Supporting the goals and ideals of "National Save for Retirement Week", including raising public awareness of the various tax-preferred retirement vehicles as important tools for personal savings and retirement financial security.

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.

I thank the gentlewoman for the time. I would like to respond to the fiction that I just heard from the previous speaker. The previous speaker indicated that never in the history of the Congress have we had structured rules for appropriation bills. I would like to suggest that he ought to read a little history.

We have 12 appropriations bills we have to bring to the floor each year. He will find that during the Republican control of this House, at least 6 of the 12 bills were brought to this floor under structured rules. He will find that almost 20 times that is the case.

No, I would not. I have 5 minutes. You attacked me. I will respond without interruption. I would ask the Chair to prevent further interruptions.

The fact is that I would like to ask the House a question: Why is it that some Members of this House believe that the Appropriations Committee must bring bills to the floor that are totally open when the Ways and Means Committee, when it brings tax bills to the floor, is entitled to have a totally closed rule?

Now, there is no inherent difference between the two, but there is one historical difference, and that is that the Ways and Means Committee used to be the committee that handed out committee assignments to Members of the House. And so the message went out: ``Don't mess with the Ways and Means Committee because they determine your career path in this institution.''

There is no great historical or moral or substantive reason to have that differentiation. It is simply a question of power relationships in the House that determined that.

I would also like to point out the Appropriations Committee has the right to bring to the floor its appropriation bills without ever going to the Rules Committee, and in fact we have had subcommittee Chairs who have done that. The advantage to the Appropriations Committee in doing that is that when the bills come to the floor without going to the Rules Committee, what happens is that any legislation on an appropriation bill--which under the House Rules is off limits--any legislation will be stricken on a point of order.

I remember when Neal Smith used to bring his bill to the floor, and within about 20 minutes the bill was shredded. There were a few paragraphs left in the bill. It took about an hour to finish the bill and then Neal could go off and have a conference with the Senate and do anything he wanted to do because there were no limitations.

So it has been an advantage to individual House Members for the Appropriations Committee to go to the Rules Committee, whether or not there's a totally open rule or whether there's a structured rule, because at least then individual Members have some capacity to influence the results.

Now, we have made quite clear to the minority side we would like to proceed in as open a fashion as possible. Mr. Hoyer, the majority leader, and I went to the Republican leadership weeks and weeks ago and asked them if there was some way that we could work out time agreements so that we can finish these 12 bills before we go home for the August recess.

The minority says they want us to do all of these bills individually. Not wrap them up in a CR. But then they proceeded to demand a procedure which will, in the end, result in bills going into a CR.

And so we asked the minority leadership, ``Will you agree to time limits?'' And the response was, ``Well, if we did that, our caucus would elect somebody else.''

No, I will not yield. We asked the leadership, ``Would you be willing to go by a process in which we'll give you the opportunity to offer 10 or 15 amendments, the majority party will offer 5 or 6? You pick the amendments.'' And they said, ``No.'' They didn't want to do that.

There are a limited number of hours between now and the time we recess. If we want to get our work done, we have to limit the debate time that we spend on these bills.

So there is nothing radically new about this. We're simply trying to get the job done. And we're going to do that if it takes all summer.

Let me simply say to the gentleman, I don't see any need to continue chewing this cud over and over and over again. We've made our points.

I didn't ask for the time. You offered it to me and I'm accepting it.

I rise today in opposition to this rule because H.R. 3082 represents a dramatic shift in the way that we provide funding for VA medical care by providing advance appropriations for medical services, medical facilities, and medical supports and compliance accounts.

Now I have some great concerns because the stress placed on the budget model could place us in the VA supplemental business. It also leaves out the IT and medical research accounts.

So my amendment that was not made in order under this rule tried to correct what I viewed as a flawed process. The amendment would have added the VA information technology systems and the VA medical and prosthetic research accounts to the other VA medical care accounts that are included in the advance appropriations section.

Now many issues were raised about the potential legislative proposals that authorize advance appropriations for certain Veterans Health Administration accounts at the Committee on Veterans Affairs' oversight hearing on the future funding of the VA, including the following: funding some accounts under an advanced appropriation and some accounts under regular fiscal appropriation could potentially create accounting complexities.

Secretary Shinseki expressed concern that the VA's information technology is very much integrated into the medical care accounts and should be considered for advance appropriation.

The Congressional Research Service observed that not including IT in advance appropriations could ``create a situation whereby, for example, VHA could not purchase computer software although it has procured medical equipment that needs the IT software,'' or would not be able to provide the necessary IT infrastructure for new Community-Based Outpatient Clinics.

CRS also pointed out the failure to include medical and prosthetic research could potentially raise an issue with regard to the timing of funding research projects and research support such as personnel costs and administrative support.

When I offered a similar amendment at the full committee markup of H.R. 1016, as amended, which is the bill that authorized the advanced appropriations proposal, it received broad bipartisan support and passed the Veterans' Affairs authorizing committee 17-8.

Since the language of my amendment was also part of the final version of the bill when it passed the House, all I was trying to do was bring consistency between H.R. 1016, as amended, and the bill before us today.

Every member of the Rules Committee voted in favor of H.R. 1016, so I'm disappointed to see that the very same provision was not made in order. The American people--in particular, our veterans--deserve a fair and open process of debate on this issue, and it's unfortunate that this opportunity has been blocked by the Rules Committee for partisan reasons.

Since open debate on this issue was disallowed, it's my hope to continue to work with Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wamp to include these accounts in next year's budget resolution and then in the 2011 appropriations bill. That's the only choice that I now have.

So I will attempt to work with you if you want to work with me. What I've learned around this place is bipartisanship is a choice. It's a choice. And I have been here now for 17 years and I've listened to Chairman Obey not only in the majority, in the minority, and now back in the majority, and being consistent--to my good friend--is really important.

So if you can remember what you were like in the minority, be consistent to how you're like in the majority. And that's how you endure respect from all of us. And that's just my good counsel to my good friend.