Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3082) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

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

Madam Chair, Members, on behalf of America's service men and women, our veterans, and their families, it is a privilege for me to present the Fiscal Year 2010 Military Construction/Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill.

I believe this bill and the work we have done since January of 2007 is work that all of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, can be very proud of. In this time of war, we have continued our tradition of a bipartisan Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations bill, a bill that honors in a meaningful way the service and sacrifice of our service men and women, our veterans, and their families.

In the past 2\1/2\ years, along with the passage of this bill, the Congress will have increased veterans health care and benefits funding by 58 percent. That is unprecedented in the history of this country, and I believe our veterans and their families have earned every dime of that funding.

In addition, we have a new 21st-century GI Education bill. And, recently, President Obama signed into law a provision amending that bill that will provide a college scholarship to every child who has lost a mother or father in military service to our country since September 11, 2001.

In 2\1/2\ years, this Congress will have done a number of things on behalf of our veterans and troops, including adding 8,300 VA processors to reduce the

unconscionable backlog that veterans are having to stand in in order to receive their earned benefits.

We will have provided funding for an additional 115 VA community- based outpatient clinics, and this bill adds 30 more. We will have provided an additional 42 vet centers, and this bill adds 28 more.

We have allowed the Veterans Health Administration to hire an additional 2,657 doctors, 11,509 nurses, and other critical additional staff. We will increase the travel reimbursement rate, the per-mileage reimbursement rate for veterans having to travel, in some cases, hundreds of miles to VA hospitals--which has not been increased since 1979--we will increase that from 11 cents per mile to 41.5 cents per mile. To many in America, that extra 30 cents may not sound like much. To many of America's finest, our veterans, it's the difference between them being able to afford to drive to get the VA health care they need and deserve, or not.

Our increased funding for veterans in this bill and over the past 2\1/2\ years means our veterans have better access to health care they need and deserve and have earned. It means improved access to health care for veterans in rural areas. And it means the opening of the doors of our VA hospitals and clinics to many middle- and low-income veterans that have not been allowed the opportunity that they've earned through their military service. Additionally, these resources ensure that our veterans will have shorter waiting times for doctor appointments.

We have also worked hard to make sure that our service men and women know that Congress deeply respects the sacrifices that they and the unsung heroes of America's defense--their families--have made each and every day to keep our Nation safe. We've heard time and again in testimony that the best support we can give our military when they're deployed overseas is the knowledge that their families are cared for here at home. We have listened to that voice and have tried to fund a number of key initiatives for our troops.

For example, in the past year, this subcommittee will have added $2.8 billion for new military hospitals so that our service men and women know that their families will get the best possible health care in high-quality facilities while they are serving overseas. We've added $1 billion for new child care centers to serve 20,000 additional military children, and $570 million in additional funding for barracks because Congress needs to show our volunteer forces from day one that we appreciate their decision to serve.

The Subcommittee for Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs did not accomplish this alone. There are several key leaders that worked tirelessly behind the scenes to support these efforts. I want to especially commend Speaker Pelosi, who promised over 3 years ago that if she became Speaker she would make supporting our veterans and their families one of Congress' highest priorities. Speaker Pelosi has kept that promise to those who have kept their promise to serve our Nation, and I salute her for that.

I want to salute Chairman Obey, another one of the unsung heroes in supporting America's veterans, our military, the service men and women, and their families. While Mr. Wamp and I, as ranking member and chairman of the subcommittee, have often been out front on this, Chairman Obey has provided the allocations, the unprecedented historic increased allocations for our subcommittee that has allowed us to accomplish many of the goals and achievements that I have mentioned in the last few minutes.

In particular, above all other things that he has done, I want to thank Chairman Obey for providing a green light and encouraging and supporting and facilitating a historic initiative in this bill, which is, for the first time ever we will provide forward funding for veterans health care funding. That would not have happened without Mr. Obey's support.

In addition, Chairman Spratt--not a member of our subcommittee, but the chairman of the House Budget Committee--has played a key role, along with Chairman Filner, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

And, finally, but absolutely not least, I want to thank my colleague, my friend, and the ranking member of this committee, Mr. Wamp of Tennessee. He has been a partner and a leader at every step of the way in supporting our troops and our veterans and their families. His commitment to our military and our veterans is deep, is genuine, and he puts it to work every day by working hard on their behalf. I want to thank him for his vital role in not only shaping this bill, but our bill last year as well.

Madam Chair, let me try to focus, rather than on a long list of numbers, on some of the major initiatives in this bill.

As I referenced, for the first time in history we provide an advanced appropriation for VA medical care. This will allow the VA to invest taxpayer dollars more efficiently and more effectively. And I want to thank Mr. Obey, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Wamp and Speaker Pelosi for making this possible. I want to salute America's veteran service organizations, leaders of our veterans organizations who have made this one of their highest priorities.

Second, we provide $450 million to build new troop housing for Army trainees, over 60,000 of whom are presently living in barracks that don't even meet minimum DOD standards. You know, 18- and 19-year-old military recruits don't have many lobbyists running around Capitol Hill on their behalf, but they deserve our Nation's respect and support for their decision to serve in the military.

Third, we provide $200 million for the Guard and Reserve Construction Initiative, recognizing the vital role these troops are playing in Iraq and Afghanistan and in our Nation's defense. And particularly, in addition to his other efforts, I want to thank Mr. Wamp for taking a leadership role on this Guard and Reserve Initiative.

Fourth, this bill begins a process of funding our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the regular appropriations process, and we include $1.4 billion for vital military construction to support our troops in Afghanistan.

Fifth, recognizing that the mental wounds of war can sometimes be as painful and long lasting as the physical wounds of war, we provide $4.6 billion for the VA to continue its improvements in PTSD and mental health care for America's vets.

Six, this bill includes funding for the 1,200 new claims processors to reduce the backlog of veterans receiving the benefits they've earned.

Seven, this bill also continues to open up, as I referenced briefly, VA medical care to more middle- and low-income veterans, many of whom have been locked out since a cap was placed on income thresholds back in 2003.

Finally, and this is important, we want to ensure that the historic increases for VA health care and benefits, that those dollars are spent wisely. And I know Mr. Wamp and I share a strong commitment to this; we want to see that every dime of that is spent for the highest priority needs of our veterans, so together we supported increasing the VA Office of Inspector General by $19.2 million. And we have every intention, through our subcommittee, of exercising increased oversight of the VA to see that these tax dollars are spent effectively and efficiently.

Just a few basic numbers: overall, this bill totals $77.9 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal year 2010. This is $239 million above President Obama's request and $5 billion more than fiscal year 2009. The bill will include $48.2 billion in fiscal year 2011 advanced funding for VA medical services, medical support and compliance. and medical facilities, an 8.3 percent increase over the historic funding level of 2010.

In military construction, family housing, and BRAC, the bill provides $24.6 billion and fully funds BRAC 05 at $7.5 billion. For the VA in fiscal year 2010, the bill provides $53 billion in discretionary funding. This is $5.4 billion above the 2009 funding and matches President Obama's VA request, which I should point out was the largest increase requested by any President in over three decades. The fiscal year 2010 increase for the Veterans Health Administration is $4.4 billion, which is 11 percent over fiscal year 2009.

Finally, I want to thank the people who work every day--in fact, day and night--behind the scenes without public applause for our veterans and our troops and their families. These are the people who make up the staff of the

Military Construction and VA Appropriations Subcommittee, and I want to thank them by name: the minority staff, led by Martin Delgado, Liz Dawson and Kelly Shea, and Erin Fogelman and Juan Alvarez from Mr. Wamp's staff. The majority staff: led by my subcommittee clerk Carol Murphy, Tim Peterson, Mary Arnold, Walter Hearne, and Donna Shahbaz, and Lindsey Davis on my staff.

I would also like to add a special thanks to John Conger, who has recently left my staff to work for the military as an employee of the Pentagon. All of these people have helped continue the long, proud tradition and legacy of this subcommittee to work on a bipartisan-- frankly, a nonpartisan--basis, always putting our troops and veterans first. And as I say that, I once again thank our ranking member for always fighting and putting first our troops and our veterans.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JY09.005

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, if there is a single unsung hero in this Congress on behalf of America's veterans, it's the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey. And for that reason, I yield 2 minutes to him for any remarks he would care to make.

Madam Chair, I consider it an honor to be even able to speak after Mr. Young, who has committed his lifetime and his heart to our servicemen and -women and our veterans. He and his wife commit every week to going out to our DOD and VA hospitals to let those great Americans know that their sacrifices are not forgotten. I want to thank him for inspiring all of us to remember the sacrifice our troops and veterans have made.

With that, it's a privilege for me to recognize the vice chair of our subcommittee, who has been a leader at every step of the way on so many issues on behalf of our veterans, Mr. Farr of California, for 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, I would like to recognize a member of our committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar), an Army veteran who has been a strong voice on behalf of our veterans and military, for 1 minute.

I first want to thank Mr. Buyer for taking the lead and for fighting to ensure that alternative sources of energy are utilized by the VA. This is an important issue and initiative.

Our bill does take into consideration this important need, and VA plans to fund a significant number of renewable energy projects with resources in this bill. I want to assure you that I will emphasize to the VA the importance of this effort.

I recognize, and I think this is critical, the result of your efforts, that every dollar saved through energy conservation in the VA will result in an additional dollar going directly to better health care and benefits for veterans.

I further look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that the VA appropriately employs the use of solar technology to reduce energy costs and to benefit our environment.

Madam Chair, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) who has been the leading voice in this subcommittee and the House for improving mental health care services for America's veterans and services to homeless veterans.

Will the ranking member yield?

The gentleman from Delaware has raised a very important issue, and as someone who once represented Fort Hood, Texas, through three combat deployments, I strongly believe in the need to treat our fallen and their families with the utmost dignity and respect.

So it will be a privilege for me to work with the gentleman on this issue. And I am hopeful that we can rectify this problem by the time we get through conference.

Madam Chair, I'd like to yield 1 minute to an active voice on our subcommittee on behalf of veterans and our troops, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes and yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I thank the gentleman. I agree with the gentleman that our veterans deserve quality health care. It's crucial to move forward to get the new clinic operational as soon as possible. The VA is recognized as a leader in quality health care, and we want to do everything possible to enhance that reputation.

Will the gentleman yield?

It's of the utmost importance that we address these concerns in a timely and expeditious manner so we can continue to get the quality health care the VA provides to the veterans in question.

I know that this matter has also been of concern to the veterans in the district of the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, and I know that she wants their concerns addressed as well.

The language in the committee report is not designed to needlessly delay the activation of the Toledo clinic, but simply to ensure some of the concerns raised by veterans are responded to.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes, and I'd like to yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

The committee believes this exclusion of California veterans was not the intent of Congress when it passed the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The committee will ask the VA to work with the affected States, including the State of California, to ensure that veterans attending private institutions can participate fully in the Post-9/11 educational assistance program.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes and yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I'm familiar with the unfortunate situation that occurred in Pittsburgh. There was a report issued by the Office of Inspector General, correct?

Given the increases we've provided the Office of Inspector General at the VA, I look forward to working with the gentleman to see if we can't get the IG to take a second look at this serious issue in Pennsylvania.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I share the gentleman's concerns and look forward to working with him and the VA to see that we address those problems. Veterans serving out of the Houston office should not have to wait the amount of time they are having to wait to receive their earned benefits.

Backlog of VA Claims in Houston One of Country's Highest

Houston.--Houston has one of the biggest backlogs and some

of the longest waiting times in processing veterans' claims

for disability benefits in the nation, according to the most

recent data released by the U.S. Department of Veterans

Affairs.

Nearly 18,000 veterans are waiting for the Houston VA

Regional Office to process their applications for disability

benefits, the Houston Chronicle reported Saturday. Also, 26

percent of the Houston claims have been pending for more than

half a year, compared with the national average of 21

percent.

Total claims in Houston, including nondisability

compensations and pensions, add up to almost 24,000, with 24

percent pending for more than six months. That percentage is

also higher than the national average.

The number of claims on appeal from Houston--11,389--is the

highest in the country. ``The situation at VA's Houston

office is among the worst in America,'' said Paul Sullivan,

executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, a national

advocacy group. ``Our veterans and their families deserve

better.''

Nationwide, the total number of VA claims has increased

from 638,648 this time last year to 723,152, as of June 20.

The number of claims received by the Houston VA Regional

Office has increased by 26 percent since last year, more than

twice the national average of 12 percent, said spokeswoman

Valerie Martinez.

The Houston office has outsourced some of its claims

processing to other VA facilities, and it has been authorized

to hire 105 employees to improve efficiency, Martinez said.

At a congressional hearing in Washington last week, VA

Deputy Undersecretary for Benefits Michael Walcoff said it is

incorrect to designate all claims around the country as a

backlog because the total number ``includes all claims

received, whether pending for just a few hours or as long as

six months.''

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Houston, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Madam Chair, as I finish this debate, I want to add in my thanks to others. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis). He, along with Mr. Young, has spent his entire congressional career dedicated to fighting for a strong national defense and for seeing that the men and women who provide that defense are respected in a meaningful way, and that once they have taken off our Nation's uniform, they continue to be respected as veterans. He has been an active leader as chairman of the committee, as ranking member of the committee and in our subcommittee deliberations has continued to be an active voice on behalf of our troops, our veterans and their families; and I thank the gentleman for that.

Finally, I think it's appropriate, Madam Chair, that the last word in this debate from my side are not the words of my own, but the words of America's veterans. I would like to include in the Record of this debate letters in support of this legislation from the DAV, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, The American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans of America and the AMVETS.

Disabled American Veterans

Washington DC, July 9, 2009.

Hon. Chet Edwards,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans'

Affairs and Related Agencies, House Appropriations

Commitee, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Edwards: On behalf of the 1.4 million members

of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and its Auxiliary, I

would like to express our strongest support for H.R. 3082,

the FY 2010 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, which provides record

funding levels for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health

care and benefits programs for fiscal year 2010.

Perhaps even more significant than the FY 2010 funding, the

legislation also contains $48.2 billion in advance

appropriations for VA medical care for fiscal year 2011. As

you know, advance appropriations for VA health care has been

the highest legislative priority for DAV and many other

veterans service organizations in recent years. We applaud

you, Chairman Obey, House Leadership and other Members whose

support led to its inclusion in this bill.

Once enacted into law, advance appropriations for VA

medical care will prevent budget stalemates from threatening

the quality and timeliness of veterans health care services,

a problem that has plagued VA for decades. With this crucial

budget reform in place, VA will have the time and assurance

necessary to effectively plan how to meet the health care

needs of our nation's sick, injured and disabled veterans.

The House vote to approve H.R. 3082 will be a major

milestone towards ensuring sufficient, timely and predictable

funding for veterans health care programs, and DAV urges all

Members of the House to vote in favor of this legislation.

Again, thank you for all that you have done to ensure that

veterans, especially disabled veterans, have access to timely

and quality medical care today, and for years to come. I look

forward to continuing to work

with you in the future to build better lives for America's

disabled veterans and their families.

Sincerely,

Raymond E. Dempsey,

National Commander.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer the amendment on behalf of Mr. Cohen of Tennessee. It's an important amendment. I don't think there's any objection to it.

I thank the Chair.

I want to salute Mr. Cohen of Tennessee for his leadership in bringing this issue to the House. We are facing tremendous challenges. The number of veterans who need mental health care services, including PTSD services face a tremendous challenge finding enough psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health care professionals to provide the services that these great Americans so very much need. Mr. Cohen has taken the lead in this amendment in providing an additional $1 million for educational debt forgiveness for mental health care professionals who agree to employment at the Department of Veterans Affairs. I have actually had a number of discussions with VA employees in my district, and I think there is a sense that this kind of incentive might really encourage mental health care professionals who otherwise would not go into the VA system to do so. So I think this is a very important amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I would like to take this time to thank the gentleman and Mr. Langevin for their leadership on this amendment. I also want to thank the gentleman for everything he has done in the past 2\1/2\ years. Our subcommittee cannot appropriate without his subcommittee authorizing it, and all the accomplishments we've listed absolutely would not have happened without the leadership of Mr. Filner. And a particular thanks to Mr. Filner who has been the national champion in the Congress for advance funding. It's truly a historic initiative this year.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I don't know all the processes of the timing and who had what amendment, but what I do want to make clear is Mr. Buyer obviously clearly has been a real leader on this effort. So I salute you for your leadership on it and commend you for it.

There was no intention of any partisan politics being involved in this. I'm glad, as you are, at the end of the day because of your work and Mr. Filner's work and Mr. Langevin's work that these great Americans will be honored. I salute the gentleman for that.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition. I want to clarify that I support this amendment.

It is a good amendment. I thank the gentlewoman for offering it. I just want to say I think it is important to send a message that we want all veterans, regardless of their income levels, to have access to the full appeals process. That is what this amendment is about. I support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim my time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment. I commend the gentleman for this. I have seen firsthand what it means to our living veterans to know that they will have a place of honor to be remembered by their loved ones and the country which they served.

The State Veterans Cemetery Program is a great State-Federal partnership. This is a tremendously important amendment. I'm glad to support it.

I yield back the rest of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, but let me make it clear I am very honored to support this amendment.

I commend Mr. Sessions for his interest in pursing innovative health care procedures for our veterans. We provided tremendous increases for health care funding for our veterans over the last 2\1/2\ years. In addition to that funding and the oversight of that funding, we need to encourage the VA to be innovative. We want them to be prudent and careful. Perhaps, as we go through to conference, we should encourage the VA not only to provide a report on where it is used and how often it is using hyperbaric oxygen therapy, but perhaps we ought to work with them, encouraging them to do some studies to look into the potential opportunities of this type of care making a real difference in the lives of our veterans.

I am proud to join with the gentleman in support of his amendment.

I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any comments he would care to make.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in strong opposition to this ill-advised amendment.

I would like to begin by yielding to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), the chairman of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, reclaiming the rest of my time, I have great respect for the principled position of Mr. Flake. I disagree with it. He believes that basically the administration should decide in 100 percent of the cases where America's tax dollars should go. I believe article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the responsibility for that.

And I feel very strongly that, while he has a principled position, he misstates and inaccurately states the process by which these project decisions were made. These were made based on what was right for our military troops and their families. The vast majority of these congressionally designated projects have gone through the Department of Defense approval process, and the Department of Defense said they were needed.

Now, he said he simply wanted to strike the earmarks. Despite his intentions, let me tell you the impact, because it's not simple intentions; it's actual impact where amendments make a difference.

If his amendment passes, we will cut $56 million for 16 National Guard readiness centers and Reserve centers. We will cut $44 million for nine military ranges and training facilities. We will cut $83 million for 16 quality-of-life facilities such as housing, clinics, and military family centers. We will cut $98 million for 16 projects to improve force protection, facilities for emergency responders, and flightline safety. We will cut $86 million for 18 equipment maintenance and storage facilities and $47 million for seven military research and testing facilities.

We will cut a project to provide properly sized and configured storage space for Mark-48 torpedoes at one of our key submarine bases, and a new hardstand for weapons maintenance at the Marine Corps' East Coast Logistics Base will be lost.

The gentleman would cut a new chapel complex to replace more than 15,000 square feet of trailers and World War II-era facilities. And he would cut a platoon-sized machine gun range at the Army's Joint Readiness Training Center.

I know he has no intention of harming our military--I would never accuse him of that--but in my opinion, he misrepresented the process by which these decisions were made. And I think not only Democrats, but my Republican colleagues, would agree that this has been a fair, legitimate process.

And by the way, it should be no surprise to anyone that Members of Congress who ask to be on the Armed Services Committee and the Military Construction Appropriations Committee are Members who represent military installations. So the allegation that because they get a higher percentage of congressionally designated funding compared to other Members somehow suggests a spoils system is just simply dead wrong, and I reject it categorically.

I would yield any time to my friend, the ranking member, Mr. Wamp, for any comments he would care to make.

I will yield the gentleman 15 seconds.

Reclaiming my time, the amendment would cut these projects out of this bill.

I would be glad to yield to Mr. Wamp for any comments he would like to make.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I

don't oppose this amendment. I support this amendment.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue, and I am glad to support her effort on this.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

It is, indeed, a high privilege and a great honor to stand on the floor today with Chairman Edwards and present the 2010 Military Construction Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.

Indeed, this bill is not about us, it's not about our individual districts. It's about them, those that volunteer to serve our country in the uniform of our Armed Forces, past, present, and future, their willingness to stand between a threat and our civilian population, extend freedom from this generation to the next, and join the thousands of others that have preserved our freedoms and protected our way of life.

This is a very important bill; it is worthy of our support. It is a bipartisan product. As the chairman said earlier, this bill is not pushed by lobbyists or outside interests other than the veteran service organizations and the families of those that are serving and have served.

It is our honor, and frankly our sacred duty, to make sure that we give these great Americans what they deserve and what they need. I think if you ask our men and women in harm's way today, what can we do for you, the first thing they would say is take care of our families while we're serving and, when we come home, support us. This bill does that, and I'm grateful for that.

I can't thank Chairman Edwards enough. He is diligent, he is fair, he is honorable, and he is totally committed to these men and women in uniform. And we are working together to guarantee the efficiencies of these resources and the investments that we're making.

This bill funds the needs for military construction and family housing for our troops, their families, the quality of life construction projects, and provides funding for all the programs that the Veterans Administration and related agencies have asked for in their budget request. This bill literally touches every soldier, sailor, aviator, marine, military spouse, child, every veteran who participates in VA programs; and it takes good care of our national cemeteries and monuments that are funded in this bill as well.

We worked together through 18 hearings. We asked a lot of questions; we had very good witnesses. So a totally cooperative effort.

I want to thank all of our subcommittees from both sides. Specifically today I want to thank Mr. Farr and Mr. Crenshaw, who really supported the chairman and myself through this process, Mr. Farr as vice chairman, Mr. Crenshaw when I could not be there on certain days; outstanding work by them.

This bill reflects bipartisan input and cooperation, and that is the tradition of this bill, and we have honored that tradition and worked very well together, and it truly is a bipartisan bill.

I want to just talk about a couple of initiatives in the bill without going into specific numbers because Chairman Edwards has already highlighted many of the numbers.

The Guard and Reserve initiative is extremely important because we have been fighting terrorists since September the 11th, 2001. The op tempo of our National Guard and Reserve forces remains at a very high level. It's very likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. The Guard and Reserve have had more than 719,000 activations since September the 11th, including the current level of 142,000. So I'm pleased to join Chairman Edwards in supporting the additional $200 million in this bill to address urgent unfunded requirements for the Army and Air National Guard and for the Reserve forces of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.

On BRAC, the BRAC 2005 account in the President's budget request is $7.5 billion. The department and the services have testified that it's going to be absolutely critical for them to have this funding on October 1 of this year in order to meet their September 15, 2011, statutory deadline to complete BRAC 2005. I will continue to work with Chairman Edwards to make sure that this gets done on time. However, the House-passed defense authorization bill cuts $350 million from this BRAC account for this year on the cost of the provision that requires prevailing wage equivalency with Hawaii for military construction on Guam related to the relocation of our Marines from Japan. The CBO has scored this provision as costing $10 billion over the next 10 years. That's twice the amount of the entire relocation from Japan to Guam, and this is the largest Milcon investment in a generation, and it's really important that we address this issue throughout this process. I spoke at the Rules Committee yesterday to raise this issue. We have spoken with the leadership of the House. We have spoken with the leadership of the Congress to say this is a problem and it has to be addressed as this bill moves forward and as the process moves forward because we simply can't afford to double the cost of the relocation from Japan to Guam based on a prevailing wage issue. It's too much. Too much. We've got to resolve it.

On the advanced appropriations issue, the chairman spoke eloquently about this. We reached a bipartisan agreement. I am very pleased with the way they allowed Ranking Member Mr. Lewis and me to weigh in because none of us want to retreat from our constitutional prerogative or obligation we have to oversee all the funding on an annual basis. However, we share the goal of making sure that the VA has the money they need in a timely manner and can make decisions that maximize their effectiveness because it's a big bureaucracy, and when the money is in doubt, the changes and reforms necessary to improve efficiency can't be met. The bill contains $48.2 billion for advanced appropriations for medical services, medical support and compliance, and medical facilities, which is $3.7 billion above the amount recommended in the fiscal year 2010 bill on these accounts.

On VA spending I continue to be concerned, as is Ranking Member Lewis, about the ability of the VA to absorb large funding increases provided in this bill. I'm very pleased to support the increases, but it is absolutely our job to make sure not just that we raise the funding levels but that the money is well spent, spent in a timely manner, that it's effectively spent, and that there is accountability through the entire process. So we continue to raise this issue. I think there is a bipartisan commitment to this, and I want to point that out as well.

I'm happy to yield to the ranking member.

Reclaiming my time, on this same front, the information technology account is a significant increase, $833 million above the 2009 enacted level, an increase of $559 million above the 2009 level when the reprogramming action that was approved is taken into consideration. It is a large, unchecked spending increase to one account, and the GAO and the OIG and others have documented the VA's inability to effectively manage these resources. I agree with Secretary Shinseki when he testified that he's going to need IT to be a key part of his plan to transform the VA. However, with the documented concerns about this account, it remains doubtful that this will occur.

Not more than 3 hours after our subcommittee markup, the staff participated in a briefing at the request of VA's Assistant Secretary for IT. The

purpose of this briefing was to provide the committee an update on a thorough analysis that the VA was undertaking to review their IT portfolio. The VA reported that there are a number of IT programs that are more than 13 months behind schedule and more than 50 percent over budget. We asked for the list of these projects along with the 2009 and 2010 costs for these programs. More than 3 weeks have now passed, and the VA has yet to provide the list to show the costs for these troubled IT projects. That is an example of how increasing the funding can be very helpful if the checks are in place to make sure that the money gets to where it's supposed to go. So it's not just increasing the funding; it's making sure that the veterans benefit from this increased funding, to make sure that the bureaucracy of the VA is held accountable, to make sure that we insist on efficiencies and that the money flows down in a timely manner.

And then the National Cemetery Administration--I want to note the increased funding for this account, $20 million above the 2009 enacted level of $230 million, and that will go a long way to allow the VA to meet the current needs as well as giving the ability to look at cemetery expansion in areas where expansion is needed. That includes Chattanooga, where we have a very historic national cemetery.

Without mentioning names, because the chairman already has, I can't say enough about this professional staff, those behind me, those behind him. It's an honor for all of us to be part of this team. I don't think there is a higher privilege that any of us could ask for than to serve the men and women in uniform of our Armed Forces past, present, and future.

Madam Chairman, as I conclude, I want to thank Mr. Lewis and Mr. Obey, who serve as the distinguished ranking member and chairman of this committee. This is a good bill. It deserves our support. I look forward to continuing our work through the conference committee, and I want to encourage Chairman Edwards and Chairman Obey to insist that we have a conference committee, that we meet with the Senate, that we look eye to eye and we resolve any of our differences. I think that is the regular order that we desire to return to.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I'm running for Governor, sir.

Madam Chairman, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and the current ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee who also serves as a very valuable member of our subcommittee, Mr. Young of Florida.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to Ander Crenshaw from Jacksonville, Florida, who would be the vice ranking member if there were such a position, but he is an incredibly valuable asset on our subcommittee and has done just an extraordinary job this year.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana and the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Mr. Buyer, for the purpose of a colloquy.

I want to thank the chairman for this commitment and express my strong support for funding these renewable energy projects, compliment Mr. Buyer for his tenacity and perseverance here on this front, because I know that we can reduce VA's high energy costs with the use of these new renewable energy technologies. I look forward to working with each of you as we continue to advance renewable energy projects at VA facilities.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes and yield to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

Reclaiming my time, I stand with you, Mr. Chairman, and will work with Mr. Castle as well to resolve this matter in conference.

I yield to Mr. Castle.

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

I continue to reserve.

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of our time.

As we close the general debate on the 2010 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill, I want to tell a brief story because today the President of the United States is in Italy at the G- 8; and photographs show him with my friend, the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, over the last couple of days. I have to tell you--I was with my friend, the Prime Minister, a couple of months ago here in Washington, and I asked him about the extraordinary challenges that our country faces today. And when I think of the men and women in uniform of our Armed Forces--and I know in my heart that that is truly what our country is all about, people volunteering, even sacrificing for each other--I said to Kevin Rudd, ``What's the attitude in Australia and around the world about these tremendous challenges that we face? And what do you think about the United States of America's ability to deal with these many challenges?'' He said, ``Well, we're optimistic. We've read your history. We understand how extraordinarily difficult it was during the Civil War and the great World Wars. We know that you came out of the Great Depression and that you have overcome extraordinary adversity. We've seen your free enterprise system, your brilliance and your innovation, and we know how resilient your people are. So we have great confidence that you will do it again,'' he said with a smile on his face.

And I would just say to all those men and women that served us in uniform--because they are the true patriots of our time. Yet again, they stand on the shoulders of those that have come before us, and our veterans are our most important citizens--that the burden is on us to extend our way of life and preserve freedom and to try to secure our liberty. This is the challenge of our time, and the world is counting on us. This bill goes a long way to meeting these needs, and we do truly stand at the water's edge together today. There is a lot of rancor and division in the House over process in other appropriations bills, but not today. Today we come together to do what's right for our men and women in uniform, for our military installations around the world under every command, for our veterans and their families and for the quality of life of our troops.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition but not to oppose this amendment but to support this amendment.

I thank my colleague from the State of Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for this amendment. We support the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, even though we support the amendment.

I yield our time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank, actually, the Rules Committee yesterday for agreeing to this amendment coming before the House today.

Mr. Sessions has persevered on this issue now for some time. He deserves great credit. It has tremendous potential, and I look forward to working with the chairman and Mr. Sessions as we go forward. I also support the amendment.

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a structured rule, a structured appropriations rule, and also I am opposed to how my Democrat colleagues continue to shut out the minority voice with this structured rule.

Before taking control of the House of Representatives in 2007, our Democrat friends promised the American public that this would be the most open, honest, and most ethical Congress in history. Yet that is not the case for the past 2\1/2\ years. You heard my colleague, the gentleman Mr. Flake, talking about the process, the process that's happening not just today but has been happening for now 2\1/2\ years on this floor.

For the last few weeks, this Democrat majority has been forcing spending bills through the House of Representatives. My friends on the other side of the aisle have been using extremely restrictive rules to accomplish this legislative business.

During the Republican majority, the most appropriations bills considered under a restrictive rule in any single season was four, and that was back in 1997.

This majority has set a new record forcing every appropriations bill under a strict structured rule. So far the Democrat majority has limited debate on the six spending bills that the House has already passed, and today's bill is the seventh. Mr. Speaker, that is not open, honest, or ethical. Chairman Obey set an arbitrary timeline to finish the fiscal year 2010 spending bills,

which has forced this Democrat-run Rules Committee to limit every single Republican and Democrat's chances to offer amendments on this floor. Hundreds of amendments have been offered by all of my colleagues, and they have been rejected also, rejected in an unprecedented fashion.

What the heck is the majority afraid of? Why don't they want to take the normal time, the normal process? Why won't they allow for an open and honest debate, the one that they called for?

Mr. Speaker, with that said, I would like to thank the majority in the Rules Committee for allowing at least my amendment to be made in order on the floor today. The care of our Nation's troops and veterans is extremely important to me and every single Member, I believe, of this body, and it's my hope that my amendment will pass on the House floor today. But, Mr. Speaker, every single Member should have had that opportunity. The opportunity to be able to come to this floor under an open rule to talk about the things that are important to them.

Today we are here to discuss the rule for the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2010, and I note that my dear friend the young gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Zach Wamp, is the Republican lead on this bill. And I am very pleased with the work that not only Mr. Wamp has done but how he has led in such a way to make sure that the men and women of the military understand his dedication and devotion to this process.

It's my intent to discuss the importance of the underlying bill as well as some of the concerns in the legislation, and I would also like to highlight the Democrat majority's large increase in spending across the board for appropriations bills. This is unacceptable, especially in a time of huge deficits and exceptionally high unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should aim for a balanced budget, not unlimited spending. I think this body should have to make tough decisions and set priorities, not set the bar so high, or in this case so low, for just spending so much money that we cannot and do not have to make tougher decisions.

This bill provides crucial funding needed for military construction and housing funding for our troops and their families and other quality-of-life projects, and the Congress should have to go through those projects one by one and make a determination about what is in the best interest not only for the country but also for our military.

I know that the funding priorities for all essential programs the Department of Veterans Affairs and related agencies have asked for in their budgets are important. And I also know that this bill honors our Nation's heroes who are serving in our volunteer military, those who have served, and also honors those who are fallen victims as well. This bill illustrates the deep commitment that Congress has to our military and to our veterans. And I do recognize that the gentleman Mr. Wamp and the gentleman Mr. Edwards from Texas as they spoke to the Rules Committee yesterday not only told that story but also a source of pride about how this Congress needs to make sure that we're paying attention to those members of our military.

I join Ranking Member Lewis in his concern regarding the ability for the VA, however, to effectively absorb large funding increases provided by this bill. The Appropriations Committee report was critical of the slow rate of the multibillion dollar major construction account for the VA, and points out that the spending rates are ``woefully slow,'' having only spent $1.9 billion of the $4.4 billion that was appropriated between the fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2008. When you add fiscal year 2009 and this bill, that account then grows to $6.5 billion. I believe that the current funding project should be exhausted before receiving additional moneys. Mr. Lewis agreed also and so did all the Republicans on the committee.

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today includes over a 15 percent increase from fiscal year 2009 spending, which assists with TRICARE, mortgage assistance, child care, and other necessary personnel-related accounts. Yet it is important to note that a couple weeks ago, Congress passed the Defense Authorization bill, increasing defense-related funding by only 4 percent. This Nation is at war, and my Democrat colleagues only modestly increased our defense and strategic capacities, while all other appropriations bills are increasing 10, 15, 19, and even 33 percent more than last year's levels. Mr. Speaker, this disparity sends a dangerous message to our enemies and one to our troops that are in the field.

To help curb some out-of-control Democrat spending, Ranking Member Jerry Lewis offered an amendment in the full committee that would prioritize funding increases for defense, military construction, and our veterans by providing a 6 percent increase for these programs, a 4 percent increase for homeland security, and holding all other subcommittees to a very reasonable 2 percent increase.

Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated. Out of the 12 appropriations bills, this amendment would have reduced the burden on the American public by $35 billion. The American people know that you shouldn't spend what you don't have, and that is exactly what this Democrat majority is doing and continues to do. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama administration is on its way to doubling the national debt in 5 years. In doing so, it would drive the debt-to-GDP ratio from 41 percent today to a staggering 71 percent in the near future, 2014.

The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday of just this week released a monthly budget review that states that the Federal budget deficit was $1.1 trillion for the first 9 months of this fiscal year. CBO states that this is more than $800 billion greater than the deficit record in June of 2008. The United States is looking at a record $1.8 trillion deficit this year alone.

Congress should be promoting policies that reduce spending and grow job growth in this country. Unemployment continues to rise while our friends on the other side of the aisle continue to tax, borrow and spend their way into record deficits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the unemployment benefits spending is now more than 2\1/ 2\ times what it was at this point last year. The current unemployment rate is over 9.5 percent for the first time since 1983.

Where are the jobs? It's a question that should continue to be asked on this floor. Where are the jobs that were promised from this economic stimulus from this President and our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, now is the time when the economy should be bouncing back. But this is a time when the Democrat Congress is forcing Americans to pay for a failed trillion dollar stimulus package, a bailout for those who defaulted on their mortgages, a bailout for those who abuse their credit cards, a bailout for credit and America's bad decisionmaking from corporate offices, a new national energy tax and a possible $1.5 trillion health care reform package that will force 120 million Americans off their current health care coverage. When does the spending stop? Not today in this House.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, every Member of this body understands the importance of adequate and appropriate funding for our Nation's military and our veterans, and we give thanks to them. This bill provides the necessary benefits to our service men and women, their families and our veterans, and I am proud of that. But I would continue to point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle that we cannot tax, spend and borrow our way out of this recession. This recession is a national crisis and puts all of us at risk.

Rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive increases in spending. Americans back home are tightening their belts, and the United States Congress would be well advised to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished young gentleman from Miami, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of members of the Republican conference who want to come down and speak about this bill, but we are joined today by the gentleman, from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted today to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the distinguished young gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to a young man who serves as coach of our baseball team, but perhaps even better than that, just showing his acumen really as an all-American, a dedicated veteran of the first gulf war and served as a colonel in the United States Army Reserves and he's the ranking member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnetonka, Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are down on the floor today talking a lot about process. But I think it's real interesting that two of our newest Members, who are from Colorado and Maine, have never even seen an open rule. They've only served for 6 months, but they could have served for almost 2 years and never would have seen an open rule on this floor. And that's really the measure of what Republicans are trying to talk about. We're teaching our newest Members what things should not look like. We need open rules.

As a result of that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow for an open rule because that's the way we should teach, especially new Members, that open rules should be a part of regular process. There's no question that the rule the majority brings forth today will only cement the dangerous precedent that the majority has been setting now for over 2 years. It will only damage bipartisanship, and it harms us in our committees. It's a part of most conversations in committees about what this Speaker is doing.

I urge my colleagues to consider what we're about to do and to vote ``no'' to say no to this so we can allow free and open debate on appropriations bills and uphold the rights of millions of Americans-- and not just for Republicans but for Democrats also because they are also being shut out by their own party. This is not open; it's not honest; and I believe the majority will come to regret this decision to close down this deliberative process here on the floor during appropriations seasons.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment and extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for listening to Republicans today. We believe it's not just our right but the right thing to do to come and speak forthrightly about our ideas about members of the military, about VA hospitals that are in our districts and about Veterans Affairs Centers that need to operate in a more efficient way. We're proud of the men and women who serve our military. I was proud today to have the gentleman, Mr. Buyer, a Gulf War veteran, come and speak forthrightly about what we think ought to happen. We're proud of this country. We're proud of our military. But we think we also ought to make more deliberate decisions in this House.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 622 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

The gentleman from Arizona has made some eloquent points this morning. And I certainly hope if he really wants to resolve this issue, he will join me in supporting the bill that is in the House right now on public financing. Since both he and I come from States, Arizona and Maine, that have had great success with this system in removing some of the corruption from the process, I think that we could make a good team on that issue.

But, Mr. Speaker, we know that this point of order is not about unfunded mandates, as he mentioned--or, in fact,

even about earmarks. It's about delaying consideration of this bill and ultimately stopping it altogether.

Since I do come from the State of Maine, where nearly one-fifth of our residents are veterans or active-duty members of our armed services, I know that this bill we are about to talk about today is extremely important, and passing this rule to allow for consideration of this bill and move forward on these issues around access to health care, making sure our veterans get the benefits that they deserve, is extremely important to the residents of my State and certainly people across this country.

I hope my colleagues will see through this attempt and will vote ``yes'' so that we can consider this legislation on its merits and not stop it with a procedural motion. The last thing that people want to see happening in the House of Representatives is endless conversation about things that have nothing to do with the issues before us but not moving forward with the things that we care about.

Those who oppose this bill can vote against it on the final passage. We must consider this rule. We must pass this legislation today.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to consider this rule.

I will.

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

Mr. Speaker, 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 Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 622.

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

House Resolution 622 provides for consideration of H.R. 3082, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2010, under a structured rule.

For the past 8 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 Veterans Health Administration estimates that they will treat more than 6 million patients in 2010, including over 400,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, the consistent training, deployment, and redeployment of our troops have put a significant burden on our military.

H.R. 3082 appropriates over $133 billion in fiscal year 2010 for military construction, veterans programs, and four related agencies. The bill provides $24.6 billion for construction and improvements to military bases, facilities, and housing units. The bill provides $450 million to accelerate the modernization of trainee housing and $2 billion to construct and maintain houses for military families.

The bill also provides $200 million in additional funding for the Guard and Reserves to address critical unfunded requirements as a result of prolonged and repeated deployments. Maine is home to thousands of Guard and Reservists who have made an invaluable contribution to our national defense, and I am proud to see funding included in this bill for them.

H.R. 3082 also renews our commitment to redevelop closed military bases and their surrounding communities. The bill provides $7.5 billion to implement the 2005 BRAC and $537 million to address an enormous backlog of environmental cleanup projects from the previous BRAC rounds. This funding is essential to communities across the country, including the town of Brunswick in my district, which is already experiencing economic difficulties from the closing of Naval Air Station Brunswick.

While the investments in military construction are vital, they are only a small portion of this bill. More than 80 percent of the bill's funding in this legislation is devoted to veterans programs. The bill provides over $108 billion for veterans' medical care, claims processors, and facility improvements. H.R. 3082 increases appropriations by 14 percent or $12.9 billion over the current level. This bill includes $45 billion for the Veterans Health Administration, with increased funding for mental health services, assistance programs for homeless veterans, and innovative services for veterans in rural areas.

The bill also provides $85 million for States to build and renovate extended care facilities and $3 billion to fund new technological initiatives which will increase processing time and improve electronic record keeping.

Perhaps most importantly, the bill provides for a significant and historic change in the way we fund health care of our veterans. H.R. 3082 provides $48.2 billion in advance appropriations for fiscal year 2011 for the medical services, medical facilities, and medical administration accounts.

While the Congress has always taken on the challenges of this country, these issues have not always been shielded from partisan battles and political delays. This Congress in the past few weeks has been no exception, but there are some issues which should not be subject to politics and doubt. There is no doubt that the men and women of the armed services have bravely served our country. They have fought without question and without debate, and in doing so, they have sacrificed time with their families, risked their own well-being, and all too often they have sacrificed their lives. By providing advance appropriations for the health care of our veterans, we can take the steps to ensure that these benefits are not subject to politics as usual.

I strongly support this rule, which provides for consideration of this essential and important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

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

(Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I'm very pleased to yield 5 minutes of my time to the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).

Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on my side, so I'm going to reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman closes for his side.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out as we're closing that there has been a tremendous amount of conversation on the floor today about the open rule, about the process here. And I want to point out to the Members that even under an open rule, nearly two- thirds of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee were in violation of House rules and would have been subject to points of order. They wouldn't have been able to proceed on the House floor. In fact, the majority of amendments you have heard about this morning from my good friend from Minnesota, from my colleague from Georgia, those are amendments that would have been in violation of House rules, would have been subject to a point of order. And while they made good points about why they wanted to have their amendments moved forward, the fact is, that wouldn't have happened today anyway, even if we had been under an open rule.

Let me say one last thing. My colleague from Texas mentioned that a few of us who are new here, who haven't been through the appropriations process under open rules--and I will say as a new Member of this body, most of the bills that come to the floor come under structured rules. There may have been a tradition in the past of appropriations bills coming under more of an open rule, but I balance that with the remarks of our colleague from the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, who talked to us this morning about the tremendous amount of work we're expected to get done. I can tell you, from my constituents back in the State of Maine, they say to me, you know, you've got a lot of work to do on renewable energy, on health care. We want to see you move forward on those issues. We want to see appropriations bills, like the one we're talking about today, that are going to provide vital services for our veterans. We want to see those get done. We want to see the Members of Congress get their work done. We don't want to listen to you with hours of endless debate, particularly on things that would be subject to points of order and wouldn't even be allowed to be discussed. We want to see you get your work done.

As a very proud member of the Rules Committee, I have the opportunity to listen to a tremendous number of the amendments that come before us; and I feel very good about the way we're moving forward with our work and about the challenges that we are facing for the American public and all that is before us and the importance of getting our work done.

I do want to remind us today that in spite of all the other conversation that has gone on, this particular rule is a vital step forward towards improving our military infrastructure and ensuring the quality care of our veterans and their families, making sure it is worthy of their sacrifice. That is why we are here on the floor this morning to talk about our veterans, to talk about military construction, to talk about making sure that we are there for them.

My home State of Maine has one of the highest populations of veterans in the country. In a State of not even 2 million people, Maine is home to over 155,000 veterans, nearly one-fifth of our population. These men and women have served without question, without politics and certainly without delay. We must make a promise to them and to all of our veterans that we will do the same. We must provide them with health care and the benefits they deserve without question, without politics and without delay. Passing H.R. 3082, we will begin to keep that promise. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 622 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 a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, there may well be unfunded mandates in this bill, but that's not why I rise today. I rise because it's about the only mechanism we have to talk about the fact that we are bringing appropriation bills to the floor under closed or structured rules, which violates basically every precept we've had in this House about openness and transparency on appropriation bills.

For years--and decades--appropriation bills have been brought to the floor under an open rule, allowing Members to offer amendments to various sections of the bill and not be precluded from that. But these bills are being brought to the floor all year under closed or structured rules, allowing very, very few amendments. Let me tell you why that's important.

Here, in the past, when Republicans were in the majority, we were lacking a lot of transparency on earmarks. I would come to the floor and offer sometimes a dozen earmark amendments on the floor to strike earmarks, and I had no idea most times when I would come to the floor whose earmark I was challenging. I would simply come and challenge it. And sometimes the sponsor of the earmark would come down to the

floor to defend it, sometimes they wouldn't; but at least I had the opportunity to come down and challenge the earmark and there was some type of back and forth and discussion of it. Now we have some transparency rules, which is good. Some of us have pushed for these transparency rules for a while. Now we know whose earmark we're challenging on the floor. Now we know because there is a name next to it, and Members are required to fill out a certification letter stating that they have no financial interest in the earmark that they are sponsoring.

Those are good reforms; I'm glad we have them. The Speaker of the House said during the campaign a couple of years ago that we were going to drain the swamp, referring to some of the corruption that had gone on, much of it due to earmarking. And I am pleased that some of these transparency rules have come into being. It's a good thing. The problem is we have not drained the swamp; we simply know how deep the mud is. We know that we have a problem, but we have not done much to correct that problem. Let me give you an example. And this is the case here with this rule and the rules on other appropriation bills this year.

Now we know whose earmarks are in the bills, and we know that some of them raise questions, particularly in the Defense bill that is upcoming later this month. There are numerous investigations going on by the Department of Justice right now examining the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. Our own Ethics Committee issues guidance that says if you receive a campaign contribution in close proximity to an earmark that you've sponsored, that doesn't necessarily constitute financial interest; in other words, go ahead and do it. And we have many examples of earmarks going out and campaign contributions flowing in to the sponsor of the earmark. We may not see that as a problem here, but clearly the Justice Department seems to see there is a problem with that.

And so what do we do here in the House? Instead of allowing Members to come to the floor during debate and saying, what about this earmark, what about the campaign contributions that seem to have been received as soon as that earmark was sponsored, as soon as that report came to the floor saying that that earmark was in the bill, why did campaign contributions flow in response to that--instead of being able to examine those things, we've decided to cut off debate.

And so we have transparency rules where we now know whose earmark is in the bill, but we've prohibited Members from actually coming to the floor to examine that. So you have some more transparency, but you've cut out accountability.

Now, we've done a number of appropriation bills, and some amendments have been allowed--very few. I think in one bill there were more than 100 amendments that were prefiled and only maybe 20 or so were allowed. I myself have submitted, in one of the latest bills, about a dozen amendments and was only allowed to offer three on the floor. My guess is that these are going to be narrowed further and further until we get to the Defense bill later this month, which we have allowed only one day of debate for. Keep in mind, this is going to be a bill that will have, likely, if tradition holds, more than 1,000 House earmarks in it, several hundred of which will constitute no-bid contracts for private companies, nearly all of which there will be a pattern of campaign contributions flowing back to the Member who sponsored that earmark.

Now, I am not a fan of public funding of campaigns. That's not the direction we should go. And campaign contributions typically flow to Members who share the philosophy of the person who is making the contribution. But when you have a pattern, as the press has duly noted, accurately noted, that as soon as an earmark is sponsored, often there are campaign checks that come directly to that Member who sponsored the earmarks. There is an appearance of impropriety that we simply have to take account of here in the House.

Our role here in the House and the role of the Ethics Committee is to make sure that we uphold the dignity of this institution, and we simply can't do that when you have the appearance of impropriety. And when you give a no-bid contract to a private company whose executives turn around and make large campaign contributions back to that Member who sponsored the no-bid contract to them, you have the appearance of impropriety. And it is simply wrong for us now to shut down debate on that and to say, all right, now we used to allow Members to challenge these things on the floor, but now that we know that there's an appearance of impropriety, we're simply going to shut down debate, we're not going to talk about it, we're not going to allow that debate to occur on the House floor.

Now, I would hope that these earmarks would be talked about and discussed and vetted in the Appropriations Committee, but clearly that is not the case. If it were the case, if these were properly vetted in the Appropriations Committee, we wouldn't see the scandals that we've seen. We wouldn't have Members of Congress behind bars right now for sponsoring earmarks and taking money for them.

Now, I'm not saying that that's occurring now, but that has in the past. And when we clearly haven't vetted these properly--and we don't do this body any service by cutting off debate on the House floor and saying we're just going to turn a blind eye because there might be a problem, and if we stand on the floor and debate these things, then people might see that there is a problem.

So it's good to have transparency rules. That's wonderful. But once you do have transparency, you need accountability. And when you cut off debate and cut off amendments coming to the floor and bring appropriation bills under closed rules in violation of every tradition we've had in this House, then we've got a problem.

It is said that people outside of the beltway don't care about process, and that may be true. It's tough to make political points about process because it's tough to understand the process of this institution. But bad process always yields bad results and bad policy. It happened when we were in the majority, when we held votes open for 3 hours to allow leadership and others to twist arms. That violated every tradition of the House where you're supposed to only hold votes open for 15 minutes or slightly longer. There's a problem with that. People may not understand that outside, but it leads to bad results. And I would submit that if you shut down appropriation bills, if you shut down the process allowing Members to offer amendments on the floor and just turn a blind eye to what might be occurring, then you're going to have a problem, and you're going to increase the cynicism, rightfully, that people have about this institution.

I have served in the House of Representatives for 9 years. This is a wonderful institution, it really is; and we owe this body much more than we're giving it. And I would hope that the leadership here would exhibit maybe more of a vested interest in upholding the dignity of this institution instead of sweeping these things under the rug and saying let's just not have debate on the House floor because people might see what is occurring.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that, particularly when we get to the Defense bill later, where there are going to be hundreds and hundreds of earmarks that represent no-bid contracts to private companies, that we allow amendments to come to the floor to examine some of these instead of sweeping the process under the rug and hoping that nobody pays attention.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I appreciate that. I'm not going to call a vote on this. I'm not trying to delay the process. We're just given so little time to speak because we're not allowed to bring amendments to the floor that we have to take every opportunity that we can.

I appreciate your yielding.