Disabled Military Retiree Relief Act of 2009

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend, a new member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to begin by doing something that I don't believe I have ever done when managing a rule here in the House. Traditionally when Mr. Boehner, our Republican leader, gets up or my Rules Committee colleagues, Messrs. Diaz-Balart and Sessions or Ms. Foxx, would stand up here, we rise to basically make the case for Members of the minority. We're Republicans. We make the Republican case about how important it is for us to ensure the rights of the minority, something that James Madison talked about very eloquently 220 years ago.

Today I rise on behalf of all of my colleagues; and I rise, especially today, for Democrats because it's unprecedented that we would be in the circumstance that we are today. Now I've seen an awful lot in this institution in the years that I've been privileged to serve here. I've observed the way this House is run. In most instances, under both Democrats and Republicans, I have been very proud of the work product that has emerged. But in many of those instances, I have been less than proud of the way the greatest deliberative body known to man--or what has been described as such by people like the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, is no longer the greatest deliberative body known to man, or at least we're slipping away from that--because we're undermining the deliberative process.

Usually when we get off-track, which has happened under both Republicans

and Democrats, and put our short-term goals ahead of the long-term interest of the institution, it is not a good thing. It is, we often believe, noble for us to put our short-term goals there because we have an important priority. When my friends in the majority asked the Nation to give them control of this House, they correctly criticized me personally and others within the Republican leadership because we said that we limited their voices in amendment and debate. It didn't happen often, but it did happen. And I will say that without the ability to offer improvements to legislation and ideas, Members of this body could not do the job that they are charged with doing; and that is, pursuing the hopes, dreams and aspirations of their constituents. We all represent a little less than three-quarters of a million people; and we have a responsibility, Democrats and Republicans alike, to do just that. That's why I say again, Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the effort to ensure that my Democratic colleagues are not shut out of this process.

Now as you know very well, Madam Speaker, when our California colleague, Speaker Pelosi, took the gavel, she promised that they would do better than I did as chairman of the Rules Committee, and better than our Republican leadership had done in the past. Unfortunately this rule before us really illustrates just how far we have fallen from those great words that were put forward by Speaker Pelosi.

With this rule, it's very difficult for me to know exactly where to begin with criticism; but let's start with the very nature of the rule itself. We all know that the House has allowed less debate and fewer amendments in its consideration of bills over the last few years. The one great exception to that has been the appropriations process. Why? Because we all know article I, section 9 of the Constitution places the responsibility to spend the people's money in our hands as Members of Congress. We've always taken this responsibility very seriously in a bipartisan way. And we've always--under both Democrats and Republicans--allowed Democrats and Republicans to engage in a free- flowing and rigorous debate.

Everyone is very, very concerned about what happened last week. My Democratic colleagues are concerned with the number of votes that were held and the outrage that we demonstrated. We Republicans are horrified that we began down that route. Unfortunately, last week's act was just the warm-up to what we're seeing today. Today we are beginning what can only be described as the main event. This is because today's rule will become the model for every appropriations bill that we consider in the future. It is very likely that this rule, Madam Speaker, will become the model for every bill that we consider in this Congress.

Rather than any Member, Republican or Democrat, being able to offer any germane amendment on behalf of their constituents and the Nation, this resolution from the Rules Committee, under the direction of Chairman Obey and Speaker Pelosi, limits what ideas can be debated on this floor; and as I said, it limits the ideas proposed by my Democratic colleagues. So anyone who wants to say that I'm standing here, Madam Speaker, just whining on behalf of the minority, it is preposterous. Democrats sat in line before the Rules Committee until nearly 11 o'clock last night; and Democrats have been shut out of this process. So unfortunately I, representing the minority, am the only one who can stand here on behalf of our Democratic colleagues. It means, unfortunately, that our constituents--and I say this to my colleagues-- our constituents in Democratic districts and Republican districts alike are unfortunately being held hostage by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. If he's having a bad day, the American people will have no recourse. That means that our constituents' concerns about spending will go unheeded, and we all know that that's what this is about. If you doubt it, look no further than last week's funding bill for this institution alone. We fought for several amendments that could bring about a reduction in the 16.2 percent increase in spending for the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. We had some large cuts, but we had the most modest cut imaginable. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to allow for a one- half of 1 percent reduction in the 16.2 percent increase that we put into place. While the American people are struggling to make ends meet, while people are trying to keep their jobs, their homes, we in this institution allowed for a 16.2 percent increase; and we simply said in the appropriations process that maybe we should debate on the floor whether or not we would have a one-half of 1 percent cut. Unfortunately that was completely denied.

I also want to take a moment to discuss some of the more creative aspects of this rule, as were read by the Reading Clerk. For the first time ever, the rule allows the Chair to impose 2-minute voting. Now previously 2-minute voting was something that was done with a bipartisan agreement. Democrats and Republicans came together and said, We have got so many votes here, rather than having Members sit around with 5-minute voting, we would agree to 2-minute voting. Now I will say that ignoring this process that has existed in the past, including the provision that allows the Chair to actually impose 2-minute voting, we ignore the stress that 2-minute voting places on the nonpartisan professionals who tally our votes. It increases the opportunity for error.

I would commend to my colleagues the report of the Select Committee to Investigate the Voting Irregularities of August 2, 2007; and on page 10 under The Events Surrounding Roll Call Number 814, it makes very clear that one of the factors involved in this was the fact that there were 11 2-minute votes held leading up to that. I know full well, as I look at the wonderfully dedicated and hardworking rostrum staff, what a litany of 2-minute votes is imposed on them.

And we want to make sure that what happened on August 2 of 2007 never happens again. And allowing the Chair to impose 2-minute voting does create the potential for that.

I also have to say, Madam Speaker, that I'm very concerned about the fact that this rule does create a scenario that puts people in an awkward position. I have a number of very, very close friends with whom I have been privileged to serve here. One of those is my colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who works closely with Mr. Rogers in a bipartisan way dealing with the issue of our Nation's homeland security.

I have already said, Madam Speaker, that I am very troubled with amendment No. 68 that was put forward, and I don't mean to get too far down into the weeds here, but we have another unprecedented action put into place here. Amendment No. 68 simply said, page 93, line 13, ``strike `the.' '' This is the amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee. This amendment was submitted, and a revised version of it was submitted; and now, Madam Speaker, the revised version makes in order seven amendments, one of which actually required waivers to allow it to proceed. Now, this has not been done before and it's unfortunate. It was really sort of a bait and switch. We saw this amendment that said ``strike `the,' '' and then it's revised all of a sudden with seven amendments being made in order. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of transparency that we were promised when the new majority came to power.

There are other elements to the rule that I don't want to discuss, but suffice it to say that each and every provision of this rule, Madam Speaker, is designed to restrict and limit the rights of Democrats and Republicans to debate and improve this bill, as has always been done in the 220-year history of this great institution.

Now, why is any of this important? Because, Madam Speaker, process is substance. In committee there were many amendments defeated even though they would have gone a long way to improving the bill and reducing problems like illegal immigration, an issue that Mr. Rogers has worked very closely on. One of those is the E-Verify program that my California colleague (Mr. Calvert) has worked on. He made an attempt to offer that amendment. It was defeated. And Mr. Kingston similarly offered an amendment to require government contractors to use E-Verify to deal with our Nation's border security. His amendment was also defeated. I supported both of those

amendments up in the Rules Committee.

Now we won't get the opportunity to debate the kinds of things that Mr. Rogers, Mr. Calvert, and Mr. Kingston wanted us to be able to address. I personally believe that, while I support E-Verify, I believe that the bill that I have worked on, H.R. 98, which would establish a smart counterfeit-proof Social Security card, is the best way to end the magnet that draws people into the country illegally. But I do think that E-Verify is a very important step in the direction of dealing with our security.

Under the traditional process, Madam Speaker, as you know very well, we could address all of these issues. All of these issues from both Democrats and Republicans could have been considered, but, unfortunately, it ain't going to happen.

One of the most senior Members of this institution once said, ``We have gotten so far from the regular order that I fear that the House will not have the capacity to return to the precedents and procedures of the House that have given true meaning to the term `representative democracy.' The reason that we have stuck to regular order as long as we have in this institution is to protect the rights of every Member to participate. And when we lose those rights, we lose the right to be called the greatest deliberative body left in the world.''

Now, that Member was David Obey. He said that in the fall of 2000. While he was concerned about how the House was handling an appropriations conference report, those were the words of Chairman Obey at that time. His words have never been truer than they are right now. The problem is that now the shoe is on the other foot. Today Chairman Obey is the one who is circumventing regular order.

What we have here is, Madam Speaker, what tragically is becoming the new normal. And it's all being done in the name of dramatically increasing spending because we have seen over the last 2 years an 85 percent increase in nondefense spending, an 85 percent increase in nondefense spending. And now we're denied any opportunity to bring about the kinds of reductions that we need to utilize.

Madam Speaker, I know that we have schedules to keep. That's the argument that is regularly propounded by the Chair of the Rules Committee and others in the Democratic leadership. We understand the exigencies of that schedule. But throwing aside the quaint notion of democracy and debate is something that I believe would lead, as Republican leader John Boehner said earlier today, Thomas Jefferson to be spinning in his grave. It would lead James Madison to be horrified, the notion of casting aside democracy and debate because we have to maintain our schedules.

And I will say again on this scheduling notion, Madam Speaker, last week, rather than 127 amendments, we would have had, I believe, 30 amendments, and before we had gotten to consideration of the legislative branch bill, I am sure that hours and hours and hours ahead of that we would have been completed with the work of the Commerce- Justice-Science Appropriations bill.

I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand up for the rights of Democratic Members of this institution who are being denied this. Reject this rule. Let's come back with what has been the case for 220 years under both political parties, that being an open process.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding. Well, I would first inquire of my friend if he has any speakers before I respond.

Let me just say at this juncture we do have several speakers, and I would ask my friend if he might want to yield some of his time because I know we have several speakers who would gladly utilize the time.

I will say to my friend that it does seem to me rather unfortunate that, with the exception of our very brave and courageous friend from Colorado, there is no one on the majority side who wants to stand up and defend the notion of denying Democrats----

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

I will be happy to yield to my friend if he wants to engage on this issue at all.

First, to his last point, as he talked about the challenge that our wonderful rostrum staff before us, who are so dedicated and hard working, have to deal with with repeated votes. So the answer to that is to allow the Chair to impose on this institution 2-minute voting? I know this is all inside baseball stuff, but all one needs to do is go back and look at that report on the August 2, 2007, vote, which I have right here and look at page 10, and the issue of 2-minute votes is raised.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, let me just say that, again, if you look at the middle paragraph on page 10, the issue of 2- minute voting is raised, and I think common sense would say with the argument just put forward by my friend from Colorado about the challenge of votes, the notion of going from 5-minute to 2-minute votes does not improve the situation that they face.

To my friend's first point, Madam Speaker, I would like to say the following: the American people did send us here to act. They're expecting action. They want us to act. The American people are hurting. I come from Los Angeles, California. We have a 12\1/2\ percent unemployment rate in the City of Los Angeles. I represent suburban Los Angeles and part of the Inland Empire, and I will say that we are dealing with very serious economic challenges. People are losing their businesses, people are losing their homes, and people are obviously losing their jobs. They want us to get our economy back on track. And one of the things that they were promised was that if we passed the economic stimulus bill, the unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. Right now we all know that the unemployment rate, as was said by President Obama, is now 9.4 percent; and based on reports we have received in the last few days, it reportedly is probably going to go higher. I hope and pray that that is not the case.

But one of the things that we've found is that over the last couple of years, an 85 percent increase in nondefense spending has not provided what the American people want, and that is some security when it comes to their jobs, getting their jobs back, saving their businesses, and saving their homes. That's the action they want us to take. And the process we are in the midst of right now denies us any opportunity, Democrats or Republicans, the chance to bring about meaningful cuts in expenditures.

At this point, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security from the Appropriations Committee, my very, very good friend and classmate (Mr. Rogers).

Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the son of a 20-year veteran of the House Rules Committee, the gentleman from Bowling Green, Ohio (Mr. Latta).

I yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Athens, Georgia, who had an amendment that he would have been allowed to debate if we had an open rule, and unfortunately, he is not (Mr. Broun of Georgia).

Madam Speaker, let me say that there were a number of Members who were expected to be joining us, I would say to my friend, and the fact is that they were anticipating a debate taking place on the rule. And very, very courageously, my friend has been the only Member on the Democratic side to stand up, and I am the one standing here defending the rights of Democrats I'm happy to say. So the gentleman might want to talk for a couple of minutes while I wait for some of my colleagues who thought the debate might be taking place later if he wants to.

Madam Speaker, well, I guess then that I will close the debate. I thought we were expecting some other people.

Madam Speaker, this debate is all about spending. The American people are hurting. Jobs are being lost. Businesses are being lost. Homes are being lost. And the American people are expecting us to put into place policies that will get the economy back on track.

We were promised by President Obama that if we passed the $787 billion, really $1 trillion, stimulus bill

that the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent. Today the unemployment rate is at 9.4 percent, and tragically it appears to be getting worse. And what is our answer? Well, it is to continue a pattern that has been going on for 2 years now. In nondefense spending, we have had an 85 percent increase in Federal spending, an 85 percent increase.

And what is it we have said? We believe, Madam Speaker, that we can responsibly put into place spending cuts. We have made attempts. My friend, Mr. Broun, whom I mentioned earlier, wanted to offer a one-half of 1 percent spending cut in the 16.2 percent increase that was put into place for our spending for the legislative branch last week, and he was denied his chance to bring about that modest cut.

As we look at the appropriations process now, bringing about reductions in spending is not an option. They are simply increases in spending time and time again.

Now what is being utilized to make sure that we can continue to increase spending? Well, unfortunately, Madam Speaker, what is being done is we are shutting out the opportunity for both Democrats and Republicans to have a right to offer amendments. Now I will say, having been here for more than a couple of years, one of the most exhilarating experiences that one can have as a Member of Congress is to stand up under an open rule, especially during the appropriations process, ask that they strike the last word, and be recognized for 5 minutes to engage in what can really be a free-flowing debate. We have two members of the Rules Committee who have never served in this institution before, and they have never experienced the opportunity for that free- flowing debate on any legislation. And an open rule has not been an option so far.

But Madam Speaker, I never thought that I would see the day when we would, on the sacrosanct article 1, section 9 power in the Constitution dealing with spending, prevent Democrats and Republicans from having an opportunity to engage in that. I think about my colleagues who want to regularly engage in debate, Democrats like Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur. I may not agree with them often, but I believe they should be able to participate in the process. We have Republicans like Devin Nunes, Jeff Flake and others who want to be able to stand up. Mr. Broun, who just spoke, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Calvert and others want to have a chance to stand up. And guess what, Madam Speaker? They unfortunately are denied that in this process.

Justice Felix Frankfurter in 1943 made the following statement. He said, The history of liberty is largely due to the history of procedural safeguards.

Now, Madam Speaker, I believe that the Federal Government is too big and spends too much, as our Leader Boehner regularly says. And I believe that we should have a right to bring about those reductions so that we can get our economy back on track to ensure that Americans aren't going to lose their jobs, their businesses and their homes. And we are denied that chance today.

But I want to say to my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues, Madam Speaker, we have an opportunity. And it is before us right now. All we need to do is vote ``no'' on the previous question, and what will happen? We will be continuing the 220-year tradition of appropriations under an open amendment process. If we can defeat the previous question, I, Madam Speaker, will offer an amendment that will allow us to do exactly what Chairwoman Obey in the year 2000 said needed to be done. We need to allow for a free-flowing, open debate so that deliberative democracy can, in fact, once again flourish. So I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and allow us to have the opportunity to offer an open rule.

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, I stand here to speak on this bill. I have some misgivings about it. But I intend to vote for this bill. I can't vote against this bill because it benefits people that have served this country and that have suffered for this country. And I have never, in the 28 years I have been here, voted for a bill that affected adversely any veteran or any person that stood up for this country, and I admire and respect Mr. Skelton, the author of this bill. I disagree with the way he has funded it and want to point that out.

I would also point out that I have a letter addressed to Mr. Skelton. He has not had the time to receive it because this bill was introduced yesterday, and it is on the floor today. That is a little hasty. But this is an important bill, and it is a bill that needs to be passed. But I'm torn today as I rise to speak on H.R. 2990. On the one hand, I support the revisions in the bill, retired pay benefits for Reserve members and compensation and benefits for servicemembers. But where I'm torn is how the chairman, my good friend, Mr. Skelton, chose to pay for the compensation and benefits provided under the bill.

I will first point out that this is a bill for the veterans, and this is a bill for those that probably without this bill would not have the assistance that they need, that they deserve and that they are entitled to.

I would also say that as a veteran of World War II, and probably one of about four or five on this floor still here, five or six over in the Senate, there are not very many of us left, but I take no backseat to anybody in supporting veterans. I have a veterans' hospital that my predecessor, Sam Rayburn, provided and benefited. And I have had the pleasure of walking in a mass of walkathons to preserve that hospital, from Bonham, Texas, where Mr. Rayburn lived, to Dallas, to protest cuts in it, as anybody here would. Anybody on this floor has to support the purpose of this bill, which is for those that are suffering.

The major desire of those that have served in any war is that no other generation would have to fight such a war and that we remove the causes of war. And probably the greatest duty of a Member of Congress is to prevent a war. And how do you prevent a war? You prevent a war by removing the causes of it. And energy itself, or the lack of it, has been the cause of most wars that I know anything about. Japan didn't hate this country. Japan loved this country. But our country had cut off their access to oil. They had 13 months' national existence. We had to know that Japan would break out somewhere. That was a war over energy, not the hatred of the United States of America. Twelve or fourteen years ago, George Bush, Senior, sent 450,000 of our troops over to Kuwait. That was not a battle for the emir of Kuwait. We don't care anything at all about the emir of Kuwait. That was to keep a bad guy, Saddam Hussein, from getting his foot on half the known mineral reserves and energy of that area over there. That was a war for energy.

So I have a bill that I passed. I passed it as a Democrat once, it failed, it didn't get through. I passed it as a Republican with Democratic and Republican support. It passed this body. The chairman, Ike Skelton, voted for it at the time. And that bill is now underway. And I want to say a few words about that bill because I think you're entitled to know, and I'm very hopeful that the other body will look closely at this. And I'm going to be working toward that. I haven't had the time or the opportunity to work toward it, and neither did I have the incentive to do anything to kill this bill.

I urge everybody within the sound of my voice to vote for this bill and to commend Ike Skelton for his leadership and his devotion to the men and women that fight for this country and care for this country.

I think unfortunately regarding this bill, he chose to redirect the funds which by law, Public Law 109-58, a law that passed the House 275- 156, a law that Chairman Skelton voted for, are reserved for the Ultra- Deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas and Other Petroleum Research and Development Program, also known as section 999.

Now the hard, cold facts about it that brought that bill into being was that we can get energy up from the coastal waters. We can get it up to around 80 or 90, 900 feet. And this bill, without the technology, could not get it to the surface where we could benefit from it. But we knew that the energy was there. And we knew that technology was there. And the bill I introduced is not an energy bill nor a technology bill. It puts the two together. And it pays universities, and there are 26 universities in this country, and I'm going to mention some of those in a few minutes, that stepped forward, that are working within this bill and have put 3 years work into it.

I just think that we need to remember section 999. It has achieved a lot since its enactment. It passed, and it passed the bill. It was in the bill that

we passed, what, a year and a half ago, a consortium that administers the program has grown to achieve over 140 entities in 28 States, including 26 universities. Those 26 universities, I'm not going to recite all those universities, they are available and people know where they are and which they are, but I do want to point out just some of the universities: MIT--this is a list of them here--MIT; Florida International University; Louisiana State University; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Mississippi State University. It goes on down: Rice University; Texas A&M; Texas Tech; Universities of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Tulsa, Utah, Alaska-Fairbanks, Houston, Michigan, South Carolina, Southern California, West Virginia, and West Virginia State. Those are just some of the many institutions that are working within the confines of the bill that we passed.

The consortium has awarded dozens of projects. These are underway. If you divert this money from this bill to support the bill that Mr. Skelton has, these are the things that you're knocking out, an effort to find energy for 100 years that this country needs, that would prevent us from having to pay foreign agents, Arab nations that we don't trust and don't trust us, those millions and trillions of dollars could stay here in this country. And the consortium has awarded dozens of projects, including 43 research projects currently underway, with a total project value of nearly $60 million.

Also, Madam Speaker, the value of the projects over and above the amount of annual funding for the projects, $37,500,000 was achieved because industry believes in the value of the program and has invested substantially in it, a testament to the work that the program has achieved to date. These projects were selected on a competitive basis from over 180 proposals totaling nearly $415 million. This program is underway and the projects awarded by the consortium include components that benefit dozens of universities throughout the country. In fact, the research and development projects undertaken through the program have included the participation of nearly 1,500 energy researchers from coast to coast. These are not the majors. These are little people. These are for little people. These are for the American people. These are to prevent a war in the future by providing the energy of today.

Nearly 80 percent of the awards made through the section 999 program have gone to universities, nonprofit organizations, national laboratories, and State institutions.

Program awards have created high-tech and innovative domestic jobs. The National Energy Technology Laboratory has estimated that the awards would create 1,300 job years from research alone. All the while, Madam Speaker, the research projects are aiding the development of cleaner, safer, and more environmentally responsible domestic energy sources, and yes, hundreds of years of energy that is there, we can bring to the top now that we couldn't before.

We get the technology. It doesn't cost the taxpayers anything. We pay for the energy we get by the technology that gives us the ability to bring it up, ability we didn't have--we couldn't get the energy. With that technology, we can get that energy, and that is the thing that really breaks my heart to see us kill a program that is underway and is working. It is hundreds of years of energy.

I want to just point out one other thing. Section 999 does just the type of research that the Secretary of Energy, the Honorable Steven Chu, feels that the Federal Government should be supporting, as he stated in a hearing earlier this year as he testified before the House Science and Technology Committee.

So this is a bill that is a wonderful bill. For the purpose of the bill, I support it. I'm going to vote for it. I urge everybody else to vote for it. But I urge you to work and look forward and find out for yourself the funds that are being utilized to take its place, already underway successfully and producing for us, not to throw it aside. There are surely other areas that we can find. And I will join Mr. Skelton in that, as this thing goes to conference, if it goes to conference, or as it works its way through the other body.

I thank you, and I thank Chairman Skelton.

I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

While our men and women in uniform are risking their lives in war zones, we, in Congress, need to support them. I am proud to once again support the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act to honor and support the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces.

I also wish to commend and congratulate both the Armed Services Committee Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon for their commitment to put partisanship aside in order to get this important bill to the floor.

The National Defense Authorization Act, which passed unanimously out of the Armed Services Committee, authorizes $550.4 billion for the activities of the Department of Defense. It also provides $130 billion to support our combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other fronts of the war on terror.

Our men and women in uniform and their families have sacrificed dearly to protect the United States, and that is why I am pleased that the bill will provide our troops with a 3.4 percent pay raise.

Furthering our commitment to our troops, the bill extends TRICARE eligibility to Reserve members so they can receive full TRICARE coverage 100 days before they go on active duty and provides almost $2 billion for family housing programs to expand and improve the quality of military housing.

The bill authorizes the expansion of the size of the military by 15,000 Army troops, 8,000 Marines, over 14,500 Air Force personnel, and approximately 2,500 sailors in the Navy.

I would like to thank the committee and the distinguished chairman for including my request for funding, authorization obviously of funding, for the construction of a new, permanent headquarters for the United States Southern Command that is located in the congressional district that I am honored to represent. Currently the Department of Defense is leasing the land for SOUTHCOM from a private individual. The funds authorized by this bill will be used to build a new headquarters on land adjacent to the current location and lease it from the State of Florida for the grand sum of $1 per year.

This provision is extremely important to my community because SOUTHCOM personnel and supporting services have contributed over $1.2 billion and over 20,000 jobs to south Florida's economy.

Mr. Speaker, while I support the underlying legislation, I have deep reservations about the majority's decision to block full restoration of missile defense funding. This comes as North Korea's demented despot continues to mock global condemnation of his nuclear program and threatens the United States and our friends and our allies with mass destruction.

Just today an official from the North Korean Central News Agency, a mouthpiece for the dictatorship said, ``If the U.S. imperialists start another war, the army and the people of Korea will wipe out the aggressors on the globe once and for all.''

At the same time, the Iranian tyranny, while it massacres its own people in the streets, continues to threaten to wipe Israel off the face of the map. It is clear to me that the world faces a grave and, I believe, imminent threat from both of those dictatorships in North Korea and Iran. Now is not the time to cut missile defense.

Since the beginning of military aviation, the United States has wisely invested in our military air superiority, and in recent military operations we have clearly seen our investments pay off. Our military air superiority saves the lives of our men and women in uniform and also saves the lives of countless civilians. Unfortunately, the Obama administration feels that it is not necessary to continue our long history of investment in air superiority and is calling for the termination of the F-22 fighter aircraft production, even though the chief of staff of the Air Force publicly called for continued production of F-22s.

Now, thankfully, the Armed Services Committee successfully reinstated over $300 million to at least keep alive F-22 production. Unfortunately, I am shown at this time a statement of administration policy where it reads that if the final bill presented to the President contains this provision keeping alive the F-22 production line, that the President's senior advisers would recommend a veto. Mr. Speaker, I think that's most unfortunate.

I am also concerned that the majority failed to support a repeal of the so-called widow's tax. This provision penalizes surviving spouses of servicemembers who die on active duty or from service-related conditions by forcing them to accept a dollar-for-dollar reduction in their military survivor benefit plan payments in order to receive tax- free dependency and indemnity compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I have cosponsored two-pieces of legislation introduced by Mr. Buyer and Mr. Ortiz to remedy this injustice, and I am hopeful that Congress will soon address it.

Now, as supportive as I am of the underlying legislation, I must oppose the rule brought forth by the majority.

Prior to the consideration of the rule, Members from both sides of the aisle submitted 129 amendments to the Rules Committee. The vast majority of amendments, 79, were introduced by members of the majority party. Last night, the majority on the Rules Committee decided to make in order for discussion on this floor two-thirds of the majority amendments and one-third of the minority amendments.

Last week, when members of the minority submitted a number of amendments to the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations bill, the majority claimed the minority were using dilatory tactics and shut down the ability of Members to offer amendments. This week, when the majority party offered a large number of amendments, the majority rewarded them for doing their jobs and representing their constituents by allowing 51 of their amendments for debate by the House.

At the same time, minority party members who were also representing the interests of their constituents were once again punished by the majority for doing their jobs and were only allowed 11 amendments.

In the end, the majority gets about five times the number of amendments made in order as the minority, and I think that's unfair. I think it's petty and unfair. What does the majority gain by using such an unfair process? In reality, nothing more than ending comity and diminishing the stature of this House and its Members.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Republican whip, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to point out to my friend that despite the fact that we support the committee having maintained the production line for the F-22, we made a motion in committee for an open rule that would have permitted the gentleman's amendment.

I will yield.

I thank the gentleman for his debate. Despite the fact that we're in disagreement on this issue, he is a great parliamentarian and it's an honor to serve with him.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I thank my friend from Maine and I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your courtesy, and I want to thank all who have come to participate in this debate. This legislation enjoys extraordinarily wide bipartisan support.

It's unfortunate that the rule that brings it to the floor is not fair. As I pointed out, it makes about two-thirds of the amendments that were introduced to the Rules Committee from the majority party in order and only about one-third of the amendments presented or introduced, proposed for debate by Members of the minority party. That's not fair. And it maintains a pattern that obviously we have seen deepened, augmented significantly in a very worrisome way in the appropriations process, where for the first time all of the appropriations bills are being brought to the floor under restrictive rules. We have had significant debate, but that's something that is also unfair and unfortunate, and it diminishes the rights of each of the Members of this House.

So I do think it's important we get to debate on legislation, in this case, this authorization of the Armed Forces legislation that enjoys such widespread bipartisan support.

So once again, opposing the rule and opposing the previous question, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 573.

Madam Speaker, today the House will debate and vote on the Homeland Security Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2010.

My friend Chairman David Price and Ranking Member Harold Rogers have crafted a strong bill which invests in robust border security, attentive and agile emergency management capabilities, helpful to State and local partners, and secures our transportation system. This bill reflects Congress' commitment to protect our Nation from the threats it faces with a bottom line $2.6 billion increase in Department of Homeland Security funding over last year.

In the area of border security and immigration enforcement, this bill increases funding for Customs and Border Protection by more than $146 million. This increase will allow the Border Patrol to better address violence and drug smuggling along our southern border, which has become a very serious concern in recent years. For emergency preparedness and response, this bill fully funds the versatile State Homeland Security Grant program, a program for which I have long advocated. This critical program allows for States to address the security threats most pressing to them. After all, the biggest threats to Colorado may not be the same as the biggest threats to New York or California.

This bill also restores funding to the Assistance for Firefighters Grant program to $800 million. I have presented dozens of Federal grant checks to fire departments across my district during my tenure in Congress; and I can say from experience, FIRE and SAFER Grants mean better training for our firefighters, better equipment and more firefighters on our streets, and safety for our citizens.

On another topic, I have said for years now that our computer networks are essential parts of our Nation's infrastructure; and as such, they need more focus for security. So I am pleased to see this bill increases funding for DHS's National Cybersecurity Division by $68 million over last year.

In the field of transportation security, this bill takes a large step forward. We increased funding for aviation security by $511 million over last year, investing a great deal in screening and detection technology for explosives. More important, in my opinion, we more than doubled funding for surface transportation security. This commitment is an essential step to preventing attacks on our rail and mass transit systems which have been the target of attacks in places such as London, Madrid and Mumbai.

Although we increase funding for many activities under DHS, this bill also tightens the belt. The bill terminates 16 programs, many of which have been unsuccessful in meeting their mission. In addition, the bill cuts nearly $800 million from various programs. In short, this bill puts the taxpayer dollars in the components of DHS which provide real results and real security.

Looking beyond the funding levels of this bill, we must also recognize that DHS is a department which relies heavily on a well- trained workforce. This bill provides the resources the Department of Homeland Security personnel, as well as our State and local partners, need to meet their objectives. I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire of my friend how many speakers he has on his side.

Certainly.

I do not.

Reclaiming my time, I thank my friend from California for commending me.

But what I want to talk about, and I will be brief and then reserve the balance of my time, is I appreciate some of the comments that the gentleman has made about the need for debate and speech and the opportunity for each of us to have a say as to the legislation that proceeds from this Chamber. But on the other hand, this country, the people of this country are demanding that we act, that we not completely just shut down and sit on our hands, twiddle our thumbs and say, woe is me, but it is time to act both on appropriations bills as well as other bills.

And I'd say to my friend, and I know that it was a way to protest what was happening on the floor, but the delay that was exhibited last week simply frustrates the will of the electorate to change the direction of this Nation. And I would also remind my friend that, Madam Speaker, the pressure that is placed on our staff at the rostrum by changing votes time and time again simply really is the problem and really redoubles the effort that they have to put forward.

So I appreciate his comments about the pressure that's placed on the staff by 2-minute voting. I would remind my friend the same kind of pressure, if not a lot more, is placed on the staff by changing votes for, in my opinion, only reasons of delay.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Will my friend yield?

To that point by my friend, on page 10, I have read the report since last night; so I thank you for pointing it out to me. And what page 10 says, and really what has led to this moment, I'd say to my friend, is the fact that at the close of the legislative day of Thursday, August 2, the House had been in session for 51 hours that week and 65 hours the week before. There really is no causal relation, I'd say to my friend, to where it talks about 2-minute votes.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

I still reserve my time. I would ask my friend how many speakers he has.

I would say my friend from California can speak on his own behalf and take up a few minutes if he likes, but I'm going to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I do want to compliment my friend from California on his debate, his comments, his remarks and his complaints. Some of them are legitimate. But what we are here today to deal with is the security of the United States of America. He is complaining about an 85 percent increase in spending when my friend knows full well that spending came about because of tax cuts, the prosecution of two wars, the collapse of a banking system and an emergency in the United States of America to get us back on track and to change the direction of this Nation.

Now what we are dealing with in this bill, and the reason we need to bring it on the floor and act, not delay, not delay like we saw last week, with Members circling the well, changing their votes time and time again or presenting amendments where they add $1 million, subtract $1 million, just to have an amendment. We are here, Madam Speaker, because this is one of our most important responsibilities, and that is to protect this country from terrorist attacks, foreign and domestic, and to ensure that our borders are secure. That is the purpose of the Homeland Security Appropriations bill.

The bill at $42.6 billion is slightly above last year's level. But it helps with Coast Guard, with border violence, with maritime safety, environmental protection, and assistance for the TSA as people come and go through our airports, as well as cybersecurity.

There are funds in the bill for FEMA, for flood map modernization, and for rebuilding of the gulf coast. This is a sensible investment. This is a sensible rule, and I would ask, Madam Speaker, that because this bill invests in a stronger domestic security both at our borders, throughout our transportation systems and our communities, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 572 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. 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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 572 provides for consideration of H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, under a structured rule.

Last week the House Armed Services Committee reported H.R. 2647 favorably to the House by unanimous vote. The final vote came at 2:30 in the morning after more than 14 hours of thorough debate.

During that time the members of the committee did not see eye-to-eye on every issue, but we did not split by party lines on every vote, and we often had differing views on how to devote limited resources to endless challenges. In the end, we all agreed by a unanimous vote that we must take steps to keep our country safe and keep our military prepared. We must work to eliminate wasteful spending and restore fiscal discipline, and we must provide our troops and their families with the care that they need and the quality of life that is worthy of their sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2647 makes significant progress on all these fronts. It strengthens our national security by focusing resources on the most immediate and severe threats to our troops and our country. The bill enhances efforts to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction by increasing funding for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and by fully supporting the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs.

The bill cuts extensive spending, excessive spending on flawed missile-defense programs and, instead, invests more resources in systems that are proven to work and strategies that meet immediate threats.

H.R. 2647 also takes an important step forward in strengthening accountability and increasing oversight of the defense contracting process. The bill grows the size of the civilian acquisition workforce, which will reduce our reliance on defense contractors and cut down on wasteful spending.

The bill improves the quality of life and the quality of care for our men and women in uniform by providing a 3.4 percent pay raise for each servicemember, by expanding access to education and training, by increasing funding for family housing programs, and by expanding TRICARE coverage for members of the Reserve and their families prior to mobilization.

After 7 years of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, this bill provides a basis for ensuring that the plans for progress are sound and that the objectives for victory are clear. The bill requires frequent reports to Congress on the objectives and measurements for success in Afghanistan and the progress of withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

The bill also directs the GAO to provide Congress with separate reports, which will assess strategic plans for both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congress must do everything in its power to ensure that our military strategies are working and our ultimate goals are achievable. I believe that we can always do more, but I also believe that this bill provides a starting point for that process. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, while this bill addresses broad strategic issues and threats across the globe, it also has a direct impact on our districts.

While communities across the country are saving, struggling and working to recover from this recession, other communities are preparing for even tougher times ahead. In 2011, scores of military bases will close for good as a result of the 2005 BRAC. For decades, these bases have been the backbones of communities and provided the surrounding areas with jobs, tenants, customers and neighbors, which will now be lost in a matter of years.

H.R. 2647 expands the use of no-cost economic development conveyances as a tool to redevelop and restart communities affected by base closure. This provision allows the Department of Defense to transfer property to a local redevelopment authority at no cost if the land will be used for purposes of economic development.

At a time of declining property values, devastating job loss and crippling economic hardship, we must provide communities with every possible tool to redevelop and reorganize. This bill will assist in that effort.

I am looking forward to completing our work on this year's defense authorization.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).

I yield 3 minutes to the Chair of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Driehaus), a member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the Chair of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for the dialogue that we have had here on the floor tonight.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today will continue the open debate that was held on committee, some of which continue tonight, and further our efforts to find solutions to those pressing problems.

In particular, this rule adds the text of H.R. 2990 to the underlying bill, which funds a 1-year expansion of concurrent receipts for retired veterans, extends retention bonuses and special pay authorities for enlisted servicemembers and funds provisions in the Federal Retirement Reform Act of 2009.

I would like to thank the Chair, Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member McKeon, and all my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee for their tireless work on this bill.

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

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