bills to the floor in an open fashion which we have always done on both sides of the aisle. it's time to end this mendacity and this unconscionable activity. it's all -- let's all vote against this rule, let's send it back, let's bring forward an open rule and a fair process so that veterans in every congressional district across these 50 states will have an opportunity to be heard. and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. who seeks recognition at this time? the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the chairman of the appropriations committee, mr. obey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. mr. obey: i'd like to thank the gentlewoman for the time. i'd like to respond to the fiction that i have just heard from the previous speaker. the previous speaker indicated that never in the history of the congress have we had structured rules for

appropriation bills. i would like to suggest that he ought to read a little history. he will find -- we have 12 appropriation bills we have to bring to the floor each year. he will find that during the republican control of this house at least six of the 12 bills were brought to this floor under structured rules. he will find that almost 20 times that is the case. i would also like to -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. obey:. no. i have five minutes. you attacked me. i'd ask the chair to prevent further interruptions. the fact is i would like to ask the house a question. why is it that some members of this house believe that the

appropriations committee must bring bills to the floor that are totally open when the ways and means committee when it brings tax bills to the floor is entitled to have a totally closed rule? now, there is no inherent difference between the two, but there is one historical difference, and that is that the ways and means committee used to be the committee that handed out committee assignments to members of the house. and so the message went out, don't mess with the ways and means committee because they determine your career path in this institution. there is no great historical or moral or substantive reason to have that differentiation. it's simply a question of power

relationships in the house that determined that. i would also like to point out, the appropriations committee has the right to bring to the floor its appropriation bills without ever going to the rules committee. and in fact we've had subcommittee chairs who've done that. the advantage to the appropriations committee in doing that is that when the bills come to the floor without going to the rules committee what happens is that any legislation on an appropriation bill, which under the house rules is off-limits, any legislation will be stricken out of point of order. i remember when neal smith would bring his bill to the floor and within 20 minutes the bill was shredded. there were a few paragraphs left in the bill. it took about an hour to finish the bill and then neal could go out and have a conference with the senate and do anything he

wanted to do because there were no limitations. so i would -- so it has been an advantage to individual house members for the appropriations committee to go to the rules committee. whether or not there's a totally open rule or whether there's a structured rule, because at least then individual members have some capacity to influence the results. now, we have made quite clear to the minority side we would like to proceed in as open a fashion as possible. mr. hoyer, the majority leader, and i went to the republican leadership weeks and weeks ago and asked them if there was some way we could work out time agreements so that we could finish these 12 bills before we go home for the august recess. the minority says they want us to do all of these bills individually, not wrap them up into c.r. but then they proceed to demand a procedure which will in the

end result in bills going into a c.r. and so we ask the minority leadership, will you agree to time limits? and the response was, well, if we did that, our caucus would elect somebody else. we asked -- no, i will not yield. we asked the leadership, would you be willing to buy a process in which we'll give you the opportunity to offer 10 or 15 amendments, the majority party will offer five or six, you pick the amendments? and they said, no, they didn't want to do that. there are a limit number of hours between now and the time we recess. if we want to get our work done, we have to limit the debate time that we spend on these bills. so there's nothing radcally new about this. we're simply trying to get the job done, and we're going to do that if it takes all summer. the speaker pro tempore: the

time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas, for what purpose do you rise? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. i'm delighted today to yield to the distinguish young gentleman from california, mr. dreier. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: i'll yield to him after i make a couple of points. first, the gentleman has ended his remarks by talking about the need for some kind of outside time limit. in fact, just yesterday i pulled out of my coat pocket the schedule that we have seen, and we all understand that getting the appropriations work done is important. it's a priority for democrats and republicans alike. the fact of the matter is the rules committee with a great deal of ease could in fact simply report out a special rule which would establish an outside time limit on the amendment process at all and we could proceed as has been the case for the last 220 years with an open amendment process.

now, my friend also referred to the fact that -- and i know that my friend from marietta said -- he didn't say it was unprecedented to have structured rules when we deal with appropriations bills, but it is unusual. and i will remind my friend who talked about the history that back in 1997 when we did in fact have five appropriations bills considered under structured rules, it was done so after in the case of one it came to the floor as our late colleague, the former chairman of the committee, mr. natcher, said bills should always be considered as privileged. the disparity between a measure emerging from the ways and means committee and the privileged structure for consideration of appropriations bills is something that is very easily understood in the rules of the house of representatives. and so i'd be happy to yield to my friend if he'd like to

respond to the notion of the fact that we began those measures that ultimately would be considered under structured rules, we began them as -- one, under a privileged structure, which meant that the rules committee did not even need to act because points of order could be raised against the work product of the measure itself. and also to the point of time limits. the rules committee could easily report out of the rule that could establish an outside time limit. that's all we'd need to do and then we'd consider the measure under an open amendment process. i'd be happy to yield to my friend. mr. obey: let me simply say to the gentleman, i don't see any need to continue chewing this cut over and over and over again. mr. dreier: reclaiming my time, mr. speaker. if i could reclaim my time -- mr. obey: i didn't ask for the time. you offered it to me and i'm accepting it. mr. dreier: my friend stood up and began saying we considered measures under a structured rules in the past, and it's frankly important for us in the name of democrats and

republicans alike who are denied amendments and the american people whose representatives are not able to participate in the very important constitutional article 1, section 9 responsibility of appropriations here. that's why there is in fact bipartisan concern on this issue, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. who seeks recognition at this time? the gentlewoman from maine. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, at this time we have a young man who serves as coach of our baseball team but perhaps even better than that, just showing himself as an all-american, mr. buyer, who is a dedicated veteran of the first gulf war and served as a colonel in the united states army reserves and he's the ranking member of the house veterans' affairs committee. i'd like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from monticello, indiana.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. buyer: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in opposition of this rule because h.r. 3082 represents a dramatic shift in the way that we provide funding for v.a. medical care by providing advanced appropriations for medical services, medical facilities and medical supports and compliance accounts. now, i have some great concerns because of the stress placed on the budget model could place us in the v.a. supplemental business. it also leaves out the i.t. and medical research accounts. so my amendment that was not made in order under this rule tried to correct what i viewed as a flawed process. the amendment would have added the v.a. information technology systems and the v.a. medical and prosthetic research accounts to the other v.a. medical care accounts that are

included in the advanced appropriation section. now, many issues were raised about the potential legislative proposals that had advanced items on the committee on veterans' affairs oversight hearing including the following -- funding some accounts under advanced appropriation and some accounts under fiscal appropriation could potentially create accounting complexities. secretary shinseki expressed concern that the v.a. i.t. is integrated into the accounts and should be considered for advanced appropriation. the congressional research service observed that not including i.t. in advanced appropriations could, quote, create a situation whereby, for example, v.h.a. could not purchase computer software although it has procured medical equipment that needs the i.t. software, end quote. or would not be able to provide the necessary i.t.

infrastructure for new community based outpatient clinics. they also pointed out the failure to include prosthetic research could raise problems for funding research projects and research support, such as personnel costs and administrative support. when i offered a similar amendment at the full committee markup of h.r. 1016, as amended, which is -- which is the bill that authorized the advanced appropriations proposal, it received broad bipartisan support and passed the veterans' affairs authorizing committee 17-8. since the language of my amendment was a also part of the final version of the bill when it passed the house, all i was trying to do was bring consistency between h.r. 1016, as amended, and the bill before us today. every member of the rules committee voted in favor of 1016, so i'm disappointed to see that the very same provision was not made in

order. the american people, particularly the veterans, deserves a fair and open process and debate on this issue, and it's unfortunate that this opportunity has been blocked by the rules committee for partisan reasons. since open debate on this issue was disallowed, it's my hope to continue to work with chairman edwards and ranking member wamp to include these accounts in next year's budget resolution and then in the 2011's appropriations bills. that's the only choice that i now have. so i'll work -- attempt to work with you if you want to work with me. what i've learned around this place is bipartisanship is a choice. it's a choice. and i've been here now for 17 years, and i've listened to chairman obey, not only in the majority, in the minority and now back in the majority. and being consistent to my good friend is really important. so if you can remember what you were like in the minority, be consistent to how you're like in the majority, and that's how you endure respect from all of

us. that's my good counsel to my good friend. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. who seeks recognition? the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a member of the rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 3082, the military construction and veterans' affairs appropriations act for fiscal year 2010, and the rule. i'd like to thank chairman edwards of the military construction and veterans' affairs appropriations committee, as well as chairman obey, for their hard work as well as the dedicated work of their staff in bringing this bill before us. this legislation truly reflects our commitment to improving the quality of life for our service men and women as well as our veterans who have given so much to defend the freedoms that we enjoy every day. in the midst of an economic crisis and a war on two fronts, fully funding the veterans' affairs bill is critical to our country's ability to address the needs of our veterans and our military families. this bill authorizes funding

for the department of veterans' affairs to fund a number of worthy projects, such as building housing for our troops, mental health services and grants for the construction of extended care facilities and veterans cemeteries. as a coloradan, i'm particularly pleased to see that the fitzsimmons veterans' affairs hospital in aurora will receive $19 million as part of the military construction bill. it's absolutely crucial for the state of colorado and for the veterans in my district to have access to quality care close to their home. i'm very grateful to secretary shinseki who invited us from the colorado delegation to the department of veterans' affairs to make this announcement last month and his staff. they've truly recognized the urgency of completing a project that's been torn by uncertainty and going back to the drawing board for many, many years and finally move forward and funding this military construction and veterans' affairs act. this bill will help ensure the obama administration continues to move quickly forward, and i urge my colleagues to vote yes

on the rule and vote yes on the final passage of 3082. thank you, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, for what purpose do you rise? mr. sessions: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to the rule. as congress moves forward in the debate on health care, we should ensure that any national health care reform plan preserves the unique needs of our veterans and service members as well as protects the unique identity and role of the successful programs and assurances they depend on. if we subject these benefits to new taxation or if we fold them into a large government-run program, the quality and availability of care for our nation's veterans will suffer. it could undermine recruiting, retention and ultimately national security. i hoped today to offer an amendment to make sure that any new health care program would not undercut the services currently available for our men

and women in uniform. unfortunately, i was not allowed to do so today because of the closed rule. it is frustrating when good ideas cannot move forward. mr. speaker, the service members and veterans in our country who have served our nation, they have unique health care needs. we fulfill them through specific mechanisms, such as the v.a., tricare, and others. these are essential to making sure we meet our obligations to those serving in uniform and that we do so in a personal and effective way. they provide specific needed coverage that recognizes the extraordinary sacrifices that are inherent to those who serve in our military. similarly, there are unique and specialized v.a. program this is a recognize the special government responsibilities to those who incur injuries and illness as a result of their service. moreover, specific services and programs for families of those who helped serve the grateful nation to give back to those

who have sacrificed so much for all of us. it's too bad we are unable to move forward on my amendment because we would have recognized and protected the responsibility tosser vis members and veterans in any health care package moving through congress. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i would like to advise the gentlewoman i have a few minutes left, i would reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: i'm the last speaker for this side, i'll reserve. mr. sessions: i think it's interesting that two of our newest members from colorado and maine have never seen an open rule. they've only served for six months but they could have served for almost two years.

never would have seen an open rule on this floor. that's really the measure of what republicans are trying to talk about. we're teaching our newest young members what things shouldn't look like. should not look like. we need open rules. as a result of that, mr. speaker, i'm going to be asking for a no vote. no vote on the previous question, we can amend this rule and allow for an open rule. that's the way we should teach especially new member that open rules should be part of a regular process. there's no question that the rule the majority brings forth today will only cement the dangerous precedent that the majority has been setting now for over two years. it will only damage bipartisanship and it harms us in our committees. it's part of most conversations in committees about what this speaker is doing. i urge my colleagues to consider what we're about to do

and vote no, to say no to this. so we can allow free and open debate on appropriations bills and uphold the rights of millions of meshes and not just republican bus democrats also. because they're being shut out also by their own party. this is not open, it's not honest, and i don't think it's ethical. i believe the majority will come to regret this decision to close down this deliberative process here in this floor during appropriations seasons. i ask unanimous consent to submit the text of my material and other extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sessions: thank you. i urge a no vote on the rule. thank you for listening to republican today. we believe it's -- not just our right, but the right thing to do to come and speak forthrightly about our ideas about members of the military, about v.a. hospitals that are in our districts, about

veterans affairs centers that need to operate in a more efficient way. we're proud of the men and women that serve our military. i was proud to have the gentleman, mr. buyer, gulf war veteran, come and speak forthrightly about what we think ought to happen. we're proud of this country and proud of our military. but we think we also to make more deliberative decisions in this house. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to point out, as we're closing, there's been a tremendous amount of conversation on the floor about the open rule, about the process here, i want to point out to members that even under an open rule, nearly 2/3 of the amendments submitted to the rules committee were in violation of house rules and would have been -- would have been subject to points of order, they wouldn't have been able to proceed on the house floor. the majority of amendments you've heard about this morning

from my good friend in minnesota, from my colleague in georgia, those are rule this is a would have been -- those were amendments that would have been in violation of house rules, would have been subject to a point of order, and while they made good points about why they want to have had their amendment moved forward, the point is, that wouldn't have happened today anyway, even if we'd been under open rule. my colleague from texas mentioned a few of us who are new here who haven't been through the appropriations process under open rules. i will say that most of the bills othat come to the floor come under structured rule. there may have been a tradition in the past of appropriations bills coming under more of an open rule, but i've balanced that with the remarks of our colleague from the appropriations committee, mr. obey, who talked to us about the tremendous amount of work we're expected to get done. i can tell you from my constituents back in the state of maine, they say, you've got a lot of work to do, on renewable energy, on health care, we want to see you move

forward on those issues we want to see appropriations bills like the one we're talking about today, that are going to provide vital services for veteran, we want to see those get done. we don't want to listen to you with hours of endless debate, particularly on thing this is a would be subject to points of order and wouldn't be allowed to be discussed. we want to see you get your work done. as a very proud member of the rules committee, i have the opportunity to listen to a tremendous number of amendment this is a come before us. i feel very good about the way we are moving forward with our work and about the challenge this is a we are facing for the american public, all that is before us, and the importance of getting our work done. i do want to remind us today that in spite of all the other conversation that's gone on this particular rule is a vital step forward toward improving our military infrastructure and insurance -- ensuring the quality care of our veterans and their families, making sure it is worthy of their

sacrifice. that is why we are here on the floor this morning, to talk about our veterans to talk about military construction to talk about making sure that we are there for them. my home state of maine has one of the highest population of veterans in the country. in a state of not even two million people, maine is home to over 155,000 veterans, nearly 1/5 of our population. they have served without question, without politics, and certainly without delay. we must make a promise to them and to all of our veteran this is a we will do the same. we must provide them with health care and the benefits they deserve without question, without politics, and without delay. passing h.r. 3082, we will begin to keep that promise. i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule, and i yield back the obalance of my time. i move the previous question on

the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair e chair will redu five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption. this shall be a 15-minute vote. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 241 -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 243, the nays are 174 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 244, the nays are 174, the previous question is ordered. the question son adoption of the resolution. haye those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise.

a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 241, the nays are 179, the resolution is agreed. to without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on h.r. 3082. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 622 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h. are 3082. the chair appoints ms. baldwin to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the

committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3082, which the clerk will repot by title. the clerk: unocalen da number 101, h.r. 3082 a bill making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans' affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time the gentleman from texas, mr. edwards, and the gentleman from tennessee, mr. wamp, will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. edwards: may i ask for order in the house, please. the chair: the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. edwards: madam chair, members, on behalf of america's

service men and women, our veterans, and their families, it's a privilege for me to present the fiscal year 2010 military construction and veterans eaffairs appropriations bill. i believe this bill and the work we have done since january of 2007 is work that all of us, democrats and republicans aliking can be very proud of. in this time of war, we have continued our tradition of a bipartisan military construction and veterans' appropriations bill a bill that honors in a meaningful way the service and sacrifice of our service men and women, our veteran, and their families. in the past 2 1/2 year arkse long with the passage of this bill, the congress will have increased veterans' health care and benefits funding by 58%, that is unprecedented in the history of this country and i believe our veterans and their families have earned every dime of that funding.

may i ask for regular order, please. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee is not in order. members are asked to bring their conversations off the floor and take their seats. the gentleman is recognized. mr. edwards: we have a new 2 st century g.i. education bill and recently president obama signed into law a provision amending that bill. it will provide a college scholarship to every child who has lost a mother or father in military service to our country since september 11, 2001. in 2 1/2 years this congress will have done a number of things on behalf of our veterans and troops, including adding 8,300 v.a. claims processors to reduce the backlog that veterans are having to stand in in order to receive their earned benefits. we will have provided funding for an additional 115 v.a.

community-based outpatient clinics and this bill adds 30 more. we will have provided an additional 42 vet centers and this bill adds 28 more. we will have allowed the veterans health administration to hire an additional 2,657 doctors, 11,509 nurses and other critical additional staff. we will increase the travel reimbursement rate, the per mileage reimbursement rate, for veterans having to travel in some cases hundreds of miles to v.a. hospitals, which had not been increased since 1979. we will increase that from 11 cents per mile to 41 1/2 cents per mile. to many in america, that extra 30 cents may not sound like much, to many of america's finest, our veterans, it's the difference between them being able to afford to drive to get the v.a. care, the health care they need and deserve, or not. our increased funding for veterans in this bill and over

the past 2 1/2 years means our veterans have better access to health care they need and deserve and have earned. it means improved access to health care for veterans in rural areas and it means the opening of the doors of our v.a. hospitals and clinics to many middle and low income veterans who are not been allowed the opportunity that they had earned through their military service. additionally these resources ensure that our veterans will have shorter waiting times for doctors appointments. we've also worked hard to make sure that our service men and women know that congress deeply respects the sacrifices that they and the unsung heroes of america's defense, their families, have made each and every day to keep our nation safe. we've heard time and again in testimony, the best support we can give our military when they're deployeded overseas is the knowledge that their families are cared for here at home. we've listened to that voice and

have tried to find a number of key initiatives for our troops. for example, in the past year, this subcommittee will have added $2.8 billion for new military hospitals so that our service men and women know that their families will get the best possible health care and high quality facilities while they're serving overseas. we've headed -- added $1 billion for new child care centers to serve 20,000 additional military children and $570 million in additional funding for barracks because congress needs to show our volunteer forces from day one that we appreciate their decision to serve. the subcommittee for military construction in veterans affairs did not accomplish this alone. there's several key leaders that have worked tirelessly behind the scenes to support these efforts. i want to especially commend speaker pelosi who promised over three years ago that if she became speaker she would make supporting our veterans and

their families one of congress' highest priorities. speaker pelosi has kept that promise to those who've kept their promise to serve our nation. and i salute her for that. i want to salute chairman obey, another one of the unsung heroes in supporting our veterans, our service men and women and their families. while mr. wamp and i have often been up front on this, chairman obey has provided the allocations, the unprecedented historic increased allocations for our subcommittee that has allowed to us accomplish many of the goals and achievements that i have mentioned in the last few minutes. in particular, above all other things that he has done, i want to thank chairman obey for providing a green light and encouraging and supporting and facilitating the historic initiative in this bill which is for the first time ever we will provide forward funding for

veterans health care funding. it would not have happened without mr. obey's support. in addition, chairman spratt, not a member of our subcommittee, but the chairman of the house budget committee, is has played a key role, along with chairman filner, the chairman of the veterans affairs committee and finally but absolutely not least i want to thank my colleague, my friend and the ranking member of this committee, mr. wamp of tennessee. he has been a partner, a leader at every step of the way in supporting our troops and our veterans in and their families. his commitment -- commitment to our military and veterans is deep, it's genuine and he puts it to work every day by working hard in their behalf -- on their behalf and i want to thank him in not only shaping this bill but our bill last year as well. madam chair, let me try to focus rather than on a long list of

numbers, some of the major initiatives in this bill. as i reference for the first time in history, we provide an advanced appropriation for v.a. medical care. this will allow the v.a. to invest taxpayer dollars more efficiently and more effectively. and i want to thank in addition to having thanked mr. obey, mr. spratt, mr. wamp, speaker pelosi, for making this possible, i want to salute america's veterans service organizations, the leaders of our veterans organizations who have made this one of their highest priorities. second we provide $450 million to build new troop housing for army trainees. over 60,000 of whom are presently living in barracks that don't even meet minimum d.o.d. standards. you know, 18-year-old and 19-year-old military recruits don't have many lobbyists running around capitol hill on their behalf but they deserve our nation's respect and support for their decision to serve in the military.

third, we provide $200 million for guard and reserve construction initiatives, recognizing the vital role these troops are playing in iraq and afghanistan and in our nation's defense and particularly in addition to his other efforts, i want to thank mr. wamp for taking the leadership role on this guard and reserve initiative. fourth, this bill begins the process of funding our operations in iraq and afghanistan through the regular appropriations process and we include $1.4 billion for vital military construction to support our troops in afghanistan. fifth, recognizing that the mental wounds of war can sometimes be as painful and long lasting as the physical wounds of war, we provide $4.6 billion for the v.a. to continue its improvements in ptsd and mental health care for america's vets. sixth, this bill includes funding for the 1,200 new claims processors, to reduce the backlog of veterans receiving the benefits they've earned.

seventh, this bill also continues to open up as i referenced breent briefly, v.a. medical care to more middle and low number veterans, many of whom have been locked out since a cap was placed on income thresholds back in 2003. finally, we want to ensure that -- and this is important -- we want to ensure that the historic increases for v.a. health care and benefits, that those dollars are spent wisely. so, and i know mr. wamp and i share a strong commitment to this. we want to see that every dime of that is spent for the highest priority needs of our veterans. so together we supported increasing the v.a. office of inspector general by $19.2 million and we have every intention through our subcommittee of exercising increased oversight of the v.a. to see that these tax dollars are spent effectively and efficiently. just a few basic numbers.

overall, this bill totals $77.9 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal year 2010. this is $239 million above president obama's request and $5 billion more than fiscal year 2009. the v.a., we include $48.2 billion in fiscal year 2011, advanced funding for v.a. medical services, medical support and compliance and medical facilities and $8.3 -- and an 8.3% increase over the historic funding level of 2010. for military construction, the bill provides $24.6 billion and fully funds it at $7.5 billion. for the v.a., the fiscal year 2010, the bill provides $53 billion in discretionary funding. this is $5.4 billion above the 2009 funding and matches president obama's v.a. request, which i should point out was the largest increase requested by any president in over three

decades. the fiscal year 2010 increase for the veterans health administration is $4.4 billion which is 11% over fiscal year 2009. finally, i want to thank people who work every day, in fact, day and night, behind the scenes, without public applause, for our veterans and our troops and their families. these are the people who make up the staff of the military construction and v.a. appropriations subcommittee and i want to thank them by name. the minority staff led by martin, liz and kelly and aaron and juan from mr. wamp's staff. the majority staff led by subcommittee clerk carol, tim, murray, walter and donna and lindsay of my staff. i would also like to thank a special thanks to john who has recently let my staff -- left my staff to work for our military as an employee of the pentagon.

all of these people have helped continue the long, proud tradition and legacy of this subcommittee to work on a bipartisan, frankly a nonpartisan, basis, always putting our troops and veterans first and as i say that, i once again thank our ranking member for always fighting and putting first our troops and our veterans. with that i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. wamp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wamp: it is indeed a high privilege and a great honor to stand on the floor today with chairman edwards and present the 2010 military construction veterans affairs and related agencies appropriations bill. indeed this bill is not about us, it's not about our individual districts, it's about them, those that volunteer to

serve our country in the uniform of our armed forces, past, present and future. they're willingness to stand between a threat and our civilian population, extend freedom from this generation to the next and join the thousands of others that have preserved our freedoms, protected our way of life. this is a very important bill. it is worthy of our support, it is a bipartisan product. as the chairman said earlier, this bill is not pushed by lobbyists or outside interests other than the veterans service organizations and the families of those that are serving and have served. it is our honor and frankly our sacred duty to make sure that we give these great americans what they deserve and what they need. i think if ask you our men and

women in harm's way today, what can we do for you? the first thing they'd say is take care of our families while we're serving. and when we come home, support us. this bill does that. i'm grateful for that. i can't thank chairman edwards enough. he's diligent, he's fair, he's honorable and he's totally committed to these men and women in uniform and we're working together on guaranteeing the efficiencies of these resources and the investments that we're making. this bill funds the needs for military construction and family housing, for our troops, their families, the quality of life construction projects and provides funding for all the programs that the veterans administration and related agencies have asked for in their budget request. this bill literally touches every soldier, say lohr, aviator, marine, military spouse, child, every veteran who participates in v.a. programs and it takes good care of our

national cemeteries and monuments that are funded in this bill as well. we worked together through 18 hearings, we asked a lot of questions, we had very good witnesses, a totally cooperative effort. i want to thank all of our subcommittee members from both sides, specifically today i want to thank mr. farr and mr. crenshaw who really supported the chairman and myself through this process. mr. farr is vice chairman. mr. crenshaw, when i could not be there on certain days, outstanding work by them. this bill reflects bipartisan input and cooperation and that is the tradition of this bill, and we've honored that tradition and worked well together and it truly is a bipartisan bill. i want to talk about a couple of initiatives in the bill without going into specific numbersing because chairman edwards will highlighted many of the numbers.

the garden reserve initiative is -- the guard and reserve initiative is extremely important. because we've been fighting terrorists since 2001, our guard levels remains at a high level. it's likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. they've had more than 17,000 activations, including the current level of 142,000. i'm pleased to join chairman edwards in supporting the additional $200 million in this bill to address urgent, unfunded requirements for the army and air national guard and the reserve forces of the army, navy, marine corps and air force. on brack, the amount asked for is $17 million. they testify it's critical to have this funding on october 1 of this year in order to meet their september 15, 2011

statutory deadline to complete brack 2005. i will continue to work with chairman edwards to make sure this gets done on time. however, the house-passed defense authorization bill cuts $350 million from this brack account on this year on the cost of the provision that requires prevailing wage equivalency with hawaii for military construction on guam related to the relocation of our marines from japan. the c.b.o. has scored this provision as costing $10 billion other the next 10 -- over the next 10 years. that's twice the amount of the entire relocation from japan to qualm. this is the largest milcon investment in a generation and it's really important we address this issue throughout this process. i spoke at the rules committee yesterday to raise this issue, we have spoke within the leadership of the house. we've spoke within the

leadership of the congress to say this is a problem. and it has to be addressed as this bill moves forward and the process moves forward because we can't afford to double the cost of the -- he -- relocation from japan to guam based on the prevailing wage issue. too much. we've got to resolve it. the chairman spoke eloquently about, we reached a bipartisan agreement, i am very pleased with the way they allowed our ranking member, mr. lewis, and i to weigh in, because none of us want to retreat from our constitutional prerogative or obligation. we have -- obligation we have to oversee all funding on an annual basis, however, we share the goal of making sure that the v.a. has the money they need in a timely manner and can

make decisions that maximize their effectiveness because it's a big bureaucracy and when the money is in doubt, the changes and reforms necessary to improve efficiency can't be met. the bill contains $48.2 billion for advanced appropriations for medical services, medical support and compliance and medical facilities which is $3.7 billion above the amount recommended in the fy-10 bill for these accounts. on v.a. spending, i continue to be concerned about the ability of the v.a. to absorb large funding increases provided in this bill. i'm very pleased to support the increases, but it is absolutely our job to make sure, not just that we raise the funding levels but that the money is well spent, spent in a timely manner, it's effectively spent

and there's accountability throughout the entire process. we continue to raise this issue. i think there's bipartisan commitment to this, and i want to point that out as well. information technology -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. wamp: i'll be happy to yield to the ranking member. mr. lewis: you're making a point that's fundamental. i'd like to commend both of you, the chairman and ranking member for a fabulous job here. most importantly, some years ago, i had the opportunity to chair the v.a. appropriations subcommittee. during those years, we were most concerned that while there was bipartisan support on the house floor and funding rose for veterans, that the various organization this is a support funding and veterans here in washington were not helping us much out there where people really get their service at the veterans' hospitals. there's been a radical change in our ability to make sure that service is being delivered

effectively and it's due to the work of the two of you and the bipartisan effort here that we've had this success. so thank you. mr. wamp: we claiming my -- reclaiming my time, on this same front, the information technology account is a significant increase. $833 million above the 2009-enacted level, an increase of $559 million above the 2009 level when the reprogramming action that was approved is taken into consideration, and it is a large, unchecked spending increase to one account that the g.a.o. and the o.i.g. and others have documented the v.a.'s inability to effectively manage these resources. i agree with secretary shinseki when he testified he's going to need i.t. to be a key part of his plan to transform the v.a. however, with the documented concerns about this account, it remains doubtful that this will

occur. not more than three hours after our subcommittee markup, the staff participated in a briefing at the request of v.a.'s assistant secretary for i.t. the purpose of the briefing was to provide the committee an update on a thorough analysis the v.a. was undertaking to review their i.t. portfolio. they revealed there are a number that are behind schedule, and more than 50% over budget. we asked for the list of these programs along with the 2009 and 2010 costs for them, more than three weeks have passed and the v.a. has yet to show the costs for the projects. that's an example of how increasing the funding if the checks are in place to get the checks where they're supposed to go. it's not just increasing the fund but making sure the veterans benefit increases funding, to make sure the

bureaucracy is held accountable. and that the money flows down in a timely manner. and then, the national cemetery administration. i want to note the increased funding for this amount. $20 million above the level of $230 million. that will go a long way to meet the current needs and giving the ability to look at cemetery expansion in areas where expansion is needed, including chattanooga, where we have a historic national cemetery. without mentioning names, because the chairman has, i can't say enough about the professional staff. those behind me, those behind him, it's anonor for all of us to be part of this team. i don't think there is a higher privilege that any of us could ask for than to serve the men and women in the uniform of our armed forces, past, present, and future. madam chairman, as i conclude,

i want to thank mr. lewis and mr. obey, who served as distinguished ranking member and chairman of the committee. this is a good bill. it deserves our support. i look forward to continuing our work through the conference committee and i want to encourage chairman edwards and chairman obey to insist we have a conference committee that we meet with the senate that we look eye to eye and resolve any of our differences. i think that is the regular order we desire to return to. with that, madam chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from ks texas is recognized. mr. edwards: if there's a single unsung hero on behalf of veterans, it's the chairman of the full committee, mr. obey, for that reason, i'd like to recognize him for two minutes for any remarks he'd care to make. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. obey: i have one question for the gentleman from

tennessee are you really sure you want us to meet with the senate? mr. wamp: i'm running for governor, sir. mr. obey: does that mean you're running away from the senate? madam chair, let me simply congratulate both the gentleman from tennessee and the gentleman from texas for the fine work they've done on this bill. i think every member of the house can be proud of what has happened in terms of our delivering of benefits to veterans on the health care front and on the education front. over the past three years we have had significant increases in veterans' health benefits. we also last year passed a -- a landmark and historic expansion of the g.i. bill, education benefits, by passage of the web amendment -- of the webb

amendment in the supplemental appropriation bill this year. we enhanced the ability of spouses of and children of veterans to receive transfer benefits to allow them to use the education benefits that would otherwise have accrued to a veteran. there have been -- there had been a hole in the law which did not include the children of veterans who had died and that has been corrected. now this bill does -- it gos a whole lot more down the road in dealing with their needs. when we go into wars, we have an obligation to provide all the support that's necessary to the warriors during and after the wars, and that's in part what this bill tries to do. i congratulate both gentlemen for the work they've done and

urge support for the bill. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. wamp: madam chairman, at this time, i recognize for three minutes the former chairman of the house appropriations committee and the current ranking member of the defense appropriations subcommittee who also serves as a valuable member of our subcommittee, mr. young of florida. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me and i want to start by saying, most of us have, in our jobs, have parts of our job that we like better than other parts of our job. serving on this subcommittee is part of the job that i really like. not only because of the importance of the subject, dealing with and providing for the members of our military and those veterans who have served in the past in the military, and as mr. wamp said, those who will serve in the future, but

also because of the way this subcommittee does its work. with the leadership of chairman edwards and the leadership of ranking member zach wamp, this subcommittee works together for the goofed this country. while we may have some objection to the process on how the appropriations bills are brought to the floor without totally open rules, you'll be hard-pressed to find something wrong with this bill or some reason to vote against this bill. it's not -- it's just not there. there are some problems in the jet rans administration, which is a huge bureaucracy, that can't be solved by money. the money that the committee has made available adequately meets the requirements as proposed to us by the administration. there's something else that this committee does that's sell -- that seldom gets mentioned. i want to just take a brief comment and talk about general

colin powell was visiting in europe, general powell was asked a rather critical question that in effect, the question criticized the united states for our arrogance and how we do things that are not good for other people. general powell thought for a minute, and he said, you know, the only thing that we've asked for you in europe is enough ground to bury our dead. there are 22 american cemeteries in europe. the subcommittee has responsibility to provide funding to maintain those military cemeteries and they do a good job and they're beautiful, and for those members who haven't had the chance to visit them, you really should. 22 american cemeteries, graves of 106,000 -- of 106,757

american soldiers who lost their lives freeing the people of europe from the oppression of hitler's nazis. this subcommittee has that responsibility and does a really good job. and i'm proud to work with mr. edwards and mr. wamp and all of the members of the subcommittee and the staff who are so dedicated to meeting our mission, to doing the job that we're responsible for doing. and so i want to say to my chairman and to my ranking member, i really -- this is a part of the job that i really like around here. there's a lot of other parts that i like, too, but i really like this and working with you two gentlemen is very, very special and i'd yield back my time but i think it's all gone. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: i consider it an

honor to be able to speak after mr. young who has committed his lifetime and his heart to our service men and women and our veterans and he and his wife commit every week to going out it to our d.o.d. and v.a. hospitals, to let those great americans know that their sacrifices are not forgotten. i want to thank him for inspiring all of us to remember the sacrifice our troops and veterans have made. with that, it's a privilege for me to recognize the vice chair of our subcommittee who has been a leader every step of the way on so many issues on behalf of our troops and veterans, mr. farr from california. the chair: how much time does the gentleman yield? mr. edwards: two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. farr: thank you, madam speaker, and thank you very much, chairman edward, for yielding. i just want to rise to speak on this bill and i just want to say something following congressman young's points. what i love about this committee more than any committee i've

ever served none state legislature or here in congress, i think it's the best listening committee i've ever been on. we listen to people and what i call the felt needs and we respond and i think what we're so proud about is the fiscal year 2010 military construction veterans spending bill responds to what with we heard and addresses those issues. what i think is remarkably progressively happening in this country is for the first time these two huge agencies, the department of defense and the department of veterans' affairs, are beginning to be seamless in the sense. you can't be a veteran without going through the department of defense. and the new secretary of veterans' affairs has said that he's going to enroll, you enroll

in the department of veterans' affairs. you're going to see this rather than having these lost records and folders and everything that need to be to be done, that it -- need to be done, that it will be administratively clean. what i also really appreciate about this committee is that probably not recognized is that we hear over and over again about the health care of our veterans and i can't think of two more sensitive people than chairman edwards and ranking member wamp and our colleague on the committee, patrick kennedy, that have listened so profoundly to the needs of mental health care for veterans. not only those coming back with post traumatic stress syndrome from iraq and afghanistan, but we have about 270,000 veterans that sleep on the streets of america. that's the biggest embarrassment this country has. and we have not been that good

at taking care of them and so this budget puts $800 million more into the mental health and does the outreach for homeless veterans and i'm very proud of that and would urge support of the legislation. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. wamp: madam chairman, i yield three minutes to andrew crenshaw from jacksonville, florida, who would be the vice ranking member if there were such a position, but he is an incredibly valuable asset on our subcommittee and has done just an extraordinary job this year. i yield to mr. crenshaw three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. cent cent thank you very much, and i thank -- mr. -- mr. crenshaw: thank you very much. i thank the gentleman for yielding his time. i thank him for his hard work in the subcommittee, working with chairman edwards, thank you for your leadership and your bipartisan spirit and thank you both for involving all the members of this subcommittee and

drafting this legislation that i think we can all support. i ran for congress in the first place because i believed the number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect the american lives and i think the best way to keep america safe is to keep america strong. but i've been on this subcommittee now for seven years and i think we have a tremendous responsibility not only to modernize and upgrade these bases all around the world that we oversee, but we have an opportunity -- a responsibility to make sure that we take care of the men and women that volunteer to defend our country. nobody forces them to do that. nobody forces them to go into harm's way. they do it because they care about america. and i think we have a responsibility to take care of them and that's what this bill does. i think in terms of housing, there was a time when people that served in our military lived in substandard housing, something they couldn't be proud of. through using some of the private sector ideas like privatization, now over 90% of our military men and women live

in adequate housing that they can be proud of. when they go off to deployment, they can be sure that their families are going to be taken care of back home with a good quality of life. they're going to have a peace of mind when they're gone and when they're fighting for us. and when they come home and they leave the service and now they know they have a veterans' administration that cares about them. this bill continues the work that we've done to make sure we have more clinics, to make sure we have more doctors and nurses, more people to process those claims so they don't have to wait in line. we're making some giant strides. and finally this bill, as has been pointed out, deals with national cemeteries, to give those veterans a final resting place that they so richly deserve. and i know in my home district in jacksonville, florida, we opened a new veteran cemetery this year and i don't think i've ever been more proud to be a member of congress, to be part of that ceremony, to see the sense of gratitude in these people's eyes, knowing that they're going to have a place, a

final resting place, because of the way they've defended our country. so, madam speaker, i think this is a bill we can all support. i'm again thankful to our chairman, our ranking member, and all of the members of the subcommittee, for the work we've put in. so i urge adoption and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: madam chair, i'd like to recognize a member of our committee, the gentleman from colorado, mr. salazar, an army veteran who has been a strong voice on behalf of our veterans and military. for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. mr. sali: thank you, madam speaker. i want to -- mr. salazar -- mr. salazar: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank mr. edwards and mr. wamp. i don't think there's any greater champions for military vet advance and their families. all 17 -- veterans and their families. all 17 1/2 million veterans

should applaud these men for their diligent fight. madam chair, i would like to bring one specific project and the bill forward and not only thank the chairman and the ranking member but also president obama and the chairman of the veterans' affairs committee, mr. filner, for including the $119 million for the new hospital in denver, colorado. this facility will provide full service to half a million veterans currently residing in my home state of colorado and many across the rocky mountain west. this new facility will be open and begin serving veterans by 2013, a 200-bed hospital will reach over one million square feet in size and provide 30 special beds for spinal chord injuries. i am proud that over a decade of waiting, the veterans of the rocky mountain west and my state will finally benefit from the state-of-the-art facility. i want to thank the ranking member and the chairman and yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from tennessee is

recognized. mr. wamp: i yield three minutes to my friend, the gentleman from indiana, and the ranking member of the committee on veterans a-- veterans' affairs, mr. buyer. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. buyer: thank you. i want to commend my friend, mr. wamp, and chairman edwards, for your strong advocacy on behalf of america's veterans and, mr. chairman, last year as you may remember, i offered an amendment that would have provided direct funding for v.a. who to advance projects at 16 v.a. medical centers that were identified for the use of solar volume take roof applications. but the amendment was ruled out of order on a technical issue. you and i have had several occasion -- conversations about renewable energy issues. working with the secretary as i had indicated, i was able to ensure that the v.a. funded these projects with the overall amount that included the fiscal year 2009 appropriations act. of which you had no objection. subsequently at the beginning of this congress, with the prospect of the forth coming stimulus bill, i had met with the

secretary of the v.a. on renewable energy projects to benefit our veterans and provide additional funding it to invest in these renewable energy projects at the v.a. i was pleased that the stimulus bill provided the v.a. with more than $1.4 billion, that's almost half a billion more than what i even submitted in the request, so i thank the chairman. and that the v.a. stimulus spending for the 31 additional studies also included studies for co-generation of which the chairman must have done, along with wind and geothermal projects and based on those study results, the v.a. plans to fund up to eight solar projects, nine co-generation, six wind and five geothermal using stimulus dollars. mr. chairman, the v.a. also expects to implement the remaining 23 solar projects, 29 co-generation, four wind and four geothermal in fiscal year 2010 subject to the feasibility determinations. with that in mind, i want to the it sk my friend, do you -- do i

have your assurance that the bill before us would provide the sufficient funds for the v.a. to move forward with these renewable energy projects? i yield to the gentleman. mr. edwards: i first want to thank mr. buyer for taking the lead in fighting for ensuring that alternative sources of energy are utilized by the v.a. this is an important issue and initiative. our bill does take into consideration this important need and v.a. plans to fund a significant number of renewable energy projects with resources in this bill. i can assure you that i will emphasize the v.a., the importance of this effort. i recognize and i think this is critical, the result of your efforts that every dollar saved through energy conservation in the v.a. will result in additional dollar going directly to better health care and benefits for veterans. i further look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that the v.a. appropriately employs the use of solar technology to reduce

energy costs and to benefit our environment. mr. buyer: i -- mr. wamp: i want to thank the chairman for this commitment and express my strong support for funding these renewable energy projects, compliment mr. buyer for his tenacity and perseverance here on this front, because i know that we can reduce v.a.'s high energy costs with the use of these renewable energy technologies. look forward to working with each of you as we continue to advance renewable energy projects at v.a. facilities. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. wamp: extend 15 more seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. buyer: the 15 seconds is to thank the leadership of mr. edwards and mr. wamp for your commitment to renewable energy want the v.a. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from rhode island, mr. kennedy, who has been the leading voice in this subcommittee and the house for improving mental

health care services for america's veterans and services to homeless veterans. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from rhode island for three minutes. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam speaker, and i want to thank the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on veterans' affairs. chairman edwards, for his leadership on what has been an amazing increase in funding for veterans in this country, as chairman of the appropriations committee we have seen in the last cycle the largest single increase in veterans' funding in the 76-year history of the veterans' administration and the last cycle and as such that has carried over until this cycle and will in the succeeding years ahead as we continue to increase the veterans' appropriations. and again this year we are seeing another large, large increase in the veterans' spending, including increases in veterans' mental health and that, my friends, is what i am so pleased to see, especially in

the wake of the terrible tragedy at camp victory where we saw a murder-suicide. once again highlighting the terrible tragedy that so many of our veterans are facing with the psychological wounds that they are facing and the combat that they are so readily seeing on a day to day basis. they are not only suffering the physical wounds of war but the psychological and mental wounds of war and i'd like to acknowledge the ranking member, zach wamp, for the incredible support that he is giving to our veterans in the area of mental health services. we have seen in this bill $4.6 billion for mental health services in this bill. we have seen an additional $3.2 billion for homeless veterans. it's a tragedy as my friend said that the single largest percentage of homelessness population in this country is veterans. that should not be the case and

in this bill we seek to try to end that situation. mr. speaker, i also am pleased to see that this committee responds to the veterans of america in providing advanced funding for veterans' funding for the succeeding years so that veterans do not have to wait on congress to provide those funds and that we provide an additional $48 billion in 2011 budget and that, my friends, is a result of general shinseki, the v.a. secretary's strong advocacy and this president's commitment it to our veterans to make sure that they don't have to wait, they don't have to wait for a budget in order to know that they're going to get the funds they need to take care of our veterans. for these and all the reasons i'm so proud to be a part of this committee and to see that this country lives up to its promise to our nation's veterans and i thank the chairman for all the good work that he does and i thank the ranking member for all the work that he does and i'm proud to be on this committee. thank you, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman from

texas reserves his time. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. wamp: i yield myself three minutes and yield to the gentleman from delaware, mr. castle, for the purpose of colloquy. the chair: the gentleman from delaware is recognized for three minutes. mr. castle: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam chair, i would like to speak about the dover air force base and what it's doing with its mortuary. for over 50 years, it's been home to a mortuary and it is here they receive the theater of fallen soldiers, air force, and marines and receives a solemn procession from the base to the mortuary. they treat them and their families with dignity, honor, and respect. the department of defense announced a new gnu policy with

regard to media access. under the new policy, the decision regarding media coverage is made on an individual basis by the families of the fallen. the new policy expands the department's support to those family members wishing to attend the dignified transfer by paying for travel to dover and increasing availability of grief counseling and chaplain support services. the immediate result is that many more families of fallen soldiers travel to attend the dig fied transfer. the wing commander and his staff have expressed concern they do not have adequate chapel facilities to provide for on-base memorial services, worship, and counseling. this would be particularly evident in the event of a mass casualty situation in the at the over operations. the base submitted a proposal to build a new main base chapel center to include private space for the express purpose of

receiving grieving families. i understand the office of the secretary of defense is supportive of this project and look forward to working with the committee at the earliest opportunity to solve this pressing matter. mr. wamp: the gentleman from delaware raised an important issue and -- mr. edwards: as someone who represented fort hood, texas, i strongly believe in the need to treat our fallen and their families with the utmost dignity and respect, it will be a privilege for me to work with the gentleman on this issue and i'm hopeful we can rectify this problem by the time we get through conference. mr. wamp: reclaiming my time, i stand with you, mr. chairman and will work with mr. castle and wes to -- as well to work on this in conference. mr. castle: i thank both the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking

members, mr. edwards -- ranking member, mr. edwards and mr. wamp. i look forward to working with you and all service members and families who will be involved in this and hopefully we can work it out in the near future. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: i'd like to recognize the gentleman from new york, mr. israel, an active voice on our subcommittee. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman for one minute. mr. israel: this bill addresses one of the biggest concerns i and others have, homeless vet rabs. the bill provides $-- veten rans. the bill provides $140 million over last year's level. 154,000 veterans will go to bed tonight without a home. one of hour homeless men served in the united states military at some point. they fought for our country, they came home but don't have a house. they serbed in jungles, in cities in deserts and bases on the high seas and they are

sleeping on sidewalk this is evening in america. that is a national shame. thanks to the bipartisanship of this subcommittee, we are making a bold leap on behalf of the homeless veterans. we are making the changes necessary to do what every nation must do to treat its veterans as heroes. in this case, heros with a home. i thank the gentleman and the ranking member for their cooperation and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from tennessee -- the gentleman from texas, does he seek recognition? mr. edwards: i yield myself two minutes and yield to mr. dingell for the purposes of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dingell: i rise to enter a colloquy with my good friend, the subcommittee chairman, about language contained in house report, veterans affairs

for 2010. i'm concerned the language could have the effect of postponing activation of our veterans for a much-needed clinic in toledo. it's not in their interest to postpone this, especially in light of the increasing number of veterans returning from wars in iraq and afghanistan. mr. edwards: i agree with the gentleman deserve quality health care. it's crucial to move forward and get the new clinic operational as soon as possible. the v.a. is recognized as a lead for the quality health care and we want to do everything possible to enhance that reputation. mr. dingell: to continue, the existing clinic is undersized for its current case load. the v.a. has been working for several years to establish larger replacements. it is my understanding that if we move forward with the current plans which have been reviewed by the majority of the veterans' service organizations, the v.a. is

prepared to have a new, larger, lled clinic in the fall of 2011. mr. edwards: will the gentleman yield? mr. dingell: of course. mr. edwards: it's of utmost importance we address these concerns in a timely manner to get the health care to the veterans in question. i know this matter has been a concern of the veterans of the gentlewoman in ohio, ms. kaptur and i know she wants their concerns addressed as well. the language is not designed to needlessly delay the activation of the tee to the lee doe clinic but to make sure concerns are responded to. mr. dingell: i want to also express great respect for the gentlewoman from ohio, i couldn't agree more we need more quality care for our veterans in a timely manner. as already mentioned, given the increasing work load because of those returning from iraq and afghanistan, doubling the size

of the existing clinic will help us meet that goal. i yield back to my good friend the chame. mr. edwards: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. wamp: may i inquire as to the time remaining on each side. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee controls 6 1/4 minutes, the gentleman from texas has 7 noove. mr. wamp: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. edwards: i yield myself two minutes, i would like to yield to the gentleman from california, mr. thompson, for the purposes of colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you. i appreciate what this chairman does on behalf of vet rabs he's true friend and has done so much for so many veterans. i want you to know that i went to college on the g.i. bill and

voted for the post 9/11 g.i. bill. with my experience in the g.i. bill and in school and what it did for me and mine. i did so to ensure that all veterans would have the same access to this great educational opportunity that i had. unfortunately, today in california, california veterans are being denied this important chance to get the college education so that they can have a better future. according to the department of veterans' administration, veterans living in california are entitled to zero dollars toward their private tuition bill. simply because california charges fees, not tuition, to attend college. so because zero tuition is charged in california, according to the v.a.'s tortured logic, zero tuition can be paid to veterans seeking to attend private schools in california.

this simple semantic difference means nearly 5,000 iraq and afghanistan veterans residing in california, veterans who served our nation honorably are not eligible to receive financial assistance to attend the college of their choice. this is unlike every other iraq and afghanistan veteran in the other 49 states. my california colleagues and i sent a letter to the v.a. requesting the department fix this issue administratively. six weeks later, six weeks later, they sent a two-paragraph response denying our request. this is not fair to our veterans, and congress should not stand by as these brave men and women are denied the benefits they have earned. i'd now like to yield to my colleague from california, mr. mckennan. >>

mr. mckeon: the v.a. released its benefit rates. the v.a. misintepted -- misinterpreted the intent of congress and will prevent veterans -- the chair: the time has expired. mr. edwards: i yield one additional minute. mr. mckeon: they prevent veterans from attending institutions of higher education in california. when they enacted free in-state tuition they didn't expect v.a. would use that to restrict our vets from attending private yufrltes as they are athroud do in 49 other states under the g.i. bill. it's important to provide californians parity by enacting legislation like h.r. 2474 like we introduced in may. this legislation, which has near unanimous support from our delegation, allows veterans from california to use their

full fee benefit toward tuition and fee expenses. as the gentleman knows, it's important we act quickly as this program begins implementation on august 1, 2009. without action, many veterans could be unpleasantly surprised when they receive no tuition assistance. can the chairman assure us this exclusion of california veterans was not the intent of the congress and the post-9/11 -- in the post-9/11 g.i. bill? mr. edwards: the committee believes the exclusion of california veterans was not the intent of congress and the committee will ask the v.a. to work with the affected states, including the state of california, to ensure that veterans attending private institutions can participate fully in the post-9/11 educational assistance program. the chair: who seeks recognition? the gentleman from tennessee. mr. wamp: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves.

the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: i yield myself two minutes and yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. altmire for the purpose of a kohl queesm the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. altmire: let me thank chairman edwards for the work he's done this bill which provides for the benefits and assistance that our nation's veterans have clearly earned. it is out of concern for our nation's veterans, specifically veterans in our home region of pennsylvania that i request this kohl queesm pittsburgh's veterans benefits employees are alleged to have manipulated an employee benefits award system by delaying claims to my district to secure additional employee bonuses. i yield to the distinguished gentleman from texas. mr. edwards: i'm familiar with the unfortunate situation that occurred in pittsburgh. there was an a report issued by the office of the inspector -- inspector general, correct?

mr. altmire: that's correct. the report issued by the inspector general was insufficient given the gravity of the allegations. it failed to determine the sources of the problem and i would suggest the office of of the inspector general should conduct a second investigation of the employee misconduct in delaying benefit processing to receive bonuses and submit a more thorough report. this strikes me as particularly possible in light of the $19 million increase in the inspector general's budget from last year. i yield again to the chairman. mr. edwards: given the increases we provided the office of the inspector general, i look forward to working with the gentleman to see if we can get the i.g. to take a second look at the serious issue in pennsylvania. mr. altmire: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. wamp: madam chair, i yield myself the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wamp: as we close the

general debate on the 2010 military construction and veterans affairs appropriations -- veterans' affairs appropriations bill, i want to tell a brief story because today the president of the united states is in italy at the g-8, and photographs show him with my friend, the prime minister of australia, kevin rudd, over the last couple of days, i have to tell you, i was with my friend, the prime minister, a couple of months ago here in washington. and i asked him about the extraordinary challenges that our country faces today and when i think of the men and women in uniform of our armed forces and i know in my heart that that is truly what our country is all about, people volunteering, even sacrificing for each other, and i said to kevin, what's the attitude in australia and around the world about these tremendous challenges that we face and what do you think about the united states of america's ability to

deal with these many challenges? and he said, well, we're optimistic. we've read your history. we've read your history. we understand how inarily difficult it was during the civil war and the great world wars and we know that you came out of the great depression and that you have overcome extraordinary adversity and we've seen your free enterprise system and your brilliance and your innovation and we know how resilient your people are. so we have great confidence that you'll do it again. he said with a smile on his face. and i just say to all those men and women that serve us in uniform, because they are the true pate yachts of our time -- patriots of our time yet again, they stand on the shoulders of those who have come before us and our veterans are our most important citizens, that the burden is on us to extend our way of life and to preserve

freedom and to try to secure our liberty and this is the challenge of our time and the world is counting on us. this bill goes a long way to meeting these needs and we do truly stand at the water's edge together today. there's a lot of division in the house over process and other appropriations bills, but not today. today we come together to do what's right for our men and women in uniform, four our military installations around the world, under every command and for our veterans and their families, quality of life of our troops and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: i yield myself one minute and yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cuellar: thank you. i thank the chairman for yielding to me.

most of the claims that vet are rans from my congressional district in south texas are processed at the houston v.a. regional office. a recent article in "the houston chronicle" which i will submit to the record notes that nearly 18,000 veterans are waiting for their disability applications. 26% of these claims have been pending over a year and a half. the number of claims on appeal from houston are about 11,389 which is the high nest the country. i've written a letter to the secretary of the v.a. which brings attention to this problem which i ask be submitted into the record. mr. chairman, i asker to your help to address this very serious problem. mr. edwards: i share the gentleman's concerns and look forward to working with him and the v.a. to see that we address those problems. veterans served out of -- out of the houston office should not have to wait that amount of time to receive their earned benefits. the chair: the gentleman's request for submission to the record is granted unjend leave. mr. edwards: may i inquire as to

how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman controls two minutes. mr. edwards: i'd like to now request one minute of time and recognize the gentlewoman from houston, ms. sheila jackson lee. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas for one minute. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member and thank you very much, mr. edwards, for the grand work that you have done over the years in helping our soldiers. i rise today to support the underlying bill, but to particularly focus on the medical services of the $34.7 billion, the mental health services, $4.6 billion, and the assistance for homeless vets, $3.2 billion. in my congressional district, i work with these populations, visiting to them, listening to their situations and as well, in my own community, we've had a high number of suicides among active duty soldiers. i'm very glad to announce because of the legislation of this particular appropriations

and the leadership of chairman edwards, we will now be able to have -- looking forward to having an offset opportunity for p.t.s. treatment and as well that it will be able to secure monies in the future as a perspective of tricare recipient. we need to be able to provide more services for p.t. -- ptsd, for p.t.s., for soldiers coming home. believe it or not, houston has been cited as the city with the largest number of active duty soldiers who are coming from iraq and now afghanistan. today we are burying a young seaman in my district. it is tragic, but we realize that we have to provide for these soldiers and i'm very glad to support the rule and the underlying bill. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized for one remaining minute. mr. edwards: thank you. madam chair, as i finish this debate, i want to add in my thanks of others, i want to

thank the gentleman from california, mr. lewis. he, along with mr. young, has spent his entire congressional career dedicated to fighting for a strong national defense and for seeing that the men and women who provide that defense are respecteded in a meaningful way and that once they have taken off our nation's uniform, they continue to be respected as veterans. and he has been an active leader as chairman of the committee, as ranking member of the committee, and our subcommittee deliberations, has continued to be an active voice and i thank the gentleman for that. finally i think it's appropriate, madam chair, that the last word in this debate from my side are not the words of my own but the words of america's veterans. so i would ask unanimous consent that letters in support of this legislation from the d.a.v., the veterans of foreign wars, the american legion, the paralyzed

veterans of america and the amvets, that these words be included in the record of this debate. the chair: without objection, so ordered. does the gentleman yield back the balance of his time? mr. edwards: yes, i do. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and the bill shall be considered read through page 58, line 6. no amendment shall be in order except the amendments printed in house report 111-195. each 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. after disposition of the

amendment specified in the first section of house resolution 622, 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. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 111-195. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. edwards: may i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to offer the amendment on behalf of mr. cohen of tennessee? it's an important amendment. i don't think there's any objection to it. the chair: the gentleman shall be considered the designee of the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. mr. edwards: ok. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1

printed in house report 111-195 offered by mr. edwards of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 622, the gentleman from texas, mr. edwards, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. edwards: i thank the chair. i want to salute mr. cohen of tennessee for his leadership in bringing this issue to the house. we're facing a tremendous challenge, the number of veterans who need mental health care services and ptsd services, facing a tremendous challenge finding enough psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health care professionals to provide the services that these great americans so very much need. and so mr. cohen has taken the lead in this amendment in providing an additional $1 million for educational debt forgiveness for mental health care professionals who agree to go into employment at the department of veterans' affairs

and i've actually had a number of discussions with v.a. employees in my district and i think there's a sense that this kind of incentive might really encourage mental health care professionals who otherwise would not go into the v.a. system to do so. so i think this is a very important amendment and would urge my colleagues to support it. i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. wamp: i claim the time in opposition but not to oppose this amendment, but to support this amendment and to thank my colleague -- the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. wamp: and to thank my colleague from the state of tennessee, mr. cohen, for this amendment and we support the amendment, mr. chairman, and yield back the time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. edwards: i yield back. the chair: all time for debate on the amendment having expireds, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-195. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. filner: i rise to offer an amendment, number 2. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-195, offered by mr. filner of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 622, the gentleman from california, mr. filner, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. filner: i thank the chair and i would like to thank chairman edwards and chairman obey for the incredible work they have done on this budget for the last 2 1/2 years. as i understand it, we've increased the health care budget in that time 60%. we've -- in this bill, we raise the health care budget 11% and in a revolutionary kind of

approach, i think, we forward fund the health care items for the v.a. and the increase is 8%. so i got those numbers right? this is an incredible, i think, victory for veterans and we thank, again, mr. edwards, mr. obey, for leading the charge on this. you know, in the last 22 years, i think we've only had the v.a. budget approved on time in 19 cases -- i'm sorry, in three out of those 22 years. from now on that v.a. budget will be approved a year in advance. it will make sure that we have timely and adequate funding for the v.a. health care system. it needs to know what its budget is before -- in order to be able to be run efficiently and in high quality. so we thank mr. edwards for these items and i know there are numerable things in here that we're going to pass that will strengthen our health care for our nation's veterans.

some of my colleagues may recall last year we authorized the v.a. to fund the office of national sports programs and special events at a $10 million authorization which we believe is the appropriate amount to enhance and improve the quality of life for the men and women who have made a tremendous sacrifice for our country. the underlying bill provides $6.5 million as requested by the administration, but it does not provide the full authorized amount. what this amendment does is increase the level of funding by $3.5 million. i strongly believe that providing this program, the needed funding to assist our injured service members and veterans, will enhance and improve the quality of life for these men and women. and i think all of us have been inspired whenever we have a chance to watch these warriors athletes, those who have been disabled, and i put that in quotes, perform at an incredibly high level in these olympics

with their training and it obviously strengthens their quality of life and their optimism, but it helps us all as we realize not only do people sacrifice life and limb for their country, but we can provide the resources to make sure that they have a full and productive life. so i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. filner: i'd yield to the chairman from texas. mr. edwards: i'd like to take this time to thank the gentleman. i also want to thank the gentleman for everything he has done in the past 2 1/2 years. our subcommittee cannot appropriate without his subcommittee authorizing it and all of the accomplishments we've listed absolutely would not have happened without the leadership of mr. filner and a particular thanks to mr. filner who has been the national champion in the congress for advanced funding, truly a historic initiative this year. mr. filner: i thank the gentleman and i would yield the balance of my time to the

co-sponsor of this amendment, madam chair, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin. i thank him for his leadership on these issues and would yield the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong support of the filner-langevin amendment for the paraolympics program. i'd like to thank chairman edwards to increase funding for the levels in the underlying bill and chairman filner for his continued advocacy for our disand veterans. the paraolympics program provides unique opportunities for people returning from combat with serious and life-changes injuries.

daily physical activity is often the most critical mental and physical aspect. it reduces stress, secondary medical conditions while increasing self-esteem, employment rates and quality of life. full funding of the u.s. paraolympic adopt a sports program will expedite the expansion of services and programs to injured veterans. they have created a program in 99 communities providing access to physical activity in sports -- and sports opportunities regardless of skill level for over 5,000 injured service members and veterans. the paraolympic community and veterans organizations are partnering with the usoc to invest more than $40 million annually to develop programs, provide paraolympic mentors and expand to 250 u.s. communities serving over 8,000 injured service members by 2012. after all our services members have -- service members have sacrificed for our country, we can provide services and

opportunities to them as they return home. the paraolympics program has already touched thousands of lives with additional resources. it can help countless more veterans to regain physical strength and self-esteem and i urge my colleagues to support the filner-langevin amendment. thank you and i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. wamp: i rise in support of the amendment and i yield to the gentleman from indiana, mr. buyer. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. buyer: is there any remaining time on the majority side? the chair: no. mr. buyer: i rise in support of this amendment by adding $3.5 million to the veterans sports programs and special events. i was inspired by the attitude and positive example that our

olympicians that train in california continue to set for all americans. it's truly a remarkable place. and then as i drove away from the training center i was also upset. i was upset because at that time in history the united states olympic committee was embroiled in a scandal. and i was very bothered that individuals were seeking to profitize off of someone else's ideal, the pursuit of excellence. i then set the course to help reorganize the u.s. olympics committee. i'm pleased that the committee was reorganized. they did great things. as we went into the 2004 olympics and then the 2008 olympics. summer olympics on both. and based on the experience and that relationships that developed with the lp committee and the relationships -- with the olympic committee and the relationships with the v.a., they furthered created these sports programs. and that led then to our bipartisan legislation, the

public law 110-389 to authorize a total of $10 million to fund a v.a. grant program to increase participation in sports at all levels by disabled athletes. this program creates a partnership between the vafment and united states olympic program and grassroots disabled sports programs such as as those sponsored by the veterans service organizations, disand sports u.s.a. and local parks and recreations. madam speaker, it's known that sports is a great venue to help rehad a p tate a wounded soldier. we need to offer every possible soldier to regain severe disabilities. by increasing the funding to full authorization we'll ensure a fast start and maximize its impact on the disabled veterans community. so i want to thank chairman edwards and mr. wamp for meeting this request. and i ask all members to support my amendment.

you say, steve, my amendment, what do you mean? well, the amendment before the house -- are you ready for this? is word for word, comma for comma, period for period the amendment that i submitted to the rules committee. now, bipartisanship is an affirmative act. it requires two people. it's a choice. you can either do things the partisan way or you can do things the bipartisan way. you see, when i drafted this amendment i sent my staff down to speak with mr. filner's staff and offered him if he wanted to be on this amendment. and his staff said mr. filner is working on this amendment. my staff said to mr. filner's staff, you know, your amendment could be subject to a point of order but if you like mr. buyer to be on your amendment, that's fine. mr. filner made a choice. he wanted to have his own amendment. so he submitted his amendment to the rules committee, which

was subject to a point of order. i submitted my amendment to the rules committee, clean. it is mystical, almost magical how my amendment ends up with somebody else's name on it before the house floor. it is truly magic. but in the end bipartisanship is a wonderful thing because through that magic and mystery that's what we have here, mr. chairman. we got our bipartisanship in the end because the most important thing is these disabled veterans will have an opportunity to use a platform of healing. that's what we are about. so it's important that we get rid of the politics. that's my quest here. that's why i enjoy working with you, mr. edwards, and zach. stop the games. i yield to the gentleman. ms. edwards: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i don't know all the processes of the -- mr. edwards: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i don't know all the processes but mr. buyer has clearly been a real leader on this -- on this effort.

so i salute you for your leadership on it and commend you for it. there is no intention of any partisan politics being involved in this. i'm glad, as you are, at the end of the day because of your work and mr. filner's work and mr. langevin's work that these great americans will be honored. i salute the gentleman for that. mr. buyer: i reclaim my time. i applaud mr. filner for his legislation. he worked with me to create that legislation. mr. filner, i want to work with you. and it's a choice. you chose not to but in the end through mystery and magic we got our bipartisanship. so i'll continue to extend my harm of the magic dust. i yield back and ask for everyone to support this mystical and magical amendment. the chair: all time on the amendment has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in the house report 111-195. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia rise? mrs. capito: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 111-195 offered by mrs. capito of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 622, the gentlewoman from west virginia, mrs. capito, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, program chairwoman. i'd like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member for their great work they do for veterans and our military construction around the world. and i appreciate the opportunity today to rise to offer an amendment to the military construction and veterans' affairs appropriations act that would increase funding for a program that provides free legal services to our veterans under

the u.s. court of appeals for veterans claims account. i'm sure all of us as members of congress have talked to a veteran that has not received the benefits that they feel that they're fairly entitled to. and if that happens they can appeal to the department of veterans' affairs -- they can appeal the decision in the court of appeals for veterans claims. however, as many veterans are on fixed incomes, they can't afford the costly legal service for appealing to the department of veterans' affairs decision. the present law entitles certain veterans who wish to appeal to free legal services so they can receive a fair hearing that they are entitled to without the burden of huge legal fees. veterans from throughout my district have expressed their concern that many veterans are struggling with the appeals process and with so many of our warriors returning from iraq and afghanistan, we must take measures to ensure that always of our veterans' needs are provided for. my amendment would increase the

veterans legal services account by $1 million, providing for more services for our brave veterans. i urge all of my colleagues to support this very important amendment, and i appreciate the opportunity to offer it. i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from west virginia reserves. the gentleman from texas, for what purpose does he rise? mr. edwards: madam chair, i raise -- i rise to claim time in opposition but i think this is a good amendment. i thank the gentlewoman for offering it. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. edwards: thank you. and i just want to say, i think it is important to send a message that we want all veterans, regardless of their income levels, to have access to the full appeals process and that's what this amendment is about. i support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yeemeds back. the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognized. mrs. capito: i yield back and i thank the support. the chair: all time for debate on the amendment has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentlewoman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-195. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. garrett: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-195 offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 622, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. and the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: thank you. my amendment seeks to increase funding for the grants for construction of state veterans cemeteries in an account by $4 million and decrease funding for the grants for construction for minor projects by $4

million. i met with my constituents in my district for party. one of the things we discussed was funding for veteran cemeteries. there's federal and there's state. when the original federal cemeteries began to run out of room the federal government created a grant program, the state cemetery grant program, that was administered by the v.a. and the v.a. provides funds for state cemeteries through this grant program and they're evaluated and ranked. it's not a earmark program. it's a competitive time and ranking process. the current priority lists, however, shows that there's $151 million worth of projects where the state matching funds are in place and ready to go. there are $150 million of unfunded state cemetery projects waiting for the federal matching grants. yet, the appropriation bill that we now consider provides only $42 million. of course, the very first priority for the state cemetery program is provide funding for new cemeteries, existing

cemeteries that are in need right now. however, this means that many cemeteries, which requires expansion and improvements, will not receive funding if we keep it at the current level. the number of world war ii veterans will increase rapidly. my state of new jersey is home to the bgdc memorial cemetery. it has two improvement projects that are waiting for federal funding. and i communicated this with several officials in new jersey. and they agree there's a need for the increase in this budget and my amendment will do just that. my amendment will decrease the grants for construction for minor projects. basically means we will put the money today to the use for the veterans that need it today and deal later for some administrative changes and costs and things like that. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. edwards: madam chair, i rise to claim my time in opposition.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. edwards: madam chair, i don't rise in opposition. i rise in support of the amendment. i commend the gentleman for this. i've seen firsthand what it means to our living veterans to know that they will have a place of honor to be remembered by their loved ones in the country which me served. the state veterans cemetery program is a great state-federal partnership. and this is a tremendously important amendment. i'm glad to support it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is -- has yielded back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i want to thank the gentleman in the area of cemeteries and dealing with heros from the past and the budget committee of dealing with the situation of spouses of our veterans as well, to make sure that they are adequately taken care of as well. so besides this matter that's

before us today, i want to say thank you for your work in that area. mr. edwards: i thank the gentleman for his leadership. mr. garrett: with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. all time for debate on the amendment having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-195. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. sessions: thank you, madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-195 offered by mr. sessions of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 622, the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: thank you and appreciate the gentlewoman's consideration and good morning. the amendment that i bring forth

today requires the secretary of veterans' affairs to report, to submit a report to congress on the use of oxygen therapy. commonly known as hbot, in v.a. medical facilities. my active interest in the therapy over the last three years has led me to more understanding of the critical function it has performed and performs even today to update and the potential it has for injured active duty soldiers and veterans. i would like to briefly comment on the currently approved uses of hbot and the promise of the research into the therapy as a possible treatment for traumatic brain injury known as t.b.i. hbot uses a chamber to administer oxygen in particular dosages for a variety of already f.d.a.-approved treatments. many of which provide remarkable benefits to our injured

veterans. the oxygen acts as a catalyst in healing wounds which often fail to respond to other medical and surgical procedures and usually lack the blood circulation and blood oxygen levels necessary to heal. these treatments include but are not limited to treating nonhealing diabetic foot wounds, advancing healing for crushed injures such as gunshot wounds, falls and vehicle accidents, support for individuals suffering from exceptional blood loss and advanced assistance in reconstructive complex wounds. which require the transferring of tissues from one part of the body to another. hbot frequently saves a veteran from an expensive, painful, life-altering and potentially life-threatening amputation of an arm, a leg or a foot. this therapy has been extremely

impressive and i look forward to hearing the v.a.'s report on its current and planned use of hyperbaric therapy in its medical facilities. since 2006, i've been actively engaged in researching a new cross application of hyperbaric therapy for treating another very common and life threatening nonhealing wound, t.b.i., traumatic brain injury, and i've held numerous meetings with physicians, ph.d.'s, scientists, government officials, and our service men and women. the department of defense, the department of veterans' affairs, all regarding the treatment of t.b.i. with hyperbaric therapy being available to them. over the past year i've seen a multitude of evidence from numerous cases that show substantial progress in brain function of our injured soldiers after treatment with hyperbaric oxygen.

as we speak today, veterans all across our country are suffering from t.b.i. and they're in the process of receiving hyperbaric perpy from private physicians with amazing -- therapy from private physicians with amazing results. many of these soldiers who could not hold a job or properly care for their families, they sometimes can't even leave their own bed, or others who have suicidal tendencies have returned to active duty, employment, school and perhaps more importantly, to the life of their own families. these results have led me to believe in the promising potential of healing our brain injured soldiers suffering from t.b.i. and ptsd. the defense center on excellence for psychological health and traumatic brain injury under the command of brigadier general sutton is conducting a study into hyperbaric therapy for the treatment of t.b.i. and it is

scheduled to be delivered with those results on or about december of 2010. i have highly encouraged my colleagues to join me over the last few months in engaging with general sutton and the department of defense on this promising new application of hyperbarrack therapy -- hyperbaric therapy. my amendment today is very simple. it asks for the v.a. to submit a report on their current and planned use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy and by knowing today how it's used, we can have a greater understanding of how we can assist our injured veterans tomorrow. so we're asking, how the v.a. uses it today, where those facilities are, so that we can be prepared to work when the department of defense has their answer available soon to where we then coincide that with the veterans who are home with us today. moum madam speaker, i want to say that -- madam speaker, i want to say that the gentleman from texas, mr. edwards, the

gentleman from tennessee, mr. watch, both engaged any -- wamp, bo engaged me yesterday on this amendment. i believe there could be widespread agreement that this is an application that would be good for each of us to vote for. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. edwards: madam chair, i rise to claim my time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. edwards: but let me make it clear after that technicality, i am very honored to support this amendment. i want to commend the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, for his interest in trying to pursue innovative health care procedures for our veterans. we provided tremendous increases in health care funding for our veterans over the last 2 1/2 years. i think in addition to that funding in the oversight of that funding we need to encourage the v.a. to be innovative. we want them to be prudent and careful, perhaps as we go through the conference we should encourage the v.a. not only to

provide a report on where it is using and how often it's using and how it's using hyperbaric oxygen therapy, perhaps we ought to work with them about encouraging them to do some studies to look into the potential opportunities of this type of care, making a real difference in thes of our veterans. so i'm -- in the lives of our veterans. so i'm proud to join in support of the gentleman's amendment. i yield to mr. wamp for any comments he'd care to make. mr. wamp: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i want to thank, actually, the rules committee yesterday for agreeing to this amendment coming before the house today. mr. sessions has persevered on this issue now for some time, deserves great credit. it has tremendous potential and i look forward to working with the chairman and mr. sessions as we go forward. we also support the amendment. thank you. ed eds i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for debate on the amendment has expired. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 111-195. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 111-195 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 622, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chair. this amendment would simply strike funding for all the member requested earmarks for mill tea construction projects and would return the money to the various accounts. i'm not here to dispute the merits of any of the earmarks in this account.

i have no doubt that each of these projects will vastly improve the quality of life for military service members and for their families. but that's not the issue here. i'm here to draw attention to what we've talked about before and that is the spoil system that these earmarks represent. there are 109 member-requested earmarks in the bill, 43 of them are going to powerful members of congress who serve in leadership or as appropriators, committee chairs, ranking members. that represents about 40% of the share of earmarks being taken by less than 24% of the members of the house. i'm sure my colleagues will tell me that these projects are sorely needed at the military bases that they're earmarked for and service members will suffer without them. but what about the many installations that don't receive member-requested earmarks in the bill and the service members stations there? neither camp la june or camp

pendleton received any earmarks requested in the bill. each of these camps houses a marine expeditionary force comprised of tens of thousands of marines who deploy with great frequency. i'm willing to bet that each of these installations have suggestions for new structures to build. why haven't they received any earmarks in this bill? the answer is pretty simple. neither of them resides in a district represented by a powerful member of congress. the earmarks in this bill total more than $578 million. that's just a little bit less than the earmark totals for the c.j.s. and ag bills put together. that dollar amount, more than $240 million, are being taken home by powerful members of congress. that's nearly 41%. when you take into account earmark dollars secured by rank and file members in conjunction with powerful members, that number jumps to more than $300 million or 52%. so just to reiterate, the earmarks in this bill favor powerful members by a ratio of

two to one. 1/4 of the members of this house are associated with more than half of earmark dollars in this bill. i wish i could say this is a novelty but this pretty much jives with the rest of the appropriation bills that we've considered so far this year and i have a chart that demonstrates that. earmark dollars societied with powerful members of congress. again, those are committee chairs, leadership, those on the appropriations committee, representing 24% of the members in this body. in the c.j.s. bill that we considered earlier, 58% of the earmarked dollars went to just 24% of the members. in the homeland security bill, 68% of the earmarked dollars went to just 24% of the members of the house. in the interior bill, 64% of the earmarked dollars went to just 24% of the members of the house. in the agriculture bill, 67% of the earmarked dollars go to just

24% of the members of the house. and in this bill, as we talked about, 52% of the earmarked dollars go to just 24% of the members of this house. that's a pretty stark pattern and so there are different types of earmarks, obviously. there are those that are simply wasteful, we see those for rock and roll hall of fame and for whatever else that we -- that's easy to laugh at. sometimes it's small amounts of money, sometimes it's a lot larger. and then there are those that have to do typically in defense bills where you're giving no bid contracts to private companies and there's often a pattern of campaign contributions coming back to members who secure no bid contracts in private companies. that does not describe what's going on here. these earmarks, as i mentioned, have no doubt that they have -- they are for a legitimate purpose. but here's another problem with earmarking, it represents a spoil system.

where rank and file members of the house aren't given access to those that others are. in the homeland security bill that was particularly stark, as i mentioned, a huge percentage, nearly 70%, went to just 24% of the body. in fact, more than 50% went to just 14%. those represented on the appropriations committee. i don't think -- and these were for predisaster mitigation programs, flood control districts and the like. i don't think mother nature decides i'm going to hit those districts represented by appropriators more than i'm going to hit other districts. it's just because they're able to do it and they do it and so the rest of the congress, the rest of the country, not the rest of the congress, the rest of the country that competes for these grants on a competitive basis has at least in that case 25% of that account is earmarked before they can even compete for the rest of the grants that are given out on a competitive basis. and that's just not fair.

that's just not the way we should do this. i think that we ought to rethink this and we ought to strike the funding in this bill and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. edwards: madam chair, i rise to claim my time in strong opposition to this ill-advised eight,. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. edwards: i'd like to begin by yielding to my congress from texas, mr. ortiz. mr. ortiz: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman edwards and my good friend, wamp, and my other good friend, mr. flake, for bringing this responsible bill to the floor. and i rise in opposition to the flake amendment. the military construction authorization and appropriations process is a tedious process and it requires close coordination with my good friend on both sides of the aisle. chairman edwards and mr. wamp

and members of the committee. it also requires extensive coordination with the department of defense. the committee critically review the administration requests and ensure that facilities are built for a sound requirement. the committee also ensures that the projects are validated for the correct cost. this process forces a dialogue with local installation commanders that requires that they communicate their needs to the representatives in congress. this dialogue is critical to ensuring members of congress that they have a complete understanding of local military requirements and can correctly advocate for our nation's defense. it is a hard process but in the end it ensures that the right facilities are built at the right time and at the right location.

i would remind my colleagues that each of these projects has already been debated in the national defense organization committee. i recommend that my colleagues vote no on the flake amendment, and i yield back the balance of my time to my good friend, chairman edwards. mr. edwards: madam chair, claiming the rest of my time. i have great respect for the principled position of mr. flake. i disagree with it. he thinks the administration should agree 100%. i believe article 1 gives congress the responsibility for that. and i feel very strongly that while he has a principled position he misstates and inaccurately states the process by which these project decisions were made. these were made on what was right for our military troops and their families.

the vast majority of these designated projects had gone through the department of defense approval process and the department of defense said they were needed. now, he said he simply wanted to strike the earmarks. despite his intentions -- let me tell you about the impact. it's an actual impact. if his amendment passes we will cut $56 million for 16 national guard readiness centers. we will cut $44 million for nonmilitary ranges and training facilities. we will cut $83 million for 16 quality of life facilities, such as housing, clinics and military family centers. we will cut $98 million for 16 projects to improve forest protections, facilities for flight line safety. we will cut $86 million for 18 equipment maintenance and storage facilities and $47 million for seven military research and testing facilities.

we will cut a project to provide properly sized and configured storage space for mark 48 torpedos at one of our key submarine bases. and a new stamp for the marine corps east coast logistic base will be lost. the gentleman would cut a new chapel complex to replace more than 15,000 square feet of trailers and world war ii era facilities. and he would cut a platoon machine gun range at the army's joint readiness training center. i know he has no intention of harming our military. i'd never accuse him of that, but in my opinion he misrepresented the process by which these decisions were made, and i think not only democrats but my republican colleagues would agree that this has been a fair and will he jet mate process. i -- legitimate process. and by the way, members of the congress who has to be on the armed services committee and the military construction

appropriations committee are people that represent military installations. so the allegation that somehow because they get a higher percentage of connelly designated funding compared to other members somehow suggest a spoiled system is just simply dead wrong, and i reject it categorically. i'd yield any time to my friend, the ranking member, mr. wamp, for any comments. mr. flake: will the gentleman yield for a 15-second clarification? mr. edwards i'd like to yield is a seconds. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman said this would cut several programs. it returns the money to the account and the military services. mr. edwards: reclaiming my time. this amendment would cut the projects out of this bill. mr. wamp, i'd be glad to yield. mr. wamp: i thank the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate on this amendment has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those who are in favor say aye.

those who are opposed, say no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: on that i ask for a recorded vote, madam chair. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-195. the chair understands that amendment 7 will not be offered. it is then now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 111- 195. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin rise? ms. moore: madam speaker, i rise today to offer my amendment which would prohibit the use of funds in this bill for the processing of enhanced use leases at the original national homes for disabled volunteer soldiers or soldier's homes, established before 1868.

the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 111-195 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 622, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you, madam speaker. my amendment would protect these soldier's homes established before 1868. these historic civil war-era buildings or their campuses on which they reside from diversion from veteran activities to commercial purposes. and it would retain these national treasures for future generations of veterans, their families and the interested public. the concept of a national asylum for disabled volunteer soldiers was first established

by congressional legislation and approved by president abraham lincoln on march 3, 1865. the national asylum was established for officers and men of the volunteer forces of the united states who had been totally disabled by wounds received or sickness contracted while in the line of duty during the civil war. in all, 11 national soldier's homes were opened and integrated into the newly established veterans' administration in 1930. these old homes reflect how the forefathers chose to care for and honor the soldiers who fought to keep the country united as one nation. their creation changed the nation's attitude toward the care of soldiers after battle. built in 1867, the milwaukee soldier's home located in my district in the fourth

congressional district of wisconsin was one of the three original soldier's homes. the other two are located in maine and ohio. in late 2005, i learned that the v.a. and the city of milwaukee were aggressively pursuing an enhanced use lease proposal that included the possible commercial develment of several 19th century ldier's home buildings located on the milwaukee v.a. grounds, much to the dismay and against the wishes of the milwaukee veterans community who wanted to protect these historic buildings for veterans purposes. the allied council of veterans and their membership approached my office with their concerns and they alerted me to the potential outcomes of the proposal and reported that they had had no input in the ongoing lease discussions. currently, the milwaukee soldier's home is on the naonal park service registry list to be designated for a

place on its national register of historic places. this will give the veterans an even stronger voice against any attempts to lease out for commercial purposes these historic buildings. i urge my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to join me in standing with veterans to protect these historic soldier homes grounds for veteran uses by voting yes on my amendment. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from texas is recognized. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. edwards: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. edwards: i don't oppose this amendment. i support this amendment. i want to thank the gentlewoman for raising this issue and i am glad to support her effort on this. and with that i yield back the

balance of my time. the chair: all time for debate having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. any opposed, say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 111-195 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 111-195 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]@