[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14399-14408]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5822, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND 
     VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2011

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1559 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1559

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5822) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
     of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read through page 63, line 4. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. Notwithstanding clause 
     11 of rule XVIII, except as provided in section 2, no 
     amendment

[[Page 14400]]

     shall be in order except the amendments printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
     division of the question. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 
     10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the 
     bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the 
     bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. In case of sundry amendments reported from the 
     Committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the 
     House en gros and without division of the question. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  After consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their designees each may offer one pro 
     forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate, which 
     shall be controlled by the proponent.
       Sec. 3.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Appropriations or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).
       Sec. 4.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of August 1, 2010, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules. The Speaker or her 
     designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1559 
because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order 
against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 
425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the violation of 
section 426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona makes a point of 
order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentleman from Arizona and the gentlewoman from Maine each will control 
10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. After that 
debate, the Chair will put the question of consideration.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order today not because 
of unfunded mandates in the bill, although, there are probably some, 
but because it is about the only opportunity we have here in the 
minority to protest the kind of treatment that these appropriation 
bills are getting in the Rules Committee and to protest the manner in 
which they are coming to the floor.
  It used to be that it was a time-honored tradition in this House to 
have appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule. Over the 
past couple of years, that has turned into a structured rule, so many 
Members in this body, in the minority and the majority, have not had 
this opportunity. Let's take last year, for example.
  Every appropriation bill, all 12, came to the floor under structured 
rules. There were some Members on both sides of the aisle who offered 
multiple amendments throughout the year. That is the one chance they 
have to actually offer amendments on appropriation bills--the things 
that we are supposed to be doing here in Congress--and they weren't 
allowed to offer one. Many Members were denied the opportunity to offer 
any amendments.

                              {time}  1420

  There were some 1,500 amendments offered last year. Just 12 percent, 
fewer than 200, were made in order. And, in fact, I offered about 635 
myself. I was only permitted to offer 50, after the structured rule 
took effect.
  Now, the leadership on the majority side will often say, well, we 
have to keep order in this place, and people would simply offer 
dilatory amendments and take too long in the process. I remember times 
in years past, and I haven't been here that long, but just a couple of 
years ago where we would spend 2 or 3 or 4 days on one appropriation 
bill because that's what we do here. That's the important part of what 
we do. Yet, the majority can't seem to find time to allow all 
amendments to these bills.
  Instead of allowing debate on amendments to appropriation bills, let 
me give you some idea of what we've been doing over the past couple of 
months and why the statement that we simply can't allow people to offer 
this many amendments would be proper because we don't have time. Well, 
here's what we've had time for. And let me note that each one of these 
that I mention, and this is just a fraction of these kind of suspension 
bills that we've dealt with, each one of these allows for 10 minutes of 
debate. That's as much time as we allow on any amendment coming before 
on the appropriation bill.
  H.R. 1460, Recognizing the important role of pollinators. That one we 
dealt with just a month or so ago.
  H.R. 1491, Congratulating the University of South Carolina, the 
Gamecocks, for winning the 2010 NCAA Division I College World Series.
  H. Res. 1463, Supporting the goals and ideals of Railroad Retirement 
Day.
  Now, these things may be nice to do and nice to those who receive 
these kind of accolades, but it's not the important business of this 
House. And so to say that we don't have time to actually debate 
amendments to these appropriation bills, and the one that we are 
dealing with today, many amendments that were submitted by Members were 
turned away, were not allowed in this structured role.
  Another thing we dealt with, supporting the goals of National Dairy 
Month. Now, how in the world is that more important than allowing 
Members to strike funding from appropriation bills?
  I need not remind this Chamber that 42 cents of every dollar we spend 
this year, 42 cents of every dollar we spend this year will be borrowed 
from our kids, from our grandkids, from whomever overseas who buys our 
bonds. And yet we can't allow time to let Members offer amendments to 
strike spending from these bills. We only allow a certain percentage of 
them.
  Supporting the goals and ideals of American Craft Beer Week. That was 
H.R. 1297 that we dealt with in the last couple of months, the time 
that we usually designate in this body to deal with appropriation 
bills.
  Congratulating the Chicago Blackhawks. That was H.R. 1439.
  Supporting National Men's Health Week.
  Recognizing June 8, 2010, as World Ocean Day.
  As I mentioned, these might be good things to do, but when they're 
taking up time that the majority seems to say now we don't have time 
for appropriation bills, that's wrong.
  And when they, in the Rules Committee, will say, sorry, the gentleman 
from Colorado or wherever else can't offer his amendment because we've 
taken too much time recognizing National Nurses Week or supporting the 
goals and ideals of National Learn to Fly Day or expressing support for 
the goals and ideals of Children's Book Week, recognizing the 75th 
anniversary of the establishment of the East Bay Regional Park District 
in California, I think you're getting the picture here.
  It's a hollow statement to say that we don't have time to deal with 
these amendments on appropriation bills. The truth is the leadership 
simply doesn't want these things debated all that much.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I will explain why 
in a minute.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I appreciate the thoughts of my colleague from Arizona.
  I would say that I wouldn't stand up here and criticize nurses, dairy 
farmers, small breweries, which I have many of in my State, or even the 
pollinators. I actually have a daughter who's a beekeeper, and I think 
we all recognize the importance of pollination.

[[Page 14401]]

  But let me get serious here. Once again, my friends on the other side 
of the aisle, I think, are trying to block important legislation by 
using a procedural tactic. They want to prevent this rule and the 
underlying legislation from going forward without any opportunity for 
debate, without an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the 
legislation itself.
  I think that's wrong. I hope my colleagues will vote ``yes'' so we 
can consider this legislation on its merits and not kill it with a 
procedural motion.
  I say, let's not waste any more time on unrelated parliamentary 
measures. Those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final 
passage. We must consider this rule, and we must pass the bill today.
  I have the right to close but, in the end, I will urge my colleagues 
to vote ``yes'' to consider the rule.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentlelady.
  The gentlelady says that I am criticizing pollinators or beer 
distillers or whomever. I'm not. I'm just saying the Congress doesn't 
need to congratulate everybody who wins a championship or everybody who 
distills beer. I mean, it's just nutty for us to spend so much time on 
these things and then say, I'm sorry, we don't have time for Members to 
offer amendments on appropriation bills to actually strike spending so 
that we're not borrowing 43 cents on every dollar that we spend this 
year.
  Let me mention why it is that the leadership and the Appropriations 
Committee may not be so anxious for Members to debate these bills--
because there are a lot of earmarks in them. This chart shows 11 of the 
12 appropriation bills that have gone through either the subcommittee 
or committee. It looks like a hungry Pacman here, but what this shows 
in the red is the percentage of earmark dollars associated with 
powerful Members of Congress. That includes members of the 
Appropriations Committee, members of leadership, or chairmen of 
committees. That represents about 13 percent of this body.
  Yet, when you look at the number of earmark dollars or percentage of 
earmark dollars, Homeland Security, that 13 percent is garnering 52 
percent of the earmark dollars. CJS, 57 percent; Agriculture, 76 
percent of the earmark dollars are going to just 13 percent of this 
body, the 13 percent that are writing the rules here and are deciding 
that certain amendments simply won't be offered. That is wrong. We 
shouldn't be doing that. TTHUD, which we'll be doing just tomorrow, 42 
percent of the earmark dollars are going to just 13 percent of this 
body.
  Is it any wonder that the leadership on the majority side does not 
want certain amendments debated here?
  MILCON VA, 51 percent going to just 13 percent of this body. Energy 
and Water, 53 percent; Labor/HHS, 66 percent; Interior, 60; Defense, 
55.
  In Defense, we just learned today that an amendment has been 
submitted--I'm sorry, an earmark has been submitted, $10 million for 
the John Murtha Center, our beloved Member who deceased just a few 
months ago. We're going to earmark $10 million to create a center in 
his honor in the Defense bill. I think that that ought to be debated 
here, but chances are we won't even get to the Defense bill.
  It's unlikely we're going to get to very many of the appropriation 
bills this year, and the ones that we do will come to the floor under a 
structured rule where Members will not be allowed to offer amendments, 
or just a few of them on the ones that the majority chooses to hear. 
They can choose the ones they don't want to hear and choose the ones 
that they hear.
  I would like to hear a response from the Rules Committee as to what 
reasoning goes behind which amendments will be allowed under what is 
traditionally an open rule and which ones will not.
  And I would yield to the gentlelady if she would explain the rule or 
how the Rules Committee arrives at this rule.
  I guess the gentlelady doesn't want to respond on this. I wouldn't 
either. I wouldn't want to try to justify closed rules or structured 
rules coming to this body on appropriation bills when we're spending 
more time doing things like recognizing the 50th anniversary of Title 
VI international education programs, recognizing the importance of 
manufactured and modular housing in the United States. These are all 
goods things. It doesn't mean we should spend time that could otherwise 
be debating appropriation bills, which is what we do here. We 
prioritize by funding. That's what Congress does. We have the power of 
the purse. And yet we're shortchanging that process so that we can 
support the goals and ideals of Student Financial Aid Awareness Month 
and raise awareness of student financial aid. Like I said, not a bad 
thing, but not something that should supplanting what we should be 
doing here.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I would just plead with the Rules Committee and, 
more importantly, the leadership on the majority side to realize that 
the traditions of this body, the institutional things that we have 
here, open rules on appropriations, should be honored.
  Now, I've come here for the past 10 years and offered a lot of 
amendments, many of which when we were in the majority. My own party 
didn't like these amendments, but they suffered through them because 
they knew that things matter here like tradition or upholding the 
institution.

                              {time}  1430

  So they allowed all amendments, some of which targeted Members of our 
own party. But the majority in power now doesn't seem to want that. 
They want to shield their Members from difficult votes and also shield 
those who are getting these earmarks from any scrutiny. These 
amendments aren't really scrutinized in the Appropriations Committee. 
So if they aren't argued and debated here, they simply aren't going to 
get a vetting.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, to the questions of my colleague 
from Arizona, I have to say you have far more experience in this body 
than I do. As you know, I'm a freshman Member. So I have only operated 
under the current process that we have today. I can't speak to what the 
process was like in the past.
  I can say, as a member of the Rules Committee, a tremendous number of 
amendments come before our committee. And if all of them were allowed 
to come to the floor, and if this were an open rule, I'm sure there 
would be some advantages and some opportunities for greater debate.
  On the other hand, on the issues that we're about to take up today, 
the essential issue of veterans benefits, which I'm going to look 
forward to speaking to in a few minutes, assuming that we vote down 
this current point of privilege, I am looking forward to the 
opportunity to move forward on taking better care of our veterans. And 
if we had a tremendous number of amendments before us today, I am not 
sure we would ever get there.
  In fact, when I look at some of the information that I have before 
me, I am reminded that during the DOD appropriations bill in 2009, when 
I was sitting on the Rules Committee, we actually had 606 amendments 
come before us. Many of them were just there, I think everybody would 
agree on both sides of the aisle, many of them were just there to score 
political points. So do our constituents want us to take up our time 
today with listening to political back and forth taking up day after 
day with 606 amendments, or do they want us to get right to the heart 
of the matter, and that is to move forward on the issue of taking 
better care of our veterans?
  And let me make one other point. You know, you've talked about 
earmarks, and you are very eloquent on the topic of earmarks; and I 
appreciate that. I think a lot of our constituents have great concerns 
about earmarks, how are they handed out, how does the budgeting process 
work here. But I do have to say as a freshman Member, I have taken 
great care to have a tremendous amount of transparency around the topic 
of earmarks.
  We hold appropriations meetings in our district. We invite 
individuals with

[[Page 14402]]

any kind of issue to come before us that they would like to see 
appropriated, whether it's a highway bridge, or whether it's a 
community center, or whether it's a particular project that might 
benefit anyone in our district, the university, or some system. We 
actually ask each person who comes before us with an earmark request to 
make a 3-minute video. Then we post it on our Web site. Then we ask our 
constituents, do you have opinions on this?
  So while I understand much of the concerns about the earmark process, 
I have to say as one Member who I can't say is in the top 13 percent of 
the highest recipients of earmarks, I still appreciate the process 
which allows me to take my constituents' wishes before the 
Appropriations Committee and say, you know, this would benefit my 
district, this would benefit my university, this would create more 
jobs. And I do it in a fully transparent manner. So I believe my 
constituents have the benefit of knowing all of the information around 
earmarking and doing the very best we can with making sure that process 
isn't handled in back rooms or in the dark of the night, but is 
actually a very transparent process.
  So I appreciate the concerns that you have brought before us today. I 
look forward to moving forward on the debate on this rule so that we 
can move forward on what I think is a vital part of our appropriations 
process, that's taking care of our veterans.
  So again, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion 
to consider so we can debate and pass this important legislation today.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House now consider 
the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of this 
rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
House Resolution 1559.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Maine?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1559 provides for consideration of H.R. 
5822, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2011, under a structured rule. The rule 
provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule waives 
points of order against provisions of the bill for failure to comply 
with clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule makes in order only those 
amendments printed in the report. All points of order against the 
amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI are 
waived.
  The rule provides that for those amendments reported from the 
Committee of the Whole, the question of their adoption shall be put to 
the House en gros and without division of the question. The rule 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule 
provides that after consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair 
and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
their designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for 
the purpose of debate. Finally, the Chair may entertain a motion that 
the Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on 
Appropriations or his designee.
  Mr. Speaker, for more than 9 years our country has been engaged in 
two conflicts halfway around the world. The number of wounded military 
personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan has put a financial strain on the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA expects to treat more than 6.1 
million patients in 2011, including more than 439,000 veterans of Iraq 
and Afghanistan. In addition, the constant training, deployment, and 
redeployment of our troops have put a significant burden on our 
military.
  H.R. 5822 appropriates funding for military construction, veterans 
programs, and four related agencies. Our troops have performed 
admirably wherever they have been deployed, and Congress has an 
obligation to provide the care and compensation to every eligible 
veteran. This bill also provides additional funding for the Guard and 
Reserves to address critical unfunded requirements as a result of 
prolonged and repeated deployments. In my home State of Maine, 
thousands of Guard and Reservists have made invaluable contributions to 
our national defense, and I am proud to see this funding included in 
the bill.
  H.R. 5822 renews our commitment to redevelop closed military bases 
and their surrounding communities. The bill provides necessary funding 
to implement the 2005 BRAC and address the enormous backlog of 
environmental cleanup projects from previous BRAC rounds. This funding 
is essential to communities across the country, including the towns of 
Brunswick and Topsham in my district, which are already experiencing 
economic difficulties from the closing of Brunswick Naval Air Station. 
We must do everything we can to support the communities that the BRAC 
bases leave behind.
  While the investments in military construction are vital, they are 
only a small portion of this bill. The vast majority of legislation is 
devoted to veterans' programs. The bill provides the necessary funding 
for veterans' medical care, claims processors, and facility 
improvements, including increased funding for mental health services, 
assistance programs for homeless veterans, and innovative services for 
veterans in rural areas.
  The military construction projects in this bill are vital to ensure 
that the missions of each installation are carried out in the most 
efficient manner possible. One great example is the funding contained 
in this bill for Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. The 
shipyard provides world-class overhaul, repair, and modernization of 
nuclear submarines. The yard has a reputation of delivering subs back 
to the fleet on time and under budget.
  This fall, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard will welcome the first 
Virginia-class submarine to Maine for an overhaul. This bill contains 
$11.9 million to modernize the structural shops at the yard, which will 
improve the equipment layout and streamline process flow within the 
shipyard. It will help workers at the yard continue to do high quality 
work while increasing their efficiency. And this funding is essential 
to this mission. Increasing maintenance efficiencies and eliminating 
redundancies will no doubt make the yard more competitive for Navy sub 
projects in the future.
  The Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is an economic success story in Maine. 
The yard is in the middle of adding approximately 160 new jobs this 
year, jobs like painters, sheet metal workers, electricians, welders, 
and engineers. And the construction work that this bill will fund will 
be done by outside contractors, bringing even more jobs to the area. 
The funding in this bill will help this economic engine in southern 
Maine remain competitive and create new, good-paying jobs.
  Finally, I am very proud of what this bill does for our Nation's 
veterans. Their service has earned them world-class health care and 
benefits, and Congress has a moral obligation to provide the best 
benefits possible.

                              {time}  1440

  This bill is an example of what happens when politics is put aside 
and veterans come first. I strongly support this rule which provides 
for consideration of this essential legislation.

[[Page 14403]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank my friend, the gentlewoman from Maine, for the time, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Each year Congress undertakes its duty to fund the government through 
what is commonly known as the appropriations process. The 
appropriations process usually begins with the consideration of a 
budget. The budget sets the parameters of congressional spending for 
the upcoming year, allowing the Appropriations Committee to begin 
assembling the 12 appropriations bills.
  But for the first time since the Congressional Budget Act was passed 
in 1974, the House of Representatives has failed to even vote on a 
budget because of what some suspect may be an attempt by the majority 
to protect their Members from a vote that would increase what are 
already record budget deficits.
  Yet the dysfunction does not end with the majority's abandonment of 
one of the most basic duties of governing. It continues today with the 
consideration of the first appropriations bill, the Fiscal Year 2010 
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act.
  Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution gives Congress the 
power of the purse. It says, ``No money shall be drawn from the 
treasury but in consequence of the appropriations made by law; and a 
regular statement of account of receipts and expenditures of all public 
money shall be published from time to time.''
  The Congress' constitutional obligation under Article I, section 9, 
clause 7 has traditionally manifested itself in an open appropriations 
process. That process allows every Member of the House to propose any 
amendments--any amendments that are germane--to the 12 appropriations 
bills. That's the way it's been done, certainly since I've been here, 
and I know for decades and decades and generations before.
  Yet, last year the majority decided to close down the deliberative 
process of the House on appropriations bills. I came to the floor to 
oppose that procedure last year, and I stated that I felt that the 
majority's decision to block debate on amendments from Members on both 
sides of the aisle was unnecessary and it was unfair, unjust. I thought 
it was a mistake. I said the majority would come to regret that 
mistake.
  Today, on the very first appropriations bill of this year, the 
majority has once again decided to close down the appropriations 
process, and that's unfortunate. Last year we were told that the 
majority was taking this unprecedented step in order to move the 
appropriations bills to the Senate so that Congress could avoid an 
omnibus appropriations bill. What happened was just the opposite. 
Despite the fact that the Military Construction-VA bill did in fact 
pass both the House and the Senate, the Democratic leadership never 
allowed the bill to go to conference, and instead that MILCON-VA 
appropriations bill was wrapped up in an omnibus appropriations bill--
contrary to the reasoning that had been given by the majority.
  So what is this year's reason? I believe that it is so that the 
majority can again use a restrictive process on appropriations bills so 
the leadership, the majority leadership, has the ability to pick and 
choose which amendments the House will consider.
  Although I strenuously disagree with the manner in which the majority 
leadership has decided to close the appropriations process once again, 
and in this case it has allowed only 14 out of 35 amendments, I do wish 
to congratulate my friends, Chairman Chet Edwards, Ranking Member Zach 
Wamp and Mr. Crenshaw for their bipartisan work on the underlying 
legislation that is undoubtedly very important.
  We owe our military veterans and their families an extraordinary debt 
of gratitude for their service and their sacrifices as a people, not 
just as a Congress. I think we have to ensure that our veterans and 
their families, who bear sacrifices and hardships as well, receive all 
the benefits and assistance to which they are entitled and that they 
deserve.
  The underlying legislation that has been agreed to, it has been 
drafted in a fair and bipartisan manner, provides crucial funding for 
military construction and for housing, for quality-of-life projects for 
our troops and their families.
  The legislation includes a total of $141.1 billion in both mandatory 
and discretionary funding for these agencies. Of this, approximately 
$120 billion is dedicated to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
  The underlying legislation continues our commitment to the brave men 
and women who sacrifice so much to keep the Nation safe, supporting our 
servicemembers on base, deployed abroad, and to care for them when they 
come home.
  The Pentagon recognized two important projects to south Florida, 
which were included in the President's budget and received funding in 
the underlying legislation. This legislation provides $41 million to 
construct a permanent headquarters for Special Operations Command 
South. Currently Special Operations Command South is headquartered at 
Homestead Air Force Reserve Base. Headquarters personnel are supported 
by temporary, leased trailers. The trailers were not intended to 
support the headquarters mission beyond 3 years, and they require 
significant repairs for continued use.
  The project in this legislation will consist of a command and control 
building with a secure compartmentalized information facility, 
sensitive items storage, standby generator, and general purpose 
administrative areas. It will include anti-terrorism measures to 
protect military personnel stationed there and will be able to 
withstand--and this is very important--a category 5 hurricane. And, Mr. 
Speaker, as you know in Homestead, we had a category 5 hurricane the 
year I was elected to Congress. Hopefully we won't see that again. But 
it's important that this facility be able to withstand such force.
  I am pleased that this legislation also includes funding for 
construction of a new commissary to be located at the Southern Command 
Headquarters in Doral, in the congressional district that I am honored 
to represent. Construction of this commissary will greatly benefit the 
over 13,000 military personnel and retirees within 20 miles of SOUTHCOM 
and the thousands more beyond. It will greatly reduce the high cost of 
living in south Florida for these men and women, and it will improve 
their quality of life.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I especially want to 
thank Chairman Edwards and Ranking Member Wamp for providing the 
resources our Nation's veterans desperately need and for providing 
additional funding for FY2012. This advanced funding helps the VA avoid 
disruption of critical programs. We must take care of our brave men and 
women who serve this country, and this funding goes a long way to 
address many of their needs.
  I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including 
report language on veterans' burial benefits. I am deeply concerned 
about the eroding value of the plot allowance and burial benefits 
provided to our Nation's veterans by the Department of Veterans 
Affairs. Because the benefits are not indexed to inflation, their value 
continues to diminish with each passing year. As a result, families and 
State veterans' cemeteries have been left to cover the increasing 
costs.
  In FY09, the subcommittee included my report language urging the VA 
to assess the viability of increasing the plot allowance and burial 
benefits to cover the same percentage of veterans' burial benefits that 
they covered in 1973, when they were first initiated. The Department of 
Veterans Affairs has still not yet heeded our recommendations. I'm glad 
the subcommittee recognizes the importance of the issue and has again 
included the burial benefits report language.

                              {time}  1450

  However, we need to move on this, and I think having it included once

[[Page 14404]]

again is a step in reminding the VA that this is an important issue.
  This Congress I have reintroduced the Veterans' Burial Benefits 
Improvement Act, H.R. 4045. This bill would increase the plot allowance 
from $300 to $745 for the burial costs of veterans who are buried in a 
State veterans' cemetery or a private cemetery; increase burial 
allowance benefits from $2,000 to $4,100 for veterans who die as a 
result of service-connected injuries and are buried in a national 
cemetery; increase the burial allowance from $300 to $1,270 for a 
veteran who wishes to be buried in a national veterans' cemetery and 
whose cause of death is not service-connected.
  I urge my colleagues to become a cosponsor of this important piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
my very good friend from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  I want to make it clear that I'm very much in favor of the underlying 
legislation, but this legislation is being brought to us today under a 
rule that will restrict our Members, both Democrats and Republicans, 
from offering amendments, having them considered.
  I thought I would give you a little perspective because this bill has 
come to us this day through the regular order, a very open and fair 
process. Sixteen hearings took place. All the members of the 
subcommittee had an opportunity to ask questions and feel like they 
were being treated fairly, listened to their input. At the subcommittee 
level, six amendments were offered: four by the minority, two by the 
majority. They were all adopted unanimously in a bipartisan way. Then 
we went to the full committee, the full Appropriations Committee. At 
that point, eight amendments were offered, discussed, and they were 
adopted as well, in a bipartisan way, four from the Democrats, four 
from the Republicans.
  Yet, when we got to the Rules Committee, that's where the fair and 
open process ran into a roadblock, the graveyard, if you will, because 
now we come to the floor with no longer a process where Members can 
stand up, offer amendments, maybe make a good bill even better, because 
this rule does not allow that.
  I would think that at this time, when deficits are at record levels, 
when spending is more important to be looked at with a wise and 
efficient look, that we would allow Members to come to the floor and 
offer their input, but no, that's not the case.
  So while the underlying legislation is very important and very good, 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and bring this back under an open 
rule and allow their participation.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
my good friend, Mr. Buyer from Indiana.
  Mr. BUYER. Thank you very much.
  I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  When the majority went to this process to be restrictive here on the 
floor with regard to amendments on appropriations, that was really a 
dark day for liberty, and it's really very, very unfortunate. And I 
understand the Speaker wants to rule the House with a mighty hand and 
is utilizing the Rules Committee to make Congress an undemocratic 
institution. The American people are watching. They know that there's 
something going on in Washington, DC, that's not right. They don't 
completely understand all this process, but something they do know and 
understand and that's freedom and that's liberty.
  So we're charged with this responsibility to care for those who wear 
the uniform who now have been injured not only in the workplace but 
also on the battlefield. But when it comes time then for us to have an 
open discussion and debate on how best to do that, freedoms are denied. 
Pretty weird, pretty strange, very peculiar.
  As the ranking member of the Veterans Affairs Committee, I have three 
amendments that were made in order, but there are also two amendments 
that were not made in order. The first amendment that was not made in 
order would have transferred $230 million from the information 
technology system account to fund improvements in various other 
programs. In 2010, the VA conducted a major review of its major IT 
initiatives. Of over 300 programs that were reviewed, about 100 are 
still active or are in planning and about 100 are still being reviewed 
and about the other hundred have been stopped permanently or have been 
paused.
  This amendment would have taken the $230 million in savings from this 
review and put $120 million toward deficit reduction and use the 
remaining $100 million to increase the following VA accounts: medical 
and prosthetic research by $50 million to fund further research into 
new innovative treatments, such as the hyperbaric oxygen therapy for 
TBI; prosthetic devices for female amputees who often have difficulties 
with the fit and size of the traditional prosthesis tailored to the 
male physique; and helmets that measure the G-force impact and protect 
our servicemembers from these blast injuries.
  Also, with regard to the VBA general operating account, increase it 
by $2 million for VA to conduct an authorized longitudinal study for 
the VRE participants to assess the effectiveness of the program. Also, 
then increase the VHA medical services account by $48 million; $30 
million to improve VA's suicide prevention programs, including $100 
million for the national broadcast suicide prevention advertising 
campaign; $10 million for the VA to improve its services for homeless 
women veterans and homeless veterans with children; and $8 million for 
innovative treatments for TBI and mental health.
  Does that sound radical? That was made not in order. It is hard. That 
was not made in order. And so, okay, why? I don't know. The Rules 
Committee didn't give me an answer. That should have been made in 
order. That's something that should have been discussed.
  We have had a challenge here with regard to the IT systems at the VA, 
and I leave here in 6 months and the appropriators and the authorizers 
are going to have a real challenge here, especially as you go forward.
  Now, fortunately once we centralize the IT architecture you've got a 
really good--Roger Baker as the chief information officer, very 
talented individual, doing assessments. The Secretary's Shinseki. He 
gets it, he understands it. He's doing this review. But when you take 
down projects, and we've got those moneys, we can make judgments and 
choices with regard to how to use some of those dollars, and that's 
what we sought to do here, and that amendment should, in fact, have 
been made in order, and it's really unfortunate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 1 
additional minute.
  Mr. BUYER. There is another amendment, and I know, Mr. Speaker, my 
good friend, Chairman Edwards, had some concerns about one of the 
amendments that, in fact, was made in order, and I understand, and we 
can have a colloquy and we can get into that because I know you agree 
with what we're doing. Mr. Speaker, I believe that Chairman Edwards 
agrees with the initiatives in working with--I guess we can call them 
green initiatives, green management initiatives, but it's the renewable 
energy portfolio that's being done down at the VA.
  And it's really this advance appropriation is making it hard on how 
we move moneys between accounts, at the same time, what type of 
amendments can be brought to the floor. I mean, I tried to do this a 
couple of years ago, and the parliamentarian knocked an amendment out. 
And so I wanted to raise this issue on the floor that we have about 60 
projects out there, around $162 million, and we've got to figure out 
how to best fund these, and I will get into that with the Speaker 
later.
  My intention is not to offer that amendment that has been authorized

[[Page 14405]]

to offer, and I will work this out with Chairman Edwards. But I'm going 
to ask to oppose the rule, even though I compliment the good work the 
committee has done. But we need an open process.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to 
yield 5 minutes to my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier from California.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Miami for his very 
thoughtful remarks in his opening statement in which he talked about 
the greatness of this bill.
  This is a bipartisan bill, as has been pointed out by Mr. Crenshaw, 
as has been pointed out by Mr. Buyer. Democrats and Republicans alike 
have come together because, obviously, if we don't take care of our 
Nation's veterans, how are we going to incent our fellow Americans to 
join the armed services?
  When commitments are made to them, they need to be kept. We all want 
to do everything we can for the brave men and women who have fought on 
behalf and served on behalf of the United States of America.
  Obviously, I am here with a degree of sadness. I wasn't here for the 
exchange that took place when our friend, Mr. Flake, was here, but I 
have been told that my good friend from North Haven, who is managing 
this rule for the majority, indicated that if we had had an open 
amendment process, we would be allowing partisan obstructionism or 
something along that line to take place.
  Mr. Speaker, it's very interesting that we have made what I consider 
to be rather sad history in this place. My friend from North Haven is a 
new Member of this institution and has not once, in her 18 months as a 
Member of the United States House of Representatives, been able to 
witness or participate in a bill being debated under an open amendment 
process.
  I have got to say that until it is tried, I would say to my friend, 
Mr. Speaker, until it's tried, I would think that the notion of passing 
judgment on the problems of an open rule should really not be brought 
forward.
  I will tell you that it is clear that an open amendment process is 
messier and uglier and more difficult than having everything shut down, 
but that's really what the framers of our Constitution wanted. They 
wanted there to be a free-flowing discussion. I just listened to Mr. 
Buyer a few minutes ago talking about the green initiative, and he 
wanted to engage in a colloquy with Chairman Edwards about this.
  The fact is, when we get into an open amendment process, which, by 
the way, was done for every single year up until last year for almost 
all appropriations bills--in fact, virtually every appropriations bill 
has begun under an open amendment process. Then, if a bipartisan 
consensus and agreement cannot be struck to bring about some kind of 
limitation of debate between the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
ranking member, the Rules Committee has, on occasion, been called on. 
But the difficulty here for me to understand, Mr. Speaker, is that we 
are not even beginning with even a modicum of regular order.
  Yesterday, in the Rules Committee, I talked about William Natcher, 
who was a great Member of this institution and served for a period of 
time as chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Two decades ago, when 
I joined the Rules Committee, I discussed the appropriations process 
with Chairman Natcher. He was probably best known--well, he was known 
for lots of accomplishments, probably best known as the only human 
being to go, for all the years that he served here, without missing a 
single vote. In fact, he gave me advice when I got here. He said, Make 
a speech in the well and miss a vote. This guy never missed a vote, and 
he was bound to that.
  But one of the things that he was was a great institutionalist, and 
he understood what regular order consisted of. He believed that since 
appropriations bills are considered to be privileged resolutions, that 
those measures didn't have to go upstairs through the Rules Committee. 
They, instead, could come directly to the House floor. By virtue of 
doing that, it would mean that legislating an appropriations bill could 
be stricken by a point of order that a Member would raise, but he 
believed that that was the best way to do that.
  Well, we moved away from that, and he said he didn't think that it 
was a wise thing. But we moved to the point where the Rules Committee 
would say, gosh, if there are items in an appropriations bill that 
consisted of things like legislation, there was an agreement with the 
authorizing committee that the Rules Committee would protect those. It 
was understood and done pretty much with bipartisan consensus.
  But then Democrats and Republicans, alike, would be able to, under 
that sacrosanct appropriations process, offer germane amendments to the 
appropriations bill. Now we have gotten to the point, again, and for 
the first time in the history of the Republic, of shutting down the 
appropriations process, limiting the opportunities for Members to offer 
amendments.
  While this is a very, very, very good and a critically important bill 
which virtually all of us will support at the end of the day, it's not 
the right way to do it. Process is substance. The American people 
learned that very clearly when we had the 300-page amendment dropped on 
us up in the Rules Committee at 3 o'clock in the morning, that, in 
fact, said that we had just a few hours to look at that measure before 
it was to be debated on the House floor.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 30 
additional seconds.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me just close by saying that it's very, very 
important for us to recognize that process is substance. The American 
people get that. They understand that we are preventing their voice, 
Democrat and Republican alike, from being heard in this appropriations 
process.
  It is wrong, and I hope very much that as we move through the 
appropriations process this year we will get back through to regular 
order. I certainly hope that beginning next year, when a new 
appropriations process will begin, that we will have the kind of open 
amendment process that the American people expect and, through their 
elected representatives, deserve.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle, and I appreciate the words of my colleague and far 
more experienced Member from California. Thank you very much.
  I take your criticism that perhaps, although you didn't hear my words 
earlier today, that had I been here for the amount of time that you had 
or had the previous experience, I wouldn't have said exactly what I 
said about the political posturing that could go on under an open rule.
  You are right, 18 months I have been here. I have never had any 
experience in this legislative body about the process of which of you 
speak. So, far be it from me to say what the differences were from then 
until today, but I will say a little bit about my own experience.
  I have the good fortune of sitting on the Rules Committee, and 
perhaps some day, if I am here long enough, and I move my way up the 
chairs and I am the ranking member or the chair, I will want to 
advocate for doing things differently. But I only know the experience 
that I have had up to today, Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Now, I see frequent meetings of the Rules Committee. I see a 
tremendous number of amendments come before us. As my fellow members 
well know, Mr. Speaker, we often spend hours listening to potential 
amendments that could be heard here on the floor. I think this 
afternoon we will have the pleasure of joining the other members of the 
Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker, and hearing 120 or more amendments to the 
next potential appropriation bill that could come to the floor.

[[Page 14406]]

  I hear lively debate. I have been there to submit amendments. 
Sometimes they are accepted; sometimes they are not. I see amendments 
come to the floor that I agree with and I disagree with. So I see a lot 
of back-and-forth about the number of amendments. Perhaps it's not an 
open rule. You are right, I have never had the experience of an open 
rule here in this Chamber, but I have also had the experience of a 
tremendous number of amendments, some of which are politically 
motivated, some of which could take up a tremendous amount of our time, 
and I feel that generally the Rules Committee pares down the number of 
amendments to a reasonable number from each side, probably more for the 
majority than the minority, and I am sure that happened when the other 
party was in control, too.
  But the fact is, I hear a lot of lively debate. I have only the 
experiences that I have had, and I can't defend what might have 
happened in the past or what may happen in the future.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentlewoman yield, very briefly?
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I would say to my friend that she is absolutely right, having this 
18-month experience.
  The fact is, if the Rules Committee were to follow regular order and 
report out open rules, the meetings upstairs would last a grand total 
of 5 minutes because we would have the chairman and the ranking member 
of the subcommittee come forward, say we have got this bill, we have an 
open amendment process, any Member can stand up on the House floor and 
offer a germane amendment to the measure. It is considered under the 5-
minute rule. We would end the meeting upstairs and we would allow the 
House to work its will, which is, again, what was done up until last 
year when we had this shut down for the first time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I thank my friend for those words.
  I happen to enjoy many of the meetings we have when we have the time 
to consider both sides, the rules on both sides and the opportunities 
for what discussion will come to the floor. I appreciate being a member 
of the Rules Committee and being a part of that filtering process. I 
don't know if the process will change in the future, but I will say 
today we have a goodly number of amendments that will be considered on 
this.
  From my perspective, the most important thing that we are doing today 
is moving forward on this rule, which I hope will pass with a great 
majority, and moving forward to the consideration of this bill which, I 
will remind my colleagues, holds a tremendous amount of benefit for our 
home communities and our veterans, and that is actually why we are here 
today.
  I wouldn't want to see extensive consideration of so many amendments 
that we never got to the point of what people asked us to do. In this 
case, it's taking care of our veterans and making sure that they get 
the services that they deserve after they have served our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to this closed, or 
partially closed, rule.
  Thirty-four amendments is not overwhelming. Back just a couple years 
ago, heck, we would have double or triple that many on an open rule. 
And it really saddens me to hear that if something will take time to 
debate or it's controversial, that we are not going to allow it on the 
floor anymore. Mr. Speaker, democracy isn't supposed to be easy; 
dictatorships are.
  Now, I will rise in support of the underlying bill because I'm going 
to stand with our men and women in uniform, whether it's current or 
retired; those are our veterans.
  This bill does a great deal of good for Offutt Air Force base, the 
Bellevue/Omaha area, for our veterans. One of the most significant is 
$56 million for the design of a new VA inpatient hospital facility for 
that entire regional area. The current facility was built 60 years ago. 
It is dilapidated to the point where it is no longer even safe, let 
alone meets the appropriate standards. So I am proud that the VA has 
decided and agrees with the entire congressional delegation and the 
community that this inpatient facility must be replaced and we begin 
that process.
  The second has been a vision of our veterans community. There is no 
national veterans cemetery within the area of eastern Nebraska, western 
Iowa, northwest Missouri. The previous administration realized that the 
rule that was applied needed to be changed, and that was under 
Secretary Peake, and continued under the current administration--and I 
want to thank General Shinseki and this administration for following 
through--in rightfully determining that the service area for a veterans 
cemetery was actually 112,000 veterans that could be served. By doing 
that, that shot the eastern Nebraska, Omaha area to the top of the 
list. And so inside this bill is the appropriation to start the design 
and purchase of land of a new national veterans cemetery in the Omaha/
Bellevue area. That has been a labor of love that started with a small 
group of veterans in my office just a few years ago, and now I get to 
see it come to reality.
  The last is specific to Offutt Air Force Base. It makes a reference 
in the MILCON provisions that the new STRATCOM headquarters will begin 
construction in 2012 and that the costs need to be borne throughout all 
of the branches and the DOD. This is important for the community and 
the psyche of the Offutt Air Force Base community.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 30 
additional seconds.
  Mr. TERRY. I want to point out, in conclusion, that these are based 
on the merits of the project--the need for the hospital, the veterans 
cemetery, and the need for the headquarters. These aren't earmarks; 
these are things that are determined by merit by the VA and the 
Department of Defense. And I want to go on record as the Representative 
of this area in complete support of this bill and those projects.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
  My amendment that was proposed to the Rules Committee is one of those 
that's been denied under this very closed rule.
  This appropriation bill does much to honor our Nation's commitment to 
veterans who have sacrificed for our freedoms, but I'm concerned that 
our own government is unfairly taking away freedom from those veterans.
  Many Americans should be shocked to learn that an outrageous 
Department of Veterans Affairs process is arbitrarily stripping the 
Second Amendment rights of veterans and their families who simply 
receive assistance managing their financial affairs. I offered an 
amendment to reform the VA practice that wrongly denies gun ownership 
rights to veterans. Despite the support for this change by a number of 
veterans organizations, like the American Legion, as well as the 
National Rifle Association, I am disappointed that the majority did not 
allow my amendment to go forward and be heard and offered on the floor 
today.
  Federal law prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms 
because they pose a danger to society or themselves, such as convicted 
felons, illegal aliens, and those who are adjudicated mentally ill. The 
Brady Act requires the FBI to maintain a database of these individuals 
called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System which 
prevents them from purchasing firearms.
  Over the past 10 years, the VA has sent names of over 100,000 
veterans, their spouses, and their children to the

[[Page 14407]]

FBI, not because they pose any danger, but simply because the VA 
determined they could not handle their VA benefits. The VA appoints 
fiduciaries to help veterans who, for example, have a credit problem or 
who cannot manage their financial affairs due to health reasons.
  The VA's review process for assigning a fiduciary only examines a 
veteran's financial responsibility and does not look at whether the 
veteran is a danger to himself or others. But when veterans are 
appointed fiduciaries, the VA automatically deems them as ``mentally 
defective'' and forwards their names to the FBI. Without so much as a 
hearing, these veterans are then prohibited by law from purchasing 
firearms. By comparison, the Social Security Administration has 
assisted over 5 million beneficiaries with their finances, but the 
Social Security Administration does not send those names to the FBI.
  It is wrong to take away any veteran's constitutional right to keep 
and bear arms simply because they cannot manage their financial 
affairs. My amendment would have ended this unjust practice. The 
amendment would have required that before the VA can forward the 
veteran's name to the FBI, an appropriate judicial authority must rule 
that the veteran poses a danger to himself or to others should he own a 
firearm.
  I am disappointed my amendment was denied, and as a result veterans 
will continue to be denied their due process and constitutional rights. 
I encourage my colleagues to support legislation that I and the 
gentleman from Texas have introduced called the Veterans Second 
Amendment Protection Act, H.R. 2547, to correct this wrong and restore 
gun rights to our country's veterans.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege 
to yield 3 minutes to a brilliant new Member of this House from Hawaii 
(Mr. Djou).
  Mr. DJOU. I thank my colleague from Florida.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my 
disappointment that my amendment was not allowed to be submitted to 
this body. I specifically wanted to highlight my amendment, which was 
asking to restore funding for the relocation of American forces away 
from Okinawa to Guam, as requested by President Obama. I think it is a 
major mistake that this body is not going to support the President's 
request for the relocation of American forces.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee and a Member who 
represents a large portion of the Pacific fleet in Hawaii, I support 
restoring funds for construction to further the realignment of Marine 
Corps forces from Okinawa to Guam in H.R. 5822. The committee reduced 
the appropriation request submitted by the President by 50 percent.
  The Guam realignment will be one of the largest moves of military 
forces in decades. The postponement of construction of necessary 
military facilities and infrastructure will cause unnecessary delay and 
threaten our geopolitical positioning in the Asia-Pacific region.
  My amendment was also completely offset by reallocating funds from 
military construction requests that were put above what President Obama 
had asked for. Mr. Speaker and Members, I want to highlight to this 
body that right now, as all of us talk, 2 days ago, the United States 
Armed Forces began the largest war game operations in the Korean 
peninsula in the Yellow Sea since the end of the Cold War. The reason 
we entered these war game operations is because of the instability that 
continues to unfortunately exist in East Asia and the Korean peninsula.
  By failing to support the President in allocating sufficient funding 
to establish new force location in Guam, over the short term we might 
be okay; but over the long term, this is a major geopolitical mistake 
that this Congress is making. I hope that Congress reconsiders and I 
hope the Senate re-examines this. I am disappointed I was unable to 
offer this amendment on this very important and serious matter.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Mr. Speaker, the passage of this rule is a 
vital step towards improving our military infrastructure and ensuring 
that the quality of care for our veterans and their families is worthy 
of their sacrifice.
  My home State has one of the highest populations of veterans per 
capita in the country. In a State of 1.3 million people, Maine is home 
to over 155,000 veterans.

                              {time}  1520

  These men and women have served without question, without politics 
and without hesitation. We must make a promise to them and to all of 
our veterans that we will do the same. We must provide them with the 
health care and the benefits that they deserve--without question, 
without politics, and without hesitation. By passing H.R. 5822, we will 
begin to keep that promise.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 1559 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on motions to suspend the rules with regard to:
  H.R. 4692, by the yeas and nays;
  H. Res. 1543, by the yeas and nays; and
  H.R. 5827, by the yeas and nays.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243, 
nays 178, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 476]

                               YEAS--243

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky

[[Page 14408]]


     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--178

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Akin
     Andrews
     Fallin
     Hoekstra
     Lewis (GA)
     Smith (TX)
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Watson
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1550

  Messrs. McCLINTOCK, GERLACH, and POSEY changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________