Providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 3288) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate him for his remarks. Basically it's what I'm going to say when we begin the process here. But one of the arguments that has been propounded and was utilized up in the Rules Committee last night was that when we completed our work here in the House of Representatives, that it was our friends on the other side of the Capitol who did not comply with the kind of schedule that we had. And the fact is, it's important to remember that there are 58 Democrats and two Independents who organize with the Democrats in the United States Senate, giving them a total of 60 votes, and they have complete control. And so the notion of somehow saying, ``Well, we had to get our work done. We had intended to avoid an omnibus if we had been able to complete our work, but it's those guys over on the other side of the Capitol who failed to meet their responsibilities'' is a very, very specious and weak argument to make in light of the fact that they have control of everything now.

And I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Worcester for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I might consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments, and it appears to me that no matter how colorful or creative I am that I probably won't be as persuasive with him as I hope I am with others in pointing to how absolutely ridiculous it is that we are here doing what we are doing with this. And this is really a challenge.

I'm told that this weighs more than a baby, in fact. The child of the woman sitting right behind me says this weighs more than her baby. It is 2,500 pages that we have been given in this omnibus appropriations bill which we were promised would not be utilized as a process if we shut down all of the appropriations bills, which, if I could remind everyone, we did last summer.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call my colleagues' attention to today's date. Today is December 10. For those keeping track, we are now 71 days past the end of the fiscal year, 71 days overdue in completing work on our constitutionally mandated power of the purse.

How far along in the process are we at this date, 71 days into the fiscal year? Well, five of the 12 appropriations bills have been enacted into law. With time quickly running out and over half of its work left undone, the Democratic majority has chosen to cram six of our remaining seven spending bills into this one massive half-trillion dollar bill.

The underlying measure before us today spends $500 billion of the taxpayers' money on disparate issues and agencies, from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to the FBI to infrastructure to veterans programs.

My friend is absolutely right. Of course, I supported the Homeland Security bill. It's one of the top priorities that we have. In fact, there's nothing more important than the security of the United States of America, so I supported that. But that doesn't mean that I'm supportive of taking it when it should have gone through the regular process, which is what the gentleman with whom you're speaking right now promised we were going to be able to do if we had this closed, structured process for considering appropriations bills, and yet here we are with this omnibus bill.

They were kind enough, kind enough now, by virtue of having this as a conference report, to grant us an entire hour of debate for this 2,500- page measure that's before us. Mr. Speaker, that works out to just about $7.5 billion for every minute of debate that we're going to be allowed on the bill, $7.5 billion.

And I'm sure the American people will feel completely confident that 1 hour to debate a $500 billion measure, half of the discretionary spending that we've got before us, is enough. Actually, an hour for oversight and accountability of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars at a time, Mr. Speaker, when virtually everyone I know is engaged in cutting back. They're engaged in cutting back spending. Why? Because of the economic downturn through which we're going.

And what is it that has happened? We've seen an 85 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending. An 85 percent increase at a time when families across this country are working very hard to figure out how they can make ends meet.

Now, as I have said repeatedly throughout the appropriations process, legislating is not a pretty business. It's not unusual for our work on the Federal budget to extend beyond the close of the fiscal year. It's not unprecedented to consider several appropriations bills in one package. And it's happened under both political parties. The debate that takes place here on the House floor is often heated. That's the way it's supposed to be. The task, Mr. Speaker, of forging consensus and compromise in the face of competing views and priorities is all part of the legislative process.

Furthermore, spending the taxpayers' money is a very, very enormous responsibility that we have. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution places that responsibility in our hands. It demands, it demands, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of deliberation, which is not always compatible with setting timetables. Deliberation, Mr. Speaker, is not always compatible with setting timetables. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, getting it right is more important than getting it done by September 30.

In light of this, the fact that we have arrived at December 10, 71 days after the end of the fiscal year, having completed only five of the 12 appropriations bills, is not surprising, based on what we've seen here, or even necessarily problematic.

But there is far more to this story, Mr. Speaker. At the very outset of this process 6 months ago, the Democratic majority announced that they would be foregoing the messiness of real debate. And I'm very pleased that my friend from Wisconsin, the distinguished Chair of the committee, is here on the House floor. In their calculation, concluding by September 30 was more important than getting things done right. Rather than a lengthy, deliberative, accountable process, they chose to pursue a neat and tidy one that shut out real debate, shut out real debate, but did conclude on time for our work here in the House. Democrats and Republicans alike were denied the opportunity to participate. True to their word, they made the unprecedented move of closing down the entire appropriations process.

Now, Mr. Speaker, everybody in this House who is a first-termer or they've been here as long as my friend Mr. Obey has been here--he's been here almost 200 years, I think. He's been here a long, long period of time. And he knows that never before, never before in the history of this Republic have we seen the process shut down as it was shut down last summer. We have had rank-and-file Members, again Democrats and Republicans--Mr. Speaker, this is not simply my attempt to stand up for Republicans. We've been standing up for Democrats who have been denied the opportunity to offer amendments as well, and it's very, very unfortunate.

By endeavoring to take the messiness out of the legislative process, they took out the real debate, they took out the accountability, all in the name of a deadline, a deadline that came and went 71 days ago. Seventy-one days ago was when that deadline arrived, Mr. Speaker. And here we are scrambling to consider half of the entire discretionary budget in one single 2,500-page bill with one single hour of debate. As I said, that's $7.5 billion per minute of debate that's going to be allowed on this.

Our traditional deliberative process is messy and lengthy and ugly for the sake of good results. The Democratic majority set out to sacrifice good results for the sake of expediency. What we have gotten is the worst of both worlds: neither timely nor deliberative action. Neither timely nor deliberative. And as we've seen time and again, bad process begets bad substance.

It's no coincidence that the Democratic majority has been blocking all accountability of their spending practices. The deficit has skyrocketed to nearly $1.5 trillion. That's larger than the entire Federal budget was just a decade ago. And our national debt, as we all know, exceeded $12 trillion, and the unemployment rate is double digit at 10 percent.

The fact that this outcome is not surprising does not make it any less grim. We can't go on recklessly spending money that we simply don't have, piling mountains of debt upon future generations. Unless and until this Democratic majority returns to regular order and open debate, the taxpayers will continue to see their hard-earned money spent unwisely and our country saddled with an ever-growing level of crippling debt.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we constantly hear the finger of blame. I was managing last night the rule for general debate on this massive 1,279-page bill that re-regulates virtually everything when it comes to the delivery of financial services, and I constantly heard the finger of blame being pointed at the Republicans.

We need to remind ourselves that the Republicans have not been in control of the House of Representatives since 2006. Mr. Speaker, what that means is that we have gone through now 3 full years, 2007, 2008, and 2009, under a Democratic majority. So as we continue to hear this argument that somehow Republicans are to blame for all of these problems, it is a very, very specious one.

I'm going to urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in the name of accountability, in the name of deliberation, and in the name of good results, to defeat this rule. We can do better.

Mr. Speaker I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman obviously didn't listen to the remarks that I just provided here reminding Members that while we continue to get the finger of blame pointed at us for the last 3 years, this institution where the power of the purse exists, the people's House, has been in the control of the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume, and I would be happy to engage in a colloquy with my very good friend.

Let me say that obviously the appropriations process is a challenging and difficult and messy one, but I think that it's important to note a few things as we look at last summer.

My friend will, I'm sure, acknowledge--and I would be happy to yield to him--that never before in the history of the Republic have we had the kind of structure put into place that prevented Members from offering amendments that we did through this appropriations process.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the problem we had was this: The first appropriation bill came forward, it was a total of 20 minutes of debate. Twenty minutes of debate took place, Mr. Speaker, and then all of a sudden the process was shut down and Mr. McGovern and I and our other Rules Committee colleagues were forced upstairs to take the first step towards shutting down the process. So let's say that this extraordinarily dilatory process lasted 20 minutes before we took the first step towards shutting this place down.

The second thing, Mr. Speaker, is that as we talk about the sacrosanct September 30 end-of-fiscal-year date, that's only part of it. The only reason that we point that out, recognizing that under both Democrats and Republicans through a difficult appropriations process in the past, we have clearly had to go beyond that September 30 deadline for the end of the fiscal year. And the problem was that when we were told that we would not exceed that because we were shutting down the process. So, unfortunately, we lost both the opportunity for deliberation and this sacrosanct deadline that was constantly held up as the raison d'etre here for this kind of action.

The third point is, as my friend, the distinguished Chair of the committee, went through the 95 amendments that were offered in committee, the 160 amendments that were made in order on the House floor for consideration, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the selection of those amendments in the hand of one individual Member of this institution--not those of us on the House Rules Committee. Yeah, we ultimately, with the majority vote in the House Rules Committee, saw our Democratic colleagues put the stamp of approval on it, but the decision of what amendments were made in order was made by one person, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Appropriations. That's where the decisions were.

Now, Mr. Speaker, under the historic tradition, the tradition of consideration of appropriations bills, knowing how sacrosanct article I, section 9 of the Constitution is, Members of the House had the chance, as Mr. Flake said in his remarks, to stand up and offer amendments. One of the things that we believe strongly about, with the 85 percent increase that we have in nondefense discretionary spending; not those issues that the gentleman pointed to that we of course agree to in a bipartisan way--the national security of the United States of America--but in the multifarious other areas, there is a real desire for Members to stand up and have a chance to offer amendments that might be able to bring about, with a scalpel, some kind of spending reduction because we've gone through such huge increases. And so, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it's very, very troubling to hear these kinds of arguments.

Mr. Kirk, to whom I'm going to yield in just a moment, has the 2,500 pages very, very gingerly propped up there on the lectern. At this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes--which, based on the level of spending in this 2,500 page bill, will amount to $15 billion since we're spending $7.5 billion per minute--to my friend from Highland Park.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to my good friend from Mississippi-- and I know my friend from Florida is raising concerns about this as well--this underscores procedurally the challenge that we are facing when we have one individual making these kinds of decisions that should be made by Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives. When we listen to this argument put forward about spending and about the fact that this 2,500-page bill is theatrical, you bet. I mean, you bet, Mr. Speaker. It is theatrical to hold up a 2,500-page bill, but it's a way to graphically underscore what is taking place here.

Now, my friend said that he is interested and concerned about the fact that everyday people have priorities on transportation and on a wide range of issues. National security is again, to me, priority number one. Yet, Mr. Speaker, in this 2,500-page bill, we have a 63 percent increase in funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that everyday people who constantly, over the past year or two, have been focusing on trying to rein in their spending believe that a 63 percent increase on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an appropriate utilization of this money. So that is the reason, Mr. Speaker, that we point to this.

Now I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Housing, my good friend from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, as I prepare to yield to my good friend from Alpine, Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), I would simply say that I will give him 2 minutes, which would total $15 billion of this measure based on the $7.5 billion per minute that it is costing us to do this.

I yield 2 minutes to our hardworking new colleague from Utah.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, with the somewhat unprecedented procedure utilizing the 2,500-page bill as the lectern, I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished chair of the Republican Conference, my friend from Columbus, Indiana, a self- described favorite Hoosier of mine, my friend, Mr. Pence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from Mesa, Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend how many speakers he has remaining?

At this point I am very happy to yield 1 minute to the lectern-in-front-of-him, bill-holding gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, the 30 seconds, to simply say that in the name of fairness, there are both Democrats and Republicans who are opposing this rule. Why? Because Democrats and Republicans have been shut out of this process.

On the Republican side, Mr. Speaker, we believe that an 85 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending is outrageous when the American people are struggling to make ends meet. Only the Federal Government, as my friend from Indiana said, would proceed with a dramatic increase in spending when businesses across this country are working to bring about reductions.

There are shared priorities that we have on national defense; on transportation. But the notion of a 63 percent increase for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or $375 million for the Clean Technology Fund is not the route to go.

Defeat the previous question. Defeat this rule.

Over the last few months, the American people have written and called their Members of Congress or they've made their opinions known at town hall meetings to ask their Congressmen whether they will pledge to read bills before they vote on them. The reason is that the people are upset after finding out the majority leadership forced Congress to vote on a number of sweeping and very expensive bills without giving Members time to understand or really even to read the bills.

For example, we were forced to vote on the final so-called ``stimulus'' bill, on the omnibus appropriations bill, and on cap-and- trade with less than 24 hours to read the bills; in some instances, much less than 24 hours. And that's no way to run this House. Our constituents are rightly upset.

You would think, Mr. Speaker, this would not be an issue, as the distinguished Speaker is on record as saying in A New Direction for America, ``Members should have at least 24 hours to examine bills and conference reports before floor consideration.'' It's even on her Web site; yet, time and time again, the distinguished Speaker and majority leadership have refused to live up to their pledge.

That is why a bipartisan group of 182 Members have signed a discharge petition to consider a bill that would require that all legislation and conference reports be made available to Members of Congress and the general public for 72 hours before they be brought to the House floor for a vote.

That's why today I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider that legislation, H. Res. 554, a bipartisan bill by my colleagues, Representatives Baird and Culberson.

By voting no on the previous question, Members will still have an opportunity to debate and consider this conference report, but if the previous question is defeated, it will also allow for separate consideration of the Baird-Culberson bill within 3 days. So we can vote on the conference report and then, once we are done, consider H. Res. 554.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 961 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from Arizona, but technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and ultimately the underlying conference report. In reality, it is about trying to block this report without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the legislation itself. I think that is wrong, and I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Those who oppose the conference report can vote against it on final passage. We must consider this rule, we must have a debate, and we must pass this legislation today.

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 961.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 961 provides for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3288, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against consideration. It provides that the conference report shall be considered as read and, finally, it provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervention of any motion except 1 hour of debate and one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we're here finishing up the fiscal year 2010 appropriations bills. This consolidated appropriations bill is the product of many, many months of hard work. It contains six of the seven outstanding appropriations bills.

Mr. Speaker, in all candor, I must admit that I have a slightly different perspective on the appropriations process than I did 3 years ago. Then, in the minority, I questioned why the then-Republican majority wasn't able to finish their bills on time. I realize now that in many cases, finishing the bills in a timely fashion wasn't always the fault of the majority in the House but rather a result of the dysfunction in the Senate.

Now, 3 years later, the situation is similar. We, this House, this Democratic majority, did our job. We passed every single bill in a timely way and we did so responsibly, and in many cases joined by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. For example, the Homeland Security bill passed with 389 votes, including the support of my good friend from California.

Now, despite our hard work to move this process forward, I am sure that the gentleman from San Dimas is going to protest about the process here, that this bill is made up of six bills, and I'm sure he will come up with some clever, colorful phrases to describe his feelings today, and we all look forward to that. But we are essentially reaffirming votes that have already been taken on issues that have already been previously debated and discussed.

The chairmen and ranking members of the appropriations subcommittees deserve credit for their bills. There is critical funding included for roads and bridges; for rail projects; for greenhouse gas emissions; for public housing and other housing vouchers; for critical international aid programs like the response to global HIV/AIDS, poverty, food security, education, and international disaster assistance; for programs that prevent and prosecute violence against women and other justice programs; critical health programs including NIH funding, public health programs, programs addressing health professions workforce shortages, LIHEAP, Head Start, and other education programs. These bills are about priorities. They are about values. They show who we are as a Congress, and I stand by the values articulated in these bills.

While some will complain that we are spending too much money, that these bills are too big, I look at it in a very different way. Mr. Speaker, I see these bills as an opportunity to reverse years of neglect: neglect to our roads and our bridges, neglect to our lower income neighbors and friends, neglect to our education system, and neglect to our veterans.

You see, Mr. Speaker, this Democratic majority inherited a troubled country. Our Republican friends squandered budget surpluses. Their reverse Midas touch turned surpluses into deficits. They spent money like they were drunken sailors and yet never felt the responsibility to pay for their spending. They turned a blind eye to transgressions of Wall Street, allowing Main Street to feel the pain of Wall Street running wild.

What did we start out with? We started out with, we inherited, a financial system on the brink of collapse, the worst recession since the Great Depression, two wars that weren't paid for, a broken health care system, and a 1950s energy policy. That was the gift from the Bush administration and a Republican majority in Congress. So there's been a lot to fix this year.

Just look at some of the numbers, Mr. Speaker. Job growth under the current administration is reversing a long downward spiral that started under the last President. The stimulus plan is working as planned. We are making sound investments in helping Americans find good jobs and getting this economy moving again. The unemployment rate dropped last month and the efforts of this Congress are helping people afford a home, helping to breathe life back into our real estate economy. Even the TARP program is working better than expected. Confidence has been restored to Wall Street, and more than $200 billion will be returned to the government.

So here we are, Mr. Speaker, digging out from the Bush economy, the Bush recession. It's time to get this done, but it's not going to happen overnight. It's time to fund our priorities and meet the needs of the American people. Simply, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill we will consider today, and it deserves to be supported by every single Member of this body.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that this Congress has a very tough job. We are digging ourselves out of the mess that Mr. Bush and his Republican allies created. Years and years of neglect. Years of ignoring the most important pressing problems facing our country.

When President Obama got elected, he inherited a crumbling infrastructure in this country because of the years of neglect by the Republicans and by the Republican President. He inherited a country that had no solid plans for alternative or renewable or clean energy because of the neglect and the obstructionism on the other side. He inherited a country where the health and well-being of our citizens had been neglected for years and years and years. So what we are doing here and what these appropriations bills are responding to are the years of neglect.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

For 2 of those years, we had a Republican President who obstructed every single progressive, positive idea that came out of this Chamber. So this is the response to the neglect of the years of Republican rule, and we have to clean up this mess.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me just make a couple of observations.

First of all, the gentleman talked about earmarks. Under the Democratic leadership, earmarks have been curtailed significantly from where they were when the Republicans were in control of the Congress.

Secondly, I guess it's good theatrics to hold up all the pages of the appropriations bills that are gathered there, but I should point out to my colleague that the Republican omnibus appropriations acts were longer in length than the one he has there. So what? I mean, has this debate become so shallow that it's all about the number of pages of the bill?

The gentleman talked about responsibility. The responsibility that the Democratic majority has is to clean up the mess that the Republicans left us. The responsibility of the Democratic majority is to deal with the years and years of neglect on important programs ranging from transportation to health care to veterans affairs. That is what we are doing here.

This is a debate about issues that matter to everyday people. These bills contain monies for roads and bridges, monies for our veterans, monies for our health care facilities. These are important matters, and that is what we should be debating.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes now to the gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Thompson.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I would just make a couple of observations.

First of all, I should remind everybody that, when Bill Clinton left office, he left George Bush with a record surplus which President Bush and his Republican Congress squandered. We ended up going from record surpluses to record deficits and debts. That's just a fact. I understand the frustrations of my friends on the other side as their goal is to obstruct and to make sure we get nothing done here. That is what they think is the winning strategy--to basically get nothing done.

They are failing in that because Congress is moving and is getting things done. We are beginning to turn this economy around, and we are responding to the needs and the desires of the American people. We are going to continue to do that in this bill. The inclusion of moneys for veterans, for our infrastructure, for health care, for job creation, and for worker training during this difficult economy is vital and important. We are going to get this done, and we are going to help the American people.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I appreciate the theatrics on the other side. I will remind them again that these bills have all gone through committee and have all been voted on in the House.

I would also like to say to my colleagues, I am reminded of the old saying, ``Physician, heal thyself.'' My colleagues complain about earmarks. I don't have a count here, but my guess is that a good portion of those earmarks are Republican earmarks.

I would say one other thing, Mr. Speaker. Yes, there is increased spending in this bill for things like veterans, veterans' health. I mean, in this bill, there is money for military construction and family housing to support America's military forces and their families at home and overseas.

There is money for Guard and Reserve. There is money for overseas contingency operations; money for Veterans Health Administration; for rural health. There is money here to deal with mental health challenges that so many of our veterans have to deal with, women's veterans programs, long-term care, assistance for homeless vets, medical and prosthetic research, medical facilities, VA construction programs. They go on and on and on.

If my colleagues oppose that, fine. They can vote against the final passage of the bill. But I say that these are priorities for our country, and I am glad that the Appropriations Committee has put this in the bill. I am going to enthusiastically support final passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am the lone remaining speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the American people, indeed, are struggling, and they are struggling because of years of neglect by President Bush and the Republicans here in this Congress who have neglected, I think, the most important pressing priorities that everyday people face. What we are trying to do is clean up their mess, and this bill represents an increase in spending on important priorities that have been underfunded in the past, everything from infrastructure, because our infrastructure all over our country is crumbling because of neglect, to an increase in funding for veterans health and for veterans housing.

I am proud of the priorities in these appropriations bills. We have appropriations bills that have a conscience, that actually respond to the needs of the American people. I understand, as I said before, the frustration of the other side, because what they would like is for us to get nothing done.

But the reality, Mr. Speaker, is that this Democratic Congress is doing the opposite. Politico said, ``A Democratic Congress that is enjoying its greatest political and legislative success since at least the beginning of the Clinton administration and arguably since its legislative heyday in the mid-1960s.''

We are moving forward on things like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to help keep people's jobs and create more jobs; the Cash for Clunkers bill which jump-started the U.S. auto industry and provided consumers with up to $4,500 to trade in an old vehicle for one with higher fuel efficiency. We have passed a bill to help families save their homes.

We passed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, tripling volunteerism opportunities to a quarter of a million people. We have passed health care for 11 million more children that without this bill would not have access to health care. The FDA regulation of tobacco, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act, the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act, the military procurement reform bill, strengthening oversight of TARP, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

I can go on and on and on, but this has been an activist Congress, responding to the needs of the American people, responding to those who are struggling or who are out of work, because they were neglected for so many years.

We are trying to deal with our debt as well, trying to go back to what President Clinton established, a time of record surpluses. But when the Republicans came in, the first thing they did was pass tax cuts for wealthy people without paying for it. The rich got richer while the middle class got poorer.

Mr. Speaker, this omnibus bill before us represents, I think, the right priorities, the priorities of the American people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addressing critical unfunded construction requirements of the Guard and reserve;

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

Expediting environmental cleanup on closed military bases; and

Investing in renewable and alternative energy initiatives on military installations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.005

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cleric Linked to Fort Hood Attack Grew More Radicalized in Yemen

(By Sudarsan Raghavan)

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

investigations into last month's massacre of 13 people at

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

following a path taken by other extremists in this failing

Middle East nation with a growing al-Qaeda presence,

according to relatives, friends and associates in Yemen.

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

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

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

as a key path in his radicalization.

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

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

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

alleges that Aulaqi was a spiritual adviser to three of the

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

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

Diego.

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

well as interviews conducted here, shows that he increasingly

began to publicly endorse violence as a religious duty after

he returned to Yemen in early 2004, completing his

transformation from an imam who condemned the Sept. 11

attacks to an Internet preacher who views Americans as

legitimate targets.

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

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

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

threat was perceived. The FBI has declined to comment on

Aulaqi, citing an ongoing investigation.

After the Fort Hood attack, Aulaqi issued a statement

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

journalist, Aulaqi denied that he had ordered or incited

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

confidant.

Aulaqi's path to radicalization, at first, appeared

unlikely. The Aulaqis' descendants were sultans who once

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

to the ancestral village where Aulaqi now lives with his wife

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

former president of Sanaa University and agriculture

minister.

While in Yemen during his childhood, Aulaqi studied in a

secular high school in the capital, Sanaa, along with

children from other elite families, before returning to

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

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

of anonymity to avoid harming his family's efforts to

persuade Aulaqi to become moderate.

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

fishing. His ambition was to become college professor,

focusing on finding ways to address water shortages in

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

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

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

radicalization afterward.

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

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

with the hijackers was a ``coincidence.''

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

U.S. authorities, the relative said.

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

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

his beliefs.''

U.S. authorities have alleged that Aulaqi had become

radicalized while still in the United States, before the

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

him.

Beginning in 2002, when he left the United States for

Britain, Aulaqi lauded Palestinian suicide bombers on a Web

site and in lectures attended by ultraconservative Muslims.

He spoke at fundraising events hosted by Cage Prisoners, a

rights group in Britain, but did not incite violence or

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

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

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

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

London.

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

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

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

denounced Israel, according to those present at the lecture.

But he stopped short of calling for violent jihad.

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

Howlari, who now works as a journalist for the United

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

Islamic values.''

Aulaqi eventually took classes and lectured at Iman

University in Sanaa. The university is led by Sheik Abdul

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

officials have described as Osama bin Laden's spiritual

leader and placed on a list of global terrorists.

The university has a reputation as an incubator of

radicalism. John Walker Lindh, an American who fought with

the Taliban, is a former student. Other students allegedly

took part in numerous attacks.

Aulaqi's relative said the cleric had given four lectures

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

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

terrorism through his Web site and Facebook page, even though

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

investigators have found Aulaqi's sermons downloaded on the

computers of suspects in nearly a dozen terrorism cases in

Britain and Canada.

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

accused of inciting attacks against a man over a tribal

matter involving a woman. Aulaqi denied the allegations in an

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

of pressuring Yemen to keep him locked up.

In that interview, Aulaqi said he spent the first nine

months in solitary confinement in an underground cell. Around

September 2007, FBI agents interrogated him about the Sept.

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

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

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

in December 2007.

Yemeni officials have declined to comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

in weapons to fight on the battlefield.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.