but even then we saw that u.s. armed forces rushed into japan to rescue lots and lots of people from all corners of the u.s. extended the hand of assistance to the children in the disaster area. yet, we were --

together with the victims you shed tears. you give us something, something very, very precious. it was hope, hope for the future. ladies and gentlemen, the finest asset the u.s. has to give to the world is hope t will be and must always be hope.

the representatives of the citizens of the united states, let us call the u.s.-japan alliance an alliance of hope. let the two of us, america and japan join our hands together and do our best to make the world a better much better place to live. alliance of hope. together we can make difference. thank you so much. thank you so much. thank you.

prime minister abe: thank you.

the speaker: the purpose of the joint meeting having been completed, the chair declares the joint meeting between the two houses now dissolved. the house will continue in recess subject to the call of the chair.

since the congress completed this basic part of governing. i've had conversations on both sides of the capitol laying out what i think we need to do for next year's budget process so we can make better progress. again, that from senator bob corker. the house once again in recess. while we wait for them to reconvene, a portion of today's "washington journal" on american hostages and terrorism. host: we want to welcome back to our table congressman john delaney, democrat of merit -- of maryland. the president talked last week, he was a constituent of yours being held hostage by al qaeda. when and how did you learn about his death? guest: we learned about it the day before it was announced from the white house. i learned about it about the same time as him.

i was just heartbroken. i never met warren, which i feel sad about, but i have really gotten to know the family incredibly well. elaine and one's daughters. we've we worked very closely on strategies. a terrible ending to what as -- what has been a difficult situation. host: what was the effort like? explain u.s. hostage procedure. guest: i think the men and women who work in the various parts of government that touch the hostage situation, the fbi, they have primary responsibility for dealing with hostage the matter what the circumstances around them being taken are. and the state department and other parts of government. men and women who work on those they work really hard. but in truth, we do not do a great job as a nation in terms of coordinating all the resources we have to bringing

these people back. we do not develop the customized strategy needed. every one of these situations is highly unique there a lot has changed with the hostages. a lot of what we apply is dated back to the time when most hostages were related to drug cartels by capturing americans and wanting ransoms. we now have these nonstate actors taking american hostages. they do not really want the money. they use them as propaganda, operating a country that do not control their borders. it is a different set of facts we are dealing with than what we are used to. we have to change our headset and we need a much more customized approach where we develop specialized capabilities that could take advantage of all of the assets the united states has. technological assets, all the wonderful assets in our military but importantly leverage the relationships we have in the region with other countries him --countries.

it is a person who wakes up every day and has a whiteboard with different strategies and how to advance the ball he day. it also involves new capabilities with the government. host: walk through your efforts specifically and explain what that is like that what did you do and what did the administration do? guest: we worked very closely and when never wanted to get ahead of what they want to do. making sure every aspect of the government is being utilized. we thought we could do more to help in the efforts to get him back. we did specific things to the congress to push the government of pakistan to cooperate more fully with the fbi. that is something, in my own

opinion, there is a chance we might of had a different outcome. there is an example that really surprises me. pakistan with millions of dollars of aid. when i heard that effort, we learned that information we wanted from the government. i was like, this is ridiculous. we also be getting this information to we're asking them to cooperate with the fbi as it relates to american hostages. that was one example. the other example where we got involved, very instrumental in helping get americans back. we started to get the conversation going again, not changing u.s. policy. i sport we do not favor hostages. i support that but we connect to get them back. so we started those efforts. i was surprised we were not

doing more as a country. i'm not saying he can pay the ransom. but like a lot of governments there are different relationships. they know it what is going on on the ground to some extent. they have people they work with who may be able to negotiate like they did for curtis, a terrific example, a private citizen who has taken up hostage release as a private mission p are he has worked on many of these cases and the washington post had a good story about this last year when they talked about how a private citizen actually played a really important role without paying any ransom. host: what was the to medication like between the al qaeda operatives holding mr. weinstein hostage and the family in the government? guest: there are a few public medications, as you know about, but in terms of other

communications, i'm generally very respectful the family into not want to talk about any specific communications they might have had. host: what efforts can other families, who have family members being held hostage, what effort can they make on their own? where does the government limit them and what they could do to try to free their loved ones? guest: our policies we do not pay for hostages. we also have a policy that private citizens are not paid for family members and loved ones. there is talk about that being reviewed. that is an interesting conversation to have. the policy that we do not pay for hostages i totally support. whether that should apply to families or not, i think that does merit a conversation about whether there is evidence to support whether that will change how many americans took us choose.

that is open for debate. but i think, unfortunately if we did a better job, and i do not want to criticize individuals, the men and women who work and really care about these people, but if we really did what i want to do, have a hold -- have a whole new effort create committee on the national security council that the most important parts of governments you have state department's, fbi, intelligence, military, the attorney general, they are all on this committee and the committee is chaired by a full-time prison whose sole responsibility is to develop strategies and get hostages, find out where they are and work to get them back. they would be able to speak for the capabilities of all of the members on that committee. it would be a totally new approach and a much more effective approach, i think. host: that we would need in your opinion a hostages are? -- hostage -- czar?

guest: the family knew and government knew, but the decision was made early on not to go public because they thought, strictly considering the juice faith, it might be counterproductive. then what -- then when al qaeda was sent open videos to the media, the decision was to go public. there are estimates there are several dozen at any given time and how many of those are the old-fashioned drug cartel, versus the middle east, it is probably an even split. i am not talking about building a whole new department. i'm talking about taking the resources we already have in the government and creating a way for them to be court native more effectively. we do not need, as he said, there are only several dozen hostages at one time. we do not need to build a whole new bureaucracy. we need to build a capability

that can develop hostage specific strategies and all different and customized based on the facts on the ground, and then have the ability to cut across government, grab what is needed, and i secured against those strategies. host: we will go to joy california, a democratic caller. caller: i am down here in the garage and i can hear you guys talk, but when i first saw the headline of terrorism i thought of gitmo and i'm curious why that situation is still going on. the second part of my comment is with terrorism, you know, i read a lot about isis and what is

going on with that and i just think the media overemphasizes the threat that that is to the united states. host: i'm going to have the congressman jump in and take on that. guest: i agree about guantanamo bay, it is not clear what role that is playing anymore. as it relates to isis, think i have a different take on it. i do view it as a very significant threat to the united states. in this area, i'd take them at their word. if you listen to their words they are saying they want to find americans wherever they are, including here, and they

want to kill us. and that is what they're doing with the hostages overseas. so i think this is a threat we have to deal with as a nation. and we can see by their actions where they have done is incredibly brutal killings of the hostages they have had. it is just a moral awful act. i think it is a serious threat and they say they want to do more of it wherever they can identify americans before other people -- in their pool -- particular cause an approach in the world, the majority of the world. i think it is a very serious threat. host: texas, steve, independent caller. caller: yes, i was wondering what the difference between the state being established for israel they were terrorists at the time, the commies were terrorists at the time, and what are your thoughts on those

policies being implemented in the context of this world order right now? guest: i do not agree with the fundamental premise that the juice state or terrorists organized this were terrorists. it is hard for me to make any comment. host: we will move on. matthew, in massachusetts, an independent. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a few points. the first is the funds will be used to kill more people including our soldiers. if anyone has any doubt about that, where do you think money is going? that is where it is going. the change in the policy, one after another of individuals turning themselves over here

they are already leaving to go over and join these terrorist groups. now, a video in the basement, i have been kidnapped and 90 need money. and the money these families will be able to provide it will just increase tenfold. it will keep increasing. guest: just to be clear, there is no proposed change in u.s. policy as it relates to terrorism. i certainly do not believe we should a known in the government has proposed that here no one on capitol hill has proposed that. you made one part of the argument, but the utter death the other part is people think if we start paying for hostages, we will just make more of them. in addition to the money being used for purposes that are terrible and immoral etc. what has been talked about is, right now, american families

whose family members have been taken hostage, and they talk about using their own funds to make ransom payments, that they have been threatened by our government, that they will be prosecuted if they do that. there has been talk about maybe looking at the policy. that is a very different policy. there are implications to that. i think to the extent we were to make any changes to that policy, we would want to be very comfortable at the changes do not change the rate of americans change -- taken hostage. i think it is a good discussion because we have seen situations like the family threatened by the government when they were trying to do things because their son brought back compared it just underscores the point in my mind, which is if we had a more centralized capability to deal of finding hostages, and that is the key part, we talk about what we do with terrorists i think there is a

huge gap. warren weinstein, my constituent who is held hostage an unfortunate we recently killed he was held there for three years and we could not find him. the real failure of his country when you consider the capabilities of the military the capability and our ability to put pressure on our partners in the region, to help us find these hostages, if an american can go three years and not be found in the middle east, that is a breakdown of our capabilities and that is the area i want to focus on. we have a lot more options but at a minimum, we will not bomb places where we know what they are. host: you wrote that you are saddened and disappointed and outraged. where was the failure? intelligence? are you saying our intelligence did not know where he was at all during those three years? guest: we had a sense he was

along the pakistan border, but that is just because that is where our sense all of these people were taken. a different train, we do not have a lot of capabilities there. but you are right, where i think the breakdown was was on the intelligence side. the intelligence broadly defined. it is not that our intelligence agency -- are they listening, of course they are. but it is also working with pakistan to see what they know. do they have people who have information, and are they letting us talk to them? are we collaborating with other partners in the region? i think it was a breakdown of the united states of america and all our capabilities which, relative to the rest of the world, are staggering. we cannot find americans taken hostage in a limited art of the world. -- part of the world. host: you are on the air, our line for republicans. caller: we have a 10 more on

chris hannity in the country because the area of baltimore where the rides are currently taking place no one is speaking about the overtake of the islamic community as primarily normed -- northern states that have poor economic support and they are just basically reaching out and no one is speaking out to bring about hey, we are, our homefront is under attack. we are focusing on more the smoke and mirrors about a bunch of crips and bloods who have no injunction in the country to speak of. guest: i think it is really important that when we speak

about people practicing their faith in islam, the overwhelming majority of people practicing that faith live up to the core tenets of that faith, peace and love, which we find in other faiths. we have to be careful when we talk about people practicing that religion in our own country. as it relates in baltimore, it is a very different situation. a lot of different protests. what appears to be happening all over the country to poor inner-city black communities. they want answers as to why some a mic fred -- why someone like freddie gray die the way he did. it is inexplicable to all of us that he would die based on what has been said.

the community and the family wants answers. we are heartbroken for them. most of the protests were very peaceful and really raising this question in an appropriate way. criminals got involved in the situation got out of hand and that was terrible, but the core situation in baltimore is not what you are focused on. the situation of baltimore, what we saw in other parts of the country, which is, these black communities, underinvested in and in many ways are the product of a failed and broken criminal justice system in this country our laws being applied unevenly to citizens in those communities? that is a legitimate question that has to be answered. and then what do we do to improve the situation in these communities when you could be talking about these communities not just around these crises,

what types of criminal justice reforms are needed so we could break this cycle of poverty and crime and despair and bad relations with the police department. those are all the issues coming out of the situation in baltimore. what is remarkably being handled in a very peaceful way. protests, 50 or 100 religious leaders involved, and peaceful protests. tensions were high in this situation and the situation becomes inherently dangerous. things got out of hand very quickly. host: i will go to josh in florida, a democrat. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning, congressman. the question i have is simply this. tell me what you suppose would happen if when a hostages taken the united states cut off all ties, all support to that country until the hostage is

released. i will take your answer off the air. guest: i like where you are going with your question or and i do not think i would go as far as you are going. but here is an example. warren weinstein. i will tie it all back to my constituent. that is who i was really working for for the past couple of years. he was captured. the question is, where we getting enough cooperation from the pakistani police who have a lot of contacts in all of these villages and things like that where we getting this cooperation? what we were doing, what we were working on in cooperation with the fbi and other parts of our government is threatening to hold back u.s. aid, which is where you are going, unless we get the cooperation. you and i thematically are talking about the same thing. finding pressure points with various contacts, or touch points these countries have with other countries, and making sure

we're getting 100% cooperation. the situation in pakistan around hostages is really very difficult. the former prime minister's child was taken hostage. it is probably a little unreasonable, but should we say things like, we will not provide you aid unless we get 100% cooperation from your various police authorities, military authorities, because these things tend not to be as well corrugated in places like pakistan as they are here, so you could get cooperation from military and not police, should we condition our aid on getting 100% cooperation from hostage and was recently killed by the jones strike. we started out this conversation with what changes you would like to see. can you outline them again for our viewers? guest: what we are proposing a committee of the national security council being established. all the principles of our most

senior people within the agencies are within the arms of government relative to the hostage situation. like the fbi and the apartment of -- department of intelligence. this committee will be chaired by an individual whose full-time responsibility is to work on hostage related matters. this person will likely be referred to the hostages are. -- as a hostage bizarre. -- czar. it will include putting pressures on countries in the region, mostly referring to the middle east that would help us. it would thereby deliver a much more coordinated and efficient hostage strategy. we will have someone who wakes up every morning and goes into

the office and has a whiteboard on their wall with the names of all the hostages and their developed individualized strategies for each of these situations. and every day, they are seeing what they can do to move it all former. what capabilities do they need from intelligence, what do they need from fbi and the state what pressure do we need to put on pakistan, etc.. we can do three things -- find these people. that was the problem with weinstein. we never found him over three years, which i think is a huge failure of government. once you find these people, find options for negotiating release. you can go to rescue them. you can avoid calming where you know they are -- bombing where you know they are. we have seen an uneven situation with respect to families. we are not giving information they need and it is coming in and it just one invention. -- a disjointed fashion. put a small team in place, but that team has lots of power to cut across all parts of government to get what they need

to get better results. host: is this something the president can do on his own? guest: yes. we have in talking to the white house extensively. they have announced some steps in this direction. things have been a little confusing in the terms of a fusion cell that creates a better way for different agencies to coordinate. our proposal goes further. i think our proposal is a much better solution. directionally, i think we are heading in the same way. i look forward to working with them and with our legislation and hopefully coming to an agreement that we all can say that this is what she should be doing. best we should be doing. -- what we should be doing g. host: let's go to chuck, and independent. caller: why are we always giving money to foreign countries that hate us and our jihadist? and then they bombed their own

country like china? i don't understand that. host: we will have the congressman go on. guest: the total aid that we provide all of the world is much smaller than people think it is. it's less the 1% of the total budget of the united states. it is not like we are providing a significant amount of dollars. the budget of the u.s. is very big. as a percentage, all the aid is less the 1%. my opinion is that the aid is really important. a lot of it is for humanitarian needs. it is in many of these nations where they are dealing with inhumane crisis sees where children and people are at real significant risk. i think it is the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world that we have an obligation to help out. some of it is to help build the economy is in these regions, which has been proven to be one of the most stabilizing factors in the health and stability of a nation which by the way, is in

our best agers, because we have stable nations, we will not have terrorist groups form. most of it is for securities for nations that are key partners of ours. i think the foreign aid strategy of our country is well thought out and effective. we don't provide money to terrorist organizations. that is prohibited and no one in the government would do that so we are not doing that. some of the countries where we do provide aid are countries where the government has a hard time controlling their own borders. they have terrorist operations going on within their own countries which they are trying to fight and we are china to help them fight. a lot of our foreign aid is designed to create an environment where we can be more effective at that. i think the foreign aid budget of the united states comes -- encompasses multiple objectives. i touched on the human terry reasons. want to create martic gets -- we want to great markets -- create

markets. we are much less likely to have terrorist threats. if you look of these countries some of these countries have shockingly high unemployment particularly among the younger population. 50% to 60% to 70% unemployment rate among young people in some of these countries. that is exactly the kind of environment where terrorism breeds and a lot of our aid is designed to prevent that. host: let's get a handful of more phone calls. let's go to marysville washington. a republican. caller: good morning, congress and. guest: good morning, harry. caller: my heart goes out to the families of the hostages. secondly, i like to ask you -- do you think there's a parallel between what was going on in the 1990's when president clinton was also using jones -- drones to fix a problem that we couldn't put our finger on and

now they are doing it and it seems to me that is just as ineffective as it was back then. the difference being isis is a disease that is spreading a whole lot quicker than what president clinton was dealing with back in the 1990's. host: we will have the congressman answer. guest: i grew with the about the threat of isis. i think it is obviously incredibly a scary situation with isis. we need to be incredibly determined and committed in defeating ices. i said to the earlier caller that i take them at their word and that word is to continue to attack and kill americans. we need to fight them and fight them on the ground where they are. we need to work with our partner nations in doing that so that the countries where isis is that that they can get control of their countries again and we can eliminate this threat. i think -- there is an important

discussion about our drone policy, but they have been largely effective. drones need good intelligence. one of the problems with the weinstein situation is that the only four people in the compound, but it turned out that there were six. i think the intelligence that was done was their phone -- thorough and careful, but it obviously wasn't enough. that is why i want my intelligence around hostage identification so we would've known where warned was. if it was as good as our intelligence capabilities, we would've had the same discussions about battalion staff. that is also strategy. -- strategy. -- a tragedy. the reason that i like drones is that it puts fewer americans at risk. when we do man's operation, we are putting american folks at risk. with drones, we don't have to do that. it has to be done in cooperation

with really good intelligence. host: vermont, a democrat. caller: good morning. clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives, the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on april 29, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. that the senate passed, senate 304. signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 223 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 27, house resolution

223. resolved, that, a, at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill specified in section 2 of this resolution. the first reading of the -- of each such bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of each such bill are waived. general debate on each such bill shall be confined to that bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate, each such bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. points of order against provisions in each such bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. b, during consideration of each such bill for amendment one, each amendment other than amendments provided for in paragraph 2 shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in paragraph 2. 2, no pro forma amendments shall be in order except at the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective dig he knees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments, each at any point for the purpose of debate. and three, the chair of the committee of the whole may accord priority and redskin nation on the basis of whether the member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18. amendments so printed shall be considered as read. c, when the committee rises and reports any such bill back to the house with the recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, the bills referred

to in the first section of this resolution are as follows, a the bill h.r. 2028 making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30 2016, and for other purposes. b, the bill, h.r. 2029, making appropriations for military construction the department of veterans affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30 2016, and for other purposes. . section 3, during consideration of h.r. 2028 and h.r. 2029, pursuant to this resolution, a, the pro visions of house concurrent resolution 27 as adopted by the house, shall force an effect in the house as though congress has adopted such concurrent resolution and, b, the allocations printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered for all purposes in the house, to be allocations under section 302-a of the congressional budget act of 1974.

section 4. on any legislative day during the period from may 4 2015, through may 11, 2015 a, the journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved and b, the chair may at any time declare the house adjourned to meet at a date and time within the limits of clause 4, section 5 article 1 of the constitution, to be announced by the chair and declaring the adjournment. section 5, the speaker may appoint members to perform the duties of the chair for the duration of the period address thed by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8-a of rule 1. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one hour. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. during consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only and i'd like to yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend from florida, mr. hastings. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. woodall: pending which, mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume and ask

unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. woodall: thank you mr. speaker. if you were listening to the reading clerk read this rule we got into some housekeeping issues at the end. we got a district workweek coming up next week. we needed to give the speaker some authorities to continue to conduct the business of the house in a collaboratetific and pro forma way. but -- collaborative and pro forma way. but it is the first part of that rule that is exciting. i was talking to the parliamentarian the other day and he was telling me about the way that history of the rules had evolved as folks stand on the house floor during rules committee debate and go through line by line explaining to the house what's in the rule. it's not every day that i'm excited about doing that mr. speaker. the rules committee has a tough job. sometimes rules committee's job is say nothing. sometimes the rule committee's job is being that gate keeper to the floor of the house and we have to deliver some bad news to folks i don't particularly enjoy -- folks, i

don't particularly enjoy reiterating that on the house. today is good news. today is all good news, for every member of the house who has any ideas at all about how better to fund the responsibilities of this nation they are going to be able to have their voice heard. let me read as the reading clerk did, we have two bills in this rule mr. speaker. h.r. 2028 and h.r. 2029. i have them here. h.r. 2029 makes appropriations for military construction and the department of veterans affairs. i dare say there's not a single member on the floor of this house that has not grappled with how to better serve the veterans at home in our district. that has not grappled with how to provide better accountability to the veterans administration that is tasked with providing those services. this rule provides that any

member of this chamber republican or democrat, senior or junior, freshman or retiring, has an opportunity to have their ideas heard. it's the best of what we do in this chamber, mr. speaker. we're going to do it on h.r. 2029. this rule also provides for consideration of h.r. 202. that's the energy and water development appropriations bill mr. speaker. again, i dare say that there's any one, particularly east of the mississippi, that has a district that is not in some way impacted by the army corps of engineers. the army corps of engineers funded in this legislation. individual projects funded in this legislation. and what this rule provides is that any member of this chamber that has an idea about how to better appropriate these dollars these dollars that

belong not to us as individual members, but to the american taxpayer, how to better be accountable, be effective, be efficient with these tax dollars, mr. speaker. they can come to this floor and have their amendments heard. mr. speaker, you've heard it said often that the senate only has two rules. unanimous consent and exhaustion. the rules committee prevents us from having to have that structure here. but it is true that you can effectively filibuster in this chamber as well. you can come down and move to strike the last word. you can have debate go on for ever. i don't believe that serves us particularly well. there's obviously an opportunity and a need to have your voice heard, to have your constituents' voice heard, but what this rule does do, which is why we're going to call it a modified open rule instead of a completely open rule, is it restricts what one might call dilatory amendments, what one might call clarifying conversation it. restricts these pro forma amendments where you're not trying to change the language, you just want to come down here to talk, to 10 on each side

controlled by the subcommittee chairman. what's so neat about these two bills that we're going to make in order under this rule is they both passed out of the appropriations committee on a voice vote. as you know mr. speaker, there's some contentious things that we do in this institution. and arguably appropriate something one of the hardest things that this institution has to do. but passing these bills out of committee on a voice vote tells us about the collaborative way in which these bills were put together. now, i could tell you there are going to be folks on both sides of the aisle, mr. speaker, who disagree with the funding levels in these bills. there are going to be republicans who wish they funded less, democrats who wish they funded more, there are going to be democrats who wish they funded less and republicans who wish they funded more. but the funding levels of the total bill, that's not for debate today. that's set in the funding allocations we call them 302-a allocations. that's my responsibility on the budget committee and others who serve on the budget committee. as you know, mr. speaker we

are this close, oh golly we are this close to having conference the first balanced budget for the united states of herk america in over -- of america in over 10 years. in over 10 years, the house and the senate are about to agree on funding levels for this nation. it is embarrassing that we don't do it every year. but it is wonderful that we have an opportunity to do it this year and we will. ordinarily mr. speaker, we'd have done that first. candidly, as a member of the house budget committee, a member who proudly supported the budget that passed here on the floor of the house, i thought that conference report was going to be ready on monday of this week. it's not. it's not. and so this rule also deems those levels that the house has already passed, those levels that we absolutely expect to be the levels of funding in that conference report, to be the levels of funding for this energy and water appropriations bill for this military construction and veterans appropriations bill.

as is appropriate. we are but beginning the appropriations process today, mr. speaker, at the earliest point in 40 years. how many might have colleagues are frustrated disappointed, disillusion hadded when this chamber cannot get its work done -- disil-- disillusioned when this chamber cannot get its work done? there are reasons we can't accomplish our goals but i promise you, mr. speaker the funding clock waits on no member. come september 30 of this year, funding will expire for the entire federal government, the earlier we start to solve that issue the better chance we have of getting it done. and working together collaboratively, voice votes out of subcommittee, big votes out on the budget bill we're starting earlier than we have since 1973. good processes yield good

results, mr. speaker. flawed processes yield flawed results. this is the kind of bill i think every member of this body wishes we could see more of on the house floor. this is going to allow for the kind of debate that's not going to predetermine the outcome but is going to allow members to come down to the floor and make their case to their colleagues, have the kind of debate the american people expect and let the chips fall where they may. you get 218 votes, you get to change this bill. mr. speaker i signed up to be on the rules committee because i knew that we would have the opportunity to unleash this institution. the opportunity to allow every member who come from such diverse brounleds, who have so much to contribute. mr. speaker, i just got here two years ago. folks in my class that came in four years ago, they're already in the top 50% of seniority in

this institution. the american people have been turning folks out at record speed. which means we have been bringing in new talent like never before. sometimes folks think the system around here is geared towards those who have been here the longest. they think that only after you've achieved a subcommittee chairmanship or a committee chairmanship will you be able to have input on the process, the rules committee says no. the appropriations committee says no. on these bills and this process, every single member has a chance to have their voice heard. a chance to come down here, make their case and have an impact on the final product. mr. speaker, i'm proud to be hearing this rule today and i urge strong support from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as we consider this bill throughout the afternoon and on final passage. with that i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from georgia, my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, totally unrelated, to my assigned task, i do feel very strongly that, and i'm sure many members of the house of representatives, as many american citizens, feel the horror of what transpired in napal and i would just like to say, probably speaking for just about every member, that our heartfelt condolences are with the nap lease people. and -- napalese people and our hope is that the world will rally to them, as have many, including america. and allow the injured and the

homeless are taken care of. mr. speaker had h.r. 2029 -- mr. speaker, h.r. 2029, the military construction veterans affairs and related agencies appropriations act for fiscal year 2016, provides for a total of $76.6 billion in discretionary funding including overseas contingency operations as well as $7 billion for military construction and family housing projects and $163.2 billion for the department of veterans affairs. h.r. 2028 the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act for father case -- for fiscal year 2016, provides a total allocation of $35.4 billion for energy and water resource projects. first, i find it important to

mention, as did my colleague from georgia, that this rule is a modified open rule. with time limits set to 10 minutes debate per amendment and not an open rule to allow all members to have a full and robust debate on the house floor. i commend my colleague from georgia who has been a continuing advocate for open rules, and i also recognize his explanation for the, in his words restriction of time, was to avoid what would amount to unnecessary debate. but as has become custom under republican leadership we are once again limiting the amount of deliberation permitted on issues that are critically important to our nation and our

constituents. nevertheless, i'm proud as is my friend from georgia that republicans and democrats, the word he used is collaborated, and i agree, were able to come together to draft h.r. 2029, the legislation that appropriates funds to military construction projects, improves the quality of life for veterans, and military families, and allows for the continued operation of the essential functions of our nation's governing body. these measures include the implementation of stringent but effective reporting requirements for the vista electronic health records system. as well as the continued efforts to eliminate the veterans' claims backlog, by fully funding endeavors to implement digital scanning of health records and improvements

to centralized mail. these commendable provisions bring us another step closer to ensuring that those who have dedicated themselves to defending our nation will receive the benefits they have rightly earned and deserve. despite reaching common ground on several important aspects, the republicans' fiscal year 2016 budget caps will have real and drastic cuts to essential programs that are necessary to support the brave individuals who served our great nation in combat and who will bear the cost of those wars for decades to come. . as a result of the budget majority's spending resolutions, gimmicks -- i remember when i was a child when i first learned about the magical terminology hocus-pocus

and it comes to mind we are sort of in imaginary land here with the political maneuvering and gimmicks. military construction funding stands to be slashed by $1.2 billion, and the department of veterans affairs comes in at $1.4 billion below the amount requested. now, yesterday in the rules committee we had a lengthy proceeding and every member on the rules committee had an opportunity to speak to this issue. almost as a collective voice there was criticism of the veterans administration and how it functions and its failures over a protracted period of time. i raised the question for information about how many people worked for v.a. total, and i learned for the first time that there are 340,000 people that work in

interrelated capacities for v.a. the arguments that were being made were made about people who are flawed and rightly should be criticized, but i don't feel that all 340,000 people that work on behalf of veterans, particularly in areas that i'm privileged to serve, i have seen changes that are positive and helpful although there's always room for improvement. so there was one measure for veterans -- veterans employees to receive the same 1.3% increase in their pay and this measure disallows that and i don't think that's right. i believe that many of those persons have rightfully earned what other federal employees to

receive as a minimal increase in these very troubled economic times. my republican colleagues asked us to shift $532 million to overseas contingency operations account which incidentally does not count against the budget cap. it creates the appearance that we've allocated the robust and necessary funding that our military requires when in reality we failed to do so. americans who currently serve and have served in our military along with their families, deserve the very best our nation has to offer. when it comes to investments in our infrastructure, our military and our country we all must recognize that not all spending is bad spending. we can and we must do better. in h.r. 2028 the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act for

fiscal year 2015 there's also -- it is also an important piece of legislation. this bill provides funding for many critical defense and nondefense areas from vital water resource projects to essential weapons naval reactor and nuclear proliferation funding all of these funding projects enjoy largely bipartisan support. that is why it's a shame, in my view, that my republican friends have taken this opportunity to poison these bipartisan funding measures by attaching partisan policy riders. and i'm sure members are going to be down here speaking loudly about some of them. on the one hand, this bill provides very robust funding for the army corps of engineers. $5.6 billion in total.

that's an increase of $142 million from fiscal year 2015, and i applaud this strong funding effort. unfortunately, my friends on the other side have elected to add an amendment to this funding that will allow guns to be carried on all corps of engineers land. i spoke passionately last night about this and i anticipate beginning in the month of may that i will speak more, not just about this particular measure, but about the epidemic of gun violence in this society. i did not coin that phrase. the former sergeant general, mr. satcher, pointed that out a decade ago nearly, and it is as true today as at any other point. why would we add an amendment

to an important appropriations bill that will allow more guns into recreational areas used by families? i just simply cannot understand that. does anyone really believe an appropriations bill is the appropriate place to amend our gun laws? it would appear that reasonable minds do not. clause 2 of rule 21 prohibits members of the house rules to legislate on an appropriations measure. significantly and dangerously, republicans have granted a waiver of this important rule. i won't speak more about it, as i indicated. there will be more to come on this business of guns in our society, and i'll make it very clear where i'm coming from. i feel it's in the interest of society and not in opposition to the second amendment. here's another example.

this bill allocates $1.178 billion for harbor maintenance trust fund. vital funding needed to help further usher our ports and harbors in the 21st century, but then my friends on the other side of the aisle saw fit to attach an amendment that would prevent the army corps of engineers from taking commonsense steps to clarify which waters are protected by the clean water act. why in one instance are we going to fully fund an agency as vital as the army corps of engineers and then in the next breath tie their hands by preventing them from making commonsense determinations on what is widely acknowledged to be a state of confusion about the scope of the laws' pollution control programs. let the corps do its job.

why my friends on the other side of the aisle try to weigh down this important funding bill with unnecessary and partisan policy riders? this bill funds essential nuclear proliferation activities $1.9 billion worth, as well as environmental cleanup efforts. we should not be threatening the funding to stop the spread of nuclear weapons or the preservation of our environment and construction of our harbors just so the republicans can have a partisan fight over gutting the clean water act or attempting to change our gun laws. the american people deserve better the funding of these projects is too important. i reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may

consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker we have an important responsibility in budgeting in this institution. again, one that has not been fulfilled, i would argue, in more than a decade, that will be fulfilled this year for the very first time. but we had a choice in the budget committee. i serve on the budget committee as well, mr. speaker. we had a choice in the budget committee about whether or not we were going to pretend that we could fund at certain levels or whether we were going to actually follow the law. now, mr. speaker, it may not surprise you that we have those conversations in washington but yes, the conversation goes, am i just going to do whatever i want to do or am i going to follow the law? it is very striking to me that this conversation occurs at all. i would have said that's kind of the definition of the law. you don't get to do whatever you want to do. you have to follow the law. and i wish that we could drive that message home across so many different parts of our

society. the law is the law. the president absolutely sent some budget requests to us for these bills, as he will for other appropriations bills mr. speaker. in the case of -- in the case of the energy and water appropriations bill, the president requested a 5% increase in that funding. now, had we passed that 5% increase without changing the law, we're going to roll around october 1, the beginning of the fiscal year, and the law is going to snap that 5% increase right back down to legally allowed levels so the choice we have in the appropriations committee -- and i so admire my friends on the appropriations committee, mr. speaker -- we had a choice of pretending we were going to spend a lot of money funding our provites only to have the -- priorities only to have those laws snap it across the board or we can be honest about how much money was available and make sure we were prioritizing every single dollar as best we could. in the case of energy and

water, the president asked for a 5% increase. the appropriations committee provided for a 3% increase, as the law allows. in the case of military construction, the v.a., the president asked for just over an 8% increase. the appropriations committee provided a 6% increase, as the law allows. i would challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle, shoot, i'd challenge my friends on this side of the aisle mr. speaker, 30 years ago 2/3 of what the federal government funded in this country was funded out of this institution. it was funded through the appropriations committee. it was this body making decisions and choices based on our constituents' needs and desires about how to use taxpayer dollars. not so today. today it's exactly the opposite. instead of this institution funding 2/3 of the budget and 1/3 of it being mandatory spending, now only 2/3 is mandatory, 1/3 is available for

the body to make decisions about. i challenge my colleagues, let's find that agreement that reforms mandatory spending as every member of this chamber knows needs to happen and let's reallocate those dollars to what was designed in the budget control act of 2011 to allow us to fund these discretionary priorities at a higher level. mr. speaker, i want to build things. i want to build things. for pete's sake, in this energy and water development bill, we do, we fund the corps of engineers in this bill. for the savannah harbor expansion project in the state of georgia, we're the fastest growing container port in the united states, mr. speaker. the fastest growing in the nation trying to plan for the new panama ships. in order to maximize the use of taxpayer dollars, in order to make sure that taxpayers get the best bang for their buck on this project of national importance, we need to build it in six years at the rate of

$100 million a year. six years $100 a year is the way we maximize taxpayer dollars. this bill funds that project at $21 million. $21 million. we're going to string that project out year after year after year costing the taxpayer more. now, i don't blame my friends on the appropriations committee, mr. speaker. as it turns out, the rules of the house don't allow us to prioritize those projects. that's what the president asked for. the appropriations committee wasn't able to ask for any more than the president asked for. so this is the president's funding level. but that's not the right way to appropriate, and if we could work together to reallocate those dollars i would do it tomorrow. i challenge my friends to find a mandatory spending reform bill that i will not support. it's critical that we do it. it's critical to our seniors. it's critical to our young people. it's critical to the governance of this nation. but to the degree that i have

complaints about this bill, my friends have complaints about this bill with the passage of this rule we're going to allow every single member to come down here and make those -- make those improvements known. we'll have votes. we'll have up or down votes. some amendments will lose. some amendments will win. we'll perfect this bill together. that's the way this bill was written, and that's the way this bill will be passed and that should make us all very proud. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i so much enjoy the passion of my good friend from georgia, and i'm sure he feels the same as me. he kind of has an advantage over me today in that he's on the budget committee so happily i would report to him, i brought along some people from the budget committee that can

take up the slack that i might offer. and i would be delighted at this time to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from kentucky, my good friend, mr. yarmuth. from the budget committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky, mr. yarmuth, is recognized for two minutes. . mr. yarmuth: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate my friend being willing to yield. i rise in opposition to this rule which deems, as if passed, a budget resolution that at best is an economic fantasy and at worst does serious damage to our country. the rule before us today is further proof that our republican colleagues are continuing to rely on faith-based accounting in this budget. they're closing their eyes and praying that it works. but it doesn't work. the numbers don't add up and this rule makes those shortcomings clear. the funding levels deemed in this measure do not meet our moral obligation to remove our country -- to move our country forward and help the american people. not only do they fail to meet the needs of the people we represent, they fail to meet a

basic standard of honest budgeting. for example, we know that trickledown economics doesn't work. we've seen that time and time again unfortunately in this century. yet this rule puts in place funding levels that are supposedly balanced by the unsupportable belief that tax cuts generate more revenue. the republican budget proposals will result in dramatic cuts to education, infrastructure and innovation. cuts to investments that we know we need to prepare our children and grandchildren to lead the world in the new global economy and to grow our economy. this deemed budget resolution pretends we can afford more tax cuts for the ultrawealthy who do not need them, while it increases taxes for middle class families that they can't afford. this rule deems in place funding levels that will continue to use the overseas contingency operations account budget line as a slush fund. abandoning the republicans' own commitments to maintaining sequester-level spending for our national defense while cutting nearly every program

that helps hardworking americans get ahead. at every turn, this measure misses the mark and fulfilling our obligation to adequately fund investments that will allow us to continue our economic recovery. simply put, this budget falls woefully short. i urge my colleagues to oppose the funding levels deemed in this rule and he sure that american families will not be forced to work harder and get less. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia's recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i enjoy serving on the budget committee with my friend from kentucky. the budget is that first step of any accounting process for the year. and my friend is absolutely right. if we could have we would have passed that budget conference report first thing when we got into town this week. anybody who is reading the newspaper knows it slowed down in the senate. we have all the numbers worked out. there are some other issues

going on. i won't bore folks with those details. and so this rule absolutely does, in the name of getting the people's business done, it takes those budget levels that have passed in this house, that have passed in the senate, that are on their way back over here in a conference report, and sets those as the funding levels for this year. again, these are the levels that exist in law. that's the fantasy part of some of our funding debates. i could agree with all my colleagues that we need to triple fund on certain projects but the law won't allow it. we'll pass that on the floor of the house but as soon as the fiscal year rolls around, the law will sequester those dollars, snap that funding back down. we have an obligation to prioritize these dollars ourselves. golly, when we have tough decisions to be made i don't want to leave those tough decisions to an automatic sequestration process. i don't want to leave those tough decisions to some

automatic process of law. i want to take responsibility for those decisions here. i want us to make those decisions together. if we have to grapple with it let us frapple -- grapple together but let's be honest with folks that there's no free lunch here. if we want it, we have to pay for it. now, to my friend from kentucky's point, we're paying for a lot of it out of the overseas contingency operations account. i voted no on that decision when it came to the house floor, as my friend from kentucky did as well. we lost. funny thing about this institution, mr. speaker. i told my constituents about all the amazing things i was going to get up there to do i was going to do it on their behalf. it turns out if i can't get 217 of my colleagues to agree with me, i can't do squat. we tried and we failed on that account. so now we have the numbers that we have, we have the bill that we have we have the law that we have and as much as we might want it to be different, it

isn't. that's why this open rule is so important mr. speaker. because we have the bill that we have we have the law that we have, and now we have a process that allows every member of this chamber to come down here and improving it. we don't know -- and improve it. we don't know what it's going to look like at the end of the process. it's not a foregone conclusion who has the votes and who doesn't. nibble my heart the bill will be bet -- i believe in my heart that the bill will be better at the end than it was at the beginning. because that's what the collective wisdom of this institution brings. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia continues to reserve the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. at this time i'm very pleased to yield to another member of the budget committee, a dear friend of mine, three minutes, ms. moore from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. ms. moore: before i start, may i make a parliamentary inquiry, sir? mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will state her inquiry. ms. moore: my inquiry is, has the concurrent budget passed is it law? the speaker pro tempore: the speaker cannot comment on that measure. ms. moore: well, the rule, mr. speaker is really clear. it says that the provisions of the house concurrent resolution 27, if adopted by the house, shall have the force and effect in the house as though congress had -- has adopted such concurrent resolutions. so i'm hearing that we've adopted it. so have we -- in order to take up these appropriations bills, we're supposed to have passed that. i'm on the budget conference committee and i didn't recall that we had passed it, sir.

, so i renew my inquiry as to -- so, i renew my inquiry as to whether or not we are operating under a passed budget resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady may consult the records of the house to find the legislative history on any piece of legislation. ms. moore: thank you sir. i rise, mr. speaker in opposition to this rule. because, once again, here we are with all kind of floury notions about the -- flowery notions about the law and so forth. we're actually deeming this budget as passed. and as a member of the budget conference committee, i can tell you that the reason for the delay is not because there was an attempt to reach a bipartisan agreement, oh, no. the democratic budget conferees have been completely shut out of the budget negotiation

process. you would think that without these pesky democrats in the way, would not have been that hard for the majority-controlled house and the senate to come up with the agreement of how best to shred the social safety net, drive more people into poverty, cut our investments in infrastructure, block grant medicaid, slash snap, end the affordable care act and then, of course keep the money and savings from the affordable care act and take 69% of nondefense cuts from low income and moderate income families. they could have done it. so, instead of the majority party governing, they've resorted to this plan b. and deeming the budget as passed. now, you know, this republican budget claims to balance in 10 years. but it doesn't do it. it gets the savings from the affordable care act which it

eliminates. and also to appease the war hawks in the republican caucus, they throw this money into had the overseas contingency operations, also known as a slush fund. and in the underlying budget we see the republican party doubling down on the same cut-our-way-into-prosperity approach. that's another charade claiming that block grants are another form of enabling states to have more flexibility. when you hear the word flexibility, think massive cuts. it means eviscerating the social safety net. so i ask my colleagues to reject this rule and i yield back to the gentleman from florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: i know the speaker's constrained to just

ruling on parliamentary issues. i have no such constraint here. i would say to my friend that i share her frustration. i absolutely do. i've been in this chamber four years, we've had to deem appropriations levels every single year. not once, not once have we been able to agree on conference budget numbers in the four years that i've served in this house. now, for the previous four years, i confess i pointed the finger at the senate and the senate's leader who at that time was senator reid from nevada. today we have a new senate leader. and i can't point the finger at the other party, if we can't get this right, it's my leader in the senate who can't get this right. but i believe we are, mr. speaker, i believe we are -- open up any newspaper, look at any report, it was supposed to be done earlier this week. we've never had a shot at getting it done in the past. we are on the brink of that

agreement. so what's happening here today, far from being an unusual circumstance, is the best we've done in five years. now, candidly that's what i expect from new leadership in the senate. i expect us to do better than we did last year. i expect us to do better than we did two years ago and i expect us to be even better next year than we are this year. the first time in more than a decade, the first time in more than a decade we've had a shot at a governing budget document. but to be fair mr. speaker, i want to distinguish between the budget and the law. a lot of folks believe that the budget of the united states becomes the law of the land. it does not. the president never signs the budget of the united states. it's an agreement between the house and the senate. that distinguishes it from the budget caps in the budget control act which are absolutely the law of the land, passed by the house and senate, signed by president obama.

so when we talk about what it is that we want to see in funding levels we can decide anything we want to in this chamber. but the law of the land is not what we decide in our budget document. it's what was decided back in august of 2011 when the budget caps from the budget control act came into being. mr. speaker, the opportunity to have this conference budget agreement, the opportunity to be working from the same sheet of budgeting music on both sides of the hill is amazing. i can't tell you as a budget committee member how hard we have worked to achieve it and how much i anticipate it. it wasn't yesterday. so far it's not today. but it is going to be soon. i don't want that to stand in the way of getting people's

business done. we have two great appropriations bills here. again, passed by voice votes out of committee, composed in collaborative ways within the appropriations committee. these two bills deserve to be heard on the floor of the house. they deserve to be heard this week and with passage of this rule, they will be. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'm very pleased to yield to my very, very good friend, the gentlewoman from florida, the great state of florida who is an expert in veterans affairs, among other things, ms. brown of for two minutes -- ms. brown, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. brown: thank you, mr. speaker. members of the house, dead on arrival. you know you can fool some of the people some of the time but

you can't fool all of the people all of the time. and i rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill. after taking a step forward with the new choice act program, this republican budget takes two steps back with its cuts in veterans' health care. just another example of republicans talking the talk but not walking the walk. but you don't have to take my word for it. you can ask the vet rans service organizations who -- veterans' service organizations who represent the interests of our veterans. every last one of them oppose this bill. the national commanders of the veterans of foreign wars said the following about the republicans' veterans bill, the v.a. cannot fulfill its

missions without proper funding . but the house, for whatever reason, now wants to ration care. let me try that again. the house republicans, for whatever reason now want to ration care, eliminate infrastructure projects and stop improvement upon the programs and services that the v.a. was created to provide. . this bill is bad for veterans and any vote for it is unacceptable. we're going to vote on a republican budget later this week that provides more money for the department of defense than the pentagon requested while cutting funds for health care and service for every veteran that is returning from battle. george washington, the first

president of the united states, said that willingness with our young people are likely to serve in any war no matter how justifiable shall be directly proportioned -- mr. hastings: i yield the gentlelady an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for an additional minute. ms. brown: to how they per receive veterans who are appreciated by -- perceive veterans who are appreciated by our nation. this bill fails to show the appreciation our veterans deserve. vote no on the rule and no -- vote no on the veterans affairs appropriations bill and send this bad legislation back to the drawing board. mr. speaker, this bill will cut 70,000 veterans from health care. i can't imagine any democrat or

any republican voting for this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. speaker. one of the things i love about this institution is the passion which folks come to the floor of this house and so often that passion is directed at improving the services for those who have served us. my friend from florida's absolutely right when he said in his opening statement that in the rules committee last night the frustration with the v.a. and trying to provide accountable services to our veterans was universal. this is not a partisan issue. serving those who have served us is an issue that comes from the heart and comes from every mib of this chamber, but i'll remind all of -- member of this chamber but i'll remind awful my friends whether or not you think we're fug filling that commitment this is a bill that this institution passed last year with only one dissenting

vote, and this bill increases funding over last year by 6%. mr. speaker let no man and no woman question the commitment of our friends on the veterans' affairs committee, our friends doing the military construction and v.a. appropriations bills. i know the commitment to be universal. which is why in a time of budget cuts, which is why in a time of sequestration, which is why in a time where almost every account of the federal budget is under strain, this account goes not down but up and up by 6% over what this body passed almost unanimously last year. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is

recognized. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'd inquire how much time remains for both sides mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida has 9 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from georgia has 7 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i'd advise my friend from georgia through you that i have no further speakers and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is prepared to close for the minority. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, i'm also prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized to close debate. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i won't utilize all the time but i do wish to ask that statement of administration policy wrches to both these -- with reference to both these matters be put in the record by unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, while i'm pleased with the level of support provided in these pieces of legislation for essential military, veterans,

defense and water resources program they should not serve as vehicles to make substantive policy changes to our nation's gun laws or gut important environmental protections nor should we stand idly by while republicans in congress slash funding for critically important veterans and military services under the guise of a spending increase. now, mr. speaker, one of the things that i talked about last night, i offered an amendment that would self-execute to the rule last evening that would strike section 107 from the energy and water appropriations bill. and this is one of the riders in 2028 that would allow guns to be carried on army corps land. if enacted in its current form,

this legislation would strip the secretary of the army from using the discretion currently provided to enforce or revise the corps' policy prohibiting firearms on corps land. removing the discretionary powers from law enforcement officials that allow them to determine what is best for security of our nation's infrastructure and the safety of public employees in my judgment is dangerous and wrong. substantive changes to our gun laws do not belong in appropriations bills, and that could not have happened but for a waiver which my friends tend to do for a variety of measures that wind up being poison pills in substantive legislation. and while i believe in the right of americans to own firearms, last night i made it very clear i own a gun. when i was a child at age 7 i

had a b.b. gun. when i was 12 years old, i had a single shot rifle. and i was taught, as were all of my friends, to not point those guns at people unless you intended to do them harm. we as boys had the same kinds of fights that i imagine occur at any of our institutions, but not one of us would run home and get a gun or carry a gun and to proliferate this society with the variety of gun laws that exist where people can carry guns openly on corps land or conceal in certain other states, that's just plain crazy. and last night i referenced the statement by then-sergeant general satcher that i use again today. youth violence is an epidemic but i -- he delivered that in response to a report that he commissioned in the year 2002.

at the time his study revealed that 13 children each day die as a result of guns. indeed, the gun violence that plagues our nation has not diminished in recent years. in riviera beach last week, a child 2 years old was shot in the same constituency which i'm privileged to serve, a mother was fatally shot by her 3-year-old that got her gun from her purse. people, we need to pay attention to what's going on and i intend in may to raise this level in this body and around this nation so that people can learn just how many people are dying in this way. and i want to make it very clear. the national rifle association does not control this body nor the florida legislature nor any

body and as i said, i don't mind arguing for the second amendment but to carry it to the extent that it has gone is just plain wrong and everybody in our society knows that and i'm going to try to make sure that they continue to know that. now there's another thing about this bill that locks in sequestration. the administration speaks to that subject in their statement of administration policy. the republican framework would bring base discretionary funding for both defense and nondefense to the lowest levels in decade. compared to the president's budget, the cuts would result in tens of thousands of the nation's most vulnerable children losing access to head start. more than two million fewer workers receiving job training and employment services and thousands fewer scientific and research awards and grants and adversely impacting the pace of

discovery any innovation, along with any other impacts that would hurt the economy, the middle class and americans working hard to reach the middle class. sequestration levels were never meant to put us in this unnecessary risk. and i would urge that we not go forward in this manner, and i'd say to my good friend from georgia that we may be on the brink of what excites many if we got ourselves a balanced budget but part of that has gimmickry in it as well. it's not in reconciliation because the great majority of people in the other body might not have the same sentiments as some who serve on the relevant committee at this point in time if the u.s. senate.

yogi berra be utilized here and that is it ain't over till it's over. i was told last year that we were going to pass this thing, that we're going to come back from the senate on wednesday. last time i looked, this was wednesday. or as my daddy used to say it's wednesday all day long unless it rains. i guess it would be rainy wednesday. but it ain't here wednesday, and now i'm hearing from my good friend from georgia that they're closed. that's what happened when we set up this thing with this special committee superpeople, supercommittee that was supposed to bring us back a budget and then missed out on opportunities with erskine bowles opportunity and brought us back this sequestration that has this body hamstrung and has us in the position that authorizes an appropriations -- that are locked in to the

position they are in because of sequestration. we need to get rid of that. we need to return to earmarks. we need to do a number of things that would allow for this body and not for the bureaucracy to control many aspects of what is the implementation of policy that is made here. mr. speaker, i oppose this rule and i have stated a number of reasons. i will not go into all of the riders. i'm sure people will speak about them, but i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized to close debate for the majority. mr. woodall: thank you mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. woodall: mr. speaker, my friend from florida says it's not over until it's over. i say to my friend it is only just beginning. it is only just beginning with this rule today with the passage of this rule today, mr.

speaker we are beginning the 2016 appropriations process, and we're doing it in ways that we have not done before since i received a voting card in this body. number one. we are beginning at the earliest date in 40 years. not since 1973 has this chamber gotten about the people's business as early as we are this year. the people deserve it. the people have earned it and we are delivering on it today. i'm proud of that fact. number two mr. speaker, we are in fact on the brink of the first balanced budget conference report this body has seen since 2003. it is too long coming. we have had to deem appropriations levels year after year after year not on just two bills as we are today but on the entire package.

that report could be filed as early as this afternoon and there's no question but it will pass both of these bodies. it is good work here and across the hill. mr. speaker, as you hear the passion in my friend's voice, not everyone will be happy with every line in these two bills. i don't have to look at the democratic side of the aisle, i look at the republican side of the aisle. not everybody will be happy with every line of this bill but any member can come and change it. any member can come and change any line. any member can come and make these bills better. any member can come and have their district's voice heard. all you have to do is find 217 of your friends to agree with you, we'll pass it and we'll send it to the united states senate for consideration. mr. speaker, that's the way it ought to be.

these are going to be some long nights we're going to have. these are going to be some lengthy amendment debates we're going to have. these are going to be votearamas we're going to have but america will be the better for it because the laws of the land that we pass are going to be the better for it. i have the statement of administration policy here mr. speaker. i've got one for each one of the bills that this rule makes in order. the president has said in these statements of administration policy that his senior advisors will recommend he vetoes these bills. why? because these bills and other legislation implement the current republican budget framework which blocks the needed investments for our economy to compete in the future. . mr. speaker, it's not the republican budget framework, it's called the law of the land as signed by president barack obama. we can pretend the law doesn't exist or we can confront the law as it exists. that is what these bills do. a 6% increase in veterans

funding. a 3% increase in our energy and water investment. in a time of austere budgets, we are plusing up those accounts that are so important to our constituents back home. mr. speaker, i urge strong support for this rule. i urge strong support for the underlying bills. i urge strong support for beginning the process where every single member will be able to have his or her voice heard. it's the way this institution ought to be and it's the way this institution will be if we pass this rule today. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. and i yield the -- move the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back the balance of his time. all time having expired on this debate, the gentleman has moved the previous question. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to and, without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of the retslusion will be followed by -- resolution will be followed by a five-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 651. 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.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 239.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 240. the nays are 1867. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the house will come to order.

the house will please come to order for a moment of silence. the house will come to order. the house will come to order for a moment of silence. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? from illinois. >> the gentleman from illinois asks unanimous consent to speak out of order to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. roskam: on saturday, april 25, a 7.le magnitude earthquake hit nay paul, the most powerful

earthquake in the region in nearly a century. estimates are that 5,000 people have perished and thousands more are injured or missing. this week here in washington, the house democracy partnership is hosting a multilateral conference which includes a delegation of parliamentaryry staff from nay paul. on be-- in a paul. on behalf of congressman price who leads the democracy partnership with me and congressman crenshaw and congressman polis who share the congressional caucus, we wish to extend our condolences of the house to the people of in a paul and continue our support and cooperation as they bark on the long road of building and recovering. mr. speaker, i ask members of the house now rise and observe a moment of silence in solidarity with the people of nepal.

mr. roskam: thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from georgia mr. -- to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 651 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 651 a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located atle 20 elm wood avenue in providence, rhode island, as the sister ann keith post office. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. 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 423. the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed. and without objection the

motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule 22, i present a privileged report. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: conference report to accompany senate concurrent resolution 11, setting forth the congressional budget for the united states government for fiscal year 2015 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025. the speaker pro tempore: ordered printed. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, it is a tremendous privilege to represent the

people of the 10th district of illinois in the u.s. house of representatives. have greatly appreciated the opportunity to serve on the financial services committee. however, due to my appointment to the committee on ways and means, i hereby resign my seat on the financial services committee. i believe that this new position will better allow me to represent the interest of my constituents and i look forward to getting to work with my colleagues on the ways and means committee. signed sincerely, robert j. dold. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the resignation is accepted. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you mr. speaker. by direction of the house republican conference, i send to the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 229 resolved, that the following named members be and are hereby elected to the following standing committees

of the house of representatives . committee on house administration, mr. walker. committee on ways and means, mr. dold. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to. the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. dent: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 2029, and that i may include tabular material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 223 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 2029. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from florida, ms.

ros-lehtinen, 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 the consideration of h.r. 2029 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for military construction the department of veterans affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. dent, and the gentleman from georgia, mr. bishop, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. dent: thank you, madam chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. today, it is my honor and privilege to bring h.r. 2029,

the fiscal year 2016 military construction, veterans affairs and related agencies appropriations bill to the house of representatives. i present this bill alongside my good friend and ranking member on the subcommittee, sanford bishop from georgia who has been an essential partner along the way. i greatly appreciate the support of our committee members on both sides of the aisle as we consider funding levels for the important programs in our bill. we analyzed the budget request, developed questions, held oversight hearings to hear directly from members of all the services, the department of defense leadership, secretary of v.a., the v.a. inspector general and directors of four related agencies. we received over 700 requests from members, again, from both sides of the aisle and gave full consideration to each one. it has been a busy spring and we did our best to accommodate those members' requests. as i consider this bill i cannot proceed further without

noting that this committee has a full level of support. thank you, chairman rogers and mrs. lowey. your attention to oversight and genuine care for the military and veterans has been inspiring. and to round out our team, we have some great support from our professional staff. sarah, maureen, matt. on the committee staff. and heather, drew and shawn on my personal staff. we couldn't do it without all them. h.r. 2029 demonstrates our firm commitment to fully supporting the nation's veterans and service members. our investment of nearly $77 billion for military construction and veterans administration 6%, 6% over last year's level, is unprecedented. this bill provides comprehensive support for service members, military families and veterans. it supports our troops with

facilities and services necessary to maintain readiness and morale at bases here in the states and around the world. it provides for the defense department schools and health clinics that take care of our military families and the bill funds our veterans health care systems to ensure our promise to care for those who have sacrificed in defense of this great nation continues as those men and women return home. we owe this to our veterans and are committed to sustained oversight so that programs deliver what they promise and taxpayers are well served by the investments we make. military construction side, this bill provides a total of $7.7 billion for military construction projects and family housing including base and overseas contingency operations funding an increase of $904 million, that's nearly 12%, above the enacted fiscal year 2015 level and $755 million below the president's

request. this funding meets d.o.d.'s most critical needs including priorities for the combatant commanders and centcom africom and pacom. it provides $600 million for military medical facilities, including the one in germany. it provides $334 million for the department of defense education facilities for construction or renovation of 10 schools. it supports our guard and reserve through $512 million for facilities in 28 states. it fully funds military family housing at $1.4 billion and it provides $150 million for the nato security investment program which is $30 million over the budget request. on the veterans affairs side, the legislation includes a total of $163.2 billion in combined discretionary and

mandatory funding for the department of veterans affairs. discretionary funding alone for veterans programs in the bill is $68.7 billion, total fiscal year 2016 discretionary funding is $3.6 billion above 2015, it's a 5.6% increase and $1.4 billion below the request. $3 billion of this increase was advanced funded. the v.a. medical services side, the bill funds v.a. medical services at $48.6 billion. that includes $970 million that v.a. came back and asked for. on top of the advanced funding from last year. we stretched pretty far to do this, and we haven't funded this second bite in the house before. it's tough to find $970 million in any budget environment, but this committee did. showing again the level of bipartisan commitment we have to our veterans.

for disability claims, we provide the full request for the veterans benefits administration, which is $163 million increase over fiscal year 2015. and the full request for the board of veterans appeals. the bill will enhance transparency and accountability at the v.a. through further oversight and an increase for the v.a. office of inspector general's independence audits and investigations. i can expect the inspector general's office is very very busy. it contains $200 million for the electronic health record and includes language ren stricting funding until the v.a. demonstrates process on the system's functionality and interoperability. this is a major concern to all of us on both sides of the aisle, and i know the chairman in particular has been outspoken about this matter. but it's something that all of us, republican and democrat, we want to see fixed. on construction issues, major construction within the v.a. is

funded at $562 million, which is the same level as fiscal year 2015. the bill provides funding for hospital replacement and allows the v.a. to continue to correct seismic safety issues and efficiencies. we did not fund the more than -- double the budget request for construction as we faced the impact of gross mismanagement of the colorado v.a. hospital construction which resulted in a $930 million cost overrun. that's not a typo. a $930 million cost overrun which is nearly twice the entire v.a. major construction line item. we also cracked down on oversight with multiple restrictions. we fund the american battle monuments commission, the armed forces retirement homes arlington national cemetery and the u.s. court of appeals for veterans at the requested funding levels. in closing, this is a very

solid bipartisan bill that's focused on the needs of service members, veterans and all their families. we are $4.6 billion over the fiscal year 2015 level, again, nearly 6% increase. not a cut. we have provided for our military and veterans to the very best level we can. did we fund every last dime requested? no. not every idea has merit and not every project is mission critical. we did not fund some projects. we cut some requested increased, and we rescinded funds. these were fair decisions and part of our responsibility as appropriators. we've received a lot of criticism for the actions we've taken very recently. it started with an email campaign from the v.a. legislative affairs office. then a statement of administration policy, and last some of the v.s.o.'s have

joined in. my time before i was chairman of the subcommittee and certainly in my time since i took over this position i can say without absolute certainty v.a. problems stem from poor management, not too little money. poor management, not too little money. i say begin the problems we encounter at the v.a., time after time, whether it's -- whether it is the phoenix patient wait list scandal, the claims and benefits mess in philadelphia or the denver hospital construction debacle show that v.a.'s problem is management, not money. and for the v.a. to complain about a 6% increase rather than an 8% increase and to call 6% increase as a cut. they call that a cut. only in washington, d.c. can someone call a 6% increase over last year a cut. everywhere else in america it's a 6% increase, but not in this town. amazing to me and particularly from a department that has so many severe managial problems at the time, we need to be

diligent with oversight at the same time be a helping hand to the department. there is a way out of the morass but more money without the necessary management reforms is not the answer. i talked to many members about the v.a., and just last night in the rules committee, got quite an earful there and truly members are in agreement we must help the v.a. transform because that transformation is crucial to serve veterans properly and to respect the taxpayers footing the bill. by the way that frustration i've heard from members is from both sides of the aisle as was the case i heard last night in the rules committee. we will do a lot of good with this bill. it is fair it's balanced and a 6% increase over last year it is generous. on behalf of our service members, military families and veterans, i urge your support of this legislation. let's take care of those who sacrificed for our country. it's time to do the right thing. support the bill. at this time i'd reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. and the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. bishop: i yield myself such time as i may consume. let me say that i'm delighted to have the opportunity to work with chairman dent of the subcommittee as well as the chairman and ranking member of the full committee. madam speaker, as you know this bill has a strong reputation for common ground and bipartisanship. we are pleased with several aspects of the bill. for example the bill maintains tough but fair reporting requirements for vista modernization which closely tracks the v.a.'s development of the electronic health record. the bill continues to prioritize the elimination of the veterans claims backlog by fully funding the f.y. 2016 request $18.3 million for central mail initiative which

consolidates inbound paper mail from regional offices to a centralized intake site as well as $140.8 million for veterans claim intake program to scan and convert paper claims into a digital i believe that these are all positive steps to making the v.a. function better. furthermore chairman dent has avoided including contentious legislative riders, which is very much appreciated. unfortunately however, the chairman was forced to write a bill under the majority's f.y. 2016 budget resolution which chose to lock in the budget control act levels and to use gimmicks to boost defense funding. because of the budget resolution's failure to provide relief from these budget gaps, which was established in 2011 and later adjusted in 2013, the

chairman was forced to make some tough choices due to the allocation that he was given. while military construction is provided $7.2 billion, an increase of $593 million above 2015, it is still $1.2 billion below the budget request. and in an effort to avoid the defense budget gap, the bill shifts $532 million to the overseas contingency operations funding stream even though the f.y. 2016 budget request did not include an o.c.o. request. this is a gimmick purely a gimmick to boost defense spending by pumping up the o.c.o. budget which is not limited by the budget law. the department of veterans affairs is funded at $68.7 billion, and while it is $3.6 billion above f.y. 2015, the

enacted level it is also $1.4 billion below the f.y. 2016 budget request. the inadequate f.y. 2016 allocation, again, was forced to chairman to slash military construction by $582 billion. that is hospital construction. furthermore the bill includes language that directs that only replacement, safety and security projects can receive budgeted funding. this is troubling language and it eliminates all national cemetery projects for f.y. 2016 and puts several other projects in jeopardy. the majority claims that they reduced the construction account because the half built veterans affairs denver project is drastically over budget and riddled with mistakes. now, i certainly agree that the v.a. needs to be held accountable for the poor job in

managing the denver hospital project. however, no funds for the denver hospital were allocated within the milcon-v.a. bill. additionally, i am not aware of any projects in the bill for f.y. 2016 including replacement construction, cemetery construction. and so i believe the majority's budget gaps and resulting inadequate allocation not the problems in denver, led to cutting construction in half. . aim concerned if the reduction stands it will further contribute to the gaps in access, utilization and safety that were already identified in the v.a.'s annual strategic capital investment program process. mr. speaker, this committee can no longer afford to function under the budget control act caps. the reductions to v.a. will cause gaps in access, in

utilization, and safety, and could lower the standard of care due to our veterans. mr. speaker, as i pointed out during the milcon v.a. markup, the f.y. 2017 advance funding will consume $4.6 billion of the nondefensive discretionary cap next year. so this problem will only get worse. certainly the department of defense cannot be the only winner. using the price budget levels will produce a long summer early fall with no real progress on the f.y. 2016 bills. if so, it's inevitable that a continuing resolution or series of continuing resolutions will be needed to keep the government open, running in place long past the new fiscal year starts on october 1. we cannot continue to govern in this fashion.

i believe it is well past time about how we handle our federal budget, and now we need to take the next step towards a responsible budgeting process so we can stop lurching from one crisis to the next. i believe that chairman dent crafted the best bill he could with the allocation he was given. i also believe this is the first step in a long process and i'm concerned about the impact these reductions to the v.a. construction account would have and believe they will have to be addressed as we move through the process. and to that end, i'm prepared to offer an amendment to the bill restoring the full funding of the request so that we can, in fact do justice by our veterans and do what is necessary for our military construction without using budget gimmicks. at the appropriate time i will offer an amendment to do that. at this time i will reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. dent: madam speaker, at this time i would like to yield to the full committee chairman, mr. rogers of kentucky, such time as he may consume. i want to thank him for all his support and leadership in putting this bill together. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. rogers: mr. chairman, thank you for yielding time. madam chairman, i rise in support of this bill, the military construction-veterans' affairs bill for 2016. in doing, i want to -- in doing that i want to congratulate mr. dent, chairman dent, the new chairman of this subcommittee. this is his maiden voyage as chairman of this subcommittee. he's a cardinal now. he's done a great job putting together this bill. and i want to thank mr. bishop, the ranking member on the other side for his cooperation in making this bill what it is today. this is the first bill of the process and i'm pleased that we

are off to a very early start. i'm told the earliest start since 1974. continuing our good work from last year. i'm optimistic that we are going to have a successful appropriations year. finishing on time and under regular order. we are beginning the year on the right foot with a bipartisan bill, madam chairman, that i believe we can all get behind. fiscal 2016 military construction and veterans' affairs appropriations bill includes, as has been said $76.6 billion in discretionary funding for important veterans benefits and services. and for the infrastructure that supports the brave men and women serving in our armed forces and their families. this is a total of $4.6 billion over last year.

no one can call this a cut. and be realistic about t we increased the funding by $4.6 billion. year to year. we can't say that for all the other bills. yes, we went overboard with what we had to work with in providing funds for the veterans and for military construction. that's a demonstration of our commitment. to our war fighters. to our veterans. and their loved ones who sacrificed so much to protect this great nation. now, within the total the bill includes $7.7 billion for the d.o.d.'s construction projects in the u.s. and around the world which provide our service members with the infrastructure they need to remain at the ready. the legislation also provides a total of $68.7 billion in discretionary funding for the

department of veterans affairs. that's a 5.6% increase over last year. to guarantee the v.a. has the resources they need to care for every single qualified veteran including meeting growing health care needs. to that end, v.a. medical services are funded at $3.8 billion above current level. that will treat 6.9 million eligible patients, providing mental health care, helping prevent suicide, and supporting research into prosthetics and traumatic brain injuries, among numerous other health initiatives. however, it is critical that we make sure the v.a. is being responsible with these taxpayer dollars. it's clear that the v.a. is facing some considerable management challenges.

so this bill provides the oversight that will hold the department accountable for its mistakes and takes the necessary steps to address and correct these problems. for instance, the bill keeps a close eye on how the v.a. is spending its construction dollars by requiring reports on construction costs savings and changes in scope. this is a good bill madam chairman. i urge its adoption. the chair: thank you. the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. bishop: madam speaker madam chair, at this time i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from new york mrs. lowey the full committee ranking member. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for four minutes. mrs. lowey: thank you. before i begin, i'd like to

thank subcommittee chairman dent and ranking member bishop who worked so well together and full committee chairman rogers. the house republican work harder for less budget resolution as opposed by every member on my side of the aisle in part because it makes it impossible to provide the funding necessary in the 12 appropriation bills to grow our economy and give hardworking americans the opportunity to succeed. democrats prefer the approach taken by the president, calling for an end to sequestration. and more reasonable and realistic budgeting that could help families afford college, a home, and a secure retirement. refusing to adopt a sufficient overall allocation for discretionary investments has a

significant impact on the initiatives in all the appropriation bills that grow the economy and create jobs. the bill we consider today presents a false choice. the v.a. needs more resources in 2016 than 2015 to sustain its level of services for the brave men and women it serves. the majority invests a disproportionate share of the allocations nondefense funds in the military construction and veterans administration bill, yet it still falls far short of meeting v.a.'s actual needs. the equivalent of 70,000 fewer veterans would receive medical care under this bill compared to the president's request. in addition, it further reduces funds available for priorities in the other spending bills for

transportation infrastructure, higher education, biomedical research, clean energy just an example. all these initiatives are key to economic growth and creating opportunity for hardworking americans, especially our veterans. additionally 532 million in today's bill would be shifted to overseas contingency operations in a gimmick to boost defense spending. even with these tricks, the military construction and veterans' affairs bill would have a profound impact on military families and veterans, forcing a $2.7 billion cut below what the president says is necessary. including $754 million less for military construction. $155 million less for medical

services. $70 million less for medical support and compliance. $105 million less for medical facilities. $582 million less for v.a. construction projects. these cuts which hurt those who have sacrificed for our country are unacceptable. not everything requested by the president is sacrosanct and congress has a duty it is an important part of our responsibilities, to evaluate each and every line item in a budget proposal. such an assessment of this bill makes clear that many accounts are clearly underfunded. despite the abundant shortcomings there are some positive aspects including reporting requirements for electronic health records prioritizing the elimination of the veterans claims backlog. it is imperative that as the bill progresses toward

enactment, improvements are made, and that is the entire appropriations process continues we reach an agreement that will ensure these bills invest in our hardworking families, economic security. thank you madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. dent: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from alabama mrs. roby, who has been a tireless advocate for the needs of the veterans in her community in alabama. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for three minutes. mrs. roby: first, i thank the chairman and ranking member for their hard work on this bill. i thank the chairman for yielding. madam chairman, i am so grateful for this opportunity to stand here today in support of h.r. 20 29, the military construction and veterans' affairs and related agencies appropriations act. this bill undeniably provides much needed funding for both

our veterans programs and military projects while staying within the limits, strict limits of our house-passed budget resolution. i'm especially proud because there's funding that we were able to secure in this bill for the folks in alabama right at home. new school construction at fort rucker, the time -- and $33 million for new school construction at maxwell air force base. much needed dollars for our military families at this post. and also a new squadron operations facilities at danley field. these are all extremely important to our critical military functions back in alabama. anybody who's been on post at rucker or at the base at maxwell knows that these

schools are in disrepair and are in need of replacing. our military families deserve quality on-base facilities. and these projects are going to go a long way to help improve their quality of life right there in alabama. i want to address, though, what i was struck with and everyone else in this institution when they woke up this morning, madam chair. i was extremely disappointed alongside my colleagues to see that the president, yet again, has threatened to veto this bill. this bill provides critical, much needed funding for our military families and our veterans, and the president should not play around with that. this administration under this administration, we have failed

our veterans miserably. and only in washington, d.c., when you see an increase of $3.6 billion for our v.a. to provide these critical needs for our men and women who have worn the uniform and put their lives on the line for the freedom and liberty that allows for us to stand in this room today, only in washington, d.c., will a $3.6 billion increase on behalf of our veterans be called a cut. you know why? madam chair? it's being called a cut because it's the only way to shift the blame away from this administration's failure to our veterans back to the republican-led house. . it's clearly politics that's driving us and i'm asking, madam chair, that the president seriously rethink his position. the administration needs to take responsibility and they are trying once again to point fingers