[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 112 (Wednesday, July 28, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6206-H6214]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5822, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND
VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1559 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1559
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. 5822) making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, 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 63, line 4. 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 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question. 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 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 consideration of the bill for amendment, 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. It shall be in order at any time through the
calendar day of August 1, 2010, for the Speaker to entertain
motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or her
designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his
designee on the designation of any matter for consideration
pursuant to this section.
Point of Order
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1559
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order
against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section
425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the violation of
section 426(a).
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 under the rule, and the
gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman from Maine each will control
10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. After that
debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order today not because
of unfunded mandates in the bill, although, there are probably some,
but because it is about the only opportunity we have here in the
minority to protest the kind of treatment that these appropriation
bills are getting in the Rules Committee and to protest the manner in
which they are coming to the floor.
It used to be that it was a time-honored tradition in this House to
have appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule. Over the
past couple of years, that has turned into a structured rule, so many
Members in this body, in the minority and the majority, have not had
this opportunity. Let's take last year, for example.
Every appropriation bill, all 12, came to the floor under structured
rules. There were some Members on both sides of the aisle who offered
multiple amendments throughout the year. That is the one chance they
have to actually offer amendments on appropriation bills--the things
that we are supposed to be doing here in Congress--and they weren't
allowed to offer one. Many Members were denied the opportunity to offer
any amendments.
{time} 1420
There were some 1,500 amendments offered last year. Just 12 percent,
fewer than 200, were made in order. And, in fact, I offered about 635
myself. I was only permitted to offer 50, after the structured rule
took effect.
Now, the leadership on the majority side will often say, well, we
have to keep order in this place, and people would simply offer
dilatory amendments and take too long in the process. I remember times
in years past, and I haven't been here that long, but just a couple of
years ago where we would spend 2 or 3 or 4 days on one appropriation
bill because that's what we do here. That's the important part of what
we do. Yet, the majority can't seem to find time to allow all
amendments to these bills.
Instead of allowing debate on amendments to appropriation bills, let
me give you some idea of what we've been doing over the past couple of
months and why the statement that we simply can't allow people to offer
this many amendments would be proper because we don't have time. Well,
here's what we've had time for. And let me note that each one of these
that I mention, and this is just a fraction of these kind of suspension
bills that we've dealt with, each one of these allows for 10 minutes of
debate. That's as much time as we allow on any amendment coming before
on the appropriation bill.
H.R. 1460, Recognizing the important role of pollinators. That one we
dealt with just a month or so ago.
H.R. 1491, Congratulating the University of South Carolina, the
Gamecocks, for winning the 2010 NCAA Division I College World Series.
H. Res. 1463, Supporting the goals and ideals of Railroad Retirement
Day.
Now, these things may be nice to do and nice to those who receive
these kind of accolades, but it's not the important business of this
House. And so to say that we don't have time to actually debate
amendments to these appropriation bills, and the one that we
[[Page H6207]]
are dealing with today, many amendments that were submitted by Members
were turned away, were not allowed in this structured role.
Another thing we dealt with, supporting the goals of National Dairy
Month. Now, how in the world is that more important than allowing
Members to strike funding from appropriation bills?
I need not remind this Chamber that 42 cents of every dollar we spend
this year, 42 cents of every dollar we spend this year will be borrowed
from our kids, from our grandkids, from whomever overseas who buys our
bonds. And yet we can't allow time to let Members offer amendments to
strike spending from these bills. We only allow a certain percentage of
them.
Supporting the goals and ideals of American Craft Beer Week. That was
H.R. 1297 that we dealt with in the last couple of months, the time
that we usually designate in this body to deal with appropriation
bills.
Congratulating the Chicago Blackhawks. That was H.R. 1439.
Supporting National Men's Health Week.
Recognizing June 8, 2010, as World Ocean Day.
As I mentioned, these might be good things to do, but when they're
taking up time that the majority seems to say now we don't have time
for appropriation bills, that's wrong.
And when they, in the Rules Committee, will say, sorry, the gentleman
from Colorado or wherever else can't offer his amendment because we've
taken too much time recognizing National Nurses Week or supporting the
goals and ideals of National Learn to Fly Day or expressing support for
the goals and ideals of Children's Book Week, recognizing the 75th
anniversary of the establishment of the East Bay Regional Park District
in California, I think you're getting the picture here.
It's a hollow statement to say that we don't have time to deal with
these amendments on appropriation bills. The truth is the leadership
simply doesn't want these things debated all that much.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I will explain why
in a minute.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I appreciate the thoughts of my colleague from Arizona.
I would say that I wouldn't stand up here and criticize nurses, dairy
farmers, small breweries, which I have many of in my State, or even the
pollinators. I actually have a daughter who's a beekeeper, and I think
we all recognize the importance of pollination.
But let me get serious here. Once again, my friends on the other side
of the aisle, I think, are trying to block important legislation by
using a procedural tactic. They want to prevent this rule and the
underlying legislation from going forward without any opportunity for
debate, without an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the
legislation itself.
I think that's wrong. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we
can consider this legislation on its merits and not kill it with a
procedural motion.
I say, let's not waste any more time on unrelated parliamentary
measures. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final
passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass the bill today.
I have the right to close but, in the end, I will urge my colleagues
to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentlelady.
The gentlelady says that I am criticizing pollinators or beer
distillers or whomever. I'm not. I'm just saying the Congress doesn't
need to congratulate everybody who wins a championship or everybody who
distills beer. I mean, it's just nutty for us to spend so much time on
these things and then say, I'm sorry, we don't have time for Members to
offer amendments on appropriation bills to actually strike spending so
that we're not borrowing 43 cents on every dollar that we spend this
year.
Let me mention why it is that the leadership and the Appropriations
Committee may not be so anxious for Members to debate these bills--
because there are a lot of earmarks in them. This chart shows 11 of the
12 appropriation bills that have gone through either the subcommittee
or committee. It looks like a hungry Pacman here, but what this shows
in the red is the percentage of earmark dollars associated with
powerful Members of Congress. That includes members of the
Appropriations Committee, members of leadership, or chairmen of
committees. That represents about 13 percent of this body.
Yet, when you look at the number of earmark dollars or percentage of
earmark dollars, Homeland Security, that 13 percent is garnering 52
percent of the earmark dollars. CJS, 57 percent; Agriculture, 76
percent of the earmark dollars are going to just 13 percent of this
body, the 13 percent that are writing the rules here and are deciding
that certain amendments simply won't be offered. That is wrong. We
shouldn't be doing that. TTHUD, which we'll be doing just tomorrow, 42
percent of the earmark dollars are going to just 13 percent of this
body.
Is it any wonder that the leadership on the majority side does not
want certain amendments debated here?
MILCON VA, 51 percent going to just 13 percent of this body. Energy
and Water, 53 percent; Labor/HHS, 66 percent; Interior, 60; Defense,
55.
In Defense, we just learned today that an amendment has been
submitted--I'm sorry, an earmark has been submitted, $10 million for
the John Murtha Center, our beloved Member who deceased just a few
months ago. We're going to earmark $10 million to create a center in
his honor in the Defense bill. I think that that ought to be debated
here, but chances are we won't even get to the Defense bill.
It's unlikely we're going to get to very many of the appropriation
bills this year, and the ones that we do will come to the floor under a
structured rule where Members will not be allowed to offer amendments,
or just a few of them on the ones that the majority chooses to hear.
They can choose the ones they don't want to hear and choose the ones
that they hear.
I would like to hear a response from the Rules Committee as to what
reasoning goes behind which amendments will be allowed under what is
traditionally an open rule and which ones will not.
And I would yield to the gentlelady if she would explain the rule or
how the Rules Committee arrives at this rule.
I guess the gentlelady doesn't want to respond on this. I wouldn't
either. I wouldn't want to try to justify closed rules or structured
rules coming to this body on appropriation bills when we're spending
more time doing things like recognizing the 50th anniversary of Title
VI international education programs, recognizing the importance of
manufactured and modular housing in the United States. These are all
goods things. It doesn't mean we should spend time that could otherwise
be debating appropriation bills, which is what we do here. We
prioritize by funding. That's what Congress does. We have the power of
the purse. And yet we're shortchanging that process so that we can
support the goals and ideals of Student Financial Aid Awareness Month
and raise awareness of student financial aid. Like I said, not a bad
thing, but not something that should supplanting what we should be
doing here.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I would just plead with the Rules Committee and,
more importantly, the leadership on the majority side to realize that
the traditions of this body, the institutional things that we have
here, open rules on appropriations, should be honored.
Now, I've come here for the past 10 years and offered a lot of
amendments, many of which when we were in the majority. My own party
didn't like these amendments, but they suffered through them because
they knew that things matter here like tradition or upholding the
institution.
{time} 1430
So they allowed all amendments, some of which targeted Members of our
own party. But the majority in power now doesn't seem to want that.
They want to shield their Members from difficult votes and also shield
those who are getting these earmarks from any scrutiny. These
amendments aren't really scrutinized in the Appropriations Committee.
So if they aren't argued and debated here, they simply aren't going to
get a vetting.
[[Page H6208]]
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, to the questions of my colleague
from Arizona, I have to say you have far more experience in this body
than I do. As you know, I'm a freshman Member. So I have only operated
under the current process that we have today. I can't speak to what the
process was like in the past.
I can say, as a member of the Rules Committee, a tremendous number of
amendments come before our committee. And if all of them were allowed
to come to the floor, and if this were an open rule, I'm sure there
would be some advantages and some opportunities for greater debate.
On the other hand, on the issues that we're about to take up today,
the essential issue of veterans benefits, which I'm going to look
forward to speaking to in a few minutes, assuming that we vote down
this current point of privilege, I am looking forward to the
opportunity to move forward on taking better care of our veterans. And
if we had a tremendous number of amendments before us today, I am not
sure we would ever get there.
In fact, when I look at some of the information that I have before
me, I am reminded that during the DOD appropriations bill in 2009, when
I was sitting on the Rules Committee, we actually had 606 amendments
come before us. Many of them were just there, I think everybody would
agree on both sides of the aisle, many of them were just there to score
political points. So do our constituents want us to take up our time
today with listening to political back and forth taking up day after
day with 606 amendments, or do they want us to get right to the heart
of the matter, and that is to move forward on the issue of taking
better care of our veterans?
And let me make one other point. You know, you've talked about
earmarks, and you are very eloquent on the topic of earmarks; and I
appreciate that. I think a lot of our constituents have great concerns
about earmarks, how are they handed out, how does the budgeting process
work here. But I do have to say as a freshman Member, I have taken
great care to have a tremendous amount of transparency around the topic
of earmarks.
We hold appropriations meetings in our district. We invite
individuals with any kind of issue to come before us that they would
like to see appropriated, whether it's a highway bridge, or whether
it's a community center, or whether it's a particular project that
might benefit anyone in our district, the university, or some system.
We actually ask each person who comes before us with an earmark request
to make a 3-minute video. Then we post it on our Web site. Then we ask
our constituents, do you have opinions on this?
So while I understand much of the concerns about the earmark process,
I have to say as one Member who I can't say is in the top 13 percent of
the highest recipients of earmarks, I still appreciate the process
which allows me to take my constituents' wishes before the
Appropriations Committee and say, you know, this would benefit my
district, this would benefit my university, this would create more
jobs. And I do it in a fully transparent manner. So I believe my
constituents have the benefit of knowing all of the information around
earmarking and doing the very best we can with making sure that process
isn't handled in back rooms or in the dark of the night, but is
actually a very transparent process.
So I appreciate the concerns that you have brought before us today. I
look forward to moving forward on the debate on this rule so that we
can move forward on what I think is a vital part of our appropriations
process, that's taking care of our veterans.
So again, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion
to consider so we can debate and pass this important legislation today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 Florida (Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this
rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 1559.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Maine?
There was no objection.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1559 provides for consideration of H.R.
5822, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2011, under a structured rule. The rule
provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule waives
points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order only those
amendments printed in the report. All points of order against the
amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI are
waived.
The rule provides that for those amendments reported from the
Committee of the Whole, the question of their adoption shall be put to
the House en gros and without division of the question. The rule
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule
provides that after consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair
and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or
their designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for
the purpose of debate. Finally, the Chair may entertain a motion that
the Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on
Appropriations or his designee.
Mr. Speaker, for more than 9 years our country has been engaged in
two conflicts halfway around the world. The number of wounded military
personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan has put a financial strain on the
Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA expects to treat more than 6.1
million patients in 2011, including more than 439,000 veterans of Iraq
and Afghanistan. In addition, the constant training, deployment, and
redeployment of our troops have put a significant burden on our
military.
H.R. 5822 appropriates funding for military construction, veterans
programs, and four related agencies. Our troops have performed
admirably wherever they have been deployed, and Congress has an
obligation to provide the care and compensation to every eligible
veteran. This bill also provides additional funding for the Guard and
Reserves to address critical unfunded requirements as a result of
prolonged and repeated deployments. In my home State of Maine,
thousands of Guard and Reservists have made invaluable contributions to
our national defense, and I am proud to see this funding included in
the bill.
H.R. 5822 renews our commitment to redevelop closed military bases
and their surrounding communities. The bill provides necessary funding
to implement the 2005 BRAC and address the enormous backlog of
environmental cleanup projects from previous BRAC rounds. This funding
is essential to communities across the country, including the towns of
Brunswick and Topsham in my district, which are already experiencing
economic difficulties from the closing of Brunswick Naval Air Station.
We must do everything we can to support the communities that the BRAC
bases leave behind.
While the investments in military construction are vital, they are
only a small portion of this bill. The vast majority of legislation is
devoted to veterans' programs. The bill provides the necessary funding
for veterans' medical care, claims processors, and facility
improvements, including increased funding for mental health services,
assistance programs for homeless veterans, and innovative services for
veterans in rural areas.
The military construction projects in this bill are vital to ensure
that the
[[Page H6209]]
missions of each installation are carried out in the most efficient
manner possible. One great example is the funding contained in this
bill for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. The shipyard
provides world-class overhaul, repair, and modernization of nuclear
submarines. The yard has a reputation of delivering subs back to the
fleet on time and under budget.
This fall, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard will welcome the first
Virginia-class submarine to Maine for an overhaul. This bill contains
$11.9 million to modernize the structural shops at the yard, which will
improve the equipment layout and streamline process flow within the
shipyard. It will help workers at the yard continue to do high quality
work while increasing their efficiency. And this funding is essential
to this mission. Increasing maintenance efficiencies and eliminating
redundancies will no doubt make the yard more competitive for Navy sub
projects in the future.
The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is an economic success story in Maine.
The yard is in the middle of adding approximately 160 new jobs this
year, jobs like painters, sheet metal workers, electricians, welders,
and engineers. And the construction work that this bill will fund will
be done by outside contractors, bringing even more jobs to the area.
The funding in this bill will help this economic engine in southern
Maine remain competitive and create new, good-paying jobs.
Finally, I am very proud of what this bill does for our Nation's
veterans. Their service has earned them world-class health care and
benefits, and Congress has a moral obligation to provide the best
benefits possible.
{time} 1440
This bill is an example of what happens when politics is put aside
and veterans come first. I strongly support this rule which provides
for consideration of this essential legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Maine, for the time, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Each year Congress undertakes its duty to fund the government through
what is commonly known as the appropriations process. The
appropriations process usually begins with the consideration of a
budget. The budget sets the parameters of congressional spending for
the upcoming year, allowing the Appropriations Committee to begin
assembling the 12 appropriations bills.
But for the first time since the Congressional Budget Act was passed
in 1974, the House of Representatives has failed to even vote on a
budget because of what some suspect may be an attempt by the majority
to protect their Members from a vote that would increase what are
already record budget deficits.
Yet the dysfunction does not end with the majority's abandonment of
one of the most basic duties of governing. It continues today with the
consideration of the first appropriations bill, the Fiscal Year 2010
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution gives Congress the
power of the purse. It says, ``No money shall be drawn from the
treasury but in consequence of the appropriations made by law; and a
regular statement of account of receipts and expenditures of all public
money shall be published from time to time.''
The Congress' constitutional obligation under Article I, section 9,
clause 7 has traditionally manifested itself in an open appropriations
process. That process allows every Member of the House to propose any
amendments--any amendments that are germane--to the 12 appropriations
bills. That's the way it's been done, certainly since I've been here,
and I know for decades and decades and generations before.
Yet, last year the majority decided to close down the deliberative
process of the House on appropriations bills. I came to the floor to
oppose that procedure last year, and I stated that I felt that the
majority's decision to block debate on amendments from Members on both
sides of the aisle was unnecessary and it was unfair, unjust. I thought
it was a mistake. I said the majority would come to regret that
mistake.
Today, on the very first appropriations bill of this year, the
majority has once again decided to close down the appropriations
process, and that's unfortunate. Last year we were told that the
majority was taking this unprecedented step in order to move the
appropriations bills to the Senate so that Congress could avoid an
omnibus appropriations bill. What happened was just the opposite.
Despite the fact that the Military Construction-VA bill did in fact
pass both the House and the Senate, the Democratic leadership never
allowed the bill to go to conference, and instead that MILCON-VA
appropriations bill was wrapped up in an omnibus appropriations bill--
contrary to the reasoning that had been given by the majority.
So what is this year's reason? I believe that it is so that the
majority can again use a restrictive process on appropriations bills so
the leadership, the majority leadership, has the ability to pick and
choose which amendments the House will consider.
Although I strenuously disagree with the manner in which the majority
leadership has decided to close the appropriations process once again,
and in this case it has allowed only 14 out of 35 amendments, I do wish
to congratulate my friends, Chairman Chet Edwards, Ranking Member Zach
Wamp and Mr. Crenshaw for their bipartisan work on the underlying
legislation that is undoubtedly very important.
We owe our military veterans and their families an extraordinary debt
of gratitude for their service and their sacrifices as a people, not
just as a Congress. I think we have to ensure that our veterans and
their families, who bear sacrifices and hardships as well, receive all
the benefits and assistance to which they are entitled and that they
deserve.
The underlying legislation that has been agreed to, it has been
drafted in a fair and bipartisan manner, provides crucial funding for
military construction and for housing, for quality-of-life projects for
our troops and their families.
The legislation includes a total of $141.1 billion in both mandatory
and discretionary funding for these agencies. Of this, approximately
$120 billion is dedicated to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The underlying legislation continues our commitment to the brave men
and women who sacrifice so much to keep the Nation safe, supporting our
servicemembers on base, deployed abroad, and to care for them when they
come home.
The Pentagon recognized two important projects to south Florida,
which were included in the President's budget and received funding in
the underlying legislation. This legislation provides $41 million to
construct a permanent headquarters for Special Operations Command
South. Currently Special Operations Command South is headquartered at
Homestead Air Force Reserve Base. Headquarters personnel are supported
by temporary, leased trailers. The trailers were not intended to
support the headquarters mission beyond 3 years, and they require
significant repairs for continued use.
The project in this legislation will consist of a command and control
building with a secure compartmentalized information facility,
sensitive items storage, standby generator, and general purpose
administrative areas. It will include anti-terrorism measures to
protect military personnel stationed there and will be able to
withstand--and this is very important--a category 5 hurricane. And, Mr.
Speaker, as you know in Homestead, we had a category 5 hurricane the
year I was elected to Congress. Hopefully we won't see that again. But
it's important that this facility be able to withstand such force.
I am pleased that this legislation also includes funding for
construction of a new commissary to be located at the Southern Command
Headquarters in Doral, in the congressional district that I am honored
to represent. Construction of this commissary will greatly benefit the
over 13,000 military personnel and retirees within 20 miles of SOUTHCOM
and the thousands more beyond. It will greatly reduce the high cost of
living in south Florida for these men and women, and it will improve
their quality of life.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2
minutes to
[[Page H6210]]
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I especially want to
thank Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wamp for providing the
resources our Nation's veterans desperately need and for providing
additional funding for FY2012. This advanced funding helps the VA avoid
disruption of critical programs. We must take care of our brave men and
women who serve this country, and this funding goes a long way to
address many of their needs.
I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including
report language on veterans' burial benefits. I am deeply concerned
about the eroding value of the plot allowance and burial benefits
provided to our Nation's veterans by the Department of Veterans
Affairs. Because the benefits are not indexed to inflation, their value
continues to diminish with each passing year. As a result, families and
State veterans' cemeteries have been left to cover the increasing
costs.
In FY09, the subcommittee included my report language urging the VA
to assess the viability of increasing the plot allowance and burial
benefits to cover the same percentage of veterans' burial benefits that
they covered in 1973, when they were first initiated. The Department of
Veterans Affairs has still not yet heeded our recommendations. I'm glad
the subcommittee recognizes the importance of the issue and has again
included the burial benefits report language.
{time} 1450
However, we need to move on this, and I think having it included once
again is a step in reminding the VA that this is an important issue.
This Congress I have reintroduced the Veterans' Burial Benefits
Improvement Act, H.R. 4045. This bill would increase the plot allowance
from $300 to $745 for the burial costs of veterans who are buried in a
State veterans' cemetery or a private cemetery; increase burial
allowance benefits from $2,000 to $4,100 for veterans who die as a
result of service-connected injuries and are buried in a national
cemetery; increase the burial allowance from $300 to $1,270 for a
veteran who wishes to be buried in a national veterans' cemetery and
whose cause of death is not service-connected.
I urge my colleagues to become a cosponsor of this important piece of
legislation.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
my very good friend from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
I want to make it clear that I'm very much in favor of the underlying
legislation, but this legislation is being brought to us today under a
rule that will restrict our Members, both Democrats and Republicans,
from offering amendments, having them considered.
I thought I would give you a little perspective because this bill has
come to us this day through the regular order, a very open and fair
process. Sixteen hearings took place. All the members of the
subcommittee had an opportunity to ask questions and feel like they
were being treated fairly, listened to their input. At the subcommittee
level, six amendments were offered: four by the minority, two by the
majority. They were all adopted unanimously in a bipartisan way. Then
we went to the full committee, the full Appropriations Committee. At
that point, eight amendments were offered, discussed, and they were
adopted as well, in a bipartisan way, four from the Democrats, four
from the Republicans.
Yet, when we got to the Rules Committee, that's where the fair and
open process ran into a roadblock, the graveyard, if you will, because
now we come to the floor with no longer a process where Members can
stand up, offer amendments, maybe make a good bill even better, because
this rule does not allow that.
I would think that at this time, when deficits are at record levels,
when spending is more important to be looked at with a wise and
efficient look, that we would allow Members to come to the floor and
offer their input, but no, that's not the case.
So while the underlying legislation is very important and very good,
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and bring this back under an open
rule and allow their participation.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to
my good friend, Mr. Buyer from Indiana.
Mr. BUYER. Thank you very much.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
When the majority went to this process to be restrictive here on the
floor with regard to amendments on appropriations, that was really a
dark day for liberty, and it's really very, very unfortunate. And I
understand the Speaker wants to rule the House with a mighty hand and
is utilizing the Rules Committee to make Congress an undemocratic
institution. The American people are watching. They know that there's
something going on in Washington, DC, that's not right. They don't
completely understand all this process, but something they do know and
understand and that's freedom and that's liberty.
So we're charged with this responsibility to care for those who wear
the uniform who now have been injured not only in the workplace but
also on the battlefield. But when it comes time then for us to have an
open discussion and debate on how best to do that, freedoms are denied.
Pretty weird, pretty strange, very peculiar.
As the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I have three
amendments that were made in order, but there are also two amendments
that were not made in order. The first amendment that was not made in
order would have transferred $230 million from the information
technology system account to fund improvements in various other
programs. In 2010, the VA conducted a major review of its major IT
initiatives. Of over 300 programs that were reviewed, about 100 are
still active or are in planning and about 100 are still being reviewed
and about the other hundred have been stopped permanently or have been
paused.
This amendment would have taken the $230 million in savings from this
review and put $120 million toward deficit reduction and use the
remaining $100 million to increase the following VA accounts: medical
and prosthetic research by $50 million to fund further research into
new innovative treatments, such as the hyperbaric oxygen therapy for
TBI; prosthetic devices for female amputees who often have difficulties
with the fit and size of the traditional prosthesis tailored to the
male physique; and helmets that measure the G-force impact and protect
our servicemembers from these blast injuries.
Also, with regard to the VBA general operating account, increase it
by $2 million for VA to conduct an authorized longitudinal study for
the VRE participants to assess the effectiveness of the program. Also,
then increase the VHA medical services account by $48 million; $30
million to improve VA's suicide prevention programs, including $100
million for the national broadcast suicide prevention advertising
campaign; $10 million for the VA to improve its services for homeless
women veterans and homeless veterans with children; and $8 million for
innovative treatments for TBI and mental health.
Does that sound radical? That was made not in order. It is hard. That
was not made in order. And so, okay, why? I don't know. The Rules
Committee didn't give me an answer. That should have been made in
order. That's something that should have been discussed.
We have had a challenge here with regard to the IT systems at the VA,
and I leave here in 6 months and the appropriators and the authorizers
are going to have a real challenge here, especially as you go forward.
Now, fortunately once we centralize the IT architecture you've got a
really good--Roger Baker as the chief information officer, very
talented individual, doing assessments. The Secretary's Shinseki. He
gets it, he understands it. He's doing this review. But when you take
down projects, and we've got those moneys, we can make judgments and
choices with regard to how to use some of those dollars, and that's
what we sought to do here, and that amendment should, in fact, have
[[Page H6211]]
been made in order, and it's really unfortunate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1
additional minute.
Mr. BUYER. There is another amendment, and I know, Mr. Speaker, my
good friend, Chairman Edwards, had some concerns about one of the
amendments that, in fact, was made in order, and I understand, and we
can have a colloquy and we can get into that because I know you agree
with what we're doing. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Chairman Edwards
agrees with the initiatives in working with--I guess we can call them
green initiatives, green management initiatives, but it's the renewable
energy portfolio that's being done down at the VA.
And it's really this advance appropriation is making it hard on how
we move moneys between accounts, at the same time, what type of
amendments can be brought to the floor. I mean, I tried to do this a
couple of years ago, and the parliamentarian knocked an amendment out.
And so I wanted to raise this issue on the floor that we have about 60
projects out there, around $162 million, and we've got to figure out
how to best fund these, and I will get into that with the Speaker
later.
My intention is not to offer that amendment that has been authorized
to offer, and I will work this out with Chairman Edwards. But I'm going
to ask to oppose the rule, even though I compliment the good work the
committee has done. But we need an open process.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to
yield 5 minutes to my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the
Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier from California.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1500
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Miami for his very
thoughtful remarks in his opening statement in which he talked about
the greatness of this bill.
This is a bipartisan bill, as has been pointed out by Mr. Crenshaw,
as has been pointed out by Mr. Buyer. Democrats and Republicans alike
have come together because, obviously, if we don't take care of our
Nation's veterans, how are we going to incent our fellow Americans to
join the armed services?
When commitments are made to them, they need to be kept. We all want
to do everything we can for the brave men and women who have fought on
behalf and served on behalf of the United States of America.
Obviously, I am here with a degree of sadness. I wasn't here for the
exchange that took place when our friend, Mr. Flake, was here, but I
have been told that my good friend from North Haven, who is managing
this rule for the majority, indicated that if we had had an open
amendment process, we would be allowing partisan obstructionism or
something along that line to take place.
Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting that we have made what I consider
to be rather sad history in this place. My friend from North Haven is a
new Member of this institution and has not once, in her 18 months as a
Member of the United States House of Representatives, been able to
witness or participate in a bill being debated under an open amendment
process.
I have got to say that until it is tried, I would say to my friend,
Mr. Speaker, until it's tried, I would think that the notion of passing
judgment on the problems of an open rule should really not be brought
forward.
I will tell you that it is clear that an open amendment process is
messier and uglier and more difficult than having everything shut down,
but that's really what the framers of our Constitution wanted. They
wanted there to be a free-flowing discussion. I just listened to Mr.
Buyer a few minutes ago talking about the green initiative, and he
wanted to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Edwards about this.
The fact is, when we get into an open amendment process, which, by
the way, was done for every single year up until last year for almost
all appropriations bills--in fact, virtually every appropriations bill
has begun under an open amendment process. Then, if a bipartisan
consensus and agreement cannot be struck to bring about some kind of
limitation of debate between the chairman of the subcommittee and the
ranking member, the Rules Committee has, on occasion, been called on.
But the difficulty here for me to understand, Mr. Speaker, is that we
are not even beginning with even a modicum of regular order.
Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I talked about William Natcher,
who was a great Member of this institution and served for a period of
time as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Two decades ago, when
I joined the Rules Committee, I discussed the appropriations process
with Chairman Natcher. He was probably best known--well, he was known
for lots of accomplishments, probably best known as the only human
being to go, for all the years that he served here, without missing a
single vote. In fact, he gave me advice when I got here. He said, Make
a speech in the well and miss a vote. This guy never missed a vote, and
he was bound to that.
But one of the things that he was was a great institutionalist, and
he understood what regular order consisted of. He believed that since
appropriations bills are considered to be privileged resolutions, that
those measures didn't have to go upstairs through the Rules Committee.
They, instead, could come directly to the House floor. By virtue of
doing that, it would mean that legislating an appropriations bill could
be stricken by a point of order that a Member would raise, but he
believed that that was the best way to do that.
Well, we moved away from that, and he said he didn't think that it
was a wise thing. But we moved to the point where the Rules Committee
would say, gosh, if there are items in an appropriations bill that
consisted of things like legislation, there was an agreement with the
authorizing committee that the Rules Committee would protect those. It
was understood and done pretty much with bipartisan consensus.
But then Democrats and Republicans, alike, would be able to, under
that sacrosanct appropriations process, offer germane amendments to the
appropriations bill. Now we have gotten to the point, again, and for
the first time in the history of the Republic, of shutting down the
appropriations process, limiting the opportunities for Members to offer
amendments.
While this is a very, very, very good and a critically important bill
which virtually all of us will support at the end of the day, it's not
the right way to do it. Process is substance. The American people
learned that very clearly when we had the 300-page amendment dropped on
us up in the Rules Committee at 3 o'clock in the morning, that, in
fact, said that we had just a few hours to look at that measure before
it was to be debated on the House floor.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 30
additional seconds.
Mr. DREIER. Let me just close by saying that it's very, very
important for us to recognize that process is substance. The American
people get that. They understand that we are preventing their voice,
Democrat and Republican alike, from being heard in this appropriations
process.
It is wrong, and I hope very much that as we move through the
appropriations process this year we will get back through to regular
order. I certainly hope that beginning next year, when a new
appropriations process will begin, that we will have the kind of open
amendment process that the American people expect and, through their
elected representatives, deserve.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, and I appreciate the words of my colleague and far
more experienced Member from California. Thank you very much.
I take your criticism that perhaps, although you didn't hear my words
earlier today, that had I been here for the amount of time that you had
or had the previous experience, I wouldn't have said exactly what I
said about the political posturing that could go on under an open rule.
[[Page H6212]]
You are right, 18 months I have been here. I have never had any
experience in this legislative body about the process of which of you
speak. So, far be it from me to say what the differences were from then
until today, but I will say a little bit about my own experience.
I have the good fortune of sitting on the Rules Committee, and
perhaps some day, if I am here long enough, and I move my way up the
chairs and I am the ranking member or the chair, I will want to
advocate for doing things differently. But I only know the experience
that I have had up to today, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules
Committee.
Now, I see frequent meetings of the Rules Committee. I see a
tremendous number of amendments come before us. As my fellow members
well know, Mr. Speaker, we often spend hours listening to potential
amendments that could be heard here on the floor. I think this
afternoon we will have the pleasure of joining the other members of the
Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, and hearing 120 or more amendments to the
next potential appropriation bill that could come to the floor.
I hear lively debate. I have been there to submit amendments.
Sometimes they are accepted; sometimes they are not. I see amendments
come to the floor that I agree with and I disagree with. So I see a lot
of back-and-forth about the number of amendments. Perhaps it's not an
open rule. You are right, I have never had the experience of an open
rule here in this Chamber, but I have also had the experience of a
tremendous number of amendments, some of which are politically
motivated, some of which could take up a tremendous amount of our time,
and I feel that generally the Rules Committee pares down the number of
amendments to a reasonable number from each side, probably more for the
majority than the minority, and I am sure that happened when the other
party was in control, too.
But the fact is, I hear a lot of lively debate. I have only the
experiences that I have had, and I can't defend what might have
happened in the past or what may happen in the future.
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman yield, very briefly?
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I would say to my friend that she is absolutely right, having this
18-month experience.
The fact is, if the Rules Committee were to follow regular order and
report out open rules, the meetings upstairs would last a grand total
of 5 minutes because we would have the chairman and the ranking member
of the subcommittee come forward, say we have got this bill, we have an
open amendment process, any Member can stand up on the House floor and
offer a germane amendment to the measure. It is considered under the 5-
minute rule. We would end the meeting upstairs and we would allow the
House to work its will, which is, again, what was done up until last
year when we had this shut down for the first time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my friend for those words.
I happen to enjoy many of the meetings we have when we have the time
consider both sides, the rules on both sides and the opportunities for
what discussion will come to the floor. I appreciate being a member of
the Rules Committee and being a part of that filtering process. I don't
know if the process will change in the future, but I will say today we
have a goodly number of amendments that will be considered on this.
From my perspective, the most important thing that we are doing today
is moving forward on this rule, which I hope will pass with a great
majority, and moving forward to the consideration of this bill which, I
will remind my colleagues, holds a tremendous amount of benefit for our
home communities and our veterans, and that is actually why we are here
today.
I wouldn't want to see extensive consideration of so many amendments
that we never got to the point of what people asked us to do. In this
case, it's taking care of our veterans and making sure that they get
the services that they deserve after they have served our country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
{time} 1510
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to this closed, or
partially closed, rule.
Thirty-four amendments is not overwhelming. Back just a couple years
ago, heck, we would have double or triple that many on an open rule.
And it really saddens me to hear that if something will take time to
debate or it's controversial, that we are not going to allow it on the
floor anymore. Mr. Speaker, democracy isn't supposed to be easy;
dictatorships are.
Now, I will rise in support of the underlying bill because I'm going
to stand with our men and women in uniform, whether it's current or
retired; those are our veterans.
This bill does a great deal of good for Offutt Air Force base, the
Bellevue/Omaha area, for our veterans. One of the most significant is
$56 million for the design of a new VA inpatient hospital facility for
that entire regional area. The current facility was built 60 years ago.
It is dilapidated to the point where it is no longer even safe, let
alone meets the appropriate standards. So I am proud that the VA has
decided and agrees with the entire congressional delegation and the
community that this inpatient facility must be replaced and we begin
that process.
The second has been a vision of our veterans community. There is no
national veterans cemetery within the area of eastern Nebraska, western
Iowa, northwest Missouri. The previous administration realized that the
rule that was applied needed to be changed, and that was under
Secretary Peake, and continued under the current administration--and I
want to thank General Shinseki and this administration for following
through--in rightfully determining that the service area for a veterans
cemetery was actually 112,000 veterans that could be served. By doing
that, that shot the eastern Nebraska, Omaha area to the top of the
list. And so inside this bill is the appropriation to start the design
and purchase of land of a new national veterans cemetery in the Omaha/
Bellevue area. That has been a labor of love that started with a small
group of veterans in my office just a few years ago, and now I get to
see it come to reality.
The last is specific to Offutt Air Force Base. It makes a reference
in the MILCON provisions that the new STRATCOM headquarters will begin
construction in 2012 and that the costs need to be borne throughout all
of the branches and the DOD. This is important for the community and
the psyche of the Offutt Air Force Base community.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 30
additional seconds.
Mr. TERRY. I want to point out, in conclusion, that these are based
on the merits of the project--the need for the hospital, the veterans
cemetery, and the need for the headquarters. These aren't earmarks;
these are things that are determined by merit by the VA and the
Department of Defense. And I want to go on record as the Representative
of this area in complete support of this bill and those projects.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
My amendment that was proposed to the Rules Committee is one of those
that's been denied under this very closed rule.
This appropriation bill does much to honor our Nation's commitment to
veterans who have sacrificed for our freedoms, but I'm concerned that
our own government is unfairly taking away freedom from those veterans.
Many Americans should be shocked to learn that an outrageous
Department of Veterans Affairs process is arbitrarily stripping the
Second Amendment rights of veterans and their families who simply
receive assistance managing their financial affairs. I offered an
amendment to reform the VA practice that wrongly denies gun ownership
rights to veterans. Despite the
[[Page H6213]]
support for this change by a number of veterans organizations, like the
American Legion, as well as the National Rifle Association, I am
disappointed that the majority did not allow my amendment to go forward
and be heard and offered on the floor today.
Federal law prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms
because they pose a danger to society or themselves, such as convicted
felons, illegal aliens, and those who are adjudicated mentally ill. The
Brady Act requires the FBI to maintain a database of these individuals
called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System which
prevents them from purchasing firearms.
Over the past 10 years, the VA has sent names of over 100,000
veterans, their spouses, and their children to the FBI, not because
they pose any danger, but simply because the VA determined they could
not handle their VA benefits. The VA appoints fiduciaries to help
veterans who, for example, have a credit problem or who cannot manage
their financial affairs due to health reasons.
The VA's review process for assigning a fiduciary only examines a
veteran's financial responsibility and does not look at whether the
veteran is a danger to himself or others. But when veterans are
appointed fiduciaries, the VA automatically deems them as ``mentally
defective'' and forwards their names to the FBI. Without so much as a
hearing, these veterans are then prohibited by law from purchasing
firearms. By comparison, the Social Security Administration has
assisted over 5 million beneficiaries with their finances, but the
Social Security Administration does not send those names to the FBI.
It is wrong to take away any veteran's constitutional right to keep
and bear arms simply because they cannot manage their financial
affairs. My amendment would have ended this unjust practice. The
amendment would have required that before the VA can forward the
veteran's name to the FBI, an appropriate judicial authority must rule
that the veteran poses a danger to himself or to others should he own a
firearm.
I am disappointed my amendment was denied, and as a result veterans
will continue to be denied their due process and constitutional rights.
I encourage my colleagues to support legislation that I and the
gentleman from Texas have introduced called the Veterans Second
Amendment Protection Act, H.R. 2547, to correct this wrong and restore
gun rights to our country's veterans.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege
to yield 3 minutes to a brilliant new Member of this House from Hawaii
(Mr. Djou).
Mr. DJOU. I thank my colleague from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my
disappointment that my amendment was not allowed to be submitted to
this body. I specifically wanted to highlight my amendment, which was
asking to restore funding for the relocation of American forces away
from Okinawa to Guam, as requested by President Obama. I think it is a
major mistake that this body is not going to support the President's
request for the relocation of American forces.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee and a Member who
represents a large portion of the Pacific fleet in Hawaii, I support
restoring funds for construction to further the realignment of Marine
Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam in H.R. 5822. The committee reduced
the appropriation request submitted by the President by 50 percent.
The Guam realignment will be one of the largest moves of military
forces in decades. The postponement of construction of necessary
military facilities and infrastructure will cause unnecessary delay and
threaten our geopolitical positioning in the Asia-Pacific region.
My amendment was also completely offset by reallocating funds from
military construction requests that were put above what President Obama
had asked for. Mr. Speaker and Members, I want to highlight to this
body that right now, as all of us talk, 2 days ago, the United States
Armed Forces began the largest war game operations in the Korean
peninsula in the Yellow Sea since the end of the Cold War. The reason
we entered these war game operations is because of the instability that
continues to unfortunately exist in East Asia and the Korean peninsula.
By failing to support the President in allocating sufficient funding
to establish new force location in Guam, over the short term we might
be okay; but over the long term, this is a major geopolitical mistake
that this Congress is making. I hope that Congress reconsiders and I
hope the Senate re-examines this. I am disappointed I was unable to
offer this amendment on this very important and serious matter.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, the passage of this rule is a
vital step towards improving our military infrastructure and ensuring
that the quality of care for our veterans and their families is worthy
of their sacrifice.
My home State has one of the highest populations of veterans per
capita in the country. In a State of 1.3 million people, Maine is home
to over 155,000 veterans.
{time} 1520
These men and women have served without question, without politics
and without hesitation. We must make a promise to them and to all of
our veterans that we will do the same. We must provide them with the
health care and the benefits that they deserve--without question,
without politics, and without hesitation. By passing H.R. 5822, we will
begin to keep that promise.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
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.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the
yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 1559 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on motions to suspend the rules with regard to:
H.R. 4692, by the yeas and nays;
H. Res. 1543, by the yeas and nays; and
H.R. 5827, by the yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 178, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 476]
YEAS--243
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
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
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
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
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
[[Page H6214]]
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
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
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--178
Aderholt
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
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)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
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
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Olson
Paul
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
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Akin
Andrews
Fallin
Hoekstra
Lewis (GA)
Smith (TX)
Tiahrt
Wamp
Watson
Woolsey
Young (FL)
{time} 1550
Messrs. McCLINTOCK, GERLACH, and POSEY changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
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.
____________________