To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 43 Maple Avenue in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, as the "Ann Marie Blute Post Office".

Mr. Speaker, this bill supports America's veterans, our troops, and their families in a meaningful way by improving their health care, their benefits, and their quality of life. Those who defend our Nation have earned and deserve this support.

For the first time ever, we provide 2-year funding for VA medical programs. This is an historic achievement and has been one of the highest priorities of our Nation's most respected veterans organizations. The advance funding is a win for veterans and for taxpayers. It will allow the VA to plan its spending more efficiently, which will improve health care for veterans and save taxpayers dollars.

This bill funds President Obama's VA request, a $5.4 billion increase, the largest Presidential request for increased veterans' funding in over 30 years. Other major initiatives in this bill include new training barracks for military recruits, homeowners assistance for troops being re-stationed, additional funding for the modernization of National Guard and Reserve facilities, and a robust energy conservation program for Department of Defense facilities.

When the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) became Speaker in 2007, she promised that supporting veterans would be one of Congress' highest priorities. Speaker Pelosi, with the strong leadership of Chairmen Spratt and Obey and Filner, has kept that promise. Here are some of the significant results in just 3 years: A 60 percent increase in VA funding; 145 new VA community-based outpatient clinics; 70 new vet centers, 3,384 new VA doctors, 14,426 new VA nurses, 8,300 new VA claims processors, an expansion of middle-income veterans' eligibility for VA health care, more than a doubling of mental health care funding for vets, and a historic new GI college education bill.

Ultimately, this is about more than even the importance of better health care and benefits for our troops and vets, it is about respect, respect for the service and sacrifice of those who defend our Nation and their families.

I especially want to thank our ranking member on our subcommittee, Mr. Wamp of Tennessee, who was a critical partner in our work on this portion of this bill, and who would once again demonstrate his deep commitment to our troops and our veterans.

Finally, but certainly not least, I want to thank and salute our subcommittee staff whose professionalism

and tireless work has made possible our unprecedented achievements for our veterans and troops: Carol Murphey, the committee clerk; Mary Arnold, Tim Peterson, Walter Hearne, Donna Shabaz, Martin Delgado, Kelly Shea, and Liz Dawson. In my book, they personify the best ideals of public service.

Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we keep our promises to those magnificent Americans who have kept their promise to serve our Nation and the American family.

The fiscal year 2010 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations bill provides $134.6 billion for projects and programs of critical importance to America's veterans and military troops and their families, including veterans benefits and healthcare, and military family housing, barracks and mission critical facilities.

The bill provides $53 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and $56.6 billion for mandatory VA programs, $23.3 billion for military construction and family housing, and $1.4 billion for military construction projects in support of the war in Afghanistan.

In a major victory for America's veterans, the bill for the first time includes advance appropriations for the VA to ensure a stable and uninterrupted source of funding for medical care for veterans. For fiscal year 2011, the bill includes $48.2 billion for VA medical programs.

The bill provides funding to address several significant priorities, including:

Renovating surplus building on VA medical campuses to use as housing for homeless veterans;

Increasing the number of VA outpatient clinics in rural communities where veterans do not have ready access to VA hospitals;

Accelerating the Army's program to modernize troop housing for trainees;

Addressing critical unfunded construction requirements of the Guard and reserve;

Providing mortgage relief to military families required to relocate during the current mortgage crisis;

Expediting environmental cleanup on closed military bases; and

Investing in renewable and alternative energy initiatives on military installations.

For Military Construction and Family Housing, the bill includes $23.3 billion to support American's military forces and their families at home and overseas, $333.9 million above the request. The bill includes $11.8 billion for such items as barracks, child care centers, installation chapels, and mission critical operational facilities. Of this amount, $350 million is provided to accelerate the Army's program to modernize troop housing facilities for trainees. The Army has a need for $2.2 billion to bring all 115,413 trainee barracks spaces up to standard and the program currently is not scheduled to finish until 2017.

Also includes $174 million for the Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP), $84 million above the request, to increase the level of investment in renewable and alternative energy resources and to promote energy conservation, green building initiatives, and energy security programs on U.S. military installations.

For the Guard and Reserve component, the bill includes $1.6 billion, $601.7 million above the request, to provide readiness centers and operational facilities for the Army National Guard, Air Guard, and Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force reserve forces. Within this amount, the bill includes $200 million in additional construction funding to address critical unfunded requirements.

For military and family housing programs, the bill includes $2.59 billion for family housing, $300 million above the request, to further eliminate inadequate military housing, including $323 million for the Homeowners Assistance Program, $300 million above the request, to provide additional funding for the expanded mortgage relief program for military families who are required to relocate during the current mortgage crisis and must sell their home at a loss, as well as to wounded warriors who must relocate for medical reasons and to the spouses of fallen warriors similarly affected by the mortgage crisis.

The bill includes funding for base realignment and closure (BRAC) at the level of $496.8 million for the 1990 BRAC round, $100 million above the request, to address the large unfunded backlog of environmental cleanup for bases that were closed during the four previous BRAC rounds, and $7.5 billion for the 2005 BRAC program, the full authorized amount.

Finally, for overseas contingency operations the bill includes $1.4 billion, matching the request, to support additional military construction requirements to support operations and previously scheduled troop deployments to Afghanistan.

For the Department of Veterans Affairs, the bill includes $109.6 billion, $15.3 billion above 2009 and $747 million above the request. The funding includes $56.6 billion for mandatory veterans benefit programs and $53 billion for discretionary funding. Total discretionary funding is $5.4 billion above 2009, an increase of 11 percent. In addition, the bill provides $48.2 billion in advance appropriations for veterans medical care programs for fiscal year 2011.

For the Veterans Health Administration, the bill includes $45.1 billion, matching the request and $4.1 billion above 2009, for veterans' medical care. The Veterans Health Administration estimates that it will treat more than 6.1 million patients in 2010, including more than 419,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan (56,000 more than 2009).

A major initiative in the VHA includes $250 million as requested to continue the Rural Health Initiative to which the Congress added $30 million to increase the number of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) in rural areas for veterans who do not have ready access to VA hospitals. More than 3.2 million (41%) of enrolled veterans live in rural or highly rural areas.

In the area of mental health funding, we have included $4.6 billion, matching the request and $300 million above 2009, to treat the psychological wounds of returning combat veterans, including post- traumatic stress disorder. Also included is an additional $1 million to provide education debt relief as a hiring incentive for mental health professionals.

Funding to treat Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) Veterans is at $2.1 billion, matching the request and $463 million above 2009, to meet the healthcare needs of veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The VA estimates that the number of OEF/OIF veterans in the VA healthcare system in 2010 will have increased by 61 percent since 2008.

One of the areas of increasing concern is the assistance for homeless veterans, where we have provided $3.2 billion, matching the request and $421 million above 2009, for healthcare and support services for homeless veterans; including $26 million for a Presidential Initiative to combat homelessness, $150 million for the homeless grants and per diem program, $20 million for supportive services for low income veterans and families, and $21 million to hire additional personnel for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program.

The program for medical and prosthetic research is funded at $581 million, $71 million above 2009, for research in a number of areas including mental health, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, burn injury, polytrauma injuries, and sensory loss; including a $48 million increase for research to address the critical needs of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans.

The effort to improve the condition of medical facilities of the Department of Veteran Affairs continues with a construction program of $1.9 billion, $103 million above the request and $232 million above 2009, including major construction of $1.2 billion for major medical facilities, including hospitals and clinics, to enable the Department to implement the recommendations made by the Capitol Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Commission, which was established to look at facilities and determine their construction needs. In addition, the bill includes $703 million, $103 million above the President's budget request, including $50 million for the renovation of vacant buildings on VA campuses to be used as housing with supportive services for homeless veterans. The VA estimates that on any given night, 131,000 veterans are homeless. This program will strengthen the VA's goal of eliminating homelessness among veterans by providing housing and counseling services in settings that are in close proximity for VA hospitals.

Funding for grants to states for the construction of extended care facilities is set at $100 million, an increase of $15 million above the request. And $42 million in grant funding for state veterans' cemeteries is provided in this bill.

Finally, for the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have included $1.7 billion for benefits claims processors, $223 million above 2009, to enable the Department to hire roughly 1,200 additional claims processors to continue to address the backlog of benefits claims and to reduce the time to process new claims. The most recent VA quarterly status report estimates that nearly 397,000 claims are pending. When added to funding and hiring provided in prior years, this will result in a total of 8,300 new claims processors being hired since January of 2007.

With passage of this bill, Congress has provided a 60 percent increase in funding for veterans health care and benefits since January

2007. This funding has resulted in a total increase of 8,300 claims processors as mentioned, 145 community-based outpatient clinics, 70 Vet Centers, and more than 47,000 additional Veterans Health Administration employees. These additional resources will provide our veterans with their benefits more quickly and improve access to health care and other services.

Congress has also funded several initiatives to improve the quality of life for our military and their families to include: $3.2 billion for new military hospitals, $1 billion for new child care centers to serve 20,000 military children, and $920 million in additional funding for barracks.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.005

I want to thank Chairman Mollohan and Senator Shelby and Senator Mikulski for their efforts. I will not be supporting the bill for the reasons that are in my submitted statement.

But I want to raise another issue that somebody ought to focus on in this Congress. This bill will allow people like Khalid Sheik Mohammed to be sent from Guantanamo Bay to New York City and I believe personally it will endanger the citizens of New York City. And they're now going to come in and ask for up to $75 or $100 million to do that. That's money that you could put in food pantries or education.

Secondly, we have asked that this information be nonclassified so people can know where these people from Guantanamo Bay are going. Twenty-six of them--and it's classified and I can't say any more--are being sent to Yemen. Yemen. That's where the sheikh who had the impact on Major Hasan Nidal, who killed 13 people at Fort Hood, that's where he operates. And al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is all over Yemen. So you are going to release people from Guantanamo Bay, who served with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was the mastermind of 9/11 that killed 3,000 people, 30 from my congressional district. Khalid Sheik Mohammed beheaded Daniel Pearl. Think of Daniel Pearl's family. Think of Debra Burlingame and the family of others; and they're going to send them to Yemen. And then they're also going to send two others to a place that no one would believe that they're really going to send them.

By not adopting the amendments that we offered in conference, one, I believe this bill will endanger people in New York City; two, it will put pressure on New York City. You will see stories in the paper. As you vote for this bill, know that you will see stories in the paper of snipers on the rooftops, and tanks moving.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed will be in New York City for 4 years, 4 years or more--Moussaoui was in northern Virginia for over 4 years--and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will say things and do things that will be unconscionable. So as you vote for this bill, you are, in essence, allowing that to take place. It's crazy, absolutely crazy, to think that you can try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in Guantanamo Bay with no cost and no danger to the American citizens, but then they're going to bring him and others into the U.S.

So Khalid Sheik Mohammed gets a civilian trial when a young 19-year- old person in the Army, man or woman, who does something wrong has to go through a military court system.

The bill spends too much. I believe that by bringing Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the others here, we may very well endanger people and bring about another attack. And secondly, to spend all that money to protect Khalid Sheik Mohammed when he could have been tried down at Guantanamo Bay just doesn't make any sense. No one believes that that makes sense. And lastly, to send people to Yemen and other places I think will endanger this country.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the Commerce Justice Science division of this conference report, as I serve as the Ranking Member on that Subcommittee.

First, I want to thank Chairman Mollohan, Chairman Mikulski and Senator Shelby for their hard work on the CJS portion of the bill, and for their spirit of collaboration and cooperation on this conference agreement.

However, I believe the subcommittee was given an overly generous conference allocation. At $64.4 billion, the bill is almost a 12 percent increase above last year's level. In my view, this level of funding was well in excess of the amount necessary to produce a good bill.

The bill contains important funding to support NASA, fight terrorism and gangs, and to give our federal law enforcement critical resources.

The CJS division of this package places important limitations and reporting requirements related to the closure of Guantanamo and the movement of detainees.

However, I believe stronger language is necessary, and I regret that amendments I offered at conference to prohibit the transfer and release of detainees into the United States and to require unclassified reports were defeated on party line votes.

There were press reports just yesterday that a former Guantanamo detainee transferred to Saudi Arabia is now a kingpin for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and at large in Yemen. There are already 10 ex- Gitmo detainees on Saudi Arabia's list of most-wanted terrorists. The current transfer policies will likely result in many more similar stories.

Because my amendments were defeated, this bill will allow dangerous detainees to be transferred to the United States and to unstable countries abroad.

It will allow 26 Yemeni detainees to be returned to Yemen--the emerging al Qaeda stronghold in the Arabian Peninsula where radical cleric Anwar al Aulaqi--the advisor of Ft. Hood terrorist Maj. Hasan Nidal--operates freely. I submit for the Record an article on al Aulaqi that appeared in today's Washington Post.

It will allow 2 other detainees to be released to a country worse the Yemen. I cannot share

the location because my amendment to declassify this information for the American people was defeated on a party-line vote.

It will allow Khalid Sheik Mohammed to be transferred to New York City and provide him a platform to spread his hateful message-- endangering our country.

I am disappointed that the CJS conference report was not brought to the floor as a stand-alone bill, as we were prepared to do weeks ago. Instead we are once again faced with a bloated, half a trillion dollar omnibus.

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 10, 2009]

Cleric Linked to Fort Hood Attack Grew More Radicalized in Yemen

(By Sudarsan Raghavan)

Sanaa, Yemen.--The Yemeni American cleric at the center of

investigations into last month's massacre of 13 people at

Fort Hood, Tex., became more openly radical in Yemen,

following a path taken by other extremists in this failing

Middle East nation with a growing al-Qaeda presence,

according to relatives, friends and associates in Yemen.

In interviews, they said Anwar al-Aulaqi, 38, blamed the

United States for 18 months he spent in a Yemeni jail, a

little-known chapter in the cleric's life that some described

as a key path in his radicalization.

Aulaqi, who was born in the United States and spent time in

Yemen as a child, left for Britain in early 2002 after he

drew scrutiny from U.S. authorities. The United States

alleges that Aulaqi was a spiritual adviser to three of the

Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers while he was a prayer leader at the

Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church and at a mosque in San

Diego.

An examination of some of Aulaqi's sermons and lectures, as

well as interviews conducted here, shows that he increasingly

began to publicly endorse violence as a religious duty after

he returned to Yemen in early 2004, completing his

transformation from an imam who condemned the Sept. 11

attacks to an Internet preacher who views Americans as

legitimate targets.

Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, who has been charged in the Fort Hood

shootings, first contacted Aulaqi by e-mail last December.

U.S. authorities intercepted some of the e-mails, but no

threat was perceived. The FBI has declined to comment on

Aulaqi, citing an ongoing investigation.

After the Fort Hood attack, Aulaqi issued a statement

calling Hasan a ``hero.'' In an interview later with a Yemeni

journalist, Aulaqi denied that he had ordered or incited

Hasan to carry out the attack but said Hasan considered him a

confidant.

Aulaqi's path to radicalization, at first, appeared

unlikely. The Aulaqis' descendants were sultans who once

ruled what is now Yemen's southern province of Shabwa, home

to the ancestral village where Aulaqi now lives with his wife

and five children. Aulaqi's father, Nasser al-Aulaqi, is a

former president of Sanaa University and agriculture

minister.

While in Yemen during his childhood, Aulaqi studied in a

secular high school in the capital, Sanaa, along with

children from other elite families, before returning to

Colorado in 1991 to attend college, said a close relative in

an hour-long interview. The relative spoke on the condition

of anonymity to avoid harming his family's efforts to

persuade Aulaqi to become moderate.

He said Aulaqi was an avid swimmer who enjoyed deep-sea

fishing. His ambition was to become college professor,

focusing on finding ways to address water shortages in

Yemen, the relative said. Like many Arabs, the relative

said, Aulaqi was angered by the U.S. assault on Iraq in

the first Persian Gulf War but didn't show signs of

radicalization afterward.

``He was very moderate. He was always against al-Qaeda

ideology,'' said the relative, adding that Aulaqi's contact

with the hijackers was a ``coincidence.''

After Sept. 11, Aulaqi grew frustrated and felt targeted by

U.S. authorities, the relative said.

``Sept. 11 changed a lot of Muslims,'' the relative said.

``And the invasion in Iraq in 2003 made him even stronger in

his beliefs.''

U.S. authorities have alleged that Aulaqi had become

radicalized while still in the United States, before the

Sept. 11 attacks, but they never found evidence to detain

him.

Beginning in 2002, when he left the United States for

Britain, Aulaqi lauded Palestinian suicide bombers on a Web

site and in lectures attended by ultraconservative Muslims.

He spoke at fundraising events hosted by Cage Prisoners, a

rights group in Britain, but did not incite violence or

express support for al-Qaeda, said Moazzam Begg, a former

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detainee who heads the group. ``He

wouldn't have been so popular if his message was not moderate

and across the board,'' Begg said in a phone interview from

London.

In early 2004, Aulaqi returned to Yemen. At a lecture at

Sanaa University, he spoke eloquently about Islam's role in

the world. He railed against U.S. policies in Iraq. He

denounced Israel, according to those present at the lecture.

But he stopped short of calling for violent jihad.

``He was not inciting us to use arms,'' recalled Adil al-

Howlari, who now works as a journalist for the United

Nations. ``He was talking about how to use English to spread

Islamic values.''

Aulaqi eventually took classes and lectured at Iman

University in Sanaa. The university is led by Sheik Abdul

Majeed al-Zindani, an influential religious figure whom U.S.

officials have described as Osama bin Laden's spiritual

leader and placed on a list of global terrorists.

The university has a reputation as an incubator of

radicalism. John Walker Lindh, an American who fought with

the Taliban, is a former student. Other students allegedly

took part in numerous attacks.

Aulaqi's relative said the cleric had given four lectures

at the university about Islam's role in medieval Spain.

By 2006, Aulaqi's influence had widened into the world of

terrorism through his Web site and Facebook page, even though

most Yemenis had never heard of him. Starting that year,

investigators have found Aulaqi's sermons downloaded on the

computers of suspects in nearly a dozen terrorism cases in

Britain and Canada.

In mid-2006, Yemeni authorities arrested him. Aulaqi was

accused of inciting attacks against a man over a tribal

matter involving a woman. Aulaqi denied the allegations in an

interview with Begg last year and accused the U.S. government

of pressuring Yemen to keep him locked up.

In that interview, Aulaqi said he spent the first nine

months in solitary confinement in an underground cell. Around

September 2007, FBI agents interrogated him about the Sept.

11 attacks and other issues, Aulaqi told Begg. Although he

wasn't physically abused, Aulaqi said, a U.S. Embassy legal

attache swore at him. He was never charged and was released

in December 2007.

Yemeni officials have declined to comment.

After his release, Aulaqi's stance on using violence for

jihad grew more forceful. Last December, he penned a letter

calling for fighters and financing for al-Shabab, the Somali

Islamist movement with ties to al-Qaeda. And this January, he

published an essay titled ``44 Ways to Support Jihad.'' It

called, among other things, for Muslims to stay fit and train

in weapons to fight on the battlefield.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Conferees for including section 747, which regulates the relationship between automobile manufacturers and automobile dealerships. I, along with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Representatives Chris Van Hollen, Daniel Maffei, Frank Kratovil, Steven LaTourette, Jackie Speier, Robert Brady, Betty Sutton, and Bob Etheridge have worked together to create legislation that will best serve the interests of the automobile industry, including manufacturers and dealerships, and the citizens who have a significant portion of their tax dollars invested in the success of this critical industry. The following is a description of the legislation.

Section 747 of the Conference Agreement includes language establishing an arbitration process to determine whether previously terminated, non-assigned, non-renewed, or non-continued auto dealerships should be added to dealership networks of automobile manufacturers that received federal assistance under the TARP program, or that are partially owned by the Federal Government. This provision replaces Section 745 of the House bill, which also addressed concerns regarding terminated auto dealerships.

It is in the national interest to protect the substantial federal investment in automobile manufacturers by assuring the viability of such companies through the maintenance of sufficiently sized dealership networks to meet consumer demand for sales and servicing nationally. In addition to facilitating the maintenance and growth of industry market share among manufacturers that benefitted from TARP funds, and in which the taxpayers have a significant financial investment, it is in the national interest to ensure that dealerships and manufacturers are each treated fairly in their business relationships based on their respective economic interests.

Evidence obtained over the course of numerous Congressional hearings in 2009 demonstrates that the automobile industry is integral to the health of the United States economy as a whole. Automobile manufacturers have been among the largest and most successful corporations in the United States, providing significant numbers of jobs and producing valuable goods for consumers. Automobile dealerships are also essential businesses in most communities nationally, providing many jobs to local residents and facilitating the distribution, sales, and servicing of millions of vehicles annually. Our investigations have made clear that it is in the best interest of the automobile industry, automobile manufacturers, dealerships and the public to have a competitive and economically viable domestic automobile distribution network throughout the country, including urban, suburban, and rural areas.

This provision was included because we also believe that by providing a process for working out the relationship between automobile manufacturers and dealerships that ensures transparency and review by a neutral arbitrator according to an equitable and balanced standard, taking into account the interests of all affected parties, the property and due process rights of manufacturers and dealerships will be safeguarded.

Section 747 establishes a procedure by which an automobile dealership that had a franchise agreement for a vehicle brand that was not assigned to a covered manufacturer, or that was terminated in a manner not consistent with applicable state law, on or before April 29, 2009, may seek continuation or reinstatement of the franchise agreement, or seek to be added as a franchisee to a dealership network of the covered manufacturer who manufactures the vehicle brand of the covered dealership, with such franchisee being located in the geographic area where the covered dealership was located when its franchise agreement was terminated, not assigned, not renewed, or not continued. Absent such election by the covered dealership, no such binding arbitration would occur.

In order to provide a covered automobile dealership with the information useful to determine whether to elect to enter into binding arbitration, the dealership will receive in writing notice from the covered manufacturer detailing the specific criteria pursuant to which such dealership's franchise agreement was terminated, was not renewed, or was not assumed and assigned to a covered manufacturer. This notice must be provided within the 30-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Section. This transparency is a vital step in giving dealerships the opportunity to understand why their franchise agreements were terminated, not renewed, or were not assumed and assigned to a covered manufacturer. It is our expectation that this transparency will obviate the need for unnecessary arbitration. It is also our expectation that this transparency will encourage informal agreements between covered dealerships and manufacturers without

recourse to the more formal procedures provided in this Section. We expect that the written transmittal letter will also provide appropriate contact information, including an e-mail address, to enable the dealership to contact the manufacturer should the dealership have specific questions about the dealership's information and individual criteria contained in such letter.

The Conference Agreement provides such dealerships with the opportunity to elect to participate in a neutral arbitration process designed to permit the dealership to present information in support of its addition to the manufacturer's dealership network, and for the manufacturer to present information against such addition based on its business plan and future economic viability. The arbitrator in each case shall balance the interests of the covered dealership, the covered manufacturer, and the public and will decide based on that balancing whether or not the covered dealership should be added to the dealership network of the covered manufacturer. These are the only remedies the arbitrator may provide. The Conference Agreement specifically prohibits the awarding of compensatory, punitive, or exemplary damages to any party.

The Conference Agreement sets out seven specific factors that the arbitrator should consider in ruling on each case. The list is not exclusive, and the arbitrator would have the discretion to consider all the relevant facts on a case-by-case basis. In considering whether adding the covered dealership to the covered manufacturer's dealership network is in the public interest, the arbitrator should consider, among other factors, the need for reasonable access for consumers to a dealership that can service their vehicles, which is of particular concern in rural areas. The arbitrator should also consider the impact on the viability of the manufacturer of adding the dealership to the manufacturer's network, the length of experience of the dealership, the dealership's historical profitability and current economic viability, and demographic and geographic characteristics of the market.

It is our understanding that the General Commercial Rules of the American Arbitration Association shall apply to the arbitration proceeding, except to the extent that a rule is inconsistent with any provision of this Section.

Subsection (f) addresses negotiations between a covered manufacturer and a covered dealership, whether acting individually, as a group, or through an organization acting on behalf of one or more covered dealerships. The provision is intended to ensure that any legally binding agreement, such as a memorandum of understanding, resulting from a voluntary negotiation between a covered manufacturer and a covered dealership, a group of covered dealerships, or an organization acting on behalf of one or more covered dealerships will not be disturbed by this section. It also makes clear that once a covered dealership is party to such an agreement, such covered dealership would not be eligible for the arbitration remedy in this section.

It is not the intent of Congress to bar a covered dealership from the provisions of this section if the covered dealership accepted a standard form contract prepared by the covered manufacturer and offered on a ``take-it-or-leave-it'' basis, even if the agreement was entered into voluntarily. As a consequence, a covered dealership that accepted a ``wind-down'' agreement drafted by a covered manufacturer would be able to avail itself of the provisions of this section. An agreement between a covered manufacturer and a covered dealership, whether acting individually, as a group, or as part of a group of dealerships acting through an organization, will be considered voluntarily negotiated if the agreement between the parties reflects a compromise based on written or oral discussions, even if one party to the negotiation is the principal or primary drafter of the agreement.

We chose this approach because binding arbitration by a neutral arbitrator is the most appropriate means of resolving the differences between covered dealerships and manufacturers, and to protect the taxpayers, and the broader economy. For this reason, the Conference Agreement sets out a procedure for ensuring that a neutral arbitrator conducts the arbitration according to a clear standard with factors the arbitrator must weigh.

Due to the time sensitive nature of this situation, the Conference Agreement provides that a covered dealership must elect to pursue arbitration no later than 40 days of the date of enactment of this section, that such arbitration must commence as soon as practicable and must be submitted to the arbitrator for deliberation not later than 180 days of such date. The arbitrator is given the flexibility to extend that period for up to 30 days for good cause. The arbitrator then has seven business days after the arbitrator determines that the case has been fully submitted to issue a written opinion.

Section 747 expressly permits the manufacturer and dealership to present any kind of relevant information during the arbitration. As an additional means of ensuring efficiency and economy in the arbitration process, the provision prohibits depositions and limits discovery to documents specific to the covered dealership.

Section 747 also makes clear that a manufacturer may terminate a covered dealership in accordance with applicable state law.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 and urge its swift consideration by our colleagues in the Senate.

This legislation includes final conference reports for the FY 2010 Transportation-HUD, Commerce-Justice-Science, Financial Services, Labor-HHS-Education, Military Construction-VA and State-Foreign Operations bills. Its total funding of $446.8 billion makes priority investments in infrastructure, health care, and education, while supporting our veterans, funding the upcoming census and honestly accounting for war costs previously left to supplementals. Remaining items in the bill are limited to a 1% funding increase.

The $50 billion in infrastructure spending in this bill--including $150 million for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority-- will enable us to modernize our aging infrastructure, ease congestion, facilitate commerce and create good-paying, homegrown American jobs. To further bolster our economic recovery, HR 3288 provides $824 million to the Small Business Administration for its work helping our job- generating small businesses succeed. This investment will help facilitate an additional $28 billion in new lending to small businesses. I am delighted that the National Institutes of Health is funded at $31 billion so that it can continue driving scientific innovation and health system reform. Finally, I am especially pleased that the Financial Services division of this consolidated legislation sets up a fair and reasonable process by which profitable auto dealers can have an opportunity to get back into business so that they and their employees can play their part in supporting our ongoing economic recovery. In that regard, I ask that the full text of the attached statement be entered into the legislative Record.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation that language has been included in the Financial Services Appropriations Conference Report that will give automobile dealers around the nation a fair and reasonable shot at getting back into business. For the past several months, I have been pleased to join with Majority Leader Hoyer, Congressmen Kratovil and Maffei, and others to ensure that profitable car dealers have every opportunity to contribute to our economic recovery and put their employees back to work.

Profitable and viable dealers should have never been terminated in the first place, and I was proud to join the fight to have these short- sighted decisions reversed. Automobile manufacturers won't be able to get back on their feet without a strong dealer network, and Congress is committed to ensuring that such a network exists. I salute the tenacity and determination of these small business owners, many of whom have been selling cars and supporting the American auto industry for decades. Under the provision we are approving today, these terminated dealers will have an opportunity, once again, to do what they do best-- sell and service cars. And that is good for our economy, for job creation and for the American car industry.

It would have been my preference that we would not need to legislate on this matter. We convened talks with the auto dealer groups and the manufacturers and while both sides offered significant concessions, efforts to achieve a non-legislative solution failed when auto manufacturers offered plans that fell short of what was needed to add dealers to their dealer networks and put their employees back to work.

As 2009 comes to a close, the federal government still maintains a substantial financial stake in Chrysler and General Motors and therefore in the United States automobile industry. Clearly, it is in the national interest to have the domestic automobile industry regain profitability and maintain sufficient dealerships to meet consumer demand.

Section 747 of the Financial Services Appropriations division of this bill recognizes the valuable role that dealers play in the auto industry and our local economies. Automobile dealers are essential to the success of automobile manufacturers because at no material cost to the manufacturers, they facilitate distribution, sales, and servicing of hundreds of millions of vehicles annually. This legislation is premised on the notion that it is in the best interest of automobile manufacturers, the automotive industry, dealers and the public to have an extensive and competitive automobile distribution network throughout the country, including in urban, suburban and rural areas.

Section 747 mandates that manufacturers promptly provide covered auto dealers in writing the specific criteria and supporting data relied upon by a manufacturer in its decision to end or wind down the dealership relationship. In the spirit of cooperation and to ensure an efficient process as this legislation is implemented, we expect that the manufacturers will provide the information in a format that is user friendly, clearly identifies facts, readily accessible, and understandable by the dealer and that the data may be transmitted either by mail or electronically. We intend that this process provide transparency and avoid the excessive costs and delays of litigation and discovery disputes. The manufacturers should provide their respective covered dealers with each and every detail and criterion related to the evaluations of the dealership and the decisions to terminate, not assign, not renew or discontinue. It is anticipated that the manufacturers will be cooperative and forthcoming and that all relevant information will be provided promptly.

It further provides such dealers with the opportunity to participate in a neutral arbitration process designed for the dealer to make the case for being added to the manufacturer's dealer network. Congress has included specific timeliness for this process and we expect both parties to the arbitration to act in good faith and expeditiously so that added dealers can return to full-fledged operations quickly.

Section 747 expressly permits the manufacturer and dealer to present any kind of relevant information during the arbitration and provides that the arbitrator shall decide whether the dealer should be added to the manufacturer's dealer network based on a balancing of the interests of the dealer, the manufacturer, and the general public. The public interest includes reasonably convenient access for consumers to a dealer who can service their vehicles, which is of particular concern in rural areas where many dealers were terminated in 2009. It has been well-reported that more and more individuals have to drive substantial distances to obtain service from an authorized dealer of a specific brand because of a dealer termination.

Congress has provided seven enumerated factors for the arbitrator to consider, but this list is not exhaustive because the legislation provides that the parties can introduce ``any relevant information.'' For example, we expect that arbitrators should consider relevant State laws, which provide a context for analyzing franchise agreements and the obligations of dealers and manufacturers.

A couple of these enumerated criteria merit additional explanation. For example, Congress has directed that the demographic and geographic characteristics of the market are taken into account. This reflects our intention that the arbitrator should pay special attention to the concerns expressed by some terminated dealers that there are factors in their market areas or States that affect their performance and render some measurements, such as State averages, less than accurate in portraying the true picture of a dealer's operations.

Another one of the factors involves the dealer's performance under the franchise agreement terminated in 2009. In considering this factor and related factors, it is important for arbitrators to recognize that state law is part and parcel of and modifies auto dealer franchise agreements. To look only at a franchise agreement, in other words, misses an important contextual element. Accordingly, it is anticipated that the arbitrators will consider State

law elements of good faith and fair dealing in this process and that, for example, the franchise agreement's performance standards and a dealer's performance under the original agreement will be evaluated in accordance with State law.

Another factor is the historic profitability of the dealership. During the legislative process, Congress learned that some dealers, for tax planning reasons or other reasons use a variety of legitimate, widely recognized accounting conventions, such as LIFO, that could, depending on the date a snapshot is taken, affect materially whether the dealership appears profitable. It is important that arbitrators recognize such accounting conventions when considering the profitability of a dealership so a fair and accurate picture is obtained.

With respect to being added back to a dealer network, it is the intent of Congress that notwithstanding the preference of a manufacturer to have several brands in the same dealership, in the case of a dealer seeking to be added to a dealer network but with fewer than all of the preferred brands, the dealer nonetheless will be eligible to be added.

It is worth noting that pursuant to subsection (f), manufacturers and dealers may, of their own volition, decide to enter into legally binding agreements with one another instead of going through the arbitration process. It is the intent of Congress that for this subsection to apply, the legally binding agreements shall be consensual, non-coercive resolutions of the issue between the dealer and the manufacturer entered into or ratified after the date of enactment. Coercive agreements should not be upheld.

In conclusion, I want to recognize the tireless efforts of dealers from around the Nation who worked to develop and implement a truly historic grassroots effort over the past seven months. Groups such as the Committee to Restore Dealer Rights, the Automobile Trade Association Executives, National Automobile Dealers Association and the National Association of Minority Auto Dealers, were instrumental in bringing about the legislation we are approving today.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question. Is the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) the same Mr. Lewis who chaired the Appropriations Committee the last year that the Republicans were in control? It's my impression that he is. As I recall, in that year the Republicans passed exactly two appropriation bills through the Congress and had them signed into law. The other nine appropriation bills were not passed in October. They were not passed in November. They were not passed in December. They were never passed. And so the incoming Congress

under our control was forced to pass their bills at the beginning of the next session before we could even get to our own. Yet the gentleman with that record is now complaining because, with the passage of this bill, we will only have sent to the President 11 of the 12 appropriation bills needed for the year. And I would point out that by next week, we intend to send the last bill to him. If that happens, the only difference between our friends on that side of the aisle and us is that we will have gotten our work done. Despite the fact that we had to deal with the greatest economic collapse in 75 years, we will have finished every appropriation bill.

In contrast to our friends on the other side of the aisle who in the last year they controlled this place were not able to complete action on a single domestic appropriation bill, under those circumstances, for the gentleman on that side of the aisle to squawk about the fact that we are a few days late is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. It is very interesting logic.

With respect to the spending amount in this bill, I would simply point out, as the gentleman from Massachusetts did earlier, that we are in the process of trying to deal with years of neglect and we are in the process of trying to deal with an economic emergency and catastrophe.

The gentleman complains that this bill is 14 percent above last year for comparable bills. The fact is, let's look at what those differences are. We added $3 billion more than last year so we could clean up the disability backlog for veterans' claims. Anybody on that side of the aisle want to take that money out? We have an additional $4.2 billion for the census because we are required by law to conduct that census so we can redirect huge amounts of Federal money to all of the localities in this country in an accurate fashion. Anybody think we ought to forgo that for the next 10 years?

We've also put $14.8 billion above the previous year in this bill to cover war costs. We put it in the regular bill so it would show up rather than hiding it in the supplemental as previous Congresses did. Would you really rather go back to the old practice of hiding that $14.8 billion?

Infrastructure investments. We have a 28 percent unemployment rate in the construction industry in 14 States in this country, so we are trying to respond to that by putting an extra $11 billion into infrastructure construction programs. Anybody think we ought to take that money out?

Health care. We are about to pass the most momentous health care reform bill in the history of the country. That is going to put 31 million more people under our health care system. This bill provides $6 billion in order to expand the capacity of our health care system to deal with those people. Anybody think we shouldn't do that?

And then on education, I plead fully guilty. We've got $5.6 billion more than last year, so that people who are losing their jobs and need retraining or need some additional education in community colleges can get it.

Does anybody really think we should abandon those students and those workers? We don't think we should.

So I would simply say, this country is struggling to overcome the longest and deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression. This bill before us today is a key measure to help address the problems and provide relief for millions of hardworking Americans caught in the struggle for economic survival. And for the minority to complain about the fact that we are 90 days or 70 days late in getting the job done when they never got the job done when they were in control of this place is, to me, strange, if not laughable.

With that, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment very briefly on the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee, who a few moments ago criticized us because we were some 70 days late in passing the Military Construction-VA appropriation bill.

Let me simply point out that we may be 70 days late, but we are getting the job done. In addition to passing the basic bill, we are, for the first time in history, providing advance funding for VA activities. That is something that the veterans community has wanted for years and years, and it has been this Congress that delivered.

That stands in contrast to the performance of the minority party when they chaired this institution with respect to what they produced on the Military Construction-VA bill. They complain about the fact that we were 70 days late. They never passed that bill at all. They didn't pass it in October. They didn't pass it in November, which would have been 30 days late. They didn't pass it in December, which would have been 60 days late. They never passed it. When a new Congress took over, we had to pass all of those domestic appropriation bills and the Military Construction bill. I think it is quaint, indeed, when they attack us on the question of performance on, of all bills, the Military Construction bill. I think they need to go back and take a look at the record when they chaired this place.

With respect to the funding overall levels in this overall bill, let me simply repeat what I said earlier. When you take into account the necessary increases for veterans disability, for the census, for the war costs which are not being hidden in a supplemental as they were under the stewardship of our friends on the other side of the aisle, when you take into account the infrastructure change in funding and the $6 billion that we needed to prepare the health care system for the legislation which is about to pass, the rest of the increases in the bill before us amount to 1 percent. I hardly think that that's excessive, given the economic crisis that we face.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that this has become another typical ``Who Shot John'' debate, but since it has, let me respond to the distinguished minority leader. Let's compare what President Obama inherited with what President Bush inherited. When President Bush walked into the White House, he inherited $6 trillion in projected surpluses. He inherited 3 years in a row of budget surpluses under President Clinton. And he inherited an economy in which all income groups saw their income rise by roughly the same percentage.

In contrast, when Mr. Obama walked into the White House, he inherited a $1 trillion deficit, he inherited two wars that were paid for on the cuff, with borrowed money. He inherited $6 trillion in projected deficits. And he inherited an economy in which, for six straight years, 94 percent of the income growth went to the wealthiest 10 percent of people, and everybody else got table scraps. In addition, he inherited an economy that was projected to have a $2.5 trillion hole because of the biggest collapse of the economy in 75 years.

And so, indeed, Mr. Obama and the majority party in this Congress spent money to try to prime the pump, to keep the economy going, because we were losing 700,000 jobs a month the last 3 months of the Bush administration. We have now got that down to an 11,000 job loss last month. That's not good enough, but it's certainly a lot better than the situation was when we inherited it.

The gentleman squawks about the debt ceiling. The debt has already been rung up, and now the question is, when the bill comes in the mail, is it going to be paid or not. The fact is, out of that $1.8 trillion debt increase, $1.4 trillion of that is directly traceable to policy actions that were taken by the previous administration and the previous Republican Congress. And $400 billion of it are directly traceable to the actions we've had to take to try to bail the economy out of the mess that you folks got us into.

So if you want to start comparing records, I'd be happy to. I'd much prefer to talk about the contents of this bill and the individual programs of this bill. But since some the gentlemen on that side of the aisle prefer to politicize everything, I guess we're going to have to have the debate at that level. That's too bad, but I've come to expect very little but that from the other side, I regret to say.

I do want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for trying insert a bit of bipartisanship into the debate.