Veterans Burial Benefits Improvement Act of 2009

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

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

I appreciate the thoughts of my colleague from Arizona.

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

General Leave

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank my friend for those words.

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

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

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

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supporting National Men's Health Week.

Recognizing June 8, 2010, as World Ocean Day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Maine, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Each year Congress undertakes its duty to fund the government through what is commonly known as the appropriations process. The appropriations process usually begins with the consideration of a budget. The budget sets the parameters of congressional spending for the upcoming year, allowing the Appropriations Committee to begin assembling the 12 appropriations bills.

But for the first time since the Congressional Budget Act was passed in 1974, the House of Representatives has failed to even vote on a budget because of what some suspect may be an attempt by the majority to protect their Members from a vote that would increase what are already record budget deficits.

Yet the dysfunction does not end with the majority's abandonment of one of the most basic duties of governing. It continues today with the consideration of the first appropriations bill, the Fiscal Year 2010 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. It says, ``No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of the appropriations made by law; and a regular statement of account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.''

The Congress' constitutional obligation under Article I, section 9, clause 7 has traditionally manifested itself in an open appropriations process. That process allows every Member of the House to propose any amendments--any amendments that are germane--to the 12 appropriations bills. That's the way it's been done, certainly since I've been here, and I know for decades and decades and generations before.

Yet, last year the majority decided to close down the deliberative process of the House on appropriations bills. I came to the floor to oppose that procedure last year, and I stated that I felt that the majority's decision to block debate on amendments from Members on both sides of the aisle was unnecessary and it was unfair, unjust. I thought it was a mistake. I said the majority would come to regret that mistake.

Today, on the very first appropriations bill of this year, the majority has once again decided to close down the appropriations process, and that's unfortunate. Last year we were told that the majority was taking this unprecedented step in order to move the appropriations bills to the Senate so that Congress could avoid an omnibus appropriations bill. What happened was just the opposite. Despite the fact that the Military Construction-VA bill did in fact pass both the House and the Senate, the Democratic leadership never allowed the bill to go to conference, and instead that MILCON-VA appropriations bill was wrapped up in an omnibus appropriations bill-- contrary to the reasoning that had been given by the majority.

So what is this year's reason? I believe that it is so that the majority can again use a restrictive process on appropriations bills so the leadership, the majority leadership, has the ability to pick and choose which amendments the House will consider.

Although I strenuously disagree with the manner in which the majority leadership has decided to close the appropriations process once again, and in this case it has allowed only 14 out of 35 amendments, I do wish to congratulate my friends, Chairman Chet Edwards, Ranking Member Zach Wamp and Mr. Crenshaw for their bipartisan work on the underlying legislation that is undoubtedly very important.

We owe our military veterans and their families an extraordinary debt of gratitude for their service and their sacrifices as a people, not just as a Congress. I think we have to ensure that our veterans and their families, who bear sacrifices and hardships as well, receive all the benefits and assistance to which they are entitled and that they deserve.

The underlying legislation that has been agreed to, it has been drafted in a fair and bipartisan manner, provides crucial funding for military construction and for housing, for quality-of-life projects for our troops and their families.

The legislation includes a total of $141.1 billion in both mandatory and discretionary funding for these agencies. Of this, approximately $120 billion is dedicated to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The underlying legislation continues our commitment to the brave men and women who sacrifice so much to keep the Nation safe, supporting our servicemembers on base, deployed abroad, and to care for them when they come home.

The Pentagon recognized two important projects to south Florida, which were included in the President's budget and received funding in the underlying legislation. This legislation provides $41 million to construct a permanent headquarters for Special Operations Command South. Currently Special Operations Command South is headquartered at Homestead Air Force Reserve Base. Headquarters personnel are supported by temporary, leased trailers. The trailers were not intended to support the headquarters mission beyond 3 years, and they require significant repairs for continued use.

The project in this legislation will consist of a command and control building with a secure compartmentalized information facility, sensitive items storage, standby generator, and general purpose administrative areas. It will include anti-terrorism measures to protect military personnel stationed there and will be able to withstand--and this is very important--a category 5 hurricane. And, Mr. Speaker, as you know in Homestead, we had a category 5 hurricane the year I was elected to Congress. Hopefully we won't see that again. But it's important that this facility be able to withstand such force.

I am pleased that this legislation also includes funding for construction of a new commissary to be located at the Southern Command Headquarters in Doral, in the congressional district that I am honored to represent. Construction of this commissary will greatly benefit the over 13,000 military personnel and retirees within 20 miles of SOUTHCOM and the thousands more beyond. It will greatly reduce the high cost of living in south Florida for these men and women, and it will improve their quality of life.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend, Mr. Buyer from Indiana.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier from California.

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

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a brilliant new Member of this House from Hawaii (Mr. Djou).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Miami for his very thoughtful remarks in his opening statement in which he talked about the greatness of this bill.

This is a bipartisan bill, as has been pointed out by Mr. Crenshaw, as has been pointed out by Mr. Buyer. Democrats and Republicans alike have come together because, obviously, if we don't take care of our Nation's veterans, how are we going to incent our fellow Americans to join the armed services?

When commitments are made to them, they need to be kept. We all want to do everything we can for the brave men and women who have fought on behalf and served on behalf of the United States of America.

Obviously, I am here with a degree of sadness. I wasn't here for the exchange that took place when our friend, Mr. Flake, was here, but I have been told that my good friend from North Haven, who is managing this rule for the majority, indicated that if we had had an open amendment process, we would be allowing partisan obstructionism or something along that line to take place.

Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting that we have made what I consider to be rather sad history in this place. My friend from North Haven is a new Member of this institution and has not once, in her 18 months as a Member of the United States House of Representatives, been able to witness or participate in a bill being debated under an open amendment process.

I have got to say that until it is tried, I would say to my friend, Mr. Speaker, until it's tried, I would think that the notion of passing judgment on the problems of an open rule should really not be brought forward.

I will tell you that it is clear that an open amendment process is messier and uglier and more difficult than having everything shut down, but that's really what the framers of our Constitution wanted. They wanted there to be a free-flowing discussion. I just listened to Mr. Buyer a few minutes ago talking about the green initiative, and he wanted to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Edwards about this.

The fact is, when we get into an open amendment process, which, by the way, was done for every single year up until last year for almost all appropriations bills--in fact, virtually every appropriations bill has begun under an open amendment process. Then, if a bipartisan consensus and agreement cannot be struck to bring about some kind of limitation of debate between the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, the Rules Committee has, on occasion, been called on. But the difficulty here for me to understand, Mr. Speaker, is that we are not even beginning with even a modicum of regular order.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I talked about William Natcher, who was a great Member of this institution and served for a period of time as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Two decades ago, when I joined the Rules Committee, I discussed the appropriations process with Chairman Natcher. He was probably best known--well, he was known for lots of accomplishments, probably best known as the only human being to go, for all the years that he served here, without missing a single vote. In fact, he gave me advice when I got here. He said, Make a speech in the well and miss a vote. This guy never missed a vote, and he was bound to that.

But one of the things that he was was a great institutionalist, and he understood what regular order consisted of. He believed that since appropriations bills are considered to be privileged resolutions, that those measures didn't have to go upstairs through the Rules Committee. They, instead, could come directly to the House floor. By virtue of doing that, it would mean that legislating an appropriations bill could be stricken by a point of order that a Member would raise, but he believed that that was the best way to do that.

Well, we moved away from that, and he said he didn't think that it was a wise thing. But we moved to the point where the Rules Committee would say, gosh, if there are items in an appropriations bill that consisted of things like legislation, there was an agreement with the authorizing committee that the Rules Committee would protect those. It was understood and done pretty much with bipartisan consensus.

But then Democrats and Republicans, alike, would be able to, under that sacrosanct appropriations process, offer germane amendments to the appropriations bill. Now we have gotten to the point, again, and for the first time in the history of the Republic, of shutting down the appropriations process, limiting the opportunities for Members to offer amendments.

While this is a very, very, very good and a critically important bill which virtually all of us will support at the end of the day, it's not the right way to do it. Process is substance. The American people learned that very clearly when we had the 300-page amendment dropped on us up in the Rules Committee at 3 o'clock in the morning, that, in fact, said that we had just a few hours to look at that measure before it was to be debated on the House floor.

Let me just close by saying that it's very, very important for us to recognize that process is substance. The American people get that. They understand that we are preventing their voice, Democrat and Republican alike, from being heard in this appropriations process.

It is wrong, and I hope very much that as we move through the appropriations process this year we will get back through to regular order. I certainly hope that beginning next year, when a new appropriations process will begin, that we will have the kind of open amendment process that the American people expect and, through their elected representatives, deserve.

Would the gentlewoman yield, very briefly?

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I would say to my friend that she is absolutely right, having this 18-month experience.

The fact is, if the Rules Committee were to follow regular order and report out open rules, the meetings upstairs would last a grand total of 5 minutes because we would have the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee come forward, say we have got this bill, we have an open amendment process, any Member can stand up on the House floor and offer a germane amendment to the measure. It is considered under the 5- minute rule. We would end the meeting upstairs and we would allow the House to work its will, which is, again, what was done up until last year when we had this shut down for the first time.

Thank you very much.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

When the majority went to this process to be restrictive here on the floor with regard to amendments on appropriations, that was really a dark day for liberty, and it's really very, very unfortunate. And I understand the Speaker wants to rule the House with a mighty hand and is utilizing the Rules Committee to make Congress an undemocratic institution. The American people are watching. They know that there's something going on in Washington, DC, that's not right. They don't completely understand all this process, but something they do know and understand and that's freedom and that's liberty.

So we're charged with this responsibility to care for those who wear the uniform who now have been injured not only in the workplace but also on the battlefield. But when it comes time then for us to have an open discussion and debate on how best to do that, freedoms are denied. Pretty weird, pretty strange, very peculiar.

As the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I have three amendments that were made in order, but there are also two amendments that were not made in order. The first amendment that was not made in order would have transferred $230 million from the information technology system account to fund improvements in various other programs. In 2010, the VA conducted a major review of its major IT initiatives. Of over 300 programs that were reviewed, about 100 are still active or are in planning and about 100 are still being reviewed and about the other hundred have been stopped permanently or have been paused.

This amendment would have taken the $230 million in savings from this review and put $120 million toward deficit reduction and use the remaining $100 million to increase the following VA accounts: medical and prosthetic research by $50 million to fund further research into new innovative treatments, such as the hyperbaric oxygen therapy for TBI; prosthetic devices for female amputees who often have difficulties with the fit and size of the traditional prosthesis tailored to the male physique; and helmets that measure the G-force impact and protect our servicemembers from these blast injuries.

Also, with regard to the VBA general operating account, increase it by $2 million for VA to conduct an authorized longitudinal study for the VRE participants to assess the effectiveness of the program. Also, then increase the VHA medical services account by $48 million; $30 million to improve VA's suicide prevention programs, including $100 million for the national broadcast suicide prevention advertising campaign; $10 million for the VA to improve its services for homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children; and $8 million for innovative treatments for TBI and mental health.

Does that sound radical? That was made not in order. It is hard. That was not made in order. And so, okay, why? I don't know. The Rules Committee didn't give me an answer. That should have been made in order. That's something that should have been discussed.

We have had a challenge here with regard to the IT systems at the VA, and I leave here in 6 months and the appropriators and the authorizers are going to have a real challenge here, especially as you go forward.

Now, fortunately once we centralize the IT architecture you've got a really good--Roger Baker as the chief information officer, very talented individual, doing assessments. The Secretary's Shinseki. He gets it, he understands it. He's doing this review. But when you take down projects, and we've got those moneys, we can make judgments and choices with regard to how to use some of those dollars, and that's what we sought to do here, and that amendment should, in fact, have

been made in order, and it's really unfortunate.

There is another amendment, and I know, Mr. Speaker, my good friend, Chairman Edwards, had some concerns about one of the amendments that, in fact, was made in order, and I understand, and we can have a colloquy and we can get into that because I know you agree with what we're doing. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Chairman Edwards agrees with the initiatives in working with--I guess we can call them green initiatives, green management initiatives, but it's the renewable energy portfolio that's being done down at the VA.

And it's really this advance appropriation is making it hard on how we move moneys between accounts, at the same time, what type of amendments can be brought to the floor. I mean, I tried to do this a couple of years ago, and the parliamentarian knocked an amendment out. And so I wanted to raise this issue on the floor that we have about 60 projects out there, around $162 million, and we've got to figure out how to best fund these, and I will get into that with the Speaker later.

My intention is not to offer that amendment that has been authorized to offer, and I will work this out with Chairman Edwards. But I'm going to ask to oppose the rule, even though I compliment the good work the committee has done. But we need an open process.