[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 103 (Friday, July 10, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H7951-H7960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3082, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND 
               VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 622 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 622

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3082) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read through page 58, line 6. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding clause 
     11 of rule XVIII, except as provided in section 2, no 
     amendment shall be in order except the amendments printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled 
     by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     a demand for division of the question in the House or in the 
     Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. In the case of sundry amendments reported from the 
     Committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the 
     House en gros and without division of the question. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  After disposition of the amendments specified in 
     the first section of the resolution, the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their 
     designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill 
     for the purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the 
     proponent.
       Sec. 3.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Appropriations or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of H.R. 3082, the Chair may 
     reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting 
     under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. 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).


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 10, 2009 on Page H7951 the following appeared: includes a 
waiver of section 125
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: includes a 
waiver of section 425


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden to identify the specific 
language in the resolution on which the point of order is predicated. 
Such a point of order shall be disposed of by the question of 
consideration.
  The gentleman from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. After the debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration, to wit: Will the 
House now consider the resolution?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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

[[Page H7952]]

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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized in 
opposition.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. 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,

[[Page H7953]]

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

                              {time}  0930

  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.
  Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I will.
  Mr. FLAKE. 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.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. 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

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. 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. SESSIONS. 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,

[[Page H7954]]

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.

                              {time}  0945

  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.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes of my time to 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank Ms. Pingree for the opportunity to speak on 
this rule, and I just want to thank my friends Chet Edwards and Zach 
Wamp for their leadership and hard work in crafting this bill and their 
unfailing support of American servicemembers and veterans. With wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan ongoing and an increasingly

[[Page H7955]]

high volume of men and women servicemembers returning home, funding 
their needs remains a top priority.
  As much now as ever, Congress needs to be making critical investments 
in construction projects which support servicemembers, safety and 
quality of life at home and on the battlefield. We must also make good 
our promise to our soldiers returning home from war, by improving their 
health care facilities and services and by providing them with the best 
care possible. We also need to aid them in their transition to civilian 
life by fully funding the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  Our veterans deserve a bill which honors their remarkable service in 
the protection of our country. That's what this bill does that we are 
going to hear here today. The bill increases funding for the Veterans 
Health Administration by $4.4 billion over last year. This improves 
access to medical services for veterans for key programs in treating 
mental health issues, assistance for homeless veterans, and measures to 
improve access to health care for many veterans who live in rural areas 
such as those in Colorado.
  The bill also expands funding for essential investments in 
information technology which speed processing of benefits, claims, and 
makes needed improvements in the accuracy and efficiency with the 
expanded use of electronic health records. I especially want to thank 
the Veterans' Committee, the Appropriations Committee in taking a good 
look and a hard look at processing claims, which for a long time were 
lagging and people were not getting their claims heard. There has been 
a tremendous effort and focus over the last couple of years to make the 
claims process much quicker, much faster, much more accurate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would also like to thank my friends for their 
assistance in creating what will be a state-of-the-art health care 
facility in Colorado.
  The veterans in Colorado have been promised for years and years and 
years that they would get a facility that was equal to the service they 
gave to this country. And with the hard work of the committee, the hard 
work of the Colorado delegation, assistance from both sides of the 
aisle, we are going to get that facility built in Colorado.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I want to thank my dear friend 
from Texas, a great leader in this House, Mr. Sessions, for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise because this legislation that we are bringing to 
the floor today includes the last installment in a project that is very 
important to the community that I represent. The Southern Command is in 
the congressional district that I represent, and it is receiving in 
this legislation $55.4 million that completes the $237 million required 
for the new headquarters of the Southern Command, which is extremely 
important to the national security of the Nation and of the hemisphere, 
the defense of the hemisphere, and obviously to the community that I am 
honored to represent.
  SOUTHCOM personnel and supporting services have contributed over $1.2 
billion and over 20,000 jobs to south Florida, and south Florida is the 
right place for SOUTHCOM. And we have been, for many years, working to 
make sure that it stays in south Florida.
  I want to thank Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wamp and really 
all of the members of the Florida delegation and others who have worked 
so hard in a united fashion to make this a reality, a permanent 
facility for SOUTHCOM.
  It's in a location that is leased from the State of Florida for the 
great total of $1 a year, long-term lease, $1 a year. That's what it is 
going to be costing the taxpayer.
  So I want to thank former Governor Bush, Jeb Bush, for his help, in 
making this a reality, as well as Governor Charlie Crist, who has also 
demonstrated great leadership in making this project a reality.
  We have worked with the county. We have worked with Mayor Bermudez of 
the City of Doral. The City of Doral has been marvelous in its 
cooperation with the men and women of SOUTHCOM; so, too, General 
Craddock, with whom we began working on this important project; and 
then Admiral Stavridis, who has done a tremendous job as the head of 
SOUTHCOM, and now he is leaving us to go to Europe and defend that 
continent; and now General Fraser, who has joined SOUTHCOM as the new 
head. All of them have done a tremendous job, along with all of the men 
and women there at the Southern Command.
  So I thank all who have had an important role in this development and 
wish the men and women of SOUTHCOM well as I congratulate them, because 
Congress has done its job in funding the new headquarters.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. 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.)
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Fiscal Year 2010 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs 
Appropriations Act, and I thank Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member 
Wamp for their work in crafting this legislation.
  As someone who represents tens of thousands of military veterans and 
their families, I believe that we have an obligation to provide them 
with the benefits and treatment they deserve for their years of 
service. This legislation accomplishes that by providing $109 billion 
for the Department of Veterans Affairs, a $14.5 billion increase over 
2009, when not factoring stimulus or supplemental funding.
  It is estimated that the VA will treat more than 6.1 million patients 
in 2010, including more than 419,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. 
To meet this demand, the bill provides important funding for mental 
health programs, assistance to homeless veterans, and to improve access 
for veterans in rural areas.
  The bill also provides vital funding to hire additional claims 
processors to support the Department's continued efforts to reduce the 
backlog of benefits claims. I believe these are two of the most 
important issues that we deal with, making sure that we deal with the 
PTSD issues which continue to be a significant problem and also to make 
sure that we have the services available to provide for the large 
number of wounded veterans who are coming back from our wars in Iraq 
and Afghanistan.
  I was also pleased to see that the committee included a provision to 
provide advanced budget authority and funding for fiscal year 2011 for 
medical-related accounts. This is a step to ensure that the VA health 
care system continues to receive a timely and predictable stream of 
funding without subjecting it to the delays that can arise due to the 
larger annual budget debates.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work on this 
important legislation and urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. GINGREY of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I stand to strongly oppose this rule on the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2010.
  Mr. Speaker, this is unconscionable, what the Democrat majority is 
doing regarding these appropriations bills. I think this is about the 
fourth or fifth appropriation bill that we brought to the floor with a 
structured rule, and this has never happened, to my knowledge, in the 
history of this Congress.
  These should be open rules so that every Member, not just members of 
the Appropriations Committee, the 40 or 50 members that study these 
bills, but every single Member of this body who represent 675,000 
people across this country and these 50 States should have an 
opportunity to offer amendments.
  I have offered 10 amendments to these five bills. Not one, not one, 
Mr. Speaker, has been made in order, and not one of these amendments 
are dilatory.

[[Page H7956]]

  As an example, on this particular bill, the Veterans Administration 
Appropriation, I have an amendment that says no party, no Republican or 
Democratic majority should hold that bill hostage once it passes to put 
it in the form of a minibus, combine it with some other legislation to 
pass something that we don't want to pass, and hold our veterans 
hostage so that they don't get the pay raise they need, they don't get 
the benefits they need, they don't get the health care they need.
  That, Mr. Speaker, is unconscionable.

                              {time}  1000

  For that reason I stand strongly opposed to this rule. The rule 
should be open, and the chairman of the Appropriations Committee knows 
that, and I challenge him to bring these bills to the floor in an open 
fashion, which we have always done on both sides of the aisle.
  It is time to end this mendacity and this unconscionable activity. 
Let's all vote against this rule. Let's send it back. Let's bring 
forward an open rule and a fair process so that veterans in every 
congressional district across these 50 States will have an opportunity 
to be heard.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I'm very pleased to yield 5 minutes of my time 
to the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. 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.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. 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.''
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. 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.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, and I'm 
happy to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chair of the 
Committee on Appropriations. I'll look forward enthusiastically to 
yielding to him after I make a couple of points.
  First, the gentleman has ended his remarks by talking about the need 
for some kind of outside time limit. In fact, just yesterday I pulled 
out of my coat pocket the schedule that we have seen. We all understand 
that getting the appropriations work done is important. It's a priority 
for Democrats and Republicans alike.
  The fact of the matter is the Rules Committee, with a great deal of 
ease, could in fact simply report out a special rule which would 
establish an outside time limit on the amendment process at all and we 
could proceed, as has been the case for the last 220 years, with an 
open amendment process.
  Now my friend also referred to the fact, and I know that my friend 
from Marietta didn't say that it was unprecedented to have unstructured 
rules when we deal with appropriations bills, but it is unusual.
  And I will remind my friend who talked about the history that back in 
1997, when we did in fact have five appropriations bills considered 
under structured rules, it was done so after, in the case of one, it 
came to the floor. As our late colleague, the former chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Natcher, used to always say, bills should be considered 
as privileged.
  The disparity between a measure emerging from the Ways and Means 
Committee and the privileged structure for consideration of 
appropriations bills is something that is very easily understood in the 
rules of the House of Representatives.
  And so I'd be happy to yield to my friend if he would like to respond 
to the notion of the fact that we began those measures that ultimately 
were considered under structured rules, we began them, one, under a 
privileged structure, which meant that the Rules Committee did not even 
need to act because points of order could be raised against the work 
product of the measure itself and also to the point of time limits.
  The Rules Committee could easily report out a rule that would 
establish an outside time limit. That's all we'd need to do. And then 
we could consider the measure under an open amendment process.
  I'm happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. OBEY. 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.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, if I could reclaim my time.
  Mr. OBEY. I didn't ask for the time. You offered it to me and I'm 
accepting it.

[[Page H7957]]

  Mr. DREIER. I would simply say to my friend, I was downstairs in the 
meeting and my friend stood up and began talking about the fact that we 
considered measures under structured rules in the past, and it's 
frankly important for us in the name of Democrats and Republicans alike 
who are denied amendments and the American people whose Representatives 
are not able to participate in the very important constitutional 
article I section 9 responsibility of appropriations here. That's why 
there is in fact bipartisan concern on this issue, Mr. Speaker.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. BUYER. 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.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Rules 
Committee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. I rise today in support of H.R. 3082, the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriation Act for fiscal year 
2010, and the rule. I'd like to thank Chairman Edwards of the Military 
Construction and Veterans' Affairs Appropriation Committee as well as 
Chairman Obey for their hard work and as well the dedicated work of 
their staff in bringing this bill before us.
  This legislation truly reflects our commitment to improving the 
quality of life for our service men and women as well as our veterans, 
who have given so much to defend the freedoms that we enjoy every day.

                              {time}  1015

  In the midst of an economic crisis and a war on two fronts, fully 
funding the Veterans Affairs bill is critical to our country's ability 
to address the needs of our veterans and our military families. This 
bill authorizes funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs to fund 
a number of worthy projects, such as building housing for our troops, 
mental health services and grants for the construction of extended care 
facilities and veterans' cemeteries.
  As a Coloradan, I am particularly pleased to see that the Fitzsimons 
Veterans Affairs Hospital in Aurora, Colorado, will receive $119 
million as part of the Military Construction bill. It is absolutely 
crucial for the State of Colorado and for the veterans in my district 
to have access to quality care close to their homes.
  I am very grateful to Secretary Shinseki and his staff, who invited 
those of us from the Colorado delegation to the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to make this announcement last month. They have truly 
recognized the urgency of completing a project that has been torn by 
uncertainty and going back to the drawing board for many, many years 
and finally moved forward in funding this Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs Act. This bill will help ensure that the Obama 
administration continues to move quickly forward. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on final passage of H.R. 
3082.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnetonka, Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).
  Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. As 
Congress moves forward in the debate on health care, we should ensure 
that any national health care reform plan preserves the unique needs of 
our veterans and servicemembers as well as protects the unique identity 
and role of the successful programs and insurance that they depend on. 
If we subject these benefits to new taxation or if we foolishly fold 
them into a large government-run program, the quality and the 
availability of care for our Nation's veterans will suffer, and an 
erosion of the quality of these benefits could undermine recruiting, 
retention and, ultimately, national security.
  I had hoped today to offer an amendment to make sure that any new 
health care program would not undercut the services currently available 
for our men and women in uniform. Unfortunately I was not allowed to do 
so today because of the closed rule. It is frustrating when good ideas 
cannot move forward.
  Mr. Speaker, the servicemembers and veterans in our country who have 
served our Nation have unique health care needs that we fulfill through 
specific mechanisms, such as the VA, TRICARE and others. These entities 
are essential to ensuring that we meet our Nation's obligations to 
those who serve in uniform and that we do so in a

[[Page H7958]]

most personal and effective way. Military health benefits provide 
specific needed coverage that recognizes the extraordinary sacrifices 
that are inherent to those who serve in our military. Similarly, there 
are unique and specialized VA programs that recognize the government 
responsibilities to those who incur injuries and illness as a result of 
their service. Moreover, specific services and programs for families of 
those who have served help ensure that our grateful Nation gives back 
to those who have sacrificed so much for all of us. It's too bad that 
we are unable to move forward on my amendment because it would have 
recognized and protected the government's special responsibilities to 
our servicemembers and veterans in any health care package moving 
through Congress.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. 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. SESSIONS. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. 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.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

       Amendment to H. Res. 662 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

       Strike the resolved clause and all that follows and insert 
     the following:
       Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the house resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3082) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of 
     the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises

[[Page H7959]]

     and reports the bill back to the house with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution--The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of 
     the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 174, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 526]

                               YEAS--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--174

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barrett (SC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Boucher
     Delahunt
     Fudge
     Granger
     Graves
     Heller
     Hoekstra
     Klein (FL)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Paul
     Platts
     Rohrabacher

                              {time}  1050

  Mr. SIRES changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
   Stated against:
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 526, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H7960]]

                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 179, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 527]

                               AYES--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--179

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barrett (SC)
     Buyer
     Farr
     Fudge
     Granger
     Graves
     Heller
     Hoekstra
     Klein (FL)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Paul
     Rangel


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1058

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. HELLER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 527, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________