[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17436-17445]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6599, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND 
               VETERANS AFFAIRS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1384 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1384

       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. 6599) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding clause 
     11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill shall be in order 
     except those printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII 
     in a daily issue dated July 30, 2008, or earlier and except 
     pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. Each 
     amendment so printed may be offered only by the Member who 
     caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be 
     considered as read. When the committee rises and reports the 
     bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill do 
     pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 6599 
     pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of 
     the previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated 
     by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I 
yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent 
that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and 
extend their remarks on House Resolution 1384.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1384 provides an open rule 
with a preprinting requirement. The rule provides 1 hour of general 
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman 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 provides that any amendment to the bill must be printed in 
the Congressional Record by July 30. Each amendment so printed may be 
offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee 
and shall be considered as read.
  The rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Finally, the rule provides that the Chair may postpone further 
consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to stand with my colleagues 
in support of H.R. 6599, the 2009 Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs Appropriations Act and this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the New Direction Congress has made the lives of 
America's veterans one of our top priorities. Years from now, history 
will reflect that it was this Democratically led 110th Congress, in the 
middle of two wars, that renewed the country's commitment to veterans 
and their health.
  Our commitment simply is a reflection of the pride and appreciation 
the American people have for the service of their brave men and women 
in uniform, who have served so greatly in recent conflicts and wars.

                              {time}  1215

  Now, just weeks ago, after months of perseverance in the face of 
opposition from the White House, this Congress, in a bipartisan way, 
adopted the new 21st century GI Bill that provides a full 4-year 
college tuition to veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The new 
GI Bill for our veterans was adopted by a vote here in the House of 
256-156.
  Last year, we adopted the largest reform and investment in veterans' 
health care in the history of the Veterans Administration. And just 
yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Congress adopted additional reforms to the 
Veterans Administration process that will improve the lives of veterans 
across this country.
  Congressman Cazayoux from Louisiana brought H.R. 6445, that prohibits 
the collection by the Department of Veterans Affairs of copayments or 
other fees for hospital or nursing home care when they are 
catastrophically disabled.
  Congressman Paul Hodes of New Hampshire also brought H.R. 2192, that 
establishes in the Department of Veterans Affairs an Office of the 
Ombudsman to act as a liaison to veterans and their families with 
respect to VA health care and their benefits.
  I also salute my colleague, Congressman John Hall of New York. We 
adopted his bill yesterday, H.R. 5892, the Veterans Disability Benefits 
Claims Modernization Act, that directs the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to modernize the disability benefits claims processing system 
to ensure that our veterans are served in a timely and accurate way.
  Now, in this appropriations bill that is before the House today, the 
American people, through the actions of this Congress, will provide the 
necessary resources for veterans and facilities and the infrastructure 
for the Armed Forces. This includes training facilities, housing, and 
equipment for our troops in their ongoing fight to defend our great 
Nation here and overseas.
  While our brave servicemembers are overseas, most military families 
remain at home on bases, and we are committed to an excellent standard 
of living for them and quality of life. That includes convenient child 
care,

[[Page 17437]]

and a safe and affordable place to live. I know this because I have 
conversations with the men and women who serve on the MacDill Air Force 
Base in my hometown of Tampa, Florida. They tell me that they feel much 
more safe and secure knowing that their families are well taken care of 
and well served back home on the base.
  So Members should be proud that we have gone above and beyond the 
White House's initial budget offering. We provide nearly $4 billion 
more than the President in additional resources, particularly for our 
veterans health care programs.
  Just last week, a panel testified before the Congress that returning 
soldiers still are not receiving the health care they deserve at Walter 
Reed and across the country, and this is unacceptable. And that is why 
in this appropriations bill we fund the VA health care system to try to 
get it back on track because we've asked everything of these great men 
and women, the ultimate sacrifice, and the least we can do as their 
government is support them when they return and ensure that they have 
the health care they need. When our troops go off to fight valiantly 
for our country, we're going to ensure that they have the best health 
care when they return.
  Now, the signature injuries of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are 
the traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder. 
Oftentimes, these injuries will require a lifetime of continuing 
medical care. In fact, the Veterans Health Administration estimates 
that just next year, in 2009, they will treat more than 5.8 million 
patients. I'm very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, that in my hometown of 
Tampa, we have an outstanding VA hospital, the James Haley VA Center. 
It is known as the busiest VA hospital in the country. We are also 
fortunate to have one of only four polytrauma units there that serve 
the most critically wounded veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  So I've seen directly how oftentimes medical staff is overworked, 
they don't have the facilities that they need. That's why we provide 
above and beyond the President's request and reject his $38 million cut 
for medical and prosthetic research. We will continue to invest in 
medical military construction to improve the aging and outdated medical 
treatment facilities so they have access to the best medical care.
  Now, to help the VA get a head start on helping those hundreds of 
thousands of new patients in the VA system, we're going to ask that 
they bring on additional VA claims processors because there is a 
terrible backlog in this country, and that's the last thing that our 
veterans should have to face after their service. Currently, in my 
State, there are over 25,000 pending cases, and nearly 19 percent of 
those have been in a holding pattern for over 180 days. We can and we 
must do better for our veterans.
  We also oppose, through this appropriations bill, the Bush 
administration's squeeze on veterans' wallets. The Bush administration 
has proposed increases in enrollment fees and doubling of prescription 
drug copayments. How sensible is it to add to the already large number 
of uninsured in America by making it harder for those who have 
sacrificed in service to this Nation to get the care they need? Well, 
this New Direction Congress can and will do better for our veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly applaud the leadership of 
Chairman Chet Edwards, who held numerous hearings in an open, 
bipartisan process that gave Members and the many military families and 
veterans groups an opportunity to review and weigh in, in a thoughtful 
and responsible way, to ensure that our current and past military 
troops and their families get the much-needed funding for various 
programs that they have earned by way of their service.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the American people will appreciate that this is 
a bipartisan effort for our country's sons and daughters, who put their 
lives on the line for us every day. We will fulfill our promise to help 
them lead whole and healthy lives in honor of their sacrifice.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague 
from Florida (Ms. Castor) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it is astonishing to me to what 
lengths this liberal Congress will go to shut down debate and close the 
legislative process.
  This House, Mr. Speaker, has become far more dictatorial and far less 
deliberative in the last 19 months than ever before. In this Congress, 
there have been 59 closed rules, which is more than in any Congress in 
the history of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, as you well know, a closed rule means Members are 
prohibited from coming to the House floor and offering an amendment to 
the bill that is being considered on the floor. An open rule allows 
Members to offer amendments to a bill that's being considered on the 
House floor. Mr. Speaker, it is simply as simple as that.
  But Mr. Speaker, there hasn't been one single, solitary open rule 
this entire year in this body. For this entire Congress, going back to 
January of last year, there has been only one open rule on bills that 
were not appropriations bills. These facts present a stark picture of 
just how closed and restrictive this liberal Congress has become.
  Yet the Speaker and Democrat-controlled Rules Committee aren't 
satisfied with having the worst, most closed record in history. They've 
decided to go even further to undermine the rules and traditions of the 
U.S. House of Representatives. With this rule, they've reached an 
absolute new low. They have chosen to breach the long-standing, 
bipartisan process of an open rule for the consideration of 
appropriations bills.
  On what has been an open process on the House floor not just for 
years, not for decades, but dating back to the creation of the 
Appropriations Committee itself, this process is being closed down by 
this oppressive, liberal Congress.
  This rule provides for consideration of the Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs funding bill for the next fiscal year. It is a bill 
that has always, Mr. Speaker, had strong bipartisan support. For 
example, last year it passed by a recorded vote of 409 in favor and 
only two against. And during that debate last year, there were just 15 
amendments that were offered. And the total debate on the House floor 
was just 5 hours, which is a short time for appropriations bills.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no part of this record that justifies what is 
being proposed today to decimate this open process. There is simply no 
excuse for what is being done and proposed by this rule.
  I can only conclude that this is a blatant political attempt to 
stifle debate on the House floor in order to hold onto political power. 
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, it is being done at the expense of the rules and 
traditions of the People's House, the U.S. House of Representatives.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the new fiscal year begins on October 1; 
that's just 62 days away. Yet this House hasn't passed one single 
appropriations bill. At the end of the week, it will probably have 
passed one. By comparison, Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the Republican House 
had passed every bill except one by this point of the year.
  It is a troubling, disappointing, and dangerous situation when those 
who control this liberal Congress are punting on their duty to pass the 
12 annual appropriations bills while simultaneously undermining the 
open consideration of these very same appropriations bills, an open 
process that has been a bipartisan hallmark of this House since the 
inception of the Appropriations Committee.
  And why is this being done, Mr. Speaker? Again, I can only conclude 
that it is because this liberal Congress refuses to allow open debate 
and votes on producing more American-made energy. Those who control 
this Congress have refused to allow a vote on lifting the ban on 
offshore drilling, at ANWR in Alaska, and on other Federal lands.
  Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama oppose offshore drilling 
and in ANWR, but they refuse to let

[[Page 17438]]

Congress vote on this important issue while gas prices, Mr. Speaker, 
are at record levels and Americans are hurting.
  Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record three articles, one from 
the New York Times regarding Speaker Pelosi, one from the McClatchy 
Washington Bureau regarding Speaker Pelosi's position on offshore 
drilling, one in the House of nearly 6 weeks ago from The Hill 
regarding Mr. Obama's opinion on drilling, and one from the Las Vegas 
Review Journal regarding Majority Leader Reid's position on drilling in 
the Senate.
  As you know, Speaker Pelosi has repeatedly insisted that this House 
won't ever vote, is not going to be permitted to vote, and that she 
will do everything possible to block a vote on lowering gas prices by 
producing more American-made energy by drilling for our own Nation's 
gas and oil. Americans can't afford this head-in-the-sand approach. 
Congress needs to stand up and vote on the Republicans' ``all of the 
above'' energy plan that simply says, let's do everything that we can 
to produce more American-made energy, including pursuing more clean 
alternatives like wind and solar, more nuclear power, more biodiesel, 
improving conservation, more investment in new technology research, and 
of course, immediately more drilling and refining of oil and gas from 
America's huge underground reserves.
  Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear: we can continue with this ``drill 
nothing'' approach, or we can decide to act, to change course and to 
debate and vote on the Republicans ``all of the above'' plan to lower 
gas prices by producing more energy here in America and finding ways, 
at the same time, to use less.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe our ``all of the above'' approach to lowering 
gas prices would pass. It would pass, I believe, Mr. Speaker, if it 
were permitted to have a vote on this House floor. I believe there is a 
majority that would vote for it in this U.S. House. But such a vote has 
yet to be allowed and is not being allowed today. And next week, we're 
going on a 5-week vacation. Mr. Speaker, I think that is intolerable.
  The House is being shut down in new, bolder ways to block a vote on 
producing American-made energy. And as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, 
this rule is proof of it.
  The long-standing, bipartisan practice of considering appropriations 
bills under an open process is being trampled on by this rule. The 
actions that are being taken to restrict and shut down Members' ability 
to offer amendments and debate spending bills--which I might add, Mr. 
Speaker, is the very job that the American people elected us to do--is 
being undermined by this appropriations process, and it creates a very 
dangerous and volatile situation in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, the leaders and the chairmen who've made this decision 
may well rue the day that they chose to go down this path.

                              {time}  1230

  By their actions, bipartisanship is being diminished, but more 
importantly, Mr. Speaker, the traditions of this House are being 
diminished. One cannot trample on the rules and practices of traditions 
of this House with impunity and then expect no long-term damage to 
result.
  This is a sad and shameful rule. So I urge my colleagues to oppose it 
and demand this House uphold open rules for consideration of 
appropriations bills, which is one of the best practices historically 
of this institution. If we do not correct the closed rule course that 
is being set by this rule, it will do a great deal of long-term harm to 
this House that will prove, in my opinion, more difficult to reverse in 
the future.

                [From the New York Times, July 17, 2008]

             For Pelosi, a Fight Against Offshore Drilling

                            (By Carl Hulse)

       Washington.--Upon entering Congress in 1987, Representative 
     Nancy Pelosi quickly became part of the solid California 
     front against oil drilling along much of the nation's coast.
       The Santa Barbara oil spill in 1969 and the steady push to 
     tap the potential reserves off the state's rugged coast had 
     galvanized Californians and made opposition to offshore 
     drilling part of the political DNA of up-and-coming figures 
     like Ms. Pelosi.
       She repeatedly resisted oil drilling in marine sanctuaries 
     near her San Francisco district and, after joining the 
     Appropriations Committee, was an advocate of reinstating the 
     ban on coastal drilling through spending restrictions each 
     year.
       ``We learned the hard way that oil and water do not mix on 
     our coast,'' Ms. Pelosi told a crucial committee in 1996 as 
     she argued for keeping the ban before a Congress then 
     controlled by Republicans.
       Now, with gasoline prices soaring, those drilling 
     restrictions are facing their most severe test in years as 
     calls intensify to pursue domestic oil more forcefully. Yet 
     despite increasing pressure from President Bush, a full-bore 
     assault by Congressional Republicans and some anxiety among 
     her own rank-and-file Democrats, Ms. Pelosi is not budging.
       ``The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a 
     gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying 
     to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore,'' Ms. 
     Pelosi said in an interview. ``That is not the cause, and I 
     am not going to let him get away with it.''
       Her voice carries considerable weight because Ms. Pelosi, 
     who is now House speaker, can prevent a vote on expanded 
     drilling from reaching the floor.
       And she and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority 
     leader, appear intent on holding the line against calls to 
     approve drilling in areas now off limits. They argue that the 
     oil and gas industry is not aggressively exploring large 
     expanses it has already leased on land and offshore. They 
     have also urged Mr. Bush to pour some fuel from national 
     reserves into the commercial supply chain in an effort to 
     lower prices.
       Trying to demonstrate that Democrats are not opposed to 
     drilling in acceptable locales, the House is scheduled to 
     vote on Thursday on a proposal that would deny oil companies 
     any new leases unless they can show they are diligently 
     exploring existing holdings. The measure would also require 
     annual lease sales from lands in Alaska set aside as a 
     National Petroleum Reserve, and direct the Interior 
     Department to make sure a pipeline is linked to the reserves. 
     Democrats, not subtly, are calling the measure the Drill 
     Responsibly in Leased Lands, or Drill, Act.
       In the Senate, Democrats are pushing a measure to curb 
     speculation in oil markets.
       But Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican 
     leader, who is escorting a delegation to the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge in Alaska this weekend, said the Democrats' 
     approach was woefully insufficient. Mr. Boehner said Ms. 
     Pelosi, in insisting on preserving the drilling ban, was 
     putting Democrats in the crosshairs of voters furious about 
     gas prices.
       ``I think Speaker Pelosi is walking her Blue Dogs and other 
     vulnerable Democrats off a cliff, and they know it,'' said 
     Mr. Boehner, referring to the coalition of Democrats 
     representing more conservative districts.
       He accused the speaker of using procedural maneuvers to 
     thwart votes on expanded drilling, a position that he said 
     would prevail if the moment arrived. ``Harry Reid and Nancy 
     Pelosi are standing in the way of what the American people 
     want,'' Mr. Boehner said.
       In both the House and Senate, small groups of Democrats 
     have begun meeting informally with Republicans to try to 
     reach a bipartisan response to higher oil prices, and opening 
     up new areas to drilling is part of the mix. Leaders of the 
     Blue Dog coalition are openly pressing for drilling in the 
     Arctic refuge and elsewhere.
       Backers of the drilling ban have pushed back furiously and 
     appear to have bolstered some of their colleagues. Senator 
     Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who has been fighting 
     offshore drilling since the 1970s, has been cornering fellow 
     senators to impress upon them the importance of the ban to 
     Californians, comparing it to a mainstay of farm-state 
     senators.
       ``This is our ethanol,'' Mrs. Boxer said of protecting the 
     coast from oil drilling.
       Since taking over as speaker, Ms. Pelosi has asserted 
     herself on energy policy, which she sees as an overarching 
     cause that encompasses national security, climate change, the 
     economy, health care and the environment.
       ``This captures everything,'' said Ms. Pelosi, who last 
     year broke a deadlock that had lasted for decades over 
     increasing automotive fuel economy standards.
       In a private meeting last week, according to some in 
     attendance, Ms. Pelosi told members of her leadership team 
     that a decision to relent on the drilling ban would amount to 
     capitulation to Republicans and the White House, and that she 
     was having none of it. She attributes today's energy problems 
     to a failure of the Bush administration to develop a 
     comprehensive approach, to its ties to the oil industry and 
     to a mishandling of the economy.
       With the drilling restrictions under such scrutiny, backers 
     of the ban say they are heartened that Ms. Pelosi wields the 
     power she does.
       ``It is really important to have a Californian as speaker 
     on this topic,'' said Representative Lois Capps, a Democrat 
     who represents Santa Barbara.

[[Page 17439]]

       Ms. Pelosi has shown a willingness on issues like terror 
     surveillance and spending on the Iraq war to look past her 
     personal views and allow legislation she opposes to move 
     through the House. But on the drilling ban, it is clear she 
     sees her position as the one that should carry the day. She 
     said national policy had to move beyond the long dispute over 
     the ban.
       ``This is part of the fight we are in,'' she said. ``We 
     have to get to a place where one day my grandchildren will 
     say, `Do you believe our grandparents had to go with their 
     car and fill up?' It will be like going with a barrel on our 
     head to a well to get water. That will be the equivalent.''
                                  ____


                   [From TheHill.com, July 19, 2008]

                  Webb Splits With Obama Over Drilling

                         (By J. Taylor Rushing)

       By pushing a bill that distances himself from the 
     Democratic Party and its presidential candidate on offshore 
     drilling, Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia is picking a curious time 
     to exercise his well-known independence.
       Webb wants his home state to have the right to explore for 
     energy off Virginia's coast. His staff insists his proposal 
     pertains only to natural gas, and not oil, and that it is 
     completely in line with the state's other two leading 
     Democrats--Gov. Tim Kaine and former Gov. Mark Warner, who is 
     running for Senate.
       Yet by attaching his name to the bill, sponsored by Sen. 
     John Warner (R-Va.), Webb is taking a step away from Barack 
     Obama (D-Ill.), the party's presidential candidate, who 
     opposes offshore drilling, and one closer to Sen. John McCain 
     (Ariz.), the GOP standard-bearer who recently called for 
     lifting the federal ban.
       Webb's divergence from his party also comes as his name is 
     being mentioned on Obama's short list for a running mate.
       A key McCain ally, GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South 
     Carolina, seized on the similarities between Webb and McCain 
     on offshore drilling.
       ``It shows Sen. Webb is right sometimes,'' Graham said.
       Webb rejected the suggestion that his position differs from 
     other Democrats', saying that the bill calls for ``a very 
     careful approach,'' state leaders would be a key part of the 
     decision, and Virginia desperately needs the revenue stream 
     for cash-starved transportation needs. Such decisions 
     therefore should be made by Virginia, not Washington, he 
     said.
       ``We can't just not act,'' he said. ``It's time we had some 
     leadership to really grab the larger picture and solve these 
     problems.''
       Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D) of Illinois and Sen. 
     Charles Schumer (D) of New York dismissed any concerns about 
     Webb's stance, saying they did not notice his proposal 
     Wednesday. Durbin, however, pointedly rejected Webb's 
     argument that states should have the right to make drilling 
     decisions.
       ``There's national concerns here, too,'' Durbin said.
       The Obama campaign would not directly address Webb's 
     proposal, but instead pointed to a statement Obama released 
     Wednesday on offshore drilling.
       ``Opening our coastlines to offshore drilling would take at 
     least a decade to produce any oil at all, and the effect on 
     gasoline prices would be negligible at best since America 
     only has 3 percent of the world's oil,'' Obama said in a 
     statement that did not explicitly distinguish between oil and 
     gas drilling.
       McCain on Tuesday reversed a long-held stance and called 
     for states to have the right to explore for oil offshore. A 
     pair of federal moratoriums have been in place since the 
     1980s--one controlled by the executive branch, one by 
     Congress--that bar offshore drilling.
       Webb's proposal, unveiled Wednesday with John Warner, would 
     allow Virginia to request a federal waiver to drill for 
     natural gas at least 50 miles from the coastline on an 
     exploration-only basis. A second waiver would be needed if 
     gas is found, and any revenues would be split between state 
     and federal coffers.
       The legislation ``offers a preliminary step toward 
     exploration and development of one of our domestic energy 
     sources,'' Webb said. ``In order to address our nation's 
     energy crisis, all options need to be on the table.''
       One of Virginia's most prominent environmental groups also 
     opposes Webb's idea, saying there is no plausible 
     environmental distinction between gas and oil drilling and 
     that any environmental damage would spread far beyond 
     Virginia's coast.
       ``This puts the camel's nose under the tent,'' said Glen 
     Besa, director of the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, 
     which has 17,000 members in the commonwealth. ``And the risk 
     associated with this would affect not just Virginia. It would 
     affect Maryland. It would affect North Carolina. You can't 
     just do this on a one-state-only basis.''
       Kaine has carefully distinguished between oil and gas 
     drilling, saying that Virginia so far does not endorse oil 
     exploration. Mark Warner, campaigning Wednesday in the state, 
     advocated lifting the federal moratorium on oil drilling to 
     allow Virginia to explore. He also distinguished between oil 
     and gas, saying that natural gas presents fewer environmental 
     risks.
                                  ____


               [From McClatchy Newspapers, July 18, 2008]

              Pelosi Vows To Block Offshore Drilling Vote

                          (By Rob Hotakainen)

       Washington.--A plan to lift the ban on coastal drilling is 
     stalled on Capitol Hill, for one simple reason: A Californian 
     who opposes President Bush's proposal is calling the shots in 
     the House of Representatives.
       Despite growing public support for ending the ban, even in 
     California, Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she 
     won't allow a vote.
       ``I have no plans to do so,'' Pelosi said Thursday.
       It's an example of the vast power placed in the office of 
     the speaker, who sets the agenda for the 435-member House. 
     Members can force a vote if enough of them sign a petition, 
     but that's a rarity because it requires rank-and-file 
     Democrats to line up against their boss.
       In this case, Pelosi is going against a rising tide of 
     public opinion. Faced with rapidly increasing gasoline 
     prices, 73 percent of Americans now favor offshore drilling, 
     according to a poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
       Support is even growing in California, where a majority of 
     residents have long supported the ban. A new Field Poll 
     survey shows that just 51 percent now favor the ban, compared 
     with 56 percent in 2005.
       Pelosi made her remarks in a wide-ranging interview with 
     CNN, in which she grabbed headlines for saying Bush was ``a 
     total failure'' who had lost credibility with Americans on 
     his handling of the war, the economy and energy issues. She 
     said Congress has been forced ``to sweep up after his mess 
     over and over and over again.''
       Pelosi's Democratic colleagues in California are happy that 
     the president's drilling plan is going nowhere, at least for 
     now.
       ``When Americans go to the pump and are faced with gas 
     prices well over $4 a gallon, it may be tempting to believe 
     that lifting the ban on offshore drilling would bring 
     immediate relief,'' Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Calif., said Friday. 
     But she said Congress ``cannot make rash decisions that will 
     leave a legacy of irresponsible energy policy for our 
     children and grandchildren to inherit.''
       Pelosi and other Californians have long cited the 1969 oil 
     spill off Santa Barbara as the main reason for their 
     opposition to drilling. The president's plan is opposed by 
     California's three top leaders: Republican Gov. Arnold 
     Schwarzenegger and Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer, who heads 
     the Senate environment committee, and Dianne Feinstein.
       ``Californians have learned the hard way how much damage--
     environmental and economic--can be caused by a major oil 
     spill,'' Feinstein said.
       But Pelosi may be hard-pressed to stand firm against 
     lifting the moratorium. She's under heavy pressure from House 
     Republicans, who have been unrelenting in their political 
     attacks against the speaker, blaming her for the record 
     gasoline prices.
       On Friday, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio 
     called on Pelosi to stop ``ignoring the calls of the American 
     people.'' He said he would lead a delegation of 10 House 
     Republicans on an ``American energy tour'' to Colorado and 
     Alaska this weekend to put a spotlight on the refusal of 
     Democratic leaders to allow drilling in Alaska and elsewhere.
       The congressional ban on offshore drilling has been in 
     effect since 1981, but Congress must renew it each year. The 
     issue could come to a head again in September, though Pelosi 
     could make it tougher for opponents to kill the ban if she 
     includes it in an omnibus spending bill that may be required 
     to keep the government operating.
       Acknowledging her ability to influence decision-making, 
     Pelosi said in the CNN interview that she gets to operate 
     differently than her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader 
     Harry Reid of Nevada. Reid must reach out to Republicans to 
     muster 60 votes--enough to stop a filibuster--to get anything 
     done.
       ``In the House, the power rests in the speaker, the power 
     of recognition, of setting the agenda . . . Very different 
     rules,'' Pelosi said.
                                  ____


           [From the Las Vegas Review-Journal, July 14, 2008]

                Reid Won't Allow Offshore Vote in Senate

       Washington.--Sen. Harry Reid said today he will not allow a 
     Senate vote on opening new offshore areas to oil drilling, 
     prompting a Republican to charge the Senate majority leader 
     was ``scared chicken'' to allow senators to decide on the 
     matter.
       Reid said a call by President Bush for Congress to repeal a 
     law that prohibits new drilling was not realistic. Bush 
     issued the challenge after announcing he was lifting a long-
     standing executive order that bans offshore energy 
     exploration off the East and West coasts.
       ``The president is trying to make this a political gimmick, 
     and we're trying to figure out a way to do something about 
     these (gasoline) prices,'' Reid said. ``And we are interested 
     in increasing domestic production but we want to be realistic 
     as to what expectations should be.''

[[Page 17440]]

       Reid told reporters he is more interested in solutions that 
     would seek to curb oil price speculation, release oil from 
     the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and call on energy companies 
     to explain why they are not drilling on oil leases they 
     already have been granted by the government.
       In a sign of rising tensions over rising gasoline prices, 
     Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., shortly afterward charged Reid 
     was afraid to allow votes on increasing energy production.
       ``Does it seem to you like it does to me that Harry Reid is 
     either scared chicken to have a vote? Or has he decided he is 
     going to dictate to the United States Senate,'' Domenici said 
     at a news conference.
       Domenici went on, adding Reid ``is saying `I am frightened 
     with the idea we are going to have a vote on a new plan for 
     this huge reserve of gas and oil that belongs to none other 
     than the people of the United States who are clamoring for us 
     to produce more oil.' ''
       In response, Reid spokesman Jon Summers said: ``This is the 
     United States Senate. It is not a schoolyard. Name calling is 
     not going to do anything to lower energy prices. We need 
     Republicans to work with us on a policy that will protect 
     consumers and lower gas prices.''
       Talking to reporters, Reid said the United States cannot 
     merely produce its way out of energy dependence. ``The math 
     doesn't add up,'' he said.
       ``There is not a single Democrat that doesn't think we can 
     do a better job with domestic production, but for this Johnny 
     One Note of just drill, drill, drill, it is not going to do 
     the trick.''

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that the Record reflects 
and that it is very clear that on this very important appropriations 
bill relating to veterans affairs and military construction, every 
Member out of 435 in this House had the opportunity to submit an 
amendment if they chose to do so.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. CASTOR. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding.
  Let me ask this question: Would a Member be able to come down to the 
floor when this bill is being taken up and offer a second-degree 
amendment to an amendment that is being offered by another Member?
  Ms. CASTOR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am fairly new in this 
Congress. I was proud to be part of a class that ushered in the 
strongest ethics reform since Watergate, and it seems to me that it is 
entirely fair and proper for Members to be able to offer an amendment 
to this bill, this very important bill, but it's also important that it 
is done in a responsible way so that there are no ambushes.
  And I would like to point out that the Republican member from the 
Appropriations Committee that came to the Rules Committee did state, 
and I took notes that afternoon, that Chairman Edwards did a great job. 
We've had 18 hearings. This has been an open and bipartisan process, a 
very open process. It has served as a model of bipartisanship.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
  This is a critical piece of legislation that speaks to the quality of 
life of our men and women in uniform. One of the consequences of having 
the most effective, powerful military force in the world is that we 
have a great deal of activity that takes place training and operating 
military facilities across the country. And, sadly, Mr. Speaker, one of 
the areas that we have not been quite as good as we should is dealing 
with the consequences of those military operations. The American 
landscape are littered with the residue of past military operations, 
base operations, and training exercises. There are bombs, explosives, 
military toxins and environmental hazards in every State of the union, 
over 3,000 sites across America.
  One of the things I have worked on since I came to Congress was to 
have the Department of Defense and, most important, we in Congress do a 
better job of helping the military clean up after itself. I have come 
to this floor repeatedly with examples where bombs have turned up in 
people's backyards. I see the former chairman of the committee from 
California on the floor and am reminded of the three young children in 
San Diego who discovered bombs in a subdivision, and two of them were 
killed. Over 60 more people have been killed according to my research 
here in the United States.
  It is time for us to take responsibility to clean up that explosive 
and toxic legacy, in part because it's not going to get any cheaper. 
Over the years it's going to cost more and more. Failure to do this 
right puts innocent children's lives at risk. Remember when we came to 
the floor with a coloring book that told children what they should do 
when they found unexploded ordinances near their schools. The Pentagon 
had Larry the Lizard trying to tell them what to do, when they found a 
shell . . . rather than spending money to clean it up and remove that 
hazard.
  I am pleased that this year we are fully funding the--the 2005 BRAC 
account. I am pleased with the leadership from Chairman Edwards, 
Ranking Member Wamp and my good friend Mr. Farr from California, who 
has been struggling with this issue for years in his district, they 
were able to put an additional $80 million to clean up the legacy of 
BRAC sites.
  I appreciate that this is a difficult budget year but it's always a 
difficult budget year, and we never seem to quite have enough to deal 
with the environmental problems that face our Department of Defense. I 
hope that this is a start in the right direction for a renewed 
commitment to clean up this toxic legacy that risks American lives here 
in this country and will develop new technology that will actually save 
American lives overseas in places like Iraq and Afghanistan if we do it 
right. I hope it makes possible more progress in the future, and I urge 
support.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such 
time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee and the former chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate my colleague's 
yielding. It is really a most interesting commentary, your 
presentation, which summarizes in this rule what appears to be the 
dominant leadership of the liberal Democratic leadership in the House. 
That is, in the quest of power, the ends justify the means. Indeed, at 
this point in our history when the people's House finds itself 
dominated by leadership who will exercise the ends justifying the means 
to maintain power, indeed the public ought to be most concerned about 
their people's House.
  Mr. Speaker, I in turn, though, want to congratulate, myself, both 
Chairman Edwards and Mr. Wamp for producing a truly bipartisan fiscal 
year 2009 Military Construction appropriations bill in the longstanding 
tradition of this committee. Their work is a demonstration to the House 
that the Democrats and Republicans can work together to create 
legislation the majority of our Members can support.
  As we all know, the Appropriations Committee has steered off course 
this year because of one single issue which is critical to the American 
public and which has significant bipartisan support in the House. I do 
not fault my friend Chairman Obey for the breakdown of the 
appropriations process this year. While we have had our share of 
disagreements over the years on overall funding levels and policy 
issues, he and I have historically worked well together to move our 
spending bills through the House in a timely fashion.
  However, this year the largely bipartisan work of the Appropriations 
Committee has ground to a virtually standstill because of the energy 
issue. For reasons I do not fully understand, given present pressures 
on our economy and the increased worldwide demand for oil, the majority 
leadership has decided to put on the shelf most of the annual spending 
bills as well as any and all meaningful bipartisan efforts to

[[Page 17441]]

lower the price of oil and gas. I don't understand this decision nor do 
I agree with it. We have had an opportunity and we have an obligation 
to work on a bipartisan basis to develop and pass long-term energy 
solutions that involve a combination of conservation, alternative and 
renewable energy sources, and the development of proven resources both 
onshore and offshore in the United States.
  This effort to bolster our energy resources would create thousands of 
well-paying union and nonunion jobs across the United States. The 
overwhelming majority of Americans favor increased domestic energy 
production. So what is the downside if we develop energy resources in a 
responsible, environmentally safe manner? Why is the Democratic 
leadership standing in the way?
  Just yesterday a dedicated group of Members, led by our colleagues 
John Peterson and Neil Abercrombie, introduced sweeping bipartisan 
energy legislation in an attempt to break the current energy gridlock 
in the House. I applaud their efforts. We ought to debate their bill 
openly in the Appropriations Committee and on the House floor before we 
leave this town for an August break.
  The mere message that Congress was actually debating energy policy, 
in meaningful, bipartisan debate, would send a signal to the markets 
and to the foreign suppliers of oil that the United States is serious 
about addressing its energy future. That powerful message would send 
oil prices down almost overnight. I believe that an honest energy 
debate on the floor of the House would be, in itself, a stimulus 
package that would have a tremendously positive ripple effect 
throughout our economy, touching every American business and consumer.
  Let me respectfully remind my colleagues that it was our Speaker, 
then the minority leader, in 2006 who outlined the new Democrat 
majority's governing philosophy, and I quote: ``Bills should come to 
the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate. 
Bills should be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee 
markups.'' Mr. Speaker, that's important enough. Let me repeat. The 
Speaker: ``Bills should come to the floor under a procedure that allows 
open, full, and fair debate. Bills should be developed following full 
hearings and open subcommittee markups.''
  As the body knows, we have not had an open, full, and fair debate on 
energy policy in committee nor have we had any open amendment process 
on the House floor. In fact, the House Appropriations Committee has not 
moved any bills through the full committee since June 25 because of a 
pending energy production amendment supported by a bipartisan majority 
of the committee members but opposed by the majority leadership.
  I would remind our colleagues that most of the challenges facing us 
today have little or nothing to do with partisan politics. At a time 
when our country is facing daunting challenges at home and abroad, my 
constituents and your constituents are looking for real leadership. 
Rather than providing the leadership our constituents deserve, the body 
is now in a state of paralysis.
  Again, I remind my colleagues that it was then a minority leader, the 
gentlewoman from San Francisco, who wrote in an October 20, 2007, 
letter to Speaker Hastert: ``The voice of every American has a right to 
be heard. No Member of Congress should be silenced on this floor.''
  I encourage each of my colleagues to remind the Speaker of these 
words so we can return to regular order in our committee work and 
restore civility and open debate to the legislative process in the 
House. It is time to set aside partisan politics and get to work. We 
can do better. We must do better. Let's support our veterans funding 
bill today and then move quickly to support our constituents by openly 
debating potentially energy solutions.
  Again, the House should not leave town for the August recess until it 
votes to lower gas prices, increase the supply of American-made energy, 
and promote energy independence.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee dealing 
with this issue, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding. I will 
be back later today to manage the time during general debate and 
consideration of amendments as the ranking member of the Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee of the Appropriations 
Committee. But I come today to speak briefly on the rule for my only 
negative comments today because it is ironic that on the same day, at 
the same time that the House joins in a bipartisan way with a record 
commitment to our veterans and our military construction and 
installation needs around the world, that we also are making history by 
the consideration of this rule, which is unfortunate.
  I even know that there are members of the majority who think that it 
is unfortunate that we are here very late in July, basically clamping 
down on the process in order to achieve an objective. I understand why, 
but I regret it, and I know certain members of the majority regret it 
as well.
  The main thing though is I come in opposition to the rule but in 
tremendous support of the bill. My hat is off to Chairman Edwards, my 
subcommittee chairman, who has been an excellent partner. I will come 
back to this later in the day. And Chairman Obey and Ranking Member 
Lewis, who have worked on this bill very, very well, because the House 
will sometime today or tomorrow make a historic commitment to every man 
and woman in uniform, those serving now and those that have served in 
the past. I think that is great for the United States of America at a 
time where we have a war on two fronts.
  I just shook Holly Petraeus' hand here in the Capitol today, the 
spouse of General Petraeus, David Petraeus, perhaps the greatest 
military general in the modern era of the United States of America.
  These threats are real, the enemy is vicious. Our challenges are 
many. And we do come together today on this bill. I am grateful for 
that. I wish it was being considered in another way because this rule 
is not in keeping with the traditions and the history of this committee 
and the House.
  Ms. CASTOR. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, just for purposes of trying 
to plan the time, could I inquire of my distinguished colleague how 
many speakers she has left.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close after the gentleman 
from Washington has made his closing statement.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank her for that information, and am 
pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise 
today in support of this veterans funding bill. This is a great victory 
for 400,000 central Florida veterans because it provides $220 million 
for a new VA hospital in Orlando. What does this mean for our central 
Florida vets? As a result of this hospital, our Orlando area vets will 
no longer have to travel 2 hours to Tampa. They will no longer be 
living in the largest metropolitan area in the United States without a 
VA hospital. Instead, they will have a brand new state-of-the-art 134-
bed hospital and access to world class physicians and researchers 
working in partnership with the new UCF Medical School. Our vets 
deserve it.
  We didn't get here by accident. The critical turning point began on 
September 10, 2003. That is when the VA CARES Commission held their 
hearing in central Florida to determine what cities if any in America 
would get a new VA hospital, since one hadn't been built in 30 years. I 
testified at that committee and pleaded that a new one be built in 
Orlando because of the large number of veterans we had and their lack 
of access to care. The VA CARES

[[Page 17442]]

Commission agreed. This decision was ratified by the VA Secretary and 
then ratified by Congress.
  Today, Congress takes the biggest step forward in funding this 
project. Although we have already provided $75 million toward this 
project, this new funding of $220 million is quite significant because 
it's $100 million more than the President asked for and is the largest 
single investment so far in this new project.
  Where do we go from here? We ask our Senate colleagues to act, and we 
finish the job. We will work together on a bipartisan basis, 
Republicans and Democrats, to complete this worthwhile project.
  I'd like to close just by saying that this has been very much a team 
effort. I would like to thank my Democratic and Republican colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle.
  Ms. CASTOR. I would also like to join with my colleague from Florida 
(Mr. Keller) in saluting Chairman Obey and the other members of the 
Appropriations Committee and the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs 
Subcommittee because as that new VA hospital goes to Orlando, it will 
relieve a great deal of pressure in Tampa, in my hometown, at the Haley 
VA Center, the busiest VA Center in the country, and the Bay Pines 
Medical Center in St. Petersburg.
  So I thank the gentleman for expressing his opinion on this, and I 
join with him.
  With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today in support of H.R. 
6566, the American Energy Act, an all-of-the-above plan that tackles 
the current energy crisis we are facing in this country. A well-known 
Oklahoman has recently alerted us to the fact that we spend $700 
billion a year on foreign oil. That is $700 billion. That number is 
staggering and should be enough for any American to sit up and take 
notice and know that something has to change.
  The American Energy Act paves the way to decrease our reliance on 
foreign oil by increasing the production of American-made energy. It 
not only allows for oil exploration both in the Arctic coastal plain 
and offshore, a move that 73 percent of Americans support, according to 
the latest CNN poll. It also eliminates the obstacle to the 
construction of new oil refineries and nuclear power plants.
  Now, we all know that increased production of traditional forms of 
energy, such as oil and natural gas, is only the first step. The 
American Energy Act also addresses the future of American-made energy 
by promoting research and development of renewable and alternative 
energy sources.
  One of the best components of this bill is the permanent extension of 
the tax credit for alternative energy production. Oklahoma is the ninth 
largest producer of wind energy, and we look forward to continued 
growth in that industry. I know that extending the production tax 
credit on wind energy will send the right message to wind producers 
that the American government is ready to work with them to expand upon 
this already successful alternative energy source.
  The Speaker recently was quoted as saying that her refusal to bring 
legislation aimed at increasing American energy to the floor for a vote 
was an effort to ``save the planet.'' While I appreciate the 
gentlewoman from California's feelings that she has a moral obligation 
to promote conservation, what about her obligation to the American 
people, living here and now, who are forced to choose between driving 
to work and putting food on the dinner table?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 30 
additional seconds.
  Mr. LUCAS. It's irresponsible to adjourn for 5 weeks without passing 
a meaningful legislation to reduce the skyrocketing gas prices 
Americans are forced to pay. Now is the time for America to take its 
place in the forefront of energy development by utilizing the vast 
natural resources we have in this country.
  I ask all of my colleagues today, stand up, demand a vote on the 
American Energy Act. Do something for our folks back home.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished Chair of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to respond to one theme that we 
have heard here in the last 20 minutes or so. We have heard complaints 
about the ``outrage'' that is being perpetrated by the passage of this 
rule because it is alleged that this rule closes up consideration of 
this bill and in fact prevents Members from offering legitimate 
amendments.
  Let me point out this rule does one thing and one thing only. It 
simply says that if a Member wants to offer an amendment, that that 
Member should notice the House 1 day ahead of time in the Congressional 
Record so that we do not legislate by ambush. The only thing that is 
required for an amendment to be considered on this floor is that it be 
printed in the Congressional Record the day before it is considered so 
that no Member of the House is blind-sided by any amendment.
  We believe that the bill managers on both sides of the aisle have a 
right to know in an orderly way which amendments are going to be 
offered to bills. We also believe that any individual Member who 
happens to have a project in his district which is going to be 
challenged by another Member, that that Member has the right to notice 
of that challenge. And we believe that every single Member of this 
House has a right to know ahead of time what they are going to be 
called upon to vote on by way of amendments. So this rule simply says 
any amendment is in order so long as it was printed the day before.
  Now, the gentleman managing the bill on the other side of the aisle 
asked the question, ``Will secondary amendments be allowed?'' My 
understanding is yes. My understanding is that this rule provides--or 
that this rule does not in any way get in the way of the ability of 
Members to offer secondary amendments.
  So, very simply, this bill is attempting to meet the military needs 
of the country. It's attempting to meet the needs of our veterans in 
terms of health care. It's meant to meet the needs of our communities 
in terms of construction on military bases all around the country.
  This bill builds upon the fact that in the last 2 years we have 
provided the largest increase in veterans' health benefits in the 
history of the country. This bill continues in that tradition. It is a 
terrific bill for veterans. It is a terrific bill for the communities 
that host military facilities around the country. And instead of having 
a sham debate about legislation which is not before us today, I think 
we would do well to confine our comments to the bill at hand, which is 
the military construction bill.
  It's a good bill, and I would predict it will be supported on a huge 
bipartisan basis. It was reported unanimously by the subcommittee. What 
we ought to do, instead of pretending that there's a procedural 
problem, when in fact there is none, we ought to get to the subject at 
hand.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
yielding me time. In my short time during my service in Congress, I 
have been a member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee and have 
chaired the Health Care Subcommittee, and I am here in the short amount 
of time I have been allotted to commend the Appropriations Committee 
for a couple of provisions included in this bill. One deals with 
travel.
  This bill increases the travel reimbursement for our veterans going 
to a VA hospital or facility from 28.5 cents per mile to 41.5 cents per 
mile, while we have been discussing the cost of gasoline that has real 
effects upon our veterans.

[[Page 17443]]

  As we work to boost VA health care funding, it's important to be 
reminded that the exceptional medical service that is offered by the VA 
can only be enjoyed if the veteran can afford to travel to that 
facility to see that physician.
  For most of the time I have been in Congress, I have offered an 
amendment to the appropriations process to increase that mileage rate. 
For 30 years, it was 11 cents a mile. Last year, we were successful in 
increasing it to 28.5 cents and, today, 41.5 cents. I commend my 
colleagues for their support for that change.
  Today's high gas prices mean that many veterans would not otherwise 
be able to see and be provided with the health care they need.
  The second provision is fee-based care. I am pleased that this 
subcommittee and the committee has added $200 million in fee-based 
services to improve access to veterans care. Earlier this week on the 
suspension calendar we had legislation that I introduced that would 
allow a pilot project to access our veterans to health care providers 
outside the VA system for fee-based care. If you live such a long 
distance between where you live and the hospital, or where you live and 
the CBOC, the outpatient clinic, you would be entitled to receive that 
service through a private pay contract from the VA to that care 
provider. That bill is H.R. 1527. I am still hopeful it will be on the 
House floor this week. But this bill provides the funding to allow that 
service to happen.
  So, again, as a Member of Congress who cares strongly about our 
veterans and who represents a district that is rural, this bill is 
important, and makes significant strides in taking care of our rural 
veterans.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until my 
colleague from Washington has made his closing statement.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, and if I infer by what 
he said, this may be the end of open rules in this House. There have 
been many people that have said on the floor today that this rule is in 
fact an open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an open rule. It does not permit an open 
process that allows Members to come to the floor and offer amendments 
to this veterans funding bill. Instead, it restricts and closes down 
the ability, by limiting amendments to only those who preprinted their 
amendments in the Congressional Record. I didn't, Mr. Speaker, so I am 
prohibited later on today from offering an amendment if I chose to do 
so. This clearly violates the open process by which appropriations 
bills have long been considered in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, don't take my word for it. I would like to quote several 
statements from my Democrat colleagues in the past Congress and in this 
Congress.
  On September 15, 2005, this is in the last Congress, Mr. Hastings of 
Florida made the following statement on the House floor about a 
preprinting requirement for a Coast Guard authorization bill.
  Mr. Hastings from Florida said, and I am quoting: ``I am nevertheless 
disappointed that the preprinting of amendments was even required. 
Despite the majority's claims, this legislative process which they call 
'open' is actually restricted. It is not an open rule because every 
Member is not permitted to offer any germane amendment.'' Mr. Hastings 
of Florida said that in the last Congress.
  In a report prepared by Ms. Slaughter before becoming chairman of the 
Rules Committee, in this report, which is entitled ``Broken Promises: 
The Death of Deliberative Democracy,'' Ms. Slaughter and her Democrat 
colleagues stated, and I quote from page 26 of this report, ``Rules 
with preprinting requirements are not open rules.''
  Quoting further from the same page: ``Further, there is a significant 
difference between an open rule and a rule with a preprinting 
requirement. A preprinting requirement forces Members to reveal their 
amendments in advance of floor consideration, something that may assist 
the floor managers, but can disadvantage the Member offering it. In 
addition, a preprinting requirement blocks any amendment proposal that 
might emerge during the course of debate.'' That comes from a Democrat 
publication.
  The rule before the House today is not an open rule, by their own 
definition. The long-standing tradition has been deliberately violated. 
But don't take my word about the past.
  Quoting again from the Congressional Record, this is Ms. Matsui from 
last year, and she is a member of the Rules Committee, last year in the 
110th Congress she states regarding the Energy and Water appropriations 
bill: ``As I mentioned at the outset of this debate, this bill is made 
in order under an open rule, which is our tradition. I hope that all 
Members will give that tradition the respect it deserves.''
  Where is the respect, Mr. Speaker? Where is the respect?
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert in the Record excerpts from 
``Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy,'' printed by 
the then-minority party of the Rules Committee.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this House has been blocked repeatedly for many 
months from being allowed to vote on lifting the ban on drilling. 
Congress needs to act now to produce more American-made energy. 
Congress needs to vote now on lifting the offshore drilling ban. By 
defeating the previous question on this rule, the House can vote on 
drilling offshore. When the previous question is defeated, I will move 
to amend the rule to make in order H.R. 6108, the Deep Ocean Energy 
Resources Act of 2008.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted in the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my 
colleagues this will not slow down the process of working on the MILCON 
bill. This is just an addition to it, an addition that I think is very, 
very important, since Congress is contemplating and probably will go on 
a 5-week break without taking up any energy legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can 
consider this vitally important issue for America.

          Broken Promises: The Death of Deliberative Democracy


 A Congressional Report on the Unprecedented Erosion of the Democratic 
                     Process in the 108th Congress

(Compiled by the House Rules Committee Minority Office--Hon. Louise M. 
                       Slaughter, Ranking Member)

       4. Rules with Pre-Printing Requirements are not ``Open 
     Rules''
       During the 108th Congress, the Rules Committee reported out 
     four rules with a so-called ``pre-printing'' requirement. 
     This provision requires Members to submit their amendments 
     for publication in the Congressional Record, in accordance 
     with clause 8 of Rule XVIII, on the day preceding floor 
     debate of the legislation. While the majority optimistically 
     calls such rules ``modified open rules,'' we consider them 
     ``restrictive'' rules and have scored them as such in the 
     appendices attached to this report.
       While we concede that considering a bill with a pre-
     printing requirement is less restrictive than the more common 
     tactic of limiting amendments to those printed in the Rules 
     Committee report, there is a significant difference between 
     an open rule and a rule with a pre-printing requirement. A 
     pre-printing requirement forces Members to reveal their 
     amendments in advance of floor consideration, something that 
     may assist the floor managers, but can disadvantage the 
     Member offering it. In addition, a pre-printing requirement 
     blocks any amendment proposal that might emerge during the 
     course of the debate. When Chairman Dreier was in the 
     minority, he made the following statement about the 
     preprinting requirement during debate on a rule on national 
     service legislation:
       ``This rule also requires amendments to be printed in the 
     Congressional Record. That might not sound like much, but it 
     is another bad policy that belittles the traditions of

[[Page 17444]]

     House debate. If amendments must be preprinted, then it is 
     impossible to listen to the debate on the floor, come up with 
     a new idea to improve the bill, and then offer an amendment 
     to incorporate that idea. Why do we need this burdensome pre-
     printing process? Shouldn't the committees that report these 
     bills have a grasp of the issues affecting the legislation 
     under their jurisdiction? Again, Mr. Speaker, I think we can 
     do better.''
       We agree with Chairman Dreier's statement that the purpose 
     of the amendment process on the floor is to give duly elected 
     Members of Congress the opportunity to shape legislation in a 
     manner that they believe is in the best interest of their 
     constituents and the Nation as a whole. It is not to help the 
     floor manager with his or her job. A majority interested in 
     allowing ``the full and free airing of conflicting opinions'' 
     would allow at least some House business to occur in an open 
     format--in a procedural framework that allows Members to 
     bring their amendments directly to the floor for discussion 
     and debate under the five-minute rule.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, the American people will be pleased today 
that the House of Representatives will move and pass, hopefully on a 
bipartisan basis, like it was in the Appropriations Committee, a 
bipartisan bill that provides so much for the servicemen and -women and 
their families who are being asked to sacrifice so much after many 
years of war.
  This bill is a fitting salute and tribute to the men and women who 
are on the front lines, who are on the battlefield and those in the 
military and VA hospitals across this country and the outpatient 
clinics fighting a different kind of war, to help those who return 
maintain a dignified quality of life for them and their families.
  We will also assist veterans of wars past and demonstrate our 
appreciation for their service by ensuring that their claims will be 
processed in a timely fashion and that they have access to the range of 
health care options available to them and every American.
  Mr. Speaker, this ``New Direction'' Congress has pledged to put our 
troops and veterans first. By restoring GI veterans education benefits, 
improving veterans health care, rebuilding our military and 
strengthening other benefits for our troops and military families, we 
are working to keep our promises to our courageous and faithful men and 
women in uniform. For too long, officials in Washington have neglected 
our troops and veterans in a time of war. On the battlefield, the 
military pledges to leave no soldier behind, and, as a nation, let it 
be our pledge that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous 
question and on the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
disgraceful rule. To illustrate just how bad this rule is, and to 
provide some context, I'd like to discuss a few telling numbers. I'm 
just going to throw these numbers out there for consideration: 12, 7, 4 
and 9. That's 12, 7, 4 and 9.
  These numbers are significant, and let me tell you why. The first 
number is 12. The House has 12 appropriations bills that it must 
consider in order to fund the Federal budget; 12 bills to consider in 
order to responsibly exercise our constitutional power of the purse; 12 
appropriations bills that cover the priorities that are first and 
foremost in Americans' minds.
  We've now reached the final week of July and the Democratic majority 
has brought up its adjournment resolution. Traditionally, this is the 
week when the House wraps up its versions of these 12 appropriations 
bills, or at least a majority of them. The idea is to finalize or make 
significant progress in our most important duty as legislators before 
adjourning for a month of recess in August.
  So now that we have arrived at the end of July, how many 
appropriations bills remain for the House to consider? Twelve. Every 
last one of them. Today we are considering our very first one of 12. 
The Democratic Majority thought, what the heck, why not squeeze one in 
before heading out of town. So, we're starting our job right about the 
time we've traditionally tried to finish it.
  And speaking of tradition, one of the longest-held traditions in this 
body is the practice of considering all regular appropriations bills 
under a completely open process. This is one of the few opportunities 
in the House where all Members, majority and minority, have the 
unfettered ability to offer any amendments they see fit. These 
amendments are of course subject to points of order, and ultimately a 
vote. But Members have had the opportunity to offer them and make their 
case.
  Which brings me to the second number on my list: the number 7. We 
would have to go back 7 years to find any example of restrictions on a 
general appropriations bill.
  In 2001, the Rule providing for consideration of the Foreign 
Operations bill had a pre-printing requirement. This restriction was 
entirely unopposed. Not one voice of opposition was raised, and the 
Rule passed by voice vote.
  And what was the reason for this restriction? We had a very busy 
week, in a very busy month, and we all agreed--Democrats and 
Republicans--agreed to expedite the procedures. Considering we passed 9 
of 13 appropriations bills prior to departing for August recess that 
year, I suppose you could say the unopposed restrictions were 
justified. Seven years passed before any restrictions were again 
imposed.
  Until today. Today the Democratic majority is apparently exhausted by 
their efforts to name post office buildings and avoid meaningful action 
to bring down energy costs. They are in such a rush to get out the door 
for a 5-week recess that they insist on bringing up their very first 
appropriations bill under a restricted Rule. They are denying Members 
the ability to freely bring their amendments to the floor and have 
their voices heard.
  And to add an element of the absurd, they are actually calling this 
an open rule. With straight faces, no less.
  What's the reason for this closed process? I don't doubt expediency 
plays a part. When you're rushing out the door, you prefer not to get 
bogged down by open, substantive debate. But the full explanation lies 
in what the Democratic majority hopes to avoid--any possibility that 
Republicans will seek to offer energy-related amendments to the 
underlying bill.
  Which brings us to the third number on my list: the number 4. 
Americans are paying an average of $4 for a gallon of gas. The mutually 
reinforcing trends of high gas prices and high food prices have 
strained working Americans enormously. They know Government policies 
bear much of the blame, and they rightly expect this Congress to do 
something about it.
  Republicans have tried every means possible to force this Democratic 
majority to consider real solutions to our energy crisis. But we have 
faced nothing but roadblocks.
  And now, the Democratic majority is using every trick in the book to 
get out of town without ever scheduling a meaningful vote. And on their 
way out the door, they are trampling on the rights of Members to an 
open and fair appropriations process.
  And this brings us to the fourth and final number: the number 9. The 
latest polls show Congress' approval rating at an abysmal 9 percent. 
All but 9 percent of the American population thinks we are failing at 
our job. Frankly, I'd like to know who this 9 percent is who supports 
what we're doing. Under the Democratic majority, we are failing in our 
duty to address Federal spending. We are failing in our duty to find a 
workable and effective solution to the energy crisis we face. We are 
failing in our duty to have open and honest debate on the challenges we 
face. And just this afternoon, we had a vote on a resolution to 
adjourn, despite all of these failures. Mr. Speaker, the numbers don't 
lie. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1384 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, 
     consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6108) to provide for 
     exploration, development, and production activities for 
     mineral resources on the outer Continental Shelf, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against the bill are 
     waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill equally divided 
     and controlled by the majority and minority leader, and (2) 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute if offered by Mr. 
     Rahall of West Virginia or his designee, which shall be 
     considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress)

[[Page 17445]]



        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________