Nurses' Higher Education and Loan Repayment Act of 2009

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1559 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I appreciate the thoughts of my colleague from Arizona.

I would say that I wouldn't stand up here and criticize nurses, dairy farmers, small breweries, which I have many of in my State, or even the pollinators. I actually have a daughter who's a beekeeper, and I think we all recognize the importance of pollination.

But let me get serious here. Once again, my friends on the other side of the aisle, I think, are trying to block important legislation by using a procedural tactic. They want to prevent this rule and the underlying legislation from going forward without any opportunity for debate, without an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation itself.

I think that's wrong. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this legislation on its merits and not kill it with a procedural motion.

I say, let's not waste any more time on unrelated parliamentary measures. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass the bill today.

I have the right to close but, in the end, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, to the questions of my colleague from Arizona, I have to say you have far more experience in this body than I do. As you know, I'm a freshman Member. So I have only operated under the current process that we have today. I can't speak to what the process was like in the past.

I can say, as a member of the Rules Committee, a tremendous number of amendments come before our committee. And if all of them were allowed to come to the floor, and if this were an open rule, I'm sure there would be some advantages and some opportunities for greater debate.

On the other hand, on the issues that we're about to take up today, the essential issue of veterans benefits, which I'm going to look forward to speaking to in a few minutes, assuming that we vote down this current point of privilege, I am looking forward to the opportunity to move forward on taking better care of our veterans. And if we had a tremendous number of amendments before us today, I am not sure we would ever get there.

In fact, when I look at some of the information that I have before me, I am reminded that during the DOD appropriations bill in 2009, when I was sitting on the Rules Committee, we actually had 606 amendments come before us. Many of them were just there, I think everybody would agree on both sides of the aisle, many of them were just there to score political points. So do our constituents want us to take up our time today with listening to political back and forth taking up day after day with 606 amendments, or do they want us to get right to the heart of the matter, and that is to move forward on the issue of taking better care of our veterans?

And let me make one other point. You know, you've talked about earmarks, and you are very eloquent on the topic of earmarks; and I appreciate that. I think a lot of our constituents have great concerns about earmarks, how are they handed out, how does the budgeting process work here. But I do have to say as a freshman Member, I have taken great care to have a tremendous amount of transparency around the topic of earmarks.

We hold appropriations meetings in our district. We invite individuals with any kind of issue to come before us that they would like to see appropriated, whether it's a highway bridge, or whether it's a community center, or whether it's a particular project that might benefit anyone in our district, the university, or some system. We actually ask each person who comes before us with an earmark request to make a 3-minute video. Then we post it on our Web site. Then we ask our constituents, do you have opinions on this?

So while I understand much of the concerns about the earmark process, I have to say as one Member who I can't say is in the top 13 percent of the highest recipients of earmarks, I still appreciate the process which allows me to take my constituents' wishes before the Appropriations Committee and say, you know, this would benefit my district, this would benefit my university, this would create more jobs. And I do it in a fully transparent manner. So I believe my constituents have the benefit of knowing all of the information around earmarking and doing the very best we can with making sure that process isn't handled in back rooms or in the dark of the night, but is actually a very transparent process.

So I appreciate the concerns that you have brought before us today. I look forward to moving forward on the debate on this rule so that we can move forward on what I think is a vital part of our appropriations process, that's taking care of our veterans.

So again, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass this important legislation today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1559.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1559 provides for consideration of H.R. 5822, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2011, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule waives points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the report. All points of order against the amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI are waived.

The rule provides that for those amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole, the question of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the question. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule provides that after consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate. Finally, the Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 9 years our country has been engaged in two conflicts halfway around the world. The number of wounded military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan has put a financial strain on the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA expects to treat more than 6.1 million patients in 2011, including more than 439,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the constant training, deployment, and redeployment of our troops have put a significant burden on our military.

H.R. 5822 appropriates funding for military construction, veterans programs, and four related agencies. Our troops have performed admirably wherever they have been deployed, and Congress has an obligation to provide the care and compensation to every eligible veteran. This bill also provides additional funding for the Guard and Reserves to address critical unfunded requirements as a result of prolonged and repeated deployments. In my home State of Maine, thousands of Guard and Reservists have made invaluable contributions to our national defense, and I am proud to see this funding included in the bill.

H.R. 5822 renews our commitment to redevelop closed military bases and their surrounding communities. The bill provides necessary funding to implement the 2005 BRAC and address the enormous backlog of environmental cleanup projects from previous BRAC rounds. This funding is essential to communities across the country, including the towns of Brunswick and Topsham in my district, which are already experiencing economic difficulties from the closing of Brunswick Naval Air Station. We must do everything we can to support the communities that the BRAC bases leave behind.

While the investments in military construction are vital, they are only a small portion of this bill. The vast majority of legislation is devoted to veterans' programs. The bill provides the necessary funding for veterans' medical care, claims processors, and facility improvements, including increased funding for mental health services, assistance programs for homeless veterans, and innovative services for veterans in rural areas.

The military construction projects in this bill are vital to ensure that the

missions of each installation are carried out in the most efficient manner possible. One great example is the funding contained in this bill for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. The shipyard provides world-class overhaul, repair, and modernization of nuclear submarines. The yard has a reputation of delivering subs back to the fleet on time and under budget.

This fall, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard will welcome the first Virginia-class submarine to Maine for an overhaul. This bill contains $11.9 million to modernize the structural shops at the yard, which will improve the equipment layout and streamline process flow within the shipyard. It will help workers at the yard continue to do high quality work while increasing their efficiency. And this funding is essential to this mission. Increasing maintenance efficiencies and eliminating redundancies will no doubt make the yard more competitive for Navy sub projects in the future.

The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is an economic success story in Maine. The yard is in the middle of adding approximately 160 new jobs this year, jobs like painters, sheet metal workers, electricians, welders, and engineers. And the construction work that this bill will fund will be done by outside contractors, bringing even more jobs to the area. The funding in this bill will help this economic engine in southern Maine remain competitive and create new, good-paying jobs.

Finally, I am very proud of what this bill does for our Nation's veterans. Their service has earned them world-class health care and benefits, and Congress has a moral obligation to provide the best benefits possible.

This bill is an example of what happens when politics is put aside and veterans come first. I strongly support this rule which provides for consideration of this essential legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to

the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I appreciate the words of my colleague and far more experienced Member from California. Thank you very much.

I take your criticism that perhaps, although you didn't hear my words earlier today, that had I been here for the amount of time that you had or had the previous experience, I wouldn't have said exactly what I said about the political posturing that could go on under an open rule.

You are right, 18 months I have been here. I have never had any experience in this legislative body about the process of which of you speak. So, far be it from me to say what the differences were from then until today, but I will say a little bit about my own experience.

I have the good fortune of sitting on the Rules Committee, and perhaps some day, if I am here long enough, and I move my way up the chairs and I am the ranking member or the chair, I will want to advocate for doing things differently. But I only know the experience that I have had up to today, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee.

Now, I see frequent meetings of the Rules Committee. I see a tremendous number of amendments come before us. As my fellow members well know, Mr. Speaker, we often spend hours listening to potential amendments that could be heard here on the floor. I think this afternoon we will have the pleasure of joining the other members of the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, and hearing 120 or more amendments to the next potential appropriation bill that could come to the floor.

I hear lively debate. I have been there to submit amendments. Sometimes they are accepted; sometimes they are not. I see amendments come to the floor that I agree with and I disagree with. So I see a lot of back-and-forth about the number of amendments. Perhaps it's not an open rule. You are right, I have never had the experience of an open rule here in this Chamber, but I have also had the experience of a tremendous number of amendments, some of which are politically motivated, some of which could take up a tremendous amount of our time, and I feel that generally the Rules Committee pares down the number of amendments to a reasonable number from each side, probably more for the majority than the minority, and I am sure that happened when the other party was in control, too.

But the fact is, I hear a lot of lively debate. I have only the experiences that I have had, and I can't defend what might have happened in the past or what may happen in the future.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank my friend for those words.

I happen to enjoy many of the meetings we have when we have the time consider both sides, the rules on both sides and the opportunities for what discussion will come to the floor. I appreciate being a member of the Rules Committee and being a part of that filtering process. I don't know if the process will change in the future, but I will say today we have a goodly number of amendments that will be considered on this.

From my perspective, the most important thing that we are doing today is moving forward on this rule, which I hope will pass with a great majority, and moving forward to the consideration of this bill which, I will remind my colleagues, holds a tremendous amount of benefit for our home communities and our veterans, and that is actually why we are here today.

I wouldn't want to see extensive consideration of so many amendments that we never got to the point of what people asked us to do. In this case, it's taking care of our veterans and making sure that they get the services that they deserve after they have served our country.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the passage of this rule is a vital step towards improving our military infrastructure and ensuring that the quality of care for our veterans and their families is worthy of their sacrifice.

My home State has one of the highest populations of veterans per capita in the country. In a State of 1.3 million people, Maine is home to over 155,000 veterans.

These men and women have served without question, without politics and without hesitation. We must make a promise to them and to all of our veterans that we will do the same. We must provide them with the health care and the benefits that they deserve--without question, without politics, and without hesitation. By passing H.R. 5822, we will begin to keep that promise.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1569 and ask for its immediate consideration.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, it is clear that this point of order has nothing to do with unfunded mandates. Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying bill. In reality, it is about preventing the bill from moving forward without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation, itself. It is about slamming the door on the legislative process.

I think that is wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so that we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Let's stop wasting time on parliamentary roadblocks and get to the debate on this legislation, itself. It is a very important piece of legislation that has critical funding pieces in there for transportation and for housing. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage, but we must consider this rule, and we must pass the bill today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's clear that this point of order has nothing to do with unfunded mandates. My friend from Arizona talks about the inability to make any amendments, and yet he talked about four amendments that he would be offering today. So, clearly, he will have an opportunity to make his points.

Again, I would just say that this point of order has nothing whatsoever to do with unfunded mandates. And I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to consider so that we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz- Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1569.

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1569 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5850, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 2011. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order the amendments printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, not to exceed four amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules if offered by Representative Flake of Arizona or his designee.

All points of order against the amendments except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI are waived. The rule provides that for those amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole, the question of their adoption shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the question.

The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The rule provides that after disposition of amendments, the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the proponent. The Chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee. Finally, the rule provides the Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise as a member of the Rules Committee and also as a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in strong support of H.R. 5850, the fiscal year 2011 Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act, because housing and transportation are two areas that must be priorities, especially in tough economic times such as we are in, because we get the double return on our investment. As we have seen with the recovery bill, investment in infrastructure not only generates economic recovery by putting people back to work, but those construction jobs strengthen our transportation system and improve our housing stock. They make our roads safer, our bridges safer for our families and our friends and our constituents to travel on.

The Transportation-HUD appropriations bill continues this investment and our commitment to using all the tools available to continue the economic recovery that has taken hold. It is also important to note that the legislation continues these important programs, but in a fiscally responsible way. Overall, the bill spends $500 million less than was appropriated during the current fiscal year. The amount provided overall is $1.3 billion below the President's request.

I commend the committee for its work in crafting a bill that spends less overall and still manages to increase the funds available for key programs that are at the heart of our Nation's economic recovery. The committee has done so by scaling back spending on other programs, which is never popular or easy, but is the right thing to do.

Included in H.R. 5850 is $45.2 billion to improve and repair our Nation's aging highway infrastructure. The bill includes more than $11.3 billion for the Federal Transit Administration, which will support bus and rail projects, and an estimated 20,000 additional jobs for transit workers nationwide. This not only provides more transportation options to Americans during tough economic times, it also decreases traffic congestion, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gas emissions, and makes our roads safer for commuters.

This bill adds another $1.4 billion to continue developing and building a national system of high speed rail. High speed rail moves more people at a lower cost, at a faster speed, and with less impact on our environment than road transportation. We have developed the most advanced highway and aviation systems in the world over the last 60 years, but in comparison to the rail systems in other nations such as Germany, France, and even China, we have clearly fallen behind. This bill continues our commitment to correcting that situation and developing a robust national intercity rail network.

Related to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, H.R. 5850 makes critical investments to help communities continue to address the fallout from the housing and foreclosure crisis that we see nationwide. The bill provides communities with the tools they need to build, purchase, or rent affordable housing. It provides rental assistance to low-income families, homeless veterans, and other at-risk groups, and supplies funding for repairs and renovation of affordable housing across America.

The bill provides $4 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program, which sends funding directly to local governments for projects that address housing, social services, and other economic challenges in their communities.

Madam Speaker, this is just a sample of the important programs and initiatives that the Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act will fund in fiscal year 2011. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time remaining.

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

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to say thank you to the gentleman from Florida for his handling of this rule. It is always a pleasure to participate in a debate on a rule on the floor with you, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

Madam Speaker, we heard a lot today. And I think it was very interesting to listen to the debate go back and forth, and certainly from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who talked a great deal about spending. Clearly, spending is one of the most important issues that we are dealing with here in Congress.

In particular, my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Foxx, talked about the fact that it is--I think she said--``the most important issue that faces Congress.''

I would say that it clearly is one of the most important issues that faces Congress, but when you talk to people, when you talk to Americans, they think that the most significant issue that we in Congress need to deal with is the economy--it is jobs; it is putting people back to work, and equally important, it is making sure that the people who do have jobs continue to have jobs.

I think this bill really is indicative of what the Democrats are trying to do. We recognize the fact that it is necessary to begin to make cuts. That is why this bill has cut $500 million from the amount that we spent last year. On the other hand, when you listen to economists, they are very clear in saying that we have to be careful in how quickly and how drastically we make cuts because we are starting to see the economy turn around. If we make draconian cuts and if we make cuts too quickly, it will stand to jeopardize the recovery that is beginning to take hold, that is beginning to take foot.

So I think this bill takes exactly the right approach in terms of beginning to cut but not doing it in such a drastic way that we will affect or detrimentally hurt the recovery that is beginning to take effect. The Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act funds some of the most important initiatives that pay for everything from roads, bridges, and railroads to housing for veterans and low-income families.

In my opening remarks, I discussed the critical investments that this bill makes in our transportation system. The bill also invests in housing programs for vulnerable populations, including retirees, people with disabilities, veterans, and even children.

The funding is even more essential during these very tough economic times. The bill includes funding to address the problem of homelessness among our veterans. All too often, men and women who sacrifice the most for our freedoms are hit the hardest in tough economic times. We owe our veterans the utmost respect and gratitude for their service, and we must honor the commitment made to them. They should not have to return home to be confronted by the possibility of poverty or homelessness.

To address this, H.R. 5850 includes funding for an additional 10,000 vouchers through the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, administrated by HUD, in conjunction with the Veterans Administration.

H.R. 5850 includes another $825 million to rehabilitate and to build new housing for low-income seniors. Currently, there are 10 eligible seniors on waiting lists for each unit of available housing. In America, it is unacceptable that our Greatest Generation is faced with this shortage. HUD's section 202 program is the largest housing program specifically dedicated to serving the elderly, with over 268,000 units for seniors.

Madam Speaker, housing and transportation are two areas that absolutely must be priorities and that are essential during a recovery. The funding that H.R. 5850 provides for these programs will ensure that our economy continues to rebound and that out-of-work Americans are able to find jobs and to afford housing.

Again, I want to stress that the committee has produced a bill that makes critical investments, which I have highlighted, and that it manages to do so while, at the same time, spending $500 million less overall on these agencies during the current fiscal year. During these tough economic times, American families have been forced to cut back and tighten their belts. We need to ensure that the Federal Government and agencies are following their example and doing so well. H.R. 5850 holds the Federal Government to that standard.

I urge my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to support it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1569 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the violation of section 426(a).

Madam Speaker, I raise this point of order today not to debate a point of unfunded mandates, although there are probably some in the legislation. It is simply the only opportunity that members of the minority have to stand up and talk about this process. We are only given a minimal amount of time on the rule, itself, and, on the bill, just an hour of debate and then amendment debate. Unfortunately, although we have had an open process in terms of amendments on appropriation bills for as long as any of us can remember--for decades and decades and decades--for the last couple of years, we have had structured rules come to the floor where members of the minority and the majority aren't allowed to offer the amendments that they would like.

Traditionally, Members could offer any amendment as long as it was germane and as long as it struck spending from the legislation and it was legislated on an appropriation bill. Yet this year and last year, for the first time, Members can't bring amendments to the floor. They have to submit them to the Rules Committee. Then the Rules Committee decides which ones they want to allow on the floor and which ones they don't or they will decide, Oh, you've offered 12 amendments, but you can only offer four. This limits the ability of the minority, in particular, to actually stand up and try to save money in the legislation.

We have to remember that every bill we consider this year, every appropriation bill--and unfortunately, probably, we are only going to consider two until after the election. Of the ones we consider, 42 cents of every dollar we spend we are borrowing. We are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar we are spending for whatever we spend it on.

Now, I think it is perfectly right and proper to ask: Is this right to spend, for example, money on, well, in this case, 461 earmarks in this piece of legislation alone? Some of them are for bike paths and street beautification. These are all good things, but they have no Federal nexus. They shouldn't be paid for by the Federal taxpayer. Yet, when we try to bring these amendments to the floor to debate them, only a few are allowed. Why is that?

I would ask if the gentleman representing the Rules Committee can explain why this is happening, why in the world we are so hard-pressed for time now, apparently, that we can only consider a couple of amendments, 22 percent of those that were offered.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, slamming the door on the legislative process. My taking 10 minutes to talk about this rule is slamming the door on the legislative process.

How is that?

What I am here to talk about is how the door has been slammed on the legislative process. The inability of Members to come and offer amendments to appropriation bills to try and save money is what is slamming the door on the legislative process. It has nothing to do with somebody's standing up and claiming time to speak against the rule.

So that is just baffling to me and to anybody out there, listening, when they learn that I offered 11 amendments. There were 461 earmarks which

were costing nearly $330 million. I should note, this year, Republicans have taken a moratorium. So, of those 461 earmarks, only six were sponsored by Republican Members--six out of 431. I commend my Republican colleagues for the position that has been taken this year.

Let me just read a list of the ones that I will be challenging today:

I was allowed to choose four out of the 11 I submitted. Now, I could have submitted a lot more and could have tried to have been dilatory about this, but I said, I'll offer just as many as I would if that were the number that I could actually offer coming to the floor. But I was only allowed four.

I should mention many of my Republican colleagues who offered earmark amendments were not given any, not any. Some of them had a great case to make here. They would have asked, for example, why it is that certain Members requested, say, $4 million for an earmark and got more than that, actually, given to them.

Why is it, if you take the position that some Members take, that, hey, I know my district better than anybody else, better than those faceless bureaucrats we always hear about in the bureaucracy, so I need $4 million for this bike path or whatever, and you get $5 million, how is that? That's a good question to ask. It would have been nice to get the answer for that, but we won't be able to because those Members were denied the ability to come down and offer their amendments.

I'll be offering amendments to strike funding, for example, for the Blackstone River Bikeway in Rhode Island. It might be a good bikeway. They might need it there. But I can tell you, the Federal Government doesn't need to pay for it. The Federal taxpayer doesn't need to pay for it, especially when we're spending 42 cents of every dollar--we're borrowing, I'm sorry, 42 cents for every dollar we spend.

I would challenge any Member who will vote against my amendment to strike funding from the Blackstone River Bikeway in Rhode Island to go home and say, with a straight face to their constituents, yes, I think it's proper that we borrow 42 cents from either the Chinese or from your kids or grandkids because we can't pay for it now, for the Federal Government to pay for a bikeway in Rhode Island.

Or for downtown Tacoma streetscapes, a downtown Tacoma streetscape improvement project in Washington. Why in the world should, in this case, a powerful member of the Appropriations Committee be able to get an earmark to pay for downtown Tacoma streetscapes?

Again, we're borrowing 42 cents for every dollar we spend there. Go home to your constituents, I dare you, and say, yes, I voted to uphold, to keep that earmark in there. It was so important that we got the downtown Tacoma streetscape project that we're borrowing 42 cents from your kids and grandkids to pay for, just so I can go home to my constituents and say, hey, I bring home the bacon.

Or the restoration and improvements to the historic Darwin Martin House Home and Complex. Now, it might be good. Why is the taxpayer paying, through the Federal Government, and borrowing 42 cents on every dollar to do that?

Or the construction of a children's playground. It might be a good playground, the children might need it somewhere, but it's not the Federal Government's responsibility. And go home to your constituents, I dare you today, anybody who votes to strike my amendment or votes my amendment down to strike that funding, go home and explain why in the world we need construction of a children's playground and borrow, those kids who are going to be playing on it, borrow their money because we can't pay for it now. But it's so important for us to go home and say I brought home the bacon that we're going to approve that earmark.

Let me tell you another reason why we can't reform this process very easily. This chart will show you the appropriations process this year. And it looks, people have said, like a PAC-MAN chart. But the red there is the percentage of earmark dollars that are associated with powerful Members of Congress. Those are either appropriators, or those who chair committees, or those who are in leadership positions. That makes up about 13 percent of the body.

In this bill today, and this is one of the lower ones, 42 percent of the earmark dollars are going to just 13 percent of the Members of this body.

Now, for those who say, hey, we're here to earmark because we know our constituents better. We know our district better than those faceless bureaucrats, apparently you only know your district if you're a powerful Member or you're a member of the Appropriations Committee. That seems to be the determiner of whether or not you know your district. And I just don't think that's right.

I said earlier in a 1-minute something, and I was wrong and I want to confess that. I said that it takes 10 minutes to debate a suspension bill. And in that same 10 minutes of debating a suspension bill we could debate an amendment, an amendment takes 10 minutes.

I was wrong. It takes 40 minutes; 40 minutes are allotted to debate suspension bills. So we could actually debate four amendments for the time that it takes to debate one suspension bill.

And let me remind those who are watching what a suspension bill is. It's a bill that doesn't go through the regular process. It's brought to the floor because it's typically noncontroversial.

This year we've done a lot of suspension bills. We have recognized the important role of pollinators, as I mentioned, H.R. 1460.

We spent 40 minutes supporting the goals and ideals of Railroad Retirement Day.

We spent 40 minutes supporting the goals of National Dairy Month. Those might be good things, but we don't need to spend 40 minutes debating on the floor the goals and ideals of National Dairy Day, or supporting the goals and ideals of American Craft Beer week, or congratulating the Chicago Blackhawks, spending 40 minutes there, when every 40 minutes you spend apparently is 10 minutes, or 10 times 4, that we don't do amendments here on appropriation bills.

So the notion that we're running out of time, somehow, and we don't have time to do appropriation bills, typically, the months of June and July are reserved mostly to do appropriation bills. This is only the second appropriations bill we've done. We've done the last one yesterday. We're going to start and finish this one today.

In years past, we've taken sometimes 3 or 4 days to do one appropriation bill. That's perhaps as it should be because this is important. We're spending a lot of money here. That's what Congress does. But we ought to take care, and we ought to allow Members who have amendments to try to save the taxpayer money to actually offer them.

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

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1559 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order today not because of unfunded mandates in the bill, although, there are probably some, but because it is about the only opportunity we have here in the minority to protest the kind of treatment that these appropriation bills are getting in the Rules Committee and to protest the manner in which they are coming to the floor.

It used to be that it was a time-honored tradition in this House to have appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule. Over the past couple of years, that has turned into a structured rule, so many Members in this body, in the minority and the majority, have not had this opportunity. Let's take last year, for example.

Every appropriation bill, all 12, came to the floor under structured rules. There were some Members on both sides of the aisle who offered multiple amendments throughout the year. That is the one chance they have to actually offer amendments on appropriation bills--the things that we are supposed to be doing here in Congress--and they weren't allowed to offer one. Many Members were denied the opportunity to offer any amendments.

There were some 1,500 amendments offered last year. Just 12 percent, fewer than 200, were made in order. And, in fact, I offered about 635 myself. I was only permitted to offer 50, after the structured rule took effect.

Now, the leadership on the majority side will often say, well, we have to keep order in this place, and people would simply offer dilatory amendments and take too long in the process. I remember times in years past, and I haven't been here that long, but just a couple of years ago where we would spend 2 or 3 or 4 days on one appropriation bill because that's what we do here. That's the important part of what we do. Yet, the majority can't seem to find time to allow all amendments to these bills.

Instead of allowing debate on amendments to appropriation bills, let me give you some idea of what we've been doing over the past couple of months and why the statement that we simply can't allow people to offer this many amendments would be proper because we don't have time. Well, here's what we've had time for. And let me note that each one of these that I mention, and this is just a fraction of these kind of suspension bills that we've dealt with, each one of these allows for 10 minutes of debate. That's as much time as we allow on any amendment coming before on the appropriation bill.

H.R. 1460, Recognizing the important role of pollinators. That one we dealt with just a month or so ago.

H.R. 1491, Congratulating the University of South Carolina, the Gamecocks, for winning the 2010 NCAA Division I College World Series.

H. Res. 1463, Supporting the goals and ideals of Railroad Retirement Day.

Now, these things may be nice to do and nice to those who receive these kind of accolades, but it's not the important business of this House. And so to say that we don't have time to actually debate amendments to these appropriation bills, and the one that we

are dealing with today, many amendments that were submitted by Members were turned away, were not allowed in this structured role.

Another thing we dealt with, supporting the goals of National Dairy Month. Now, how in the world is that more important than allowing Members to strike funding from appropriation bills?

I need not remind this Chamber that 42 cents of every dollar we spend this year, 42 cents of every dollar we spend this year will be borrowed from our kids, from our grandkids, from whomever overseas who buys our bonds. And yet we can't allow time to let Members offer amendments to strike spending from these bills. We only allow a certain percentage of them.

Supporting the goals and ideals of American Craft Beer Week. That was H.R. 1297 that we dealt with in the last couple of months, the time that we usually designate in this body to deal with appropriation bills.

Congratulating the Chicago Blackhawks. That was H.R. 1439.

Supporting National Men's Health Week.

Recognizing June 8, 2010, as World Ocean Day.

As I mentioned, these might be good things to do, but when they're taking up time that the majority seems to say now we don't have time for appropriation bills, that's wrong.

And when they, in the Rules Committee, will say, sorry, the gentleman from Colorado or wherever else can't offer his amendment because we've taken too much time recognizing National Nurses Week or supporting the goals and ideals of National Learn to Fly Day or expressing support for the goals and ideals of Children's Book Week, recognizing the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the East Bay Regional Park District in California, I think you're getting the picture here.

It's a hollow statement to say that we don't have time to deal with these amendments on appropriation bills. The truth is the leadership simply doesn't want these things debated all that much.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I will explain why in a minute.

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentlelady.

The gentlelady says that I am criticizing pollinators or beer distillers or whomever. I'm not. I'm just saying the Congress doesn't need to congratulate everybody who wins a championship or everybody who distills beer. I mean, it's just nutty for us to spend so much time on these things and then say, I'm sorry, we don't have time for Members to offer amendments on appropriation bills to actually strike spending so that we're not borrowing 43 cents on every dollar that we spend this year.

Let me mention why it is that the leadership and the Appropriations Committee may not be so anxious for Members to debate these bills-- because there are a lot of earmarks in them. This chart shows 11 of the 12 appropriation bills that have gone through either the subcommittee or committee. It looks like a hungry Pacman here, but what this shows in the red is the percentage of earmark dollars associated with powerful Members of Congress. That includes members of the Appropriations Committee, members of leadership, or chairmen of committees. That represents about 13 percent of this body.

Yet, when you look at the number of earmark dollars or percentage of earmark dollars, Homeland Security, that 13 percent is garnering 52 percent of the earmark dollars. CJS, 57 percent; Agriculture, 76 percent of the earmark dollars are going to just 13 percent of this body, the 13 percent that are writing the rules here and are deciding that certain amendments simply won't be offered. That is wrong. We shouldn't be doing that. TTHUD, which we'll be doing just tomorrow, 42 percent of the earmark dollars are going to just 13 percent of this body.

Is it any wonder that the leadership on the majority side does not want certain amendments debated here?

MILCON VA, 51 percent going to just 13 percent of this body. Energy and Water, 53 percent; Labor/HHS, 66 percent; Interior, 60; Defense, 55.

In Defense, we just learned today that an amendment has been submitted--I'm sorry, an earmark has been submitted, $10 million for the John Murtha Center, our beloved Member who deceased just a few months ago. We're going to earmark $10 million to create a center in his honor in the Defense bill. I think that that ought to be debated here, but chances are we won't even get to the Defense bill.

It's unlikely we're going to get to very many of the appropriation bills this year, and the ones that we do will come to the floor under a structured rule where Members will not be allowed to offer amendments, or just a few of them on the ones that the majority chooses to hear. They can choose the ones they don't want to hear and choose the ones that they hear.

I would like to hear a response from the Rules Committee as to what reasoning goes behind which amendments will be allowed under what is traditionally an open rule and which ones will not.

And I would yield to the gentlelady if she would explain the rule or how the Rules Committee arrives at this rule.

I guess the gentlelady doesn't want to respond on this. I wouldn't either. I wouldn't want to try to justify closed rules or structured rules coming to this body on appropriation bills when we're spending more time doing things like recognizing the 50th anniversary of Title VI international education programs, recognizing the importance of manufactured and modular housing in the United States. These are all goods things. It doesn't mean we should spend time that could otherwise be debating appropriation bills, which is what we do here. We prioritize by funding. That's what Congress does. We have the power of the purse. And yet we're shortchanging that process so that we can support the goals and ideals of Student Financial Aid Awareness Month and raise awareness of student financial aid. Like I said, not a bad thing, but not something that should supplanting what we should be doing here.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I would just plead with the Rules Committee and, more importantly, the leadership on the majority side to realize that the traditions of this body, the institutional things that we have here, open rules on appropriations, should be honored.

Now, I've come here for the past 10 years and offered a lot of amendments, many of which when we were in the majority. My own party didn't like these amendments, but they suffered through them because they knew that things matter here like tradition or upholding the institution.

So they allowed all amendments, some of which targeted Members of our own party. But the majority in power now doesn't seem to want that. They want to shield their Members from difficult votes and also shield those who are getting these earmarks from any scrutiny. These amendments aren't really scrutinized in the Appropriations Committee. So if they aren't argued and debated here, they simply aren't going to get a vetting.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to take a minute first to thank Cesar Gonzalez. He is my rules associate, general counsel, legislative director. This is the last rule we are going to be working on together. Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart, who is aware of Cesar's talent, has made what I consider a very wise decision in hiring Cesar as his chief of staff. So we are not going to be working on rules together, but we will always be friends. And I am deeply grateful for his friendship and for the extraordinary assistance that he has given to me and our office and our constituents during all of the time that he has honored us by working with us. So Cesar, thank you.

Madam Speaker, yesterday the majority brought to this floor the first fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill. I know it's almost August, but that's the case. The first appropriations bill was brought to the floor yesterday by the majority. And they brought it forth under a restrictive process that blocks Members on both sides of the aisle from introducing amendments. And today the majority continues that process, that unfortunate process, with yet another restrictive rule, this time on the second appropriations bill that they are bringing to the floor, the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill. And they bring it forth with a rule that allows 24 of the 108 amendments that were submitted to be debated. That's 22 percent of the amendments submitted.

As you know, Madam Speaker, that used to not be the case. Always throughout the history of the Republic, appropriations bills have been brought forth under open rules. And you know, Madam Speaker, we have been here for some years now, sometimes the process of debate on appropriations bills got unruly and long and frustrating. But that's the way democracy's supposed to work.

So the way that for centuries we've worked out that process, Congress has worked out that process, is that, you know, the chairman and the ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee on the floor, after a while, after days, they come together with a unanimous consent agreement and they limit debate. The Congress, we limit debate by unanimous consent. That's the way it's worked out. You know, you don't close the process at the beginning--at least we didn't before. Starting last year, this majority decided to, however. And that's unfortunate.

Now, under the traditional process that was followed since the beginning

of the Republic, no one from the majority leadership or the Rules Committee got to pick and choose what amendments the House could debate on appropriations bills as long as they were germane. In other words, as long as they were connected, the issue was connected to the bill at hand.

Now, that's what an open rule is, an open process. And as I say, it's been the tradition of the Congress of the United States to debate appropriations bills under an open process, under open rules. I outline what an open rule is because it's been so long since the House has considered an open rule. And I am sorry for our new Members, because they have never experienced an open rule. But that's why I outlined what an open rule process is.

The last time we saw one on an appropriations bill was July 31, 2007, almost exactly 3 years ago to the day. Even on that bill the majority then came back and closed the process. But at least they initially came to the floor with an open rule 3 years ago on an appropriations bill.

For a nonappropriations bill, February 8, 2007, the month after they took the majority. That was their last open rule, the last open rule that this majority permitted to the Membership in this Congress. You know, that's sad. But especially it's unnecessary. But there is extraordinary power in the majority, obviously, and our friends on the majority side are showing us every day. They exercise that power. You know, it's a record that no one should be proud of, but it is the legacy of this majority.

Now, what is the reason for the majority to use such a restrictive process? Last year they told us that it was to curb the consideration of amendments in order to move the process forward in a timely manner because they wanted to avoid an omnibus appropriations bill, but they didn't. We still had an omnibus appropriations bill and it was 2 weeks before Christmas.

As I said last year, as I said yesterday, as I say now, this process is unjust and it's unnecessary. It was a mistake last year. It was a mistake yesterday. It's a mistake today. It's a colossal mistake that the majority will come to regret.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Georgia, my classmate--it's amazing how the years have passed--John Linder.

Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the great leader from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the Republican whip.

It's my privilege, Madam Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California (Mr. Herger).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the great leader from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to yield 2 minutes to my friend from the Rules Committee, the leader from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my dear friend from California, the ranking member, Mr. Dreier.

I thank my friend from New York once again for his courtesy. I think this has been a good debate.

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday of this week, the Congressional Budget Office released a report titled ``Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis.'' The report sounded an alarm on the Federal Government's out- of-control debt and the consequences if we fail to address the debt. It said, ``Growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels.'' And we are seeing in other countries in the world that this is not a theoretical problem. I mean, this is a very serious, practical problem that can devastate countries and truly hurt people. And so we have to realize that as a Nation we have to change course. I know that is going to require bipartisanship, and I hope that we see it soon, but we're not seeing it yet, and it's very worrisome. On the contrary, the path we are on is, as the Congressional Budget Office has said, not supportable.

So one way to help reign in Federal spending--and of course none of this is going to be pleasant, but it's necessary, and I know that action that's required is approaching because it is necessary--but one way is to cut spending that is not absolutely necessary, that can be considered wasteful.

Over the last week, participants in Minority Whip Cantor's YouCut initiative voted on programs for us to bring to this floor for cutting. To date, participants in that program have voted to cut $120 billion in spending. This week, the participants in that program voted to cut the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit program. That program allows eligible taxpayers to receive a portion of their earned income tax throughout the year in their paychecks. There was a recent audit of the program that found that 80 percent of the recipients did not comply with at least one program requirement, another 20 percent had invalid Social Security numbers and thus may not have been eligible for the credit, and 40 percent failed to file the annual tax return required to reconcile the credit. Suffice it to say that, as a result, the program is susceptible to waste and abuse, and cutting it would save more than $1 billion.

So I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a vote on that issue, on cutting the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit program. I would like to remind the membership that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not preclude consideration of the underlying legislation before us today, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.