[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 63 (Wednesday, April 29, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2506-H2515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2028, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT 
     AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016; PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2029, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS 
   AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016; AND PROVIDING FOR 
  PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 4, 2015, THROUGH MAY 11, 2015

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 223 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 223

       Resolved, That (a) at any time after 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 
     any bill specified in section 2 of this resolution. The first 
     reading of each such bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of each such bill are waived. 
     General debate on each such bill shall be confined to that 
     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 each such 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. Points of order against provisions in each such bill 
     for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
       (b) During consideration of each such bill for amendment--
       (1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in 
     paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in 
     paragraph (2);
       (2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate; and
       (3) the chair 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.

[[Page H2507]]

       (c) When the committee rises and reports any such bill back 
     to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on that bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The bills referred to in the first section of this 
     resolution are as follows:
        (a) The bill (H.R. 2028) making appropriations for energy 
     and water development and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes.
       (b) The bill (H.R. 2029) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and 
     for other purposes.
       Sec. 3.  During consideration of H.R. 2028 and H.R. 2029 
     pursuant to this resolution--
        (a) the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 27, as 
     adopted by the House, shall have force and effect in the 
     House as though Congress has adopted such concurrent 
     resolution; and
       (b) the allocations printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered for 
     all purposes in the House to be allocations under section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       Sec. 4.  On any legislative day during the period from May 
     4, 2015, through May 11, 2015--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 5.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.

                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. If Members were listening to the Reading Clerk read this 
rule, we got into some housekeeping issues at the end. We have got a 
district workweek coming up next week. We needed to give the Speaker 
some authorities to continue to conduct the business of the House in a 
collaborative and a pro forma way. But it was the first part of that 
rule that is exciting.
  I confess, I was talking to the Parliamentarian the other day, and he 
was telling me about the way the history of the rules had evolved, as 
folks stand on the House floor during Committee on Rules debate and 
actually go through line by line explaining to the House what is in the 
rule. It is not every day that I am excited about doing that, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The Committee on Rules has a tough job. Sometimes the Committee on 
Rules' job is saying no. Sometimes the Committee on Rules' job is being 
that gatekeeper to the floor of the House, and we have to deliver some 
bad news to folks. I don't particularly enjoy reiterating that bad news 
on the floor of the House.
  But today is good news. Today it is all good news for every Member of 
the House who has any ideas at all about how better to fund the 
responsibilities of this Nation. They are going to be able to have 
their voice heard.
  Let me read, as the Reading Clerk did. We have two bills in this 
rule, Mr. Speaker: H.R. 2028 and H.R. 2029. I have them here. H.R. 2029 
makes appropriations for military construction, Veterans Affairs, and 
related agencies. I daresay there is not a single Member on the floor 
of this House that has not grappled with how to better serve the 
veterans at home in our districts, that has not grappled with how to 
provide better accountability to the Veterans Administration that is 
tasked with providing those services. This rule provides that any 
Member of this Chamber--Republican or Democrat, senior or junior, 
freshman or retiring--has an opportunity to have their ideas heard. It 
is the best of what we do in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, and we are 
going to do it on H.R. 2029.
  This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2028. That is the 
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, 
Mr. Speaker. Again, I daresay that there is anyone, particularly east 
of the Mississippi, that has a district that is not in some way 
impacted by the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers is 
funded in this legislation. Individual projects are funded in this 
legislation.
  What this rule provides is that any Member of this Chamber that has 
an idea about how to better appropriate these dollars--these dollars 
that belong not to us as individual Members, but to the American 
taxpayer--how to better be accountable, be effective, be efficient with 
these tax dollars, Mr. Speaker, they can come to this floor and have 
their amendments heard.
  Mr. Speaker, you have heard it said often that the Senate only has 
two rules: the unanimous consent and exhaustion. The Committee on Rules 
prevents us from having to have that structure here, but it is true 
that you can effectively filibuster in this Chamber as well: you can 
come down; you can move to strike the last word; you can have debate go 
on forever. I don't believe that serves us particularly well.
  There is obviously an opportunity and a need to have your voice 
heard, to have your constituents' voices heard; but what this rule does 
do, which is why we are going to call it a modified open rule instead 
of a completely open rule, is it restricts what one might call dilatory 
amendments, what one might call clarifying conversation. It restricts 
these pro forma amendments, where you are not actually trying to change 
any language, you just want to come down here and talk, 10 on each side 
controlled by the subcommittee chairmen.
  Mr. Speaker, what is so neat about these two bills that we are going 
to make in order under this bill is they both passed out of the 
Committee on Appropriations on a voice vote. As you know, Mr. Speaker, 
there are some contentious things that we do in this institution and, 
arguably, appropriating is one of the hardest things that this 
institution has to do, but passing these bills out of committee on a 
voice vote tells us about the collaborative way in which these bills 
were put together.
  Now, I can tell you, there are going to be folks on both sides of the 
aisle, Mr. Speaker, who disagree with the funding levels in these 
bills. There are going to be Republicans who wish that they funded 
less, Democrats who wish they funded more; there are going to be 
Democrats who wish they funded less, and Republicans who wish they 
funded more.
  The funding levels of the total bill, that is not for debate today. 
That is set in the funding allocations. We call them 302(a) 
allocations, Mr. Speaker. That is my responsibility on the Committee on 
the Budget and others who serve on the Committee on the Budget. As you 
know, Mr. Speaker, we are this close--oh, golly, we are this close--to 
having conferenced the first balanced budget for the United States of 
America in over 10 years--in over 10 years. The House and the Senate 
are about to agree on funding levels for this Nation. It is 
embarrassing that we don't do it every year, but it is wonderful that 
we have an opportunity to do it this year, and we will.
  Ordinarily, Mr. Speaker, we would have done that first. And candidly, 
as a member of the House Committee on the Budget, a Member who proudly 
supported the budget that passed here on the floor of the House, I 
thought that conference report was going to be ready on Monday of this 
week. It is not. It is not. So this rule also deems those levels that 
the House has already passed, those levels that we absolutely expect to 
be the levels of funding in that conference report, to be the levels of 
funding for this Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill, for this Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, as is appropriate.
  We are beginning the appropriations process today, Mr. Speaker, at 
the earliest point in 40 years. How many of my colleagues are 
frustrated, disappointed,

[[Page H2508]]

disillusioned when this Chamber cannot get its work done?
  Oh, the list is long, Mr. Speaker, and there are legitimate reasons 
why we cannot accomplish some of the goals that we have set out to 
accomplish, but I promise you, Mr. Speaker, the funding clock waits on 
no Member. Come September 30 of this year, funding will expire for the 
entire Federal Government. The earlier we start to solve that issue, 
the better chance we have of getting it done. And working together, 
collaboratively, voice votes out of subcommittee, big votes out on the 
budget bill, we are starting earlier than we have since 1973.

  Good processes yield good results, Mr. Speaker; flawed processes 
yield flawed results. This is the kind of rule that I think every 
Member of this body wishes we could see more of here on the House 
floor. This is going to allow for the kind of debate that is not going 
to predetermine the outcome, but is going to allow Members to come down 
to the floor and make their case to their colleagues, have the kind of 
debate the American people expect, and let the chips fall where they 
may. You get 218 votes, you get to change this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I signed up to be on the Committee on Rules because I 
knew that we would have the opportunity to unleash this institution, 
the opportunity to allow every Member who comes from such diverse 
backgrounds, who have so much to contribute. Mr. Speaker, I just got 
here 4 years ago with my voting card lent to me by the Seventh District 
of Georgia. Folks in my class that came in 4 years ago, they are 
already in the top 50 percent of seniority in this institution. The 
American people have been turning folks out at record speed, which 
means we have been bringing in new talent like never before.
  Sometimes folks think the system around here is geared towards those 
who have been here the longest. They think that only after you have 
achieved a subcommittee chairmanship or a committee chairmanship will 
you be able to have input on the process. The Committee on Rules says 
no. The Committee on Appropriations says no. On these bills in this 
process, every single Member has a chance to have their voice heard, a 
chance to come down here, make their case, and have an impact on the 
final product.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be carrying this rule today, and I urge 
strong support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we 
consider this bill throughout the afternoon and on final passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my 
good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, totally unrelated to my assigned task, I do feel very 
strongly, as I am sure many Members of the House of Representatives and 
many American citizens feel, the horror of what transpired in Nepal, 
and I would just like to say, probably speaking for just about every 
Member, that our heartfelt condolences are with the Nepalese people, 
and our hope is that the world will rally to them, as have many, 
including America, and allow the injured and the homeless to be taken 
care of.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2029, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016 provides 
for a total of $76.6 billion in discretionary funding, including 
overseas contingency operations, as well as $7 billion for military 
construction and family housing projects, and $163.2 billion for the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
  H.R. 2028, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016, provides a total allocation of 
$35.4 billion for energy and water resource projects.
  First, I find it important to mention, as did my colleague from 
Georgia, that this rule is a modified open rule, with time limits set 
to 10 minutes' debate per amendment, and not an open rule to allow all 
Members to have a full and robust debate on the House floor.
  I commend my colleague from Georgia, who has been a continuing 
advocate for open rules, and I also recognize his explanation that the, 
in his words, restriction of time was to avoid what would amount to 
unnecessary debate.
  But as has become custom under Republican leadership, we are once 
again limiting the amount of deliberation permitted on issues that are 
critically important to our Nation and our constituents. Nevertheless, 
I am proud, as is my friend from Georgia, that Republicans and 
Democrats--the word he used is ``collaborated,'' and I agree--were able 
to come together to draft H.R. 2029, the legislation that appropriates 
funds to military construction projects, improves the quality of life 
for veterans and military families, and allows for the continued 
operation of the essential functions of our Nation's governing body.
  These measures include the implementation of stringent, but 
effective, reporting requirements for the VistA electronic health 
records system, as well as the continued efforts to eliminate the 
veterans' claims backlog by fully funding endeavors to implement 
digital scanning of health records and improvements to centralized 
mail.

                              {time}  1300

  These commendable provisions bring us another step closer to ensuring 
that those who have dedicated themselves to defending our Nation will 
receive the benefits they have rightly earned and deserve.
  Despite reaching common ground on several important aspects, the 
Republican's fiscal year 2016 budget caps will have real and drastic 
cuts to essential programs that are necessary to support the brave 
individuals who served our great Nation in combat and who will bear the 
costs of those wars for decades to come.
  As a result of the majority's FY 2016 budget resolution spending 
caps, political maneuvering, and gimmicks--I remember when I was a 
child and I first learned about the magical terminology ``hocus-
pocus,'' and it comes to mind that we are sort of in imaginary land 
here, with the political maneuvering and gimmicks--military 
construction funding stands to be slashed by $1.2 billion, and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs comes in at $1.4 billion below the 
amount requested.
  Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, we had a lengthy proceeding, and 
every member on the Rules Committee had an opportunity to speak to this 
issue. Almost as a collective voice, there was criticism of Veterans 
Affairs and how it functions and its failures over a protracted period 
of time.
  I raised a question for information about how many people work for 
VA, total; and I learned for the first time that there are 340,000 
people that work in interrelated capacities for VA.
  The arguments that were being made were made about people who are 
flawed and rightly should be criticized, but I don't feel all 340,000 
people who work on behalf of veterans, particularly in areas that I am 
privileged to serve, have seen changes that are positive and helpful, 
although there is always room for improvement.
  There was one measure for Veterans Affairs employees to receive the 
same 1.3 percent increase in their pay, and this measure disallows 
that, and I don't think that is right. I believe that many of those 
persons have rightfully earned what other Federal employees are to 
receive as a minimal increase in these very troubled economic times.
  My Republican colleagues' efforts to shift $532 million to the 
overseas contingency operations account--which, incidentally, does not 
count against the budget cap--creates the appearance that we have 
allocated the robust and necessary funding that our military requires 
when, in reality, we fail to do so.
  Americans who currently serve and have served in our military, along 
with their families, deserve the very best our Nation has to offer. 
When it comes to investments in our infrastructure, our military, and 
our country, we all must recognize that not all spending is bad 
spending. We can and we must do better.
  H.R. 2028, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016, is also an important piece of 
legislation. This bill provides funding for many critical defense and 
nondefense areas, from vital water resource projects to essential 
weapons, naval reactor, and nuclear proliferation funding. All of these 
funding projects enjoy largely bipartisan support.
  That is why it is a shame, in my view, that my Republican friends 
have

[[Page H2509]]

taken this opportunity to poison these bipartisan funding measures by 
attaching partisan policy riders, and I am sure Members are going to be 
down here speaking loudly about some of them.
  On the one hand, this bill provides very robust funding for the Army 
Corps of Engineers at $5.6 billion in total. That is an increase of 
$142 million from fiscal year 2015.
  I applaud this strong funding effort. Unfortunately, my friends on 
the other side have elected to add an amendment to this funding that 
will allow guns to be carried on all Corps of Engineers land.
  I spoke passionately last night about this, and I anticipate that, 
beginning in the month of May, I will speak more not just about this 
particular measure, but about the epidemic of gun violence in this 
society. I did not coin that phrase. The former Surgeon General, Mr. 
Satcher, pointed that out a decade ago--nearly--and it is as true today 
as at any other point.
  Why would we add an amendment to an important appropriations bill 
that will allow more guns into recreational areas used by families? I 
just simply cannot understand that. Does anyone really believe an 
appropriations bill is the appropriate place to amend our gun laws?
  It would appear that reasonable minds do not. Clause 2 of rule XXI 
prohibits members of the House Rules to legislate on an appropriations 
measure. Significantly and dangerously, Republicans have granted a 
waiver of this important rule.
  I won't speak more about it. As I indicated, there will be more to 
come on this business of guns in our society, and I will make it very 
clear where I am coming from. I feel it is in the interest of society 
and not in opposition to the Second Amendment.
  Here is another example. This bill allocates $1.178 billion for the 
harbor maintenance trust fund, vital funding needed to help further 
usher our ports and harbors in the 21st century, but then my friends on 
the other side of the aisle saw fit to attach an amendment that will 
prevent the Army Corps of Engineers from taking commonsense steps to 
clarify which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act.
  Why, in one instance, are we going to fully fund an agency as vital 
as the Army Corps of Engineers and then, in the next breath, tie their 
hands by preventing them from making commonsense determinations on what 
is widely acknowledged to be a state of confusion about the scope of 
the law's pollution control programs? Let the Corps do its job.
  Why are my friends on the other side of the aisle trying to weigh 
down this important funding bill with unnecessary and partisan policy 
riders?
  This bill funds essential nuclear proliferation activities--$1.9 
million worth--as well as environmental cleanup efforts. We should not 
be threatening the funding to stop the spread of nuclear weapons or the 
preservation of our environment and construction of our harbors just so 
the Republicans can have a partisan fight over gutting the Clean Water 
Act or attempting to change our gun laws.
  The American people deserve better. The funding of these projects is 
too important.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an important responsibility in budgeting in this 
institution--again, one that has not been fulfilled, I would argue, in 
more than a decade, that will be fulfilled this year for the very first 
time.
  We had a choice in the Budget Committee. I serve on the Budget 
Committee as well, Mr. Speaker. We had a choice in the Budget Committee 
about whether or not we were just going to pretend that we could fund 
at certain levels or whether we were going to actually follow the law.
  Mr. Speaker, it may not surprise you that we have those conversations 
in Washington; but, yes, the conversation goes: Am I just going to do 
whatever I want to do? Or am I going to follow the law?

  It is very striking to me that this conversation occurs at all. I 
would have said that that is kind of the definition of the law: you 
don't get whatever you want to do; you have to follow the law. I wish 
that we could drive that message home across so many different parts of 
our society. The law is the law.
  The President absolutely sent some budget requests to us for these 
bills, as he will for other appropriations bills, Mr. Speaker.
  In the case of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill, the 
President requested a 5 percent increase in that funding. Now, had we 
passed that 5 percent increase without changing the law, we are going 
to roll around to October 1, at the beginning of the fiscal year, and 
the law is going to snap that 5 percent increase right back down to 
legally allowed levels.
  The choice we had in the Appropriations Committee--and I so admire my 
friends on the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Speaker--we had a choice 
of either pretending we were going to spend a lot of money funding all 
of our priorities, only to have the law snap those down across the 
board, or we could be honest about how much money was available and 
make sure we were prioritizing every single dollar as best we could.
  In the case of Energy and Water, the President asked for a 5 percent 
increase. The Appropriations Committee provided a 3 percent increase, 
as the law allows. In the case of Military Construction and the VA, the 
President asked for just over an 8 percent increase. The Appropriations 
Committee provided a 6 percent increase, as the law allows.
  I would challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle. I would 
challenge my friends on this side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker. Thirty 
years ago, two-thirds of what the Federal Government funded in this 
country was funded out of this institution. It was funded through the 
Appropriations Committee. It was this body making decisions and choices 
based on our constituents' needs and desires about how to use taxpayer 
dollars--not so today.
  Today, it is exactly the opposite; instead of this institution 
funding two-thirds of the budget and one-third of it being mandatory 
spending, now, two-thirds is mandatory, and only one-third is available 
for this body to make decisions about.
  I would challenge my colleagues: let's find that agreement that 
reforms mandatory spending, as every Member of this Chamber knows needs 
to happen, and let's reallocate those dollars to what was designed in 
the Budget Control Act of 2011 to allow us to fund these discretionary 
priorities at a higher level.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to build things. I want to build things. For 
Pete's sake, in this Energy and Water Development bill, we do. We fund 
the Corps of Engineers in this bill.
  We have the Savannah Harbor expansion project in the great State of 
Georgia. We are the fastest growing container port in the Nation, Mr. 
Speaker--the fastest growing in the Nation--trying to prepare for the 
new Panamax ships coming through the new Panama Canal.
  The Corps of Engineers tells us that in order to maximize the use of 
taxpayer dollars, in order to make sure that taxpayers get the best 
bang for their buck on this project of national importance, we need to 
build it in 6 years, at the rate of $100 million a year. Six years, 
$100 million a year, is the way we maximize taxpayer dollars.
  This bill funds that project at $21 million. That is $21 million. We 
are going to string that project out year after year after year, 
costing the taxpayer more.
  Now, I don't blame my friends on the Appropriations Committee, Mr. 
Speaker. As it turns out, the rules of the House don't allow us to 
prioritize those projects. That is what the President asked for. The 
Appropriations Committee wasn't able to ask for any more than the 
President asked for.
  This is the President's funding level, but that is not the right way 
to appropriate, and if we could work together to reallocate those 
dollars, I would do it tomorrow.
  I challenge my friends to find a mandatory spending reform bill that 
I will not support. It is critical that we do it. It is critical to our 
seniors. It is critical to the young people. It is critical to the 
governance of this Nation.
  But to the degree that I have complaints about this bill, my friends 
have complaints about this bill, with the passage of this rule, we are 
going to

[[Page H2510]]

allow every single Member to come down here and make those improvements 
known. We will have up-or-down votes. Some amendments will lose; some 
amendments will win.
  We will perfect this bill together. That is the way this bill was 
written, and that is the way this bill will be passed, and that should 
make us all very proud.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I so much enjoy the passion of my good 
friend from Georgia. I am sure he feels the same as me. He kind of has 
an advantage over me today, in that he is on the Budget Committee. 
Happily, I would report to him I brought along some people from the 
Budget Committee that can take up the slack that I might offer.
  I am delighted at this time to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth), my good friend from the Budget 
Committee.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend being willing to 
yield.
  I rise in opposition to this rule which deems, as if passed, a budget 
resolution that, at best, is an economic fantasy and, at worst, does 
serious damage to our country.
  The rule before us today is further proof that our Republican 
colleagues are continuing to rely on faith-based accounting in this 
budget. They are closing their eyes and praying that it works. But it 
doesn't work. The numbers don't add up, and this rule makes those 
shortcomings clear.
  The funding levels deemed in this measure do not meet our moral 
obligation to move our country forward and help the American people. 
Not only do they fail to meet the needs of the people we represent, 
they fail to meet a basic standard of honest budgeting.
  For example, we know that trickle-down economics doesn't work. We 
have seen that time and time again, unfortunately, in this century. 
Yet, this rule puts in place funding levels that are supposedly 
balanced by the unsupportable belief that tax cuts generate more 
revenue.
  The Republican budget proposals will result in dramatic cuts to 
education, infrastructure, and innovation, cuts to investments that we 
know we need to prepare our children and grandchildren to lead the 
world in the new global economy and to grow our economy.
  This deemed budget resolution pretends we can afford more tax cuts 
for the ultrawealthy who do not need them, while it increases taxes for 
middle class families that they can't afford.
  This rule deems in place funding levels that will continue to use the 
overseas contingency operations account budget line as a slush fund, 
abandoning the Republicans' own commitments to maintaining sequester-
level spending for our national defense, while cutting nearly every 
program that helps hardworking Americans get ahead.
  At every turn, this measure misses the mark in fulfilling our 
obligation to adequately fund investments that will allow us to 
continue our economic recovery. Simply put, this budget falls woefully 
short.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the funding levels deemed in this rule 
and ensure that American families will not be forced to work harder and 
get less.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I enjoy serving on the Budget Committee with my friend from Kentucky. 
The budget is that first step of any accounting process for the year, 
and my friend is absolutely right.
  If we could have, we would have passed that budget conference report 
first thing when we got into town this week. Anybody who is reading the 
newspaper knows it slowed down in the Senate. We have all the numbers 
worked out. There are some other issues going on. I won't bore folks 
with those details.
  So this rule absolutely does, in the name of getting the people's 
business done, take those budget levels that have passed in this House, 
that have passed in the Senate, that are on their way back over here in 
a conference report, and sets those as the funding levels for this 
year.
  Again, these are the levels that exist in law. That is the fantasy 
part of some of our funding debates. I could agree with all my 
colleagues that we need to triple funding on X, Y, or Z project, but 
the law won't allow it. We will pass that on the floor of the House, 
but as soon as the beginning of the fiscal year rolls around, the law 
will sequester those dollars, snap that funding back down.
  We have an obligation to prioritize these dollars ourselves. Golly, 
when we have tough decisions to be made, I don't want to leave those 
tough decisions to an automatic sequestration process. I don't want to 
leave those tough decisions to some automatic process of law. I want to 
take responsibility for those decisions here. I want us to make these 
decisions together.
  If we have to grapple with it, let us grapple together, but let's be 
honest with folks that there is no free lunch here. If we want it, we 
have to pay for it.
  Now, to my friend from Kentucky's point, we are paying for a lot of 
it out the overseas contingency operations account. I voted ``no'' on 
that decision when it came to the House floor, as my friend from 
Kentucky did as well. We lost.
  That is the funny thing about this institution, Mr. Speaker. I told 
my constituents about all the amazing things I was going to get up here 
to do, I was going to do them on their behalf. It turns out, if I can't 
get 217 of my colleagues up to agree with me, I can't do squat.
  We tried and we failed on that account. So now we have the numbers 
that we have; we have the bill that we have; we have the law that we 
have; and as much as we might want it to be different, it isn't.
  That is why this open rule is so important, Mr. Speaker, because we 
have the bill that we have; we have the law that we have; and now we 
have a process that allows every Member of this Chamber to come down 
here and improve it.
  We don't know what it is going to look like at the end of the 
process. It is not a foregone conclusion who has the votes and who 
doesn't, and I believe in my heart the bill will be better at the end 
than it was at the beginning because that is what the collective wisdom 
of this institution brings.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), another member 
of the Budget Committee, a dear friend of mine.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, before I start, may I make a parliamentary 
inquiry, sir.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Ms. MOORE. My inquiry is, has the concurrent budget passed? Is it 
law?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot respond to a parliamentary 
inquiry on a non-pending measure.
  Ms. MOORE. Well, the rule, Mr. Speaker, is really clear. It says that 
the provisions of the House Concurrent Resolution 27, as adopted by the 
House, shall have the force and effect in the House as though Congress 
has adopted such concurrent resolution. I am hearing that we have 
adopted it, so have we?
  In order to take up these appropriations bills, we are supposed to 
have passed that. I am on the budget conference committee, and I didn't 
recall that we had passed it, sir.
  So I renew my inquiry as to whether or not we are operating under a 
passed budget resolution that has passed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may consult the records of 
the House for that information.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because, 
once again, here we are with all kinds of flowery notions about the law 
and so forth, and we are actually deeming this budget as passed.
  As a member of the Budget Conference Committee, I can tell you that 
the reason for the delay is not because there was an attempt to reach a 
bipartisan agreement. Oh, no. The Democratic budget conferees have been 
completely shut out of the budget negotiation process.
  You would think that without these pesky Democrats in the way, it 
would not have been that hard for the majority-controlled House and the 
Senate to

[[Page H2511]]

come up with an agreement of how best to shred the social safety net, 
drive more people into poverty, cut our investments in infrastructure, 
block grant Medicaid, slash SNAP, end the Affordable Care Act and then, 
of course, keep the money and the savings from the Affordable Care Act, 
and take 69 percent of nondefense cuts from low-income and moderate-
income families. They could have done it.
  So instead of the majority party governing, they have resorted to 
this plan B and deeming the budget as passed.
  Now, you know, this Republican budget claims to balance in 10 years, 
but it doesn't do it. It gets the savings from the Affordable Care Act, 
which it eliminates. And also, to appease the war hawks in the 
Republican caucus, they throw this money into the overseas contingency 
operations, also known as a slush fund.
  And in the underlying budget, we see the Republican Party doubling 
down on the same ``cut our way into prosperity'' approach. That is 
another charade claiming that block grants are just another form of 
enabling States to have more flexibility. When you hear the word 
``flexibility,'' think massive cuts. It means eviscerating the social 
safety net.
  So I ask my colleagues to reject this rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I know the Speaker is constrained to just ruling on parliamentary 
issues. I have no such constraint here. I can opine on the budget 
process itself.
  And I would say to my friend that I share her frustration. I 
absolutely do. I have been in this Chamber 4 years. We have had to deem 
appropriations levels every single year. Not once--not once--have we 
been able to agree on conference budget numbers in the 4 years that I 
have served in this House.
  Now, for the previous 4 years, I confess, I pointed the finger at the 
Senate, and I pointed the finger at the Senate's leader who, at that 
time, was Senator Reid from Nevada. Today we have a new Senate leader, 
and I can't point the finger at the other party. If we can't get this 
right, it is my leader in the Senate who can't get this right. But I 
believe we are. Mr. Speaker, I believe we are.
  Open up any newspaper, look at any report. It was supposed to be done 
earlier this week. We have never had a shot at getting it done in the 
past. We are on the brink of that agreement. So what is happening here 
today, far from being an unusual circumstance, is the best we have done 
in 5 years.
  Now, candidly, that is what I expect from new leadership in the 
Senate. I expect us to do better than we did last year; I expect us to 
do better than we did 2 years ago; and I expect us to be even better 
next year than we are this year. The first time in more than a decade, 
the first time in more than a decade we have had a shot at a governing 
budget document.
  But to be fair, Mr. Speaker, I want to distinguish between the budget 
and the law. A lot of folks believe that the budget of the United 
States becomes the law of the land. It does not. The President never 
signs the budget of the United States. It is an agreement between the 
House and the Senate. That distinguishes it from the budget caps and 
the Budget Control Act, which are absolutely the law of the land, 
passed by the House and Senate, signed by President Obama.
  So when we talk about what it is that we want to see in funding 
levels, we can decide anything we want to in this Chamber. But the law 
of the land is not what we decide in our budget document; it is what 
was decided back in August of 2011 when the budget caps from the Budget 
Control Act came into being.
  Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to have this conference budget 
agreement, the opportunity to be working from the same sheet of 
budgeting music on both sides of the Hill, is amazing. I can't tell 
you, as a Budget Committee member, how hard we have worked to achieve 
it and how much I anticipate it. It wasn't yesterday; so far it is not 
today; but it is going to be soon.
  I don't want that to stand in the way of getting the people's 
business done. We have two great appropriations bills here, again, 
passed by voice votes out of committee, composed in collaborative ways 
within the Appropriations Committee. These two bills deserve to be 
heard on the floor of the House; they deserve to be heard this week; 
and with passage of this rule, they will be.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Florida, the great State of Florida (Ms. Brown), 
my very, very good friend who is an expert in veterans affairs, among 
other things.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House: dead on 
arrival. You know, you can fool some of the people some of the time, 
but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I rise in strong 
opposition to this rule and to the Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs Appropriations bill.
  After taking a step forward with the new Choice Act program, this 
Republican budget takes two steps back with its cuts in veterans health 
care. Just another example of Republicans talking the talk but not 
walking the walk.
  But you don't have to take my word for it. You can ask the veterans 
service organizations who represent the interests of our veterans. 
Every last one of them oppose this bill.

                              {time}  1330

  The national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said the 
following about the Republicans' veterans bill: ``The VA cannot fulfill 
its mission without proper funding, but the House, for whatever reason, 
now wants to ration care, eliminate infrastructure projects, and stop 
improving upon the programs and services that the VA was created to 
provide. This bill is bad for veterans, and any vote for it is 
unconscionable.''
  We are going to vote on a Republican budget later this week that 
provides more money for the Department of Defense than the Pentagon 
requested, while cutting funds for health care and services for every 
veteran that is returning from battle.
  George Washington, the first President of the United States, said: 
``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in 
any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how 
they perceive veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by 
our Nation.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Sadly, this bill truly fails the test of 
appreciation our veterans deserve.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on the Veterans Affairs 
Appropriations bill, and send this bad legislation back to the drawing 
board.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will cut 70,000 veterans from health care. I 
can't imagine any Democrat or any Republican voting for this bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  One of the things I love about this institution is the passion with 
which folks come to the floor of this House, and so often that passion 
is directed at improving the services for those who have served us.
  My friend from Florida is absolutely right when he said in his 
opening statement that in the Rules Committee last night, the 
frustration with the VA and in trying to provide accountable services 
to our veterans was universal. This is not a partisan issue. Serving 
those who have served us is an issue that comes from the heart, and it 
comes from every Member of this Chamber.
  But I will remind all of my friends, if you are wondering whether or 
not we are fulfilling that commitment, this is the bill that this 
institution passed last year with only one dissenting vote. And this 
bill increases funding over last year by 6 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, let no man and no woman question the commitment of our 
friends on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, our friends doing the 
Military Construction and VA Appropriations bill. I know the commitment 
to be universal, which is why in a time of budget cuts, which is why in 
a time of sequestration, which is why in a time when almost every 
account of the Federal budget is under strain, this account goes not 
down but up, and up by 6 percent over what this body passed almost 
unanimously last year.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time remains for 
both sides.

[[Page H2512]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Georgia that 
I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I am also prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I wish to place the Statement of Administration Policy, with 
reference to both these matters, in the Record.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


  H.R. 2029--Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related 
                   Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

                   (Rep. Rogers, R-KY, Apr. 28, 2015)

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
     2029, making appropriations for military construction, the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
     purposes. The bill fails to fully fund critical priorities, 
     including veterans' medical care and military and VA 
     construction. Furthermore, the legislation includes a highly 
     problematic ideological rider that would constrain the 
     President's ability to protect our national security. If the 
     President were presented with H.R. 2029, his senior advisors 
     would recommend that he veto the bill.
       Moreover, enacting H.R. 2029 while adhering to the 
     congressional Republican budget's overall spending limits for 
     fiscal year (FY) 2016 would hurt our economy and shortchange 
     investments in middle-class priorities. Sequestration was 
     never intended to take effect: rather, it was supposed to 
     threaten such drastic cuts to both defense and non-defense 
     funding that policymakers would be motivated to come to the 
     table and reduce the deficit through smart, balanced reforms. 
     The Republican framework would bring base discretionary 
     funding for both defense and non-defense for FY 2016 to the 
     lowest real levels in a decade. Compared to the President's 
     Budget, the cuts would result in tens of thousands of the 
     Nation's most vulnerable children losing access to Head 
     Start, more than two million fewer workers receiving job 
     training and employment services, and thousands fewer 
     scientific and medical research awards and grants, adversely 
     impacting the pace of discovery and innovation, along with 
     other impacts that would hurt the economy, the middle class, 
     and Americans working hard to reach the middle class.
       Maintaining sequestration would also negatively impact 
     programs that provide important services to our Nation's 
     veterans and are funded in appropriations bills where House 
     Republicans propose to make even deeper cuts relative to the 
     President's Budget than in H.R. 2029. For example, American 
     Job Centers serve 1.2 million veterans annually, including 
     300,000 who receive intensive employment services. Transition 
     assistance provides 200,000 service members each year with 
     employment guidance and information as they prepare to enter 
     the civilian workforce. And hundreds of thousands of veterans 
     rely on a wide range of Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development programs for housing support and homeless 
     assistance each year.
       Sequestration levels would also put our national security 
     at unnecessary risk, not only through pressures on defense 
     spending, but also through pressures on State, USAID, 
     Homeland Security, and other non-defense programs that help 
     keep us safe. More broadly, the strength of our economy and 
     the security of our Nation are linked. That is why the 
     President has been clear that he is not willing to lock in 
     sequestration going forward, nor will he accept fixes to 
     defense without also fixing non-defense.
       The President's senior advisors would recommend that he 
     veto H.R. 2029 and any other legislation that implements the 
     current Republican budget framework, which blocks the 
     investments we need for our economy to compete in the future. 
     The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress 
     to reverse sequestration for defense and non-defense 
     priorities and to offset the cost with commonsense spending 
     and tax expenditure cuts, as Members of Congress from both 
     parties have urged.
       The Administration would like to take this opportunity to 
     share additional views regarding the Committee's version of 
     the bill.
       Veterans Affairs Medical Care. The Administration 
     appreciates the Committee's support for our Nation's 
     veterans; however, the Administration objects to the 
     Committee's overall $585 million reduction to the FY 2016 
     Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Care request. If enacted, this 
     reduction would negatively impact medical care services for 
     tens of thousands of veterans and reduce VA's ability to 
     activate new and replacement facilities with sufficient staff 
     and equipment and to adequately maintain facility 
     infrastructure.
       Veterans Affairs Construction. The Administration objects 
     to the Committee's $582 million reduction to the FY 2016 VA 
     major construction request. This reduction would prevent 
     building upgrades and renovations, including necessary 
     expansions to medical facilities and national cemeteries that 
     would improve services to our veterans. The bill would 
     significantly constrain VA's ability to make progress on its 
     highest priority capital projects.
       Other Veterans Affairs Reductions. The Administration also 
     objects to the Committee's other reductions to the overall VA 
     request, including $159 million in reductions for employee 
     awards, bonuses, and the President's proposed 1.3 percent pay 
     raise for Federal employees. As VA attempts to enhance 
     staffing to deliver better care to veterans, these reductions 
     will hinder the Department's ability to recruit and retain 
     personnel critical to the provision of benefits and services 
     to veterans The Administration urges the Congress to provide 
     the proposed 1.3 percent pay increase for Federal civilian 
     employees.
       Military Construction. The Administration objects to the 
     Committee's underfunding of military construction in the 
     President's FY 2016 base defense budget by $1.3 billion, 
     which will delay or defer projects that serve critical needs 
     for members of our Armed Forces and their families. The 
     projects requested in the FY 2016 Budget reflect the highest 
     priority projects for the Department of Defense, and the 
     Administration requests full funding for each project.
       Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) Funds. The 
     Administration strongly objects to the Committee's use of 
     $532 million of OCO funds intended for wars and not subject 
     to the budget caps to pay for long-term infrastructure 
     investments. Shifting long-term defense costs to OCO is bad 
     budget policy and bad defense policy, since it undermines 
     long-term planning. Moreover, the Administration has made 
     clear that it will not accept attempts to fix defense without 
     nondefense by using OCO as a mechanism to evade the defense 
     budget cap.
       Detainee Matters. The Administration strongly objects to 
     section 512 of the bill, which prohibits the use of funds to 
     construct, renovate, or expand any facility in the United 
     States to house individuals held in the detention facility at 
     Guantanamo Bay. This provision would constrain the 
     flexibility that the Nation's Armed Forces and 
     counterterrorism professionals need to best protect U.S. 
     national security, intruding upon the Executive Branch's 
     ability to carry out its mission.
       The Administration looks forward to working with the 
     Congress as the FY 2016 appropriations process moves forward.
                                  ____


                   Statement of Administration Policy


     H.R. 2028--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
                        Appropriations Act, 2016

                   (Rep. Rogers, R-KY, Apr. 28, 2015)

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
     2028, making appropriations for energy and water development, 
     and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2016, and for other purposes. The bill drastically underfunds 
     critical investments that develop American energy sources to 
     build a clean and secure energy future; develop and 
     commercialize the emerging technologies that create high-
     quality jobs and enhance the Nation's economic 
     competitiveness; and improve resilience against current and 
     ongoing climate impacts that threaten our economy, public 
     health, and natural resources. As a result, it would put at 
     risk U.S. competitiveness in new markets for clean energy 
     industries such as advanced vehicles, advanced manufacturing, 
     energy efficiency for homes and businesses, and domestic 
     renewable energy such as wind, solar, and biomass. It would 
     also harm efforts to implement the President's nuclear 
     strategy and advance counter-proliferation objectives. 
     Furthermore, the legislation includes highly problematic 
     ideological riders, including provisions that threaten to 
     undermine our ability to protect a resource that is essential 
     to America's health: clean water. If the President were 
     presented with H.R. 2028, his senior advisors would recommend 
     that he veto the bill.
       In addition, enacting H.R. 2028, while adhering to the 
     congressional Republican budget's overall spending limits for 
     fiscal year (FY) 2016 would hurt our economy and shortchange 
     investments in middle-class priorities. Sequestration was 
     never intended to take effect: rather, it was supposed to 
     threaten such drastic cuts to both defense and non-defense 
     funding that policymakers would be motivated to come to the 
     table and reduce the deficit through smart, balanced reforms. 
     The Republican framework would bring base discretionary 
     funding for both defense and non-defense for FY 2016 to the 
     lowest real levels in a decade. Compared to the President's 
     Budget, the cuts would result in tens of thousands of the 
     Nation's most vulnerable children losing access to Head 
     Start, more than two million fewer workers receiving job 
     training and employment services, and thousands fewer 
     scientific and medical research awards and grants, adversely 
     impacting the pace of discovery and innovation, along with 
     other impacts that would hurt the economy, the middle class, 
     and Americans working hard to reach the middle class.
       Sequestration levels would also put our national security 
     at unnecessary risk, not only through pressures on defense 
     spending, but also through pressures on State, USAID, 
     Homeland Security, and other non-defense programs that help 
     keep us safe. More broadly, the strength of our economy and 
     the security of our Nation are linked. That is why the 
     President has been clear that he is not willing to lock in 
     sequestration going forward, nor will he accept fixes to 
     defense without also fixing non-defense.

[[Page H2513]]

       The President's senior advisors would recommend that he 
     veto H.R. 2028 and any other legislation that implements the 
     current Republican budget framework, which blocks the 
     investments needed for our economy to compete in the future. 
     The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress 
     to reverse sequestration for defense and non-defense 
     priorities and offset the cost with commonsense spending and 
     tax expenditure cuts, as Members of Congress from both 
     parties have urged.
       The Administration would like to take this opportunity to 
     share additional views regarding the Committee's version of 
     the bill.


                       Department of Energy (DOE)

       Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The 
     Administration strongly objects to the $1.6 billion provided 
     in the bill for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
     Energy. Overall this level is $1.1 billion below the FY 2016 
     Budget request. Relative to the FY 2016 Budget request, the 
     bill reduces funding for renewable energy by 49 percent, 
     sustainable transportation by 35 percent, and energy 
     efficiency by 40 percent. The proposed reductions 
     significantly underfund critical activities that support the 
     development and commercialization of clean energy 
     technologies. At this funding level, the number of research, 
     development, and demonstration projects supported in 
     cooperation with industry, universities, and the national 
     labs would be reduced, limiting innovation and technological 
     advancement, curtailing solutions to cut U.S. dependence on 
     oil and reduce energy waste, and undermining the Nation's 
     industrial competitiveness in the future global clean energy 
     economy. The Congress is urged to fully fund the FY 2016 
     Budget request of $2.7 billion. The Administration is also 
     disappointed that the bill does not include transfer language 
     necessary to support joint efforts with the Navy and the 
     Department of Agriculture to develop advanced drop-in 
     biofuels for military applications, a provision included in 
     the FY 2015 enacted bill.
       Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). The 
     Administration objects to the $280 million provided in the 
     bill for ARPA-E, which is $45 million below the FY 2016 
     Budget request. This funding reduction would impact 
     investments and delay improvements in technologies that 
     reduce energy-related emissions, increase energy efficiency 
     across multiple economic sectors, and reduce energy imports.
       Fossil Energy and Nuclear Energy. The Administration notes 
     that the bill includes funding above the FY 2016 Budget 
     request in some areas that are already well established in 
     the market, including for nuclear and fossil energy, and yet 
     makes drastic reductions in those that are most crucial to 
     the Nation's clean energy future and continued U.S. 
     technology leadership. The Administration encourages the 
     Congress to fund DOE's energy programs at the requested 
     level, as this balances the portfolio among items of short, 
     medium, and long-term progress and promotes U.S. leadership 
     in these technology areas.
       Office of Science. While the Administration appreciates the 
     Committee's support for the Office of Science, the level of 
     funding provided, which is $240 million below the FY 2016 
     Budget request, is insufficient to maintain U.S. leadership 
     in high performance computing as the United States moves into 
     capable exascale systems to support discovery science, 
     national security, and economic competitiveness.
       Disposition of Weapons-Usable Plutonium. The Administration 
     objects to language in the bill that requires the Secretary 
     of Energy to continue construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel 
     Fabrication Facility. This language is unnecessarily 
     restrictive and would preclude alternative, and potentially 
     more cost-effective, approaches to implementing U.S. 
     commitments in the 2000 Plutonium Management and Disposition 
     Agreement and its 2010 annex to dispose of excess weapons 
     plutonium. DOE contracted for an independent validation of 
     costs for plutonium disposition alternatives in accordance 
     with congressional mandates. The results of that analysis 
     will inform the Administration's approach to plutonium 
     disposition. Information on the first phase of that analysis 
     was provided to the Congress on April 21st.
       Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The Administration 
     opposes the $212 million level provided for SPR. In addition 
     to base program activities, the FY 2016 Budget request of 
     $257 million includes resources to fund timely replacement of 
     equipment and physical systems, to begin to address the 
     backlog of deferred maintenance activities, and to enhance 
     distribution flexibility and reliability.
       Energy Information Administration (EIA). The Administration 
     urges the Congress to fully fund the FY 2016 Budget request 
     of $131 million for EIA to support expanded domestic energy 
     data and analysis, address critical energy data gaps 
     (including monthly movements of crude oil by rail), and 
     increase integration of EIA energy data with Canada and 
     Mexico.
       Yucca Mountain. The Administration objects to the funding 
     provided in the bill for Yucca Mountain and is disappointed 
     with the rejection of the practical solutions proposed in the 
     President's nuclear waste strategy. As reflected in the FY 
     2016 Budget request, this strategy incorporates important and 
     workable elements, such as consent-based siting, interim 
     storage of waste, and program funding reforms that are 
     essential to the success of a Nuclear Waste Program.
       Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Yucca Mountain. The 
     Administration objects to the funding provided in the bill 
     for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue 
     adjudication of the Yucca Mountain license application.
       Office of the Federal Coordinator (OFC) for Alaska Natural 
     Gas Transportation Projects. The Administration appreciates 
     full funding for the OFC at the level of the FY 2016 Budget 
     request, but is disappointed that the statutory amendment 
     proposed in the FY 2016 Budget request is not included. The 
     amendment is critical to the OFC's ability to fulfill its 
     mission under current market conditions, which have changed 
     the nature of projects being proposed.


                Corps of Engineers--Civil Works (Corps)

       Overall Funding. The bill provides nearly $5.6 billion for 
     the Corps civil works program. The Administration believes 
     the more appropriate overall funding levels proposed in the 
     FY 2016 Budget request would limit wasteful spending on 
     projects that provide a low or marginal return to the Nation 
     and would avoid reductions in other priority areas, such as 
     protecting the Nation's water resources and important 
     investments in clean energy technologies.
       Corps Regulatory Program. The Administration encourages the 
     Congress to fund the Corps regulatory program at the 
     requested level. A $5 million reduction in funding would 
     inhibit the Corps' ability to issue permits in a timely 
     manner and to protect important aquatic resources, while 
     undertaking needed programmatic improvements, including 
     implementation of the pending Clean Water rulemaking.
       Clean Water Act (C WA). The Administration believes that 
     the CWA riders in the bill undermine efforts to protect 
     America's clean water resources, which are critical to 
     American families and businesses. The Administration strongly 
     objects to section 105 of the bill in particular, which would 
     disrupt the Administration's current efforts to clarify the 
     scope of CWA, hamstring future regulatory efforts, and create 
     significant ambiguity regarding existing regulations and 
     guidance.
       Firearms Policy. The Administration objects to section 107 
     of the bill, which prohibits the Corps from enforcing its ban 
     on firearms at a water resources development project. If 
     enacted, this provision would prevent the Secretary of the 
     Army from using the discretion now provided in law to enforce 
     or revise the current Corps policy, based on considerations 
     such as the security of critical infrastructure, public and 
     employee safety, and the manner in which the firearm is 
     carried (e.g., open vs. concealed). Corps rangers are not 
     authorized to carry firearms and do not have full Federal law 
     enforcement authority.
       National Ocean Policy. The Administration objects to 
     section 505 of the bill, which prohibits any funding provided 
     in the bill from being used to implement the marine planning 
     components of the National Ocean Policy. This rider would 
     prohibit DOE and the Corps from participating in marine and 
     coastal planning efforts, a process to better determine how 
     the ocean, the Nation's coasts, and the Great Lakes are 
     managed in an efficient manner.


  Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah 
                                Project

       Overall Funding. The bill provides nearly $1.1 billion for 
     the Bureau of Reclamation and $9.9 million for the Central 
     Utah Project. The Administration appreciates the Committee's 
     support for the Bureau of Reclamation water resources 
     program.
       The Administration looks forward to working with the 
     Congress as the FY 2016 appropriations process moves forward.

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased with the level of 
support provided in these pieces of legislation for essential military, 
veterans, defense, and water resources programs, they should not serve 
as vehicles to make substantive policy changes to our Nation's gun laws 
or gut important environmental protections; nor should we stand idly by 
while Republicans in Congress slash funding for critically important 
veterans and military services under the guise of a spending increase.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I talked about last night, I 
offered an amendment that would self-execute to the rule that would 
strike section 107 from the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This 
is one of the riders in H.R. 2028 that would allow guns to be carried 
on Army Corps land.
  If enacted in its current form, this legislation would strip the 
Secretary of the Army from using the discretion currently provided to 
enforce or revise the Corps' policy prohibiting firearms on Corps land.
  Removing the discretionary powers from law enforcement officials that 
allow them to determine what is best for the security of our Nation's 
infrastructure and the safety of public employees, in my judgment, is 
dangerous and wrong.
  Substantive changes to our gun laws do not belong in an 
appropriations bill.

[[Page H2514]]

And that could not have happened but for a waiver, which my friends 
tend to do for a variety of measures, and they wind up being poison 
pills in substantive legislation.
  While I believe in the right of Americans to own firearms, last night 
I made it very clear: I own a gun. When I was a child, at age 7, I had 
a BB gun. When I was 12 years old, I had a single-shot rifle. And I was 
taught, as were all of my friends, to not point those guns at people 
unless you intended to do them harm.
  We, as boys, had the same kinds of fights that I imagine occur at any 
of our institutions. But not one of us would run home and get a gun or 
carry a gun. To proliferate this society with the variety of gun laws 
that exist, where people can carry guns openly on Corps land or 
concealed in certain other States, that is just plain crazy.
  Last night, I referenced a statement by then-Surgeon General Satcher 
that I used again today: ``Youth violence is an epidemic.'' He 
delivered that in response to a report he commissioned in the year 
2002. At the time, his study revealed that 13 children each day died as 
a result of guns.
  Indeed, the gun violence epidemic that plagues our Nation has not 
diminished in recent years. In Riviera Beach last week, a child 2 years 
old was shot. In the same constituency that I am privileged to serve, a 
mother was fatally shot by her 3-year-old that got her gun from her 
purse.
  People, we need to pay attention to what is going on. And I intend in 
May to raise this issue in this body and around this Nation so that 
people can learn just how many people are dying in this way.
  I want to make it very, very clear. The National Rifle Association 
does not control this body nor the Florida Legislature nor any other 
body. As I said, I don't mind arguing for the Second Amendment. But to 
carry it to the extent that it has gone is just plain wrong. Everybody 
in our society knows that, and I am going to try to make sure that they 
continue to know that.
  Now, there is another thing about this bill. It locks in 
sequestration. The administration speaks to that subject in their 
Statement of Administration Policy.
  The Republican framework would bring base discretionary funding for 
both defense and nondefense to the lowest levels in a decade. Compared 
to the President's budget, the cuts would result in tens of thousands 
of the Nation's most vulnerable children losing access to Head Start; 
more than 2 million fewer workers receiving job training and employment 
services; and thousands fewer scientific and medical research awards 
and grants, adversely impacting the pace of discovery, any innovation, 
along with other impacts that would hurt the economy, the middle class, 
and Americans working hard to reach the middle class.
  Sequestration levels were never meant to put us in this unnecessary 
risk, and I would urge that we not go forward in this manner.
  I would say to my good friend from Georgia that we may be on the 
brink of what excites him--and it would excite me as well--if we got 
ourselves a balanced budget, but a part of that has gimmickry in it as 
well. It is done on the reconciliation because the great majority of 
people over in the other body may not have the same sentiment as some 
who serve on the relevant committee at this point in time in the U.S. 
Senate.
  Cliche allows that Yogi Berra be utilized here; that is, ``It ain't 
over 'til it's over.''
  I was told last week that we were going to pass this thing, that it 
was going to come back from the Senate on Wednesday. Last time I 
looked, this was Wednesday. Or as my daddy used to say, It is Wednesday 
all day long unless it rains. I never did know what would happen if it 
rained. I guess it would just be a rainy Wednesday.
  But it ain't here Wednesday. And now I am hearing from my good friend 
from Georgia that they are close. That is what happened when we set up 
this thing with this special committee, superpeople, supercommittee 
that was supposed to bring us back a budget, and then missed out on 
opportunities with Erskine Bowles and brought us back this 
sequestration that has this body hamstrung and has us in the position 
of allowing that authorizers and appropriators are locked into the 
position that they are in because of sequestration.
  We need to get rid of that. We need to return to earmarks. We need to 
do a number of things that will allow for this body--and not for the 
bureaucracy--to control many aspects of what is the implementation of 
policy that is made here.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I have stated a number of reasons. I 
will not go into every one of the riders. There are others, and I am 
sure people are going to speak about them. But I urge a ``no'' vote on 
the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida says, It's not over 'til it's 
over.
  I say to my friend, it is only just beginning. It is only just 
beginning with this rule today. With the passage of this rule today, 
Mr. Speaker, we are beginning the 2016 appropriations process. And we 
are doing it in ways that we have not done before since I received a 
voting card in this body.
  Number one, we are beginning at the earliest date in 40 years. Not 
since 1973 has this Chamber gotten about the people's business as early 
as we are this year. The people deserve it. The people have earned it. 
And we are delivering on it today. I am proud of that fact.
  Number two, Mr. Speaker, we are, in fact, on the brink of the first 
balanced budget conference report this body has seen since 2003. It is 
too long coming. We have had to deem appropriations levels year after 
year after year, not on just two bills, as we are today, but on the 
entire package. That report could be filed as early as this afternoon, 
and there is no question but that it is going to pass both of these 
bodies. It is good work from this institution and the Senate across the 
Hill.
  But, Mr. Speaker, as you could hear in the passion in my friend from 
Florida's voice, not everyone is going to be happy with every line in 
these two bills.

                              {time}  1345

  I don't have to just look to the Democratic side of the aisle. I can 
look to the Republican side of the aisle. Not everyone is going to be 
happy with every line of this bill; but do you know what, any Member 
can come and change any line.
  The Rules Committee protected no language in this bill. Any Member 
can come and change any line. Any Member can come and make these bills 
better. Any Member can come and have their district's voice heard. All 
you have to do is find 217 of your friends to agree with you; we will 
pass it, and we will send it to the United States Senate for 
consideration.
  Mr. Speaker, that is the way it ought to be. These are going to be 
some long nights we are going to have; these are going to be some 
lengthy amendment debates we are going to have; these are going to be 
some vote-a-ramas we are going to have, but America is going to be the 
better for it because the laws of the land that we pass are going to be 
better for it.
  I have the Statement of Administration Policy here, Mr. Speaker. I 
have one for each one of the bills that this rule makes in order. The 
President has said in these Statements of Administration Policy that 
his senior advisers are going to recommend that he veto these bills. 
Why? It is because these bills and other legislation implement the 
current Republican budget framework which blocks the needed investments 
for our economy to compete in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not the Republican budget framework. It is called 
the law of the land as signed by President Barack Obama. We can pretend 
the law doesn't exist, or we can confront the law as it exists. That is 
what these bills do, a 6 percent increase in veterans funding and a 3 
percent increase in our energy and water investment. In a time of 
austere budgets, we are plussing up those accounts that are so 
important to our constituents back home.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support for this rule, I urge strong 
support for the underlying bills, and I urge strong support for 
beginning the process where every single Member will be able to have 
his or her voice heard.
  It is the way this institution ought to be, and it is the way this 
institution will be if we pass this rule today.

[[Page H2515]]

  Mr. Speaker, 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. HASTINGS. 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 the resolution will be followed by a 5-
minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 651.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240, 
nays 186, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 176]

                               YEAS--240

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Russell
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Chaffetz
     Cleaver
     Cummings
     Engel
     Royce

                              {time}  1415

  Messrs. PETERSON, MOULTON, and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. BROOKS of Alabama changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________