Supporting the goals and ideals of Railroad Retirement Day.

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.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H. Res. 1463, which designates Railroad Retirement Day on August 29, 2010. Railroad Retirement Day is established in this resolution to celebrate the success and importance of the Railroad Retirement System, which has benefited generations of hardworking railroad workers and their families.

I am proud to support the railroad retirement system, which predates Social Security and provides comprehensive retirement, survivor, and disability benefits. More than 600,000 beneficiaries receive approximately $10 billion in benefits each year from the railroad retirement system.

For the last 7 years, a portion of retiree assets has been managed in the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust. The NRRIT invests in U.S. and global equity markets, fixed income, and real estate and commodities, much like many private-sector retirement funds. This innovative fund has already returned $7.9 billion to retirees, and has grown 16 percent in the last 7 years, despite payouts and the volatility in the markets and the global economy.

I believe we should take a close look at the success of this system as one of the potential solutions to the looming crisis in Social Security. So I congratulate and applaud the majority for bringing this up today, as I have heard so many of my other colleagues talk about Social Security and how those on my side want to privatize Social Security. That just is not true. Nobody on our side of the aisle wants to privatize Social Security. But we have to look at innovative ways to be able to keep Social Security viable.

Just today there was a poll in USA Today that says that the overwhelming majority of Americans under 34 years old do not believe they will get anything from Social Security. So once again, looking at the railroad retirement system is a potential solution to Social Security. And again, it's not privatizing. It's taking a small portion of it and investing it in different ways. And as I said, the success of this over the last 7 years, even in these volatile times, has proven to be successful.

It has grown 16 percent over the last 7 years.

I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stop the rhetoric, stop the scare tactics in talking about the way we want to privatize Social Security. This is a viable solution that we need to consider. This is something that we need to take a look at as we move forward in this country.

So, again, I applaud the majority for bringing this up today when, as I've said, I've heard so much talk about privatizing Social Security. And we all need to look at Social Security and figure out how to reform it, because I have two children--22 years old and soon-to-be 19--and Social Security will not be there for them. And we're not talking about the folks who are retired today. We need to make sure we are going to keep that ironclad guarantee with today's retirees and those that are soon to retire, that we are not going to affect their Social Security.

But as we move forward, as I said, let's look at the railroad retirement system as a model for how we can improve Social Security for those in America that are just moving into the job market who won't be retiring for 20

and 30 and 40 years. The freight rail industry strongly supports the railroad retirement system because these good benefits attract and retain highly skilled workers. This is a system that has worked well for generations. And I would encourage the railroads and the unions to protect the system by ensuring that benefits are distributed fairly and to remain vigilant for fraud and abuse in this system.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I want to make sure we set the record straight here. There is a lot of rhetoric, a lot of talk going on on the floor today about Social Security, and I just want to make sure that the record stands clear that in 1935, the Social Security Act, on April 19, 1935, was passed with 79 percent of the Republicans in the House voting for it in the House. There weren't many Republicans in 1935, I might add. Seventy-seven Republicans voted for it, and there were 18 that voted against; 288 Democrats voted for it and 13 voted against.

So let the record show that Republicans have supported Social Security, and we continue to support Social Security. Nobody that I know of on my side has talked about privatizing Social Security. We look to something like the railroad retirement system, how they've taken a portion of it, 7 years ago--under the Bush administration, I might add--under a Republican Congress, moved a portion of that to be able to be invested into different investment vehicles that has given a much greater return. As I've said, 17 percent growth in the last 7 years, even in these tough economic times. So it can be done.

And as I mentioned earlier, there was a poll out today that 18- to 34-year-olds in today's USA Today poll, 75 percent of them do not believe they will receive Social Security benefits. So standing up talking about railroad retirees, I'm here. I applaud the system. I want to applaud the railroad retirees and the freight system in this country, the railroads in this country.

But we've got to talk about all retirees, future retirees. That's who we owe it to, to the future generations to look at ways that we can strengthen and reform Social Security. And as I will go back to, as I've continued to state, I want to make sure that we hear this loud and clear, this is a system that we can look at as potentially a model. We have to consider this to make sure that we save Social Security for future generations.

With that, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In response to the chairman of the committee and his comments--and it is always dangerous challenging the chairman on his historical notes and happenings in the House, but as I recall in 1995, although I was not here, don't recall the debate, I do recall that it was a commission set up by President Clinton that made some of these recommendations.

So, to continue, for the majority to point to Republicans as not voting for it, as trying to rip it out by the roots, as trying to privatize, just simply is not accurate, and that's some of the rhetoric we hear from the other side.

Today, as we move this resolution forward, as I have said before, this is something we should be looking at as a model, as something we should try to understand how this works, the railroad retirement works, how it has grown 16 percent in the last 7 years despite these very volatile times in our economy. We did not privatize railroads' retirement. We took a portion of it, and we know that the retirees are receiving greater benefits because of what we've done here.

So I urge my colleagues on the other side as we debate this, as we talk about--a lot of folks talk about Social Security, as the chairman and the chairman of the subcommittee has mentioned Social Security, I'm not so sure, and I guess I have to ask the question: Do you support the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust which does something very similar to many on both sides of the aisle, the commission that was set up by President Clinton and others on my side of the aisle talked about, as one of the ways to reform the Social Security system?

So we can stand up here today and talk about in glowing terms about the Railroad Retirement Investment Trust, when it's doing something that is very positive and it's a potential to help reform, to help make sure that those 18 to 34 years old in this country, that 75 percent of them do not believe they are going to get any money out of Social Security when they retire.

It just seems to me that the majority is using a lot of rhetoric, trying to hype up retirees in this country which we have to make sure that we keep that ironclad guarantee that those who are retired, those that are soon to retire are going to get the Social Security benefits that they've earned, that they have been promised by the Government of the United States.

But we have to look to the future generation, those that are going to retire in 20 and 30 years. Social Security, as the chairman pointed out, has not bounced a check. The check comes every month; but if we don't figure out

a way, a bipartisan way, how to reform Social Security, there's going to come a day when there's not going to be any money there, or we are just going to continue what we've been doing over the past 18 months, spending money, borrowing money that we don't have, which is going to be inflationary; and then that tax on our retirees, on our Social Security beneficiaries, is going to be an even more brutal tax when you lose value because of inflation. When inflation soars to four and five and seven, and those that have been on this Earth for more than 35, 40 years, remember the days of double-digit inflation and how brutal that was to the economy and how brutal that is to our retirees.

So this is an opportunity for us to look at a system that both sides of the aisle here talking, standing up today, as I said talking about in glowing terms the Railroad Retirement Fund, and we should look at this as a potential to help reform and strengthen Social Security for future generations.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I appreciate the gentleman's comments but, again, we can use this as an experiment, it's working.

I understand the scale is different, but the principles can be the same. Business principles, running an efficient operation, making sure of a return on investment. All those things that we use in a small business that I operated, they use those same fundamentals when they are operating large companies in this country.

My suggestion, my urging is that the majority, as we move down the road, look at this as something to consider on how we can reform Social Security and strengthen it for those future generations. As I want to continue to stress, for the folks that are retired today and those that are going to retire soon, we have got to keep that guarantee that it is going to be there. But if we don't do something, don't consider some other way to strengthen Social Security, those who are 18 to 35 that have stated in that poll, 75 percent of them do not believe there is going to be anything available for them in Social Security when they retire.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I will close by making the final note, again, the urging, the plea to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to stop using the rhetoric that those of us on our side want to privatize.

We do not want to privatize Social Security. We want to find reforms to make sense. We want to find reforms that are going to strengthen Social Security and not just for those today, but, most importantly, those that are going to retire in 20, 30 years from now.

Because if we in this Congress do nothing, then we are going to continue to see Social Security going in the wrong direction and nobody in this country wants to see the Social Security system continue to go down, having less money, moving towards insolvency. So we have got to do something.

I say, let's look at the railroad retirement fund that has returned $7.9 billion to its retirees and has grown 16 percent in the last 7 years, despite payouts, volatility in the markets, in the global economy. This is a system that, again, 7 years ago, we have taken a small portion of it and invested it in U.S. and global equity markets, fixed income, real estate, commodities, not the entire amount, but a portion of it. Our railroad retirees are benefiting greatly by that.

I stand here today in support of this resolution. I hope it passes overwhelmingly, and I hope that we look to future generations to try to solve our problems, solve the reform of Social Security by looking at railroad retirement, which has been a tremendous success.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and her strong, stout defense of the Railroad Retirement program; Mr. Perriello for his leadership and advocacy for the bill supporting the goals and ideals of Railroad Retirement Day; and for the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, a strong supporter of our railroad system, both passenger and freight in this country, and for the Railroad Retirement fund.

Now, the gentleman cited a figure about the vote in the House in 1935 on Social Security, and that figure is accurate. But that was on the conference report. And when the rule providing for consideration of Social Security came to the floor, only one Republican supported it in 1935.

Now, I understand that a vote on the rule is a party-line vote and that, as a matter of party discipline, only one Member on the other side broke ranks to vote for the rule, but we must acknowledge that the Social Security program has saved the Nation, has been a bulwark for blue collar working Americans and upper middle class and upper class.

In all of its 76 years, Social Security has never missed a payment. It has never bounced a check. You don't have to get up in the morning and look on the financial pages of the newspaper to see whether your retirement fund is intact or whether it's bottomed out or has dropped out of sight, as you have to do if your retirement fund is in the hands of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, corporation that you worked for went into bankruptcy or retirement fund was put in the hands of the PBGC and those assets were invested by the company for which you worked in the marketplace, and suddenly those assets lost value, enormous value.

Some people have seen their retirement funds lose 50 percent to 60 percent of their value because the investments they had made proved unsound

or vulnerable--sound to begin with, but vulnerable to this worldwide recession that we've experienced. Indeed, the Railroad Retirement Fund itself has lost $9 billion because of the recession.

So let's not have this haphazard, careless, thoughtless rhetoric that we heard in this Chamber in 1995-96 from the other side--not the gentleman from Pennsylvania, not his father who served with great distinction in this body then and still a great friend of mine--saying we're going to rip the system out by its roots, are going to replace it, we're going to privatize it, and a host of other schemes that eventually Members on the other side voted against. There's a very wise core of Members in the Republican side who understand the value of the Social Security program and who want to sustain and support it; and this is the most significant Social Security, most significant important social contract in America, in our history, the most successful; and Medicare's right behind it in its success, and right alongside it is the railroad retirement system.

People who have worked hard, they've saved, they've contributed into the system; the employers, the railroads have contributed into the system. Our purpose ought to not to be pointing fingers or using scare rhetoric, but rather to say let's work together to keep our economy going, to keep investment expanding in this country, to expand employment so that there are more people working, contributing into the Railroad Retirement Fund and into the Social Security fund. That ought to be the purpose of our efforts.

And that is why Mr. Perriello was so thoughtful to bring out the goals and ideals of Railroad Retirement Day and our champion advocate for passenger rail, freight rails, Ms. Brown, and an equally passionate advocate for rail service, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Let's put the rhetoric aside. Let's join the visionaries of seven decades ago so that seven decades from now there will be retirement programs that will be the safety--they will be the safety net for those who worked hard all their lives and expect dignity in their retirement years.

Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for yielding your time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support H. Res. 1463, which celebrates 75 years of the success and importance of the railroad retirement system to America's working families, commemorates the day (August 29, 1935) when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Railroad Retirement Act, and recognizes August 29, 2010 as ``Railroad Retirement Day'', as designated by the Railroad Retirement Board.

I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Perriello) for his leadership in introducing this resolution.

In 1874, the first modern railroad pension system was established in North America by the Grand Trunk Railway of Canada. Its stated purpose was ``to help workers worn out from long service to retire.'' The American Express Company, then a railroad freight agency, established the first railroad pension system in the United States shortly thereafter in 1875.

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad created a pension system in 1880, followed by the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1886; other railroads soon followed suit. By the late 1920s, more than 80 percent of all railroad workers in the United States were covered by a pension plan. However, these plans were generally inadequate, liable to capricious termination, and of little assistance to disabled employees.

The Great Depression drove the already unstable and inadequate railroad pension systems into a state of crisis. By 1928, over 250,000 railroad workers had lost their jobs and by 1931, 16 percent of all railroad employees nationally were laid off.

Older railroad workers eligible for retirement exercised their seniority rights and continued working, deciding that a steady paycheck was preferable to pension systems that could not meet their obligations. This decimated the ranks of younger workers, affecting the railroad industry for years to come as the labor pool of younger workers disappeared.

Congress passed the Railroad Retirement Act of 1934 ``to promote economy, improve employee morale and promote the efficiency and safety of interstate transportation.'' This law created a fund into which all railroad employers and employees paid. The Railroad Retirement Act was the first major piece of Federal retirement legislation under President Roosevelt's ``New Deal'' and set the precedent for later, more general retirement legislation. It allowed older workers to retire with the promise of a reliable income from a stable pension system for the first time in history, and enabled younger workers to return to work.

However, after the Railroad Retirement Act became law, the United States Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional. Congress passed similar legislation the following year, which President Roosevelt signed into law on August 29, 1935. Railroad management and labor had to come to the table and resolve their differences and less than a year after the passage of the 1935 legislation, the first annuity payments to railroad retirees were made. In July 1937, the benefit payments of more than 50,000 pensioners were taken over by the Railroad Retirement Board.

In 2001, Congress enacted the most sweeping changes to railroad retirement law since the 1930s, with enactment of the Railroad Retirement and Survivors Improvement Act. The Act liberalized early retirement benefits for 30-year employees and their spouses, eliminated a cap on monthly retirement and disability benefits, and lowered the minimum service requirement to under 10 years if at least five years of service occurred after 1995.

By the beginning of 2010, railroad retirement benefits have been paid to two million retired employees, 1.1 million spouses, and 2.4 million survivors. This year, nearly 600,000 beneficiaries will receive retirement and survivor benefits and about 42,000 railroad workers will receive unemployment and sickness benefits.

H. Res. 1463 recognizes the vitally important contributions that the rail industry, rail workers, and retirees make to the Nation's transportation system. It recognizes the success of the legislation signed into law by President Roosevelt 75 years ago, and celebrates the importance of the railroad retirement system to America's working families.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 1463 and celebrating Railroad Retirement Day on Sunday, August 29, 2010.

Would the gentleman yield for a response to his very thoughtful question?

In House floor consideration of the railroad retirement program, it was made very clear time and again by both sides of the aisle that this plan for railroad retirement was not a formula for Social Security. Both sides were at pains to say that because of the difference in scale of the programs and the difference in purpose of the two retirements, Social Security and railroad retirement act. That's not to say that it couldn't be reconsidered at some future time, but it was made very clear then.

You have some 600,000-plus railroad retirees and 33 million Social Security retirees. We all realized at the time the scale is vastly different. The purpose and the revenue streams are very different. So it was a very clear purpose on both sides of the aisle, not to confuse, not to roll over from one to the other. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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.