of this amendment has to do with existing satellite facilities such as Riverside Hospital that could be in collaboration. I would be very grateful if I could work with the chairman and full committee, and I want to acknowledge the chairman of the full committee in looking at that as we go into conference, as to whether or not we can at least ensure that those facilities will be looked at.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the bill and in favor of my amendment. I also rise to express my sincere appreciation to Mr. Edwards, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs and Military Construction, and the Chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, Mr. Filner, for all they have done and continue to do to make real President Lincoln's admonition that ``we care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan.''

In particular, I wish to commend Chairman Edwards, for the leadership, commitment, and foresight he has demonstrated on the issue of PTSD and the overall mental health of our nation's veterans. Like Mr. Edwards and Mr. Filner, I am committed to improving the lives of thousands of veterans who have risked their lives for our nation, and I believe my amendment plays a crucial role in ensuring that veterans suffering from PTSD receive the medical treatment they desperately need.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 6599, the ``Veterans Affairs and Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year of 2009.'' As a Member of Congress from Texas, a state which has sustained more casualties in the ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq than all but one other, I am pleased to offer this amendment. This amendment is intended to address the urgent need for more post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment and counseling facilities servicing veterans living in some of the more distressed areas of our country.

Mr. Chairman, according to Webster's, dignity is ``the quality or condition of being esteemed, honored or worthy.'' We can never do enough to honor our wounded veterans. Studies have shown that 30 percent of troops deployed to Iraq suffer from depression, anxiety, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, when wounded troops return home, the treatment they receive is more befitting a second class citizen than a hero. This is a shame and a great stain on our nation.

How these problems could be overlooked or neglected by this Administration is unfathomable. The very leaders that these brave young men and women rely let them down. The message that incidents like Walter Reed Medical Center sends to our troops is

that we do not care enough. But that is not the message we wish to send. The Veterans Administration and Military Construction Appropriations Act of 2009, H.R. 6599, will go a long away toward correcting this misapprehension. All Members of the House are indebted to our colleague, Mr. Edwards of Texas, for his masterful leadership in shepherding this landmark legislation to the House floor. For the more than 29,000 brave men and women who have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, help is on the way. And the over 4,000 heroes who have given the last full measure of devotion will always be in our hearts and prayers.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the number of medical facilities specializing in post- traumatic stress disorder located in underserved urban areas. Access to post-traumatic stress disorder treatment is especially important since veterans living in such areas are less likely to be diagnosed and treated for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mr. Chairman, PTSD is one of the most prevalent and devastating psychological wounds suffered by the brave men and women fighting in far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear.

For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see on a daily basis. In an instant a suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face. Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission, and you do, even though you may not even have reached your 20th birthday.

But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after the stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your thoughts and memories. And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters with the enemy and your own mortality come flooding back.

PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such as mugging, rape, torture, being kidnapped or held captive, child abuse, car accidents, train wrecks, plane crashes, bombings, or natural disasters such as floods or earthquakes.

People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb (especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close), lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become violent. They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult. PTSD symptoms seem to be worse if the event that triggered them was deliberately initiated by another person, as in a mugging or a kidnapping. Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts during the day and in nightmares when they sleep. These are called flashbacks. Flashbacks may consist of images, sounds, smells, or feelings, and are often triggered by ordinary occurrences, such as a door slamming or a car backfiring on the street. A person having a flashback may lose touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening all over again.

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that most veterans with PTSD also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD. These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression, alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety disorders.

The current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are the most continuous combat operations since Vietnam. Soldiers in Iraq are at risk for being killed or wounded themselves, are likely to have witnessed the suffering of others, and may have participated in killing or wounding others as part of combat operations. All of these activities have a demonstrated association with the development of PTSD. One study indicated that 94 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported receiving small- arms fire. In addition, 86 percent of soldiers in Iraq reported knowing someone who was seriously injured or killed, 68 percent reported seeing dead or seriously injured Americans, and 51 percent reported handling or uncovering human remains. The majority, 77 percent of soldiers deployed to Iraq reported shooting or directing fire at the enemy, 48 percent reported being responsible for the death of an enemy combatant, and 28 percent reported being responsible for the death of a noncombatant.

My amendment recognizes that these soldiers are first and foremost, human. They carry their experiences with them. Ask a Vietnam Veteran about the frequency of nightmares they experience, and one will realize that serving in the Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether good or bad. My amendment ensures that ``no soldier is left behind.'' By directing the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase the number of medical facilities specializing in PTSD that are located in underserved urban areas, and conducting a concurrent study on increasing access to PTSD treatment at these facilities those soldiers will never feel forgotten or taken for granted. These soldiers can be certain that Members of Congress will ensure that they receive the necessary treatment to guarantee that their adjustment back into society is a successful one.

As the war in Iraq continues to drag on, and with our country continuing to send military personnel to Afghanistan, the military has been overwhelmed with returning soldiers suffering from mental health problems. Earlier this month, Col. Elspeth Ritchie, psychiatry consultant to the Army surgeon general, stated ``as the war has gone on, PTSD and other psychological effects of war have increased. The number of (mental health workers) that was adequate for a peacetime military is not adequate for a nation that's been at war.''

Mr. Chairman, according to surveys conducted of troops in Iraq, 15-20 percent of Army soldiers have demonstrated signs of post-traumatic stress. Symptoms of this serious disorder include nightmares, flashbacks, emotional detachment, dissociation, insomnia, loss of appetite, memory loss, clinical depression, and anxiety. One year after returning from combat, approximately 35 percent of soldiers are seeking some kind of mental health treatment. Among soldiers still stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, many incidents of abuse, including killings and rapes by U.S. soldiers, have been attributed to ethics lapses caused by the strain of combat.

Mr. Chairman, last Thursday, the Department of Defense released a report that stated ``current efforts fall significantly short'' in providing help for troops. Further, this report found that ``[t]he psychological health needs of America's military service members, their families and their survivors pose a daunting and growing challenge to the Department of Defense.''

I urge adoption of my amendment. And I thank the Chairman for his fine work in bringing this exceptional legislation to the House floor where it should receive an overwhelmingly favorable vote.

I ask again, Mr. Chairman, unanimous consent at this time to withdraw the amendment, but keeping in mind that veterans and returning soldiers need service and they need to have the kind of service for PTSD. And I hope that we will be able to accomplish that.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment is a simple one. Earlier this year, in one of the occasionally non-energy energy bills that we see in the House, we had a section 526 added to something called the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. In part, this section of the bill says that no Federal agencies shall enter into a contract for procurement of an alternative fuel if the ``life cycle greenhouse gas emissions,'' a phrase that has yet to be legally defined, that they must be less or equal to such emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.

Mr. Chairman, that is very problematic language to our Defense Department. It is very problematic language to our veterans. And in specific, the author of that provision, the distinguished gentleman from California, who is the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told us what his purpose was by putting this section into the bill. And I have in my hand, Mr. Chairman, correspondence dated March 17 from the distinguished gentleman from California to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

It reads, in part, ``It was developed,'' it, referring to section 526, ``it was included in the legislation in response to proposals under consideration by the Air Force to develop coal-to-liquid fuels.''

That was the purpose of this section. And so, Mr. Chairman, what we have is a portion of a bill that makes it more difficult for our Defense Department to become more energy independent, to rely more on North American and specifically, American fuels than Middle Eastern fuels. This is very problematic for our Defense Department.

I also, Mr. Chairman, have in my hand correspondence dated July 9 from the Defense Department, written to the Honorable James Inhofe, ranking member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

In part, the letter reads, ``it,'' referring to 526, ``creates uncertainty about what fuels DOD can procure and will discourage the development of new sources, particularly reliable domestic sources of energy supplies for the Armed Forces.''

This is the Pentagon, Mr. Chairman.

It also goes on to say, ``As written, section 526 could apply to alternative and synthetic fuels, including E85, fuel that is 85 percent ethanol, and B20, diesel fuel that contains 20 percent bio fuels, that the department is encouraged or required to use under other statutes.''

The letter from the Pentagon continues to say, ``The provision opens the Department up to court or administrative challenges to every fuel purchase it makes.'' And this is a very important provision of this letter, Mr. Chairman.

``It could cause significant harm to the readiness of the Armed Forces because these fuels may be widely used and particularly important in certain geographic areas.''

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have got an opportunity in this legislation, and my amendment is a very simple one. It simply says that none of the funds provided in this act that we are debating tonight, shall be available to enforce section 526, this problematic language that the Pentagon says can have an adverse effect on the readiness of our Armed Forces.

So, I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that we would pay very careful attention when we are dealing with a bill dealing with our Army, our veterans, our Nation's veterans, with military construction. I would hope that we would pay very, very careful attention and do everything we can to get rid of this section of this law that is hampering our national defense at this time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and

Government Reform,

Washington, DC, March 17, 2008.

Hon. Jeff Bingaman,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bingaman: I am writing regarding questions

that have arisen with respect to the interpretation of

section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of

2007. Section 526 addresses government contracts to purchase

alternative fuels. As the author of this provision and

Chairman of the committee of jurisdiction in the House, I

would like to share my views as to how the language should be

interpreted.

Section 526 provides:

``No Federal agency shall enter into a contract for

procurement of an alternative or synthetic fuel, including a

fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum sources, for any

mobility-related use, other than for research or testing,

unless the contract specifies that the lifecycle greenhouse

gas emissions associated with the production and combustion

of the fuel supplied under the contract must, on an ongoing

basis, be less than or equal to such emissions from the

equivalent conventional fuel produced from conventional

petroleum sources.''

This provision ensures that Federal agencies are not

spending taxpayer dollars on new fuel sources that will

exacerbate global warming. It was included in the legislation

in response to proposals under consideration by the Air Force

to develop coal-to-liquid fuels. As you may know, coal-to-

liquid fuels are estimated to produce almost double the

greenhouse gas emissions of the comparable conventional fuel.

The provision is also applicable to fuels derived from tar

sands, which produce significantly higher greenhouse gas

emissions than are produced by comparable fuel from

conventional petroleum sources.

The development and expanded use of these fuels could

significantly exacerbate global warming, with highly

dangerous effects. Thus, it is important to ensure that the

Federal government does not subsidize or otherwise support

the expanded use of these fuels through government purchasing

decisions.

Section 526 applies specifically to contracts to purchase

fuels, and it must be interpreted in a manner that makes

sense in light of Federal contracting practices. The purpose

of the provision is to bar federal agencies from spending

taxpayer dollars to support the development and expansion of

alternative fuels and fuels from unconventional sources, if

those fuels have higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions

than the comparable conventional fuels. It was not intended

to bar federal agencies from entering into contracts to

purchase fuels that are generally available in the market,

such as diesel or jet fuel, that may contain incidental

amounts of fuel produced from nonconventional petroleum

sources.

Thus, section 526 would clearly apply to a contract that

specifically requires the contractor to provide an

alternative fuel, such as coal-to-liquids fuel, or a fuel

produced from a nonconventional petroleum source, such as

fuel from tar sands. The provision also would apply to such a

contract where the purpose of the contract is to obtain such

an alternative fuel or fuel from a nonconventional petroleum

source, even if the source of the fuel is not explicitly

identified in the contract. Similarly, a contract that

supports or provides incentives for a refinery upgrade or

expansion to allow a refinery to use or increase its use of

tar sands oils would also be subject to section 526. This

provision would not apply to contracts to purchase a

generally available fuel, such as a specific diesel or jet

fuel blend, if that fuel is not an alternative fuel or

predominantly produced from an unconventional fuel source.

Questions have also been raised as to whether the

implementation of this provision must await the development

of specific lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions profiles for

each fuel type. The language of section 526 requires only a

determination of whether a fuel has higher lifecycle

greenhouse gas emissions than the comparable conventional

fuel, not a precise estimate of each fuel's specific

greenhouse gas emissions. While there is a range of numeric

estimates of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of coal-

to-liquids fuels produced without carbon capture and

sequestration and fuels derived from tar sands, there is no

debate over the fact that both of these fuels have

substantially higher lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than

the comparable conventional fuels. There is no barrier to the

immediate implementation of section 526 with respect to these

fuels.

I hope this clarification of my understanding of section

526 is helpful as your Committee oversees federal agencies'

implementation of the Energy Independence and Security Act of

2007.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman,

Chairman.

I thank the chairman for agreeing to the amendment. I know how to take yes for an answer.

I am happy to yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to all the speakers on both sides of the aisle, and I have no doubt that those who may still be viewing this at 12:30 a.m. east coast time may be a little bit confused.

We have heard a couple of speakers say that bureaucrats have no monopoly on wisdom and that we as Members ought to be exercising our prerogatives, and, certainly, Mr. Chairman, we have that right.

But at the same time, we have heard other speakers say, well, Members of that same bureaucracy are actually requesting these particular earmarks. So I could see how some might be confused. On the one hand, if they're requesting it, I am kind of curious why it wasn't in their budget in the first place.

So I am not really sure who has the monopoly on wisdom. My assumption is that each and every one of these earmarks is probably a very good expenditure of the taxpayers' money. I don't necessarily know if it's the best expenditure of the taxpayers' money. But I know the Members who serve. They're very serious. They're very diligent. I have no doubt that they have done very good work.

I also heard my friend the gentleman from Texas say that this particular amendment would harm our troops or military readiness, harm our veterans, families, and a very long laundry list of others who might be harmed. The underlying assumption is that I believe that this money would somehow disappear. Well, I find that interesting because usually when we debate somebody on the point of earmarks, they tell us don't you realize you're not saving any money? That money stays in the bill, and it's going to get used for some other purpose. So, again, I could see, Mr. Chairman, how people who are watching this debate might be a little bit confused. Which is it? Does the money disappear or does the money stay and maybe fund other readiness centers, other barracks, other military projects? Which is it? We seemingly hear speakers on both sides or several sides on that issue.

But if the money does disappear, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle you had an opportunity to support the Republican budget on which, last I looked, had a billion extra dollars more to help our veterans than the Democrat budget did. I know that in the Budget Committee there were amendments to strike earmarks and add to the veterans funding. So if you spent less money, maybe the gentlemen on the other side of the aisle harmed our veterans or their families or their military readiness.

I think at some point, Mr. Chairman, you have to lead by example. And although I have no doubt, again, that these earmarks are good expenditures of the taxpayers' funds, the system is broken. It's not just that there are a few bad apples in the barrel. The barrel is full of rotten apples. And all too often--and maybe not in this bill, and I certainly accept the passion with which the gentleman from Tennessee spoke, and I know his sincerity in wanting to reform this process, and I regret the fact that under the Democrat majority this appears to be the only bill that we can debate earmarks. But what I know about the system and what the American people know about

the system is that it's broken and that all too often it represents the triumph of secrecy over transparency. All too often it represents a triumph of the special interests over the national interests. All too often it represents the triumph of seniority and privilege over merit.

Mr. Chairman, when my party was in the majority, there were a lot of abuses in earmarks. But when the Democrats took over, they said they would do it different. They said they would cut the earmarks in half, and yet last year we had the second highest number of earmarks we've ever had. They claimed there would be no more secrecy in the process, but if we look to the New York Times recently, if I can quote from an August, 2007, news clip: ``Despite promises by Congress to end the secrecy of earmarks and other pet projects, the House of Representatives has quietly funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to specific hospitals and health care providers.''

The Democrats said that there would be across-the-board reform, and yet we had bills initially come to the floor that we were expected to vote on and the earmarks were to come later. The Speaker of the House said she would just as soon do without them, and yet she is on the top 20 list of those who request them.

The American people want something different. It is time to join the Republican proposal that the gentleman from Tennessee spoke about and have a moratorium on earmarks, reform this process, start it tonight.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is really a simple amendment. It simply says that all earmarks in this bill will be taken out. This is consistent with the Republican budget that was passed. So I'd remind my colleagues on this side of the aisle that you have already voted, in essence, for this amendment. We passed a budget which said that we should have a moratorium on earmarks this year. That's what this amendment would do with regard to this bill. It would simply say that there would be no earmarks, Republican or Democratic, for this legislation. Now, supporters of earmarks will often say that this will lead to a more Democratic allocation of Federal resources and funds, but I'd like to draw your attention to a chart here.

This is the MilCon bill that we're looking at right here. If you took the dollar amount of the earmarks in this legislation, which is just north of $600 million, and spread it evenly across all House districts, it would mean about $1.4 million across each district in this country, but that, obviously, is not what we have in this legislation.

If you'll look, the majority leadership is associated with an average of $6.2 million in earmarks in this legislation. That's about four times the average of rank-and-file Members in the House. Vulnerable Members, so-called vulnerables, identified by each party receive $7.7 million, or associated with that much, in earmarks. That is, I think, four or five times more than the rank-and-file Member. If you're on the Appropriations Committee, you get about $10.5 million. Now, that's about, I think, seven times as much as a rank-and-file Member in this body will get.

So I guess you could make the argument or try to make the argument that those military installations or those facilities across this country that happen to be in districts represented by an appropriator are more needy or are somehow in greater need of Federal funds than those facilities located in rank-and-file Members' districts. I don't think you could make that argument with a straight face. You simply can't. This is consistent with bill after bill after bill.

Unfortunately, this is likely to be the only appropriations bill that we have this session. We're not likely to get to the others, so this is our only chance to actually speak up and say that we know that this process isn't working very well and that we have to fix it.

There has been a lot of talk about earmark reform over the last couple of years, as well there should have been, both when we have controlled this body and when those across the aisle have controlled it, but very little has changed, and this chart shows it. Very little has changed. It is very much a spoil system. It's not a system where-- I'm sure we'll be told in just a few minutes--these earmarks were vetted by the Pentagon and that this is a different process than we have for other bills, but let me tell you:

Did the Pentagon vet this process and say, ``You know, we think that those who are in appropriators' districts deserve seven times more than those who are in a rank-and-file district''? I don't think the Pentagon went through that vetting process.

Now, if we don't like the way that the administration and the Pentagon award Federal grants--and I agree there may be problems with it--let's exercise the oversight that we're supposed to exercise in this body. Under article I, we have the power of the purse, and we should conduct oversight, but simply saying ``we don't like the way the administration allocates funds, so we're going to pile on 130 earmarks in this bill, as skewed as the allocation will be, and somehow we'll fix it'' is not an appropriate way to do it, and we know it. We know that this process is broken. Yet we're continuing this year, just like in other years, and we can't continue to go on.

Let me just bring that chart out again. Again, what we have is, if the money were to be spread out among districts, it would be about an allocation of $1.4 million. Instead, we have up here those facilities in appropriators' districts that receive seven times more than others. That's simply not right. There is no way you can make with a straight face an argument that those districts, that those facilities in those districts, somehow need more Federal funds. There is no way with a straight face you can make the argument that this hasn't become a spoil system where we're doling out by favor to just those who are in a powerful position. That's what this process has become, and we should stand up today and say, by golly, we're going to fix it, that we're going to do something different for a change, that we're going to vote until we can fix this process, until we can say we have a sound process where these earmarks are vetted either in the Appropriations Committee or elsewhere, and that we're just not going to continue with this anymore.

Let me tell you that this institution has had as its hallmark over the centuries the process of authorization, appropriation and oversight. We have short-circuited that process with earmarking, the contemporary practice of earmarking in particular. So we do too little authorizing, very little oversight and simply too much appropriating. When you deal with, as the Appropriations Committee did last year, I think, 36,000 earmark requests, there is absolutely no way that this body can adequately vet those earmark requests, let alone exercise oversight over the rest of the Federal budget as is our purview and as we should be doing.

So I would appeal to the Members both on this side and on the other side of the aisle. Let's fix this system before we go on. A great way to do it is to say let's adopt this amendment and say we'll have no earmarks in this bill this year until we can come up with a better process.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the words that have been spoken. I appreciate the passion of those who are defending the bill as it is.

And let me just say this is not my favorite bill to come and propose earmark amendments to. Not at all. But this is the only chance we have got. I'd love to come here with Labor-HHS. I'm glad that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee mentioned that there are a couple of bills where earmarks are legitimate, but maybe for the rest they're not. I have heard him say before that when he left as chairman in 1994, there were no earmarks in the Labor-HHS bill; yet today I think last year there were close to 2,000. There were a couple of years, I know, and we are not breaking that trend very much. And we are likely to see that again later this year, but we won't have an opportunity to come to the floor and debate that. It's likely to be stuffed into an omnibus bill and we take it or leave it with no vetting whatsoever. At least here we have a chance on one bill to point out the flaws in the system, and the flaws I pointed out.

The gentleman from Texas made a great point. He said that not all wisdom resides with the executive, that somebody in a basement somewhere in some Federal office hasn't had some epiphany about how to spend money. I accept that completely. But it stands to reason as well that some lowly rank-and-file Member who is getting an average of $1.4 million in this bill doesn't have any less knowledge than a vulnerable Member, a Member who is in a swing district, in a tough district, in a tough race. Does that somehow imbue you with some knowledge about how much money would be spent in the MilCon bill or if you're on the Appropriations Committee? And it may not be. These numbers may be off a little. I accept that. It's not perfect. But how in the world with a straight face can you say this is not a spoils system, this has not become a spoils system?

I yield to the gentleman.

I am so glad he mentioned that. That may be the case. I'm not sure. That may well be.

My largest complaint with the earmark process is not what we spent in the waste in some bills, maybe not in this one, maybe in others, a lot in others. My biggest complaint has always been with the earmark process; that we, as Members of Congress, give up our authority under article I because we ignore, with our zeal to earmark 2 percent or 1 percent of the Federal budget, we have basically called a truce with the administration saying we will ignore your willy-nilly spending if you ignore ours.

So we let bills like the Department of Homeland Security bill, $32 billion, very little of it earmarked, but so much of it wasted because we are so intent on earmarking our little portion that we just don't do the oversight that we're supposed to do under article I, and you can look at empirically, anecdotally, any way you look at it.

I commissioned the GAO awhile ago to look at the Appropriations Committee, since 1994, since the contemporary practice of earmarking really got started, under Republicans. I concede that. And if you look at the number of witnesses called, the number of hearings held, any way you slice it or dice it, we aren't doing the oversight that we once did, since the contemporary practice of earmarking started. And I would submit that that's true across the board. But if you look specifically at this bill, there is no way that you can say that this isn't a spoils system.

When facilities residing in appropriators' districts get about seven times as much. Maybe it's six. Maybe it's five. Maybe it's eight. But with that kind of average, something is wrong. And that's what we are saying here. We have got to fix this system. We should fix it before we move on.

I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) for the work that he has done and for cosponsoring this amendment and for those who have spoken on it. And I would just say again this is our only chance. This looks like this is it for the year to actually have a voice on earmarks and to say enough is enough, it's time to change the process.

So I urge my colleagues to accept the amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.