particular device that mr. pallone just described, but a lot of other pediatric medical equipment. i guess today is my day for reflection, madam speaker, because as a practicing physician for 31 years before being elected as a member of the house, i distinctly recall having a patient that actually died of this thoracic insufficiency syndrome that mr. pallone was discussing in regard to how dr. campbell invented this device, this expandable, vertical expandable prosthetic rib. . i don't know when that invention occurred, well, i do, 1987. it was before that, and my patient was someone who was

born with spina bifida and never had usage of her lower body, her limbs. she was what i guess you refer to as a paraplegic, but she lived into adulthood and when she was my patient, she was in her mid 30's. and she was a beautiful -- her name was fran, i won't say her last name out of respect for the family, but fran was a beautiful, looked like a child, but she was in her mid 30's, but her chest, her thorax, as just described with dr. campbell's patient, had not grown and fully developed and it was difficult for her to breathe, and when fran actually died, i'm sad to say, maybe a couple of years after she became my patient, that's what she died from and maybe if she, as a child, had the opportunity to take advantage of dr.

campbell's knowledge and expertise and contributions to medicine, particularly the field of pediatrics and pediatric birth defects, maybe fran would be alive today that would be great because she was a wonderful, wonderful person. i'm very supportive of this bill honoring resolution -- resolution, actually, honoring dr. robert campbell jr. and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield to the gentlewoman from florida and not only on this bill, but on so many bills related to health care, she really has been out front and take an leadership role and i commend her for that. i yield to the gentlewoman such time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida is recognized for such time as she may consume. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you, mr. speaker, thank you, chairman pallone for your consideration and to the energy and commerce committee, mr. waxman and mr. gingrey for

granting us this time to honor dr. robert m. campbell and to all the members who in the last few day, we have more than 100 co-sponsors of the legislation now which is really remarkable in a few days because i had a chance to talk with so many of our colleagues about dr. campbell's story and they wanted to join us in honoring him. dr. robert m. campbell dedicated his life to providing children with life-saving medical carism first learned about his work when a little boy in my district, devon alfonzo, was given a terminal diagnosis of terminal scoliosis. his spine and ribs were so bent that his heart had no room to grow. for some time, the devices had been available to fix this for

adult but these devices weren't fit for the body of children. so often, these devices aren't small enough for children with scoliosis. even if smaller ones were created a growing child's body meant these would become too small. for years, physicians trying to treat children like devon were forced to use less effective treatments, more invasive surgery or jerry rigged equipment. often a diagnosis like evans' was a death sentence. dr. campbell refused to accept these outcomes he devoted his career to working with children like devon. he made it his mission to change their fate. in such a dire environment, the work of this dedicated physician, dr. robert campbell, has made all the difference.

he has waged a decades-long campaign to provide a solution for these children that give them a fighting chance. during the 1980's, while at the university of texas health science center in san antonio, dr. campbell teamed up with the late dr. melvin smith on developing a medical device suitable for children and in 1986, dr. campbell and dr. smith made a breakthrough with the invention of the vertical expandable titanium rib. it proved easy to implant and could be expanded with minor outpatient surgery as the child grows. unfortunately, as these rare rib and spine disorders occur so infrequently in the population, dr. campbell was just starting his journey on getting this life-saving device to the children that needed it. completing the necessary trials for food and drug administration approval proved a tremendous challenge. the process stretched out for well over a decade. but dr. campbell kept at it, working to develop and complete the needed trials. in this effort, he received

invaluable help from the national organization for rare disorders, or nord. this organization of medical professionals helps bring attention to the 6,800 known rare diseases that currently have no approved therapy. through funding and support from nord, dr. campbell was able to continue his work. he persevered and ultimately prevailed. after many years of advocacy, due in large part to his devotion to children he won approval from the f.d.a. for the vertical expandable titanium rib in 2004. thanks to his work, devon alfonzo was able to enroll in a trial for the medical device that saved his life. hundreds of other children suffering from spinal and skeletal abnormalities have survived and even thrived thanks to this substance abuse yastic doctor and his note worthy invention. dr. campbell has been a

stalwart for children's health. he is an inspiration to everyone who has worked with -- worked with him, most certainly to the children and families he has helped. i know the impact he had on devon and his mom and over the past decade i've got ton share in the joy as devon has grown into a wonderful young man. so please join me in celebrating dr. campbell's achievements and honoring his unwavering devotion to saving the lives of so many children. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: any of other speakers and i am prepared to yield back the balance of my time and ask my colleagues to support house resolution 1499, the resolution honoring dr. robert campbell jr. i do yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i also have no additional speakers so i yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

all time has expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1499 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and agree to h.r. 248240erk truth in fur labeling act of 2009, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2480, a bill to improve the accuracy of fur product labeling and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes and the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, each

will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland. mr. sarbanes: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. sarbanes: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 248 0 the truth in fur labeling act. i want to begin by thanking representative moran of virginia for introducing this bill and representatives rush, waxman, whitfield, and barton for moving this bill through the committee process. h.r. 2480 is a common sense, bipartisan bill that with one exception requires all articles of apparel containing fur to be labeled regardless of the cost of the garment. this legislation will make clear to consumers and retailers exactly which

products contain fur and which do not. during the committee consideration, one exception was added to these requirements, an amoment -- an amendment by mr. latta was added to exempt those fur products sold by hunters and trappers out of their home or at fairs or other temporary spaces. this exemption is extremely limited, it applies only to furs sold by the individual who actually hunted or trapped the animal. when the sale of such furs is not the primary source of income for that individual. the bill also directs the federal trade commission to update the fur products name guide which has been criticized as inaccurate and outdated. as indicated, this bill enjoys broad support from members on both sides of the aisle. i urge my colleagues to support it and i'll reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: thank you, mr. speaker. i also would like to thank congressman moran for being a real leader on this legislation and certainly want to thank chairman rush and chairman waxman and others on the energy and commerce committee. this legislation, as mr. sarbanes adequately described, is relatively simple. it simply amends the fur products labeling act of 1951. that act required accuracy in the labels of -- labeling of fur products and apparel. but it did not apply to any apparel sold for less than $150. a series of recent investigations revealed that a significant number of clothes designers and retailers were selling some fur-trimmed

garments described as faux or raccoon or coyote or whatever when actually it turned out to be dog fur or something else. as a matter of fact, 38 jackets subjected to very specific tests, every single garment of those 38 was either unlabeled or it contained a label that misidentified the animal's fur that was used in that garment. so this legislation is about transparency, providing consumers with accurate information on what they're buying. and 7% of the garments sold in the u.s. today with fur already are required to abide by this this will simply require the other 13%, those valued below $150, abide by the same law and consumer protection organizations, retail and even

the fashion industry all support this legislation and i would urge our colleagues to support it as well and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland. mr. sarbanes: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to again salutely colleagues for making this -- salute my colleagues for making this a bipartisan effort. i think there's a consensus opinion that the more information that's available to the consumer, the retailer, the better off we all have are. in many respects that's the essence of a consumer protection initiative to make sure that people who are purchasing these products actually have good information, truth in labeling, at their fingertips. i did want to salute the efforts of the humane society of the united states because they have been very responsible and persistent advocates on

these issues over many, many years and you know, americans have been learning as a result of those efforts -- as a result of those efforts, americans have been learning more and more about some of the unsavory practices, it was just referred to by my colleague, when it comes to the sale of these fur products and how they're manufactured and what the source of the fur is, and as a result, consumers want to know more, rightly. they justifiably want to understand more about where those products come from and be in a position to support the many businesses who are actually doing the right thing and are engaged in good, positive best practices when it comes to marketing these products that contain fur. so i think that this bill that's been brought forward by my colleague, mr. moran, the truth in fair libbling act --

labeling act, is going to help advance that goal and again, i'm very pleased that it has the bipartisan support that was indicated. i did want to -- i did want to cite some of the information that was gleaned through a few investigations that were initiated by the humane society , they discovered that there were dozens of designers and retailers, mr. whitfield referred to this, that were selling some of these fur-trimmed jackets as faux or raccoon or coyote and they weren't labeled at all and you could find these at many retailers whose names you know. and they looked at 38 jackets, they subjected them to these tests which allows you to look and see exactly what the source of it is. many of them, as i say, that

were identified as foe -- fore, of the 38 jackets that were -- as faux, of the 38 jackets contained a label that misidentified the animal or was falsely advertised as this faux label. three of jackets advertises fake fur, two of which had no label were found to contain fur from domestic dogs. now, this goes in controvention of legislation that is already on the books, but if you don't have that labeling imperative at work, then this kind of thing can slide through. designers, retailers and consumers as a result of this get put into position where they can't have confidence that what they're getting, whether it's faux fur or real and if real from what animal is something that they can count on. especially, i might add, when it is a source from china, based on some of the

investigations that have been done. that's why this legislation is so critical. based on the substance of it, i would urge my colleagues to support its passage today, and with that i know that one of my colleagues is here, representative sutton from ohio, who is a member of the energy and commerce committee and sits on the subcommittee that had jurisdiction with respect to this particular piece of legislation, and i'm pleased to yield to her such time as she may consume to address the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for such time as she may consume. ms. sutton: i thank the gentleman for the time and thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of h.r. 2480, the truth in fur labeling act, and, mr. speaker, consumers should be able to make informed decisions on what they're purchasing.

when fur is not labeled because the value is below a certain level, a consumer may believe that no fur is used, even when it is. this bill will fix that problem by requiring that all fur apparel have labels regardless of the value. it's alarming when investigations reveal that dog fur and other animal furs are being sold to consumers who thought they had merely purchased fake fur. labels on all fur products will allow consumers to know what they are buying for themselves and their families, and it will help us disclose the truth about the type of fur that is being used on garments. i urge a yes vote on this bill and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from maryland. mr. sarbanes: mr. speaker, again, i urge support of this bill from my colleagues and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

all time has expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2480, as amended. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass senate bill s. 1789. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill.

the clerk: senate 1789, an act to restore fairness to federal cocaine sentencing. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: 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 the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, s. 1789, the fair sentencing act of 2010, is a bipartisan compromise that was negotiated and drafted by democratic and republican members of the senate judiciary committee. then passed the senate judiciary committee and the senate by unanimous consent. the legislation will reduce the 100-1 sentences disparity between crack and powder cocaine in federal law from 100-1 to 18-1.

the crack personalities, it only take five grams of crack to trigger a mandatory five-year sentence but powder it takes 500 grams of cocaine, 100-1 ratio. this disparity is particularly egregious when you consider that the sentencing commission has concluded that there is no farm could helogical difference between the two forms of cocaine and that 80% are black whereas 30% of the powder cocaine defendants are black. the crack penalties also create bizarre sentences when you consider sentences such as a 24 1/2-year sentence given to smith for a behavior that was just involved with their boyfriend's cocaine dealer. and it would be five grams to one ounce, reducing the disparity from 100-1 to 18-1.

the legislation does not fully eliminate the sentencing between crack and powder. but this is widely recognized as unfair offenders of black offenders based on the type of cocaine they possess. arguments are made that crack defendants are more likely use violence, and this bill specifically requires the sentencing commission to significantly increase penalties for drug violations involving violence, threats of violence or use of minors and another long list of aggravating activities that would be involved. this way the defendant is sentenced for what he or she actually did, not the form of cocaine involved. many organizations are supporting s. 1789, including the federal law enforcement officers association, the national district attorneys association, the national association of police officers, the council of prisons, local, and several local religious

organizations, such as prison fellowship and the national association of evangelicals. all of the civil rights organizations that one can imagine are also supporting the legislation. i'd like to thank the sponsor of the senate bill, senators durbin of illinois, sessions of alabama, and/orin hatch of utah who came together to pass this bipartisan legislation. there are many members of the house who worked tirelessly over the years to reform this disparity, including chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. conyers, sheila jackson lee, maxine waters, charlie rangel and mel watt. on pass of the organizations and members of congress who support s. 1789, i urge my colleagues to support the legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, those who fail to learn the lessons of history often pay a price. unfortunately, the real cost usually falls on others.

in the 1980's america faced an epidemic created by a new potent form of cocaine known as crack. its abuse spread through major cities and across the country at a stunning speed. along with crack came guns and violence which riddled many urban communities. these communities cried out for help, and in 1986 congress responded. we enacted tough penalties to protect these neighborhoods and bring an end to the scourge of crack cocaine. and the penalties helped make america's communities safer. now, congress is considering legislation to wind down the fight against drug addiction and drug-related violence. reducing the penalties for crack cocaine could expos our neighborhoods to the same -- expose our neighborhoods to the same violence that caused congress to act in the first place. 25 years ago crack was cheap, easily available and highly profitable. according to the drug

enforcement agency, never before had any form of cocaine been available at such low prices and at such high purity. as a result, the number of americans addicted to cocaine increased dramatically. crack cocaine devastated many communities, especially inner city communities. black americans who lived in these communities bore the brunt of the violence associated with the drug trade. today, crime rates, particularly for violent crimes, are at their lowest levels in more than 30 years, thanks in large part to the enactment of tough penalties for drug trafficking and other offenses. crack and powder cocaine use has dropped by almost 2/3 in the past 20 years from 5.8 million users in 1985 to 2.1 million users in 2007. according to the bureau of justice statistics, crime victimization rates for black americans have fallen by more

than 2/3 since enactment of these tough federal trafficking penalties. what's wrong with that? why do we want to risk another surge of addiction and violence by reducing penalties? many argue that federal prisons are filled with addicts convicted of simple possession of cocaine, but that's not true. the vast majority of federal drug offenders are convicted for drug trafficking. in fiscal year 2009, the u.s. sentencing commission reports there was 25,000 federal drug trafficking convictions compared to fewer than 300 convictions for simple possession. so why do we want to make it more difficult to take drug traffickers off the streets and easier for them to peddle their illegal product? crack cocaine is associated with a greater degree of violence than most other drugs. crack offenders are also more

likely to have prior convictions and lengthier criminal history than powder cocaine offenders. it is these aggravating factors which are more common to crack cocaine trafficking that contribute to higher federal crack sentences. these aggravating factors also render many crack offenders ineligible for the so-called safety valve provision. the safety valve allows low-level offenders to be sentenced below the statutory mandatory penalty if they meet certain criteria, including no significant criminal history. so why should we reduce the ratio for defendants who are more violent, more likely to have criminal records and less likely to benefit from the safety valve provision that already provides a mechanism for reduced penalties? why are we coddling some of the most dangerous drug traffickers in america? proponents of reducing or eliminating the crack powder ratio argue that crack penalties impact a larger

number of minorities than powder cocaine penalties. but the percentage of minority defendants for federal crack and powder cocaine offenses is quite similar. 82% of crack offenders and 90% of powder cocaine offenders are minorities, though blacks are among the largest. crack and powder cocaine offenders are even sentenced with mandatory penalties at similar rates. 80% of crack offenders and 77% of powder offenders were convicted under a mandatory penalty statute. the bill before us today, s. 1789, lowers the ratio for federal crack cocaineovers from 100-1 to 18-1. the bill also eliminates, eliminates the mandatory penalties for crack cocaine possession making it only a misdemeanor under federal law. why enact legislation that could endanger our children and

bring violence back to our inner city communities? s. 1789 includes the requirement that the u.s. sentencing commission review and amend the applicable guideline for crack offenses involving violence. however, since federal judges are not required to adhere to the guidelines, there is no guarantee that any increased penalty will be imposed under this provision. last year, the house judiciary committee reported legislation over republican opposition that would have eliminated entirely the ratio between crack and powder cocaine. before that, the obama administration relaxed enforcement of marijuana laws. mr. speaker, the democratic party teeters on the edge of becoming the face of deficits, drugs and job destruction. i cannot support legislation that might enable the violent and devastating crack cocaine epidemic of the past to become

a clear and present danger. mr. speaker, for these reasons i urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the majority whip, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. clyburn. mr. clyburn: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i want to first thank my good friend, subcommittee chairman bobby scott, for yielding me this time, and for his leadership on this very important issue. he and committee chairman conyers have been at work for years to eliminate the unjust and discriminatory sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. though i'm disappointed that this measure does not entirely eliminate the disparity, i want to commend senators durbin and

sessions and co-burg for crafting a significant -- and coburn for crafting a significant compromise. this will reduce the disparity in sentencing for crack and powder cocaine and help to correct an enormous disparity in our criminal justice system. when the current law was passed, congress felt that crack cocaine was a plague that was destroying minority communities. 20 years of experience has taught us that many of our initial beliefs were wrong. we now know that there's little or no pharmacological distinction between crack cocaine and powder cocaine, yet the punishment for these offenses remains radically different. down where i come from, mr.

speaker, we said that one learns better, one should do better. equally troubling is the enormous growth in the prison population, especially among minority youth. the current drug sentencing policy is the single greatest cause of the record levels of incarceration in our country. one in every 31 americans is in prison or on parole or on probation. including one in 11 african-americans. this is unjust and runs contrary to our fundament -- fundamental principle of equal protection under the law. since 1995, the united states sentencing commission has issued report after report calling on congress to address this unfair disparity.

according to the sentencing commission, restoring sentencing parity will do more than any other policy change to close the gap in incarceration rates between african-americans and white americans. the american drug epidemic is a serious problem and we must address that problem. but our drug laws must be smart, fair, and rational. the legislation being considered today gos a considerable distance to correcting that balance. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i rise in support of this issue. it deals with conflicting issues and it looks at data on

who has been indicted and sentenced both by race and the amount of cocaine they possessed. mr. sensenbrenner: unlike some allegations this bill does not let those who possess crack cocaine off easily. the sentencing disparity is 18 to one. that means that someone who possesses crack cocaine only has to have 1/18th of the amount of someone who possesses powder cocaine. i don't think the people who either deal in crack cocaine or who possess crack cocaine are getting off the hook by reducing the ratio from 100--- 100 to one to 18 to one the commission has been set up to look at sentencing patterns and statistics. for the last 15 years they have called for a change in the disparity and the minimum sentences between those indicted for violating the crack cocaine laws versus those

who are indicted for violating the powdered cocaine laws. this is a very fair compromise. i salute the three members of the other body who work the compromise out. it's a compromise that should be endorsed by this house and sent to the president. i urge an aye vote and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. >> i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas who has worked as hard as many people to eliminate the disparity altogether, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i want to thank the gentleman from virginia for being a champion of this issue of eliminating the disparities that have so long plagued so many communities. i thank the chairman, john conyers, for being persistent over the years on the criminal

justice issues, even coming to houston, texas, and listening to a teeming room of individuals who came to tell him how they had been discriminated against by this overwhelming inequitable law dealing with crack cocaine. thank you. today we are doing something that is not going to be soft on crime. but let me see if you understand this. it takes 500 grams of powder cocaine to trig they are five-year mandatory minimum. it takes just five grams of crack cocaine. it takes five kilogramms of crack cocaine but 50 grams of crack cocaine. it's important that this one to 18 be put many place. in response to the 1980's and we thought the devastating act of using drugs was the underpinnings of crime but what we have seen is that we are creating crime by throwing these individuals in jail

instead of rah habilitation and by keeping this oppressive sentencing structure. so for the first time we're i limb nating the five-year mandatory prison term for first-time possession of crack cocaine. it encourages the u.s. sentencing commission to amend the sentencing guidelines. in addition, however, there's more to go. passing the promise bill to detour young people away from crime. h.r. 265 the bill i introduced, the underpinnings of the s. 1789 had a number of other provisions dealing with rehabilitation and drug courts. there's more work to be done, mr. speaker, but i believe this is the first step in all real, good, thinking americans who understand justice will appreciate the fact that we are eliminating these disparities. in particular, i will say to you that this falls heavily on the poor african-americans and hispanic communities. mr. scott: i yield the gentlelady an additional minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for an additional minute. ms. jackson lee: the statistics are clear that the burden fell on a population that suffered more by not getting into rehabilitation than others. it is very clear that those numbers are strong. so i would simply say to us as we begin our work on this, this is a first step. i would say to the distinguished members that we can do better on rehabilitation, drug court intervention which allows people to get into rehabilitation and have an obligation to finish and the main thing i want to leave us with, doing this will help us detour any numbers of individuals to be able to support their family and maybe be real role models for children who we likewise want to detour away from crime by having an innovative juvenile justice system by passing this bill and going on to have justice reform. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back.

the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to mr. lungren a senior and active member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lungren: i rise in support of s. 1789 but as someone who helped write the drug control oact of 1986 that we seek to amend, i'd like to make a few observations to set the record straight. it is indeed true that the death of basketball star len bice was a trigger to this lieu. the fact that someone larger than life could die from this epidemic brought home the reality. that reality was not lost on this bod dwhrism number of americans addicted to cocaine rose thanks in major part to thest ka lacelation in crack use.

hospital emergencies increased by 110% in 1986. from 1984 to 1987, cocaine incidents increased four fold. the crack epidemic was associated with a dramatic increase in drug gang related violence. a 1989 study found that in new york city, crack use was tied to 3 % of all homicides and 60% of all drug-related homicides. i would add that even five years after the drug bill was considered on this floor, there was a growing concern over the crack epidemic which plagued minority neighborhoods. it was even portrayed in the movie "new jack city." director mario van peems, also one of the marijuana -- van peeples, also one of the main characterses in the film, observed it was a big problem in the african-american community. this is what we were facing in the 1986 drug bill.

the concern about crack cocaine was and remains a valid one. according to the national institute on drug abuse, crack causes faster and shorter highs than powder which results in more frequent use. crack cocaine is also associated with gang activities and violence as evidenced by the u.s. sentencing commission data. there is in my view a basis for disparate treatment for those who traffic in crack versus powder. having said that, the conclusion that there's a basis for treating crack and powder differently is in no way a justification for the 100 to one sentencing disparity in the bill. we came out of committee with a 20 to one ratio, by the time we came to the floor, it was 100 to one. we didn't have an evidentiary basis for that, we were thinking we did the right thing at the time. a bill that was characterized by some as a response to the

crack epidemic in african-american communities has led to racial sentencing disparities cannot be ignored. when african-american crack defendants represent 10 times the number of white crack defendants we can not close our eyes. though i could not support the legislation reported out of our committee to completely ep limb nate any disparity there's not what we have before us on the floor from a law enforcement standpoint, perhaps the most important factor here is the amount of the substances covered. according to markets officers i've spoken with, you want to reach the wholesale and mid level traffic evers who often traffic in one-ounce quantities. that's why it would raise the amount of crack cocaine from five grams to 28 grams, which is close to the one ounce. this does seem to make some sense. it is fair and just treatment of the problem.

it serves the interests of law enforcement in reaching wholesale and mid level traffickers while reducing the crack powder ratio to 18 to one from the current 100 to one. i think this is tough but fair. i would not support going further. i support this bill very strongly. i believe that this is what justice should be about. s that well-crafted bill a good compromise, it serves the ends of justice and fairness. i hope people will support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. scott: i yield myself 30 seconds. the gentleman from california just mentioned the 1986 law. we're not blaming anybody for what happened in 1986, by we've had years of experience and have determined that there's no justification for the 100 to one ratio. we know that's -- that's what we know now. we're not blaming anybody for what happened in 1986, but we are fixing what we have learned through years of experience.

i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. ellison: let me thank the -- thank chairman scott, chairman conyers and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who see the wisdom of moving forward based on what we know about the disparity in crack cocaine sentencing now, what we've learned over the years, thank all of them for yielding to evidence, which i think is so important. before i ever came to congress, mr. speaker, i spent the better part of my life representing people in the courts of our country as a public defender and representing in the courts of our country, federal and state court. i saw so many of these cases. the thing that disturbed me most is the human potential that would just be thrown away as our -- as i have to tell a young person caught with crack that if they'd had cocaine,

they would have a chance at probation, they would be able to really take advantage of some treatment and perhaps reconstruct their lives, but because they had crack, their lives were going to be basically over at a pretty young age. thrown away. in a cell to have really no real opportunity, being in prison for 10, 5 years for what another person would get probation for. and this made it incredibly difficult to argue that our system of law was fair. that we believed in justice. that we thought it was right and just to treat people the same for doing the same thing. the fact is, the qaemical difference between crack and cocaine -- -- and cocaine is the difference between water and ice. it's the same thing. you cannot explain to people for doing the same thing they should get 100 to one more severe treatment. it doesn't make sense. let me just commend people on both sides of the aisle for correcting this severely

disproportionate and unfair anomaly in our law and i take no blame for anybody but i will say that there are thousands of people, literally thousands of people who may get a real chance at life because of a mistake in that drug case because of this law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's -- gentleman's time has expire. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: whey may i ask how much time remains on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: there are nine minutes remaining on both sides. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague from texas, mr. paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paul: mr. speaker, i rise in support of this legislation. it's called the fair sentencing act. i'd like to rename it, though. i'd like to call it the slightly fairer resentencing

act because it really makes an attempt to correct a very, very serious problem in equal justice in our system. that effort, i think, we should all applaud. but i would have much preferred h.r. 4235, i was an original co-sponsor of that, along with congressman scott. i think this is a typical example of trying to fix the problem that we invite upon ourselves. in economics i adhere to the position that once you want to do good in the economy and with all the best motivations we do things and we create new problems then we have to go back. if you get two new problems for every intervention then you're constantly writing laws. in social policy i believe the same thing. it was trying to improve social policy with crack cocaine. there was no me left nens on this -- ma left nens on this.

they thought this was terrible. and it turned out that it backfired. it actually hurt minorities. it didn't help them. here we're trying to correct this disparity. it it just to me confirms the fact that the government management, whether it's the economy or social policy, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. when this country decided it was very dangerous to drink alcohol and we had to stop it, back in those days in the teens of the last century they decided in order for the government to do this they had to amend the constitution. can you imagine anybody being concerned today by what we do here and say we have to amend the constitution? oh, no. we amended it. it made alcohol much more dangerous. all the drug dealers sold the alcohol and the alcohol was more consen freighted and it was less pure and people died. people woke up and they repealed it. this is what's going to have to happen someday.

we have to repeal the war on drugs. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i have no other speakers at this point on this side and i'm prepared to close at the appropriate time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i have an additional speaker on the way. and he'll be here presently.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the majority leader of the house of representatives, the gentleman from maryland, the late mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the late mr. hoyer is recognized for one minute. mr. hoyer: the reports of my lateness are overstated, but i am certainly glad that i got here in a timely fashion. and because i did i rise in support of this legislation and thank mr. scott for yielding to me. i also want to thank the former attorney general from

california, dan lungren, for working with me on this issue and others. jim sensenbrenner and others. two -- aids ago congress responded -- two decades ago congress responded to the adickiveness of crack cocaine, a terrible -- addictiveness of crack cocaine, a terrible drug, and the violence it brought. in supporting that policy, congress created a wide disparity, however, between crack cocaine and powder cocaine sentences. both addictive, both illegal. possessing an amount of crack equal fought weight of two pennies has resulted in a mandatory minimum sentence of five years. in order to receive a similar sentence for possessing chemically similar powder cocaine, one would have to be

carrying 100 times as much cocaine. 100-1 disparity, helping to fill our prisons with african-americans disproportionately putting them behind bars longer. 100-1 disparity is counterproductive and unjust. it's not just my opinion but the opinion of a bipartisan u.s. sentencing commission, the judicial conference of the united states, the national district attorneys association, the national association of police organizations, the frl law enforcement officers association, the international union of police association and dozens of former federal judges and prosecutors. they have seen firsthand the damaging effects of this unequal sentencing guidelines upclose, and they understand the need to change it. that's what this is about. the fair sentencing act does

that. it also strengthens sentences for those who profit by addicting others to drugs as it should do. this bill has overwhelming bipartisan support. whatever their opinions on drug policies, members of law enforcement, community advocates and members of congress overwhelmingly support this bill. in fact, it passed the senate unanimously. in the words of a letter signed by a bipartisan group, senators leahy, sessions, feinstein, hatch, specter, grassley, durbin, graham, cardin, cornyn and coburn, a very, very bipartisan and broad spectrum group of supporters, they said

this, congress has debated the need to address the crack-powder disparity for too long. we now have the ability to address this issue on a bipartisan basis, and they supported this legislation which is, again, why it passed in a bipartisan fashion through the united states senate. my colleagues, i urge support of this legislation. i am pleased that the leadership on both sides of the aisle will be supporting this legislation. we do so for the same reason that senators cornyn and hatch and gram -- graham and sessions all support this legislation. it's the right thing to do. it will enhance, not diminish, prosecution, and it will lead to better justice in america while at the same time making sure that we penalize and hold

accountable those who would addict our children and our fellow citizens. and i urge support of this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close if the gentleman from virginia is prepared to close. mr. scott: i'm prepared to close, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, more than any other drug, the majority of crack defendants have prior criminal convictions. despite claims by some, this is not an issue of one-time crack users being prosecuted for possession. this is about offenders peddling this drug and should pay the price for their actions. despite the devastating impact crack cocaine has had on american communities, this bill reduces the penalties for crack cocaine. why would we want to do that? we should not ignore the

severity of crack addiction or ignore the differences between crack and powder cocaine trafficking. we should worry more about the victims than about the criminals. why would we want to reduce the penalties for crack cocaine trafficking and invite a return to a time when cocaine ravaged our communities, especially minority communities? this bill sends the wrong message to drug dealers and those who traffic and destroy americans' lives. it sends the message that congress takes drug crimes less seriously than they did. the bill before us threatens to return america to the days when crack cocaine croded the minds and bodies of -- corroded the minds and bodies of our children and disamated the neighborhoods. i hope that those who support this legislation is prepared to

take responsibility if cocaine trafficking increases, if our neighborhoods and communities once again become riddled with violence and the lives of americans are unnecessarily destroyed. i hope that doesn't happen, but at least today we have gone on record as saying that there was a warning and i can only hope that at some point in the future it will be heeded and responded to. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this bill does not reduce the disparity from 100-1 to 1-1. it does not eliminate the mandatory minimum, but it is a step in the right direction. therefore, i urge my colleagues to support s. 1789. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1789.

those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. scott: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5751, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill.

the clerk: h.r. 5751, a bill to amend the lobbying disclosure act of 1995 to require registrants to pay an annual fee of $50, to impose a penalty of $500 for failure to file timely reports required by that act, to provide for the use of the funds from such fees and penalties for reviewing and auditing filings by registrants, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, and the gentleman from utah, mr. chaffetz, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: 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 the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: mr. speaker, the lobbying disclosure and enhancement act makes straightforward and commonsense amendments. it has a task force that is simply dedicated to the enforcement of our lobbying

laws. although the news stories of lobbyists who file late, inaccurate and incomplete reports, there has not been a single enforcement action. we believe that an institutional change is in order and a task force will receive complaints from the clerk of the house, investigate these cases and enforce the disclosure laws to the fullest extent. second, it asks the department of justice to make recommendations to congress for the additional improvements for the enforcement of lobbying disclosure law. ethics reform legislation we past last congress was an important step in bringing transparency and accountability to lobbying disclosure, but much more can and should be done. we look forward to working with attorney general holder to improve on the current system. third, the bill amends the lobbying disclosure act to require the attorney general to publish the names of lobbyists and lobbying firms -- excuse me -- who are sanctioned under the law. this pects the department of justice to enforce the l.d.a. this requires the department to be transparent about the

findings of their investigation and prosecution. i'd like to sponsor -- i'd like to thank the sponsor of the bill, the gentlelady from ohio, mizz kilroy, for her -- ms. kilroy, for her steadfast leadership on this issue. i ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i support h.r. 5751, the lobbying disclosure enhancement act. the purpose of the bill is to have flexibility in the lobbying disclosure act of 1995. h.r. 5751 directs the attorney general of the united states to establish a task force. it is given the responsibility to investigate and prosecute possible violations of lobbying disclosure act. the task force is also directed to collect and disseminate information in compliance of the act. it specifies the information gathered by the task force, the attorney general may make

recommendations to congress with regard to improving enforcement over the lobbying disclosure act, and the resources it needs. . we expect this to be a become a new point of contact. we rely on the attorney general to locate where the task force is. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. chesapeake bay fits: -- mr. chesapeake bay fits -- mr. chaffetz: thank you, mr. speaker. i have expressed support of it. it makes some sense. it doesn't quite frankly do much. but it should also be noted that there should be a proper way and

process by which we move these bills forward. this bill was introduced on july 15. it didn't show up on the whip notice until late last night. this morning, in a very bipartisan way, and i think both sides were working together as the staff. but we have a copy of this bill that came across at 1:15. it's just now just after 2:00. the title of the bill as read talks about a fee that would be imposed, a penalty that would be imposed. my understanding is -- i'm happy to yield to the gentleman who is managing this bill to help talk about this, but the title of the bill talks about a new fee and penalty but i don't think there's fees and penalties in the bill. so there is no hearing. there was no subcommittee work. there was no committee work on this. and i would be happy to yield to the gentleman if he can help clarify any of those points. mr. scott: i thank the gentleman for yielding. yes, there are fees in the feitl

of the bill -- in the title of the bill, however in working with the minority the bill was amended and the fees were taken out. the title did not change because of the amendment, but that's why the fees are not there because we were accommodating the minority side of the aisle. mr. chaffetz: reclaiming my time . the annual fee i guess was going to be $50. to impose a penalty of $500 for failure to file timely reports. these lobbyists walk around with $5,000 bills in their pockets. i would like to see if we had time to discuss this in the committee a $500 penalty, they get that in a half-hour's work. that isn't much of a incentive for them to file in a timely manner. the bigger point, broader point, mr. speaker, is these are the types of discussions that really should happen in the subcommittee and the committee. timing of these issues, why we would make this change, is certainly the district attorney for washington, d.c., part of

that organizational structure. nevertheless -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: mr. speaker, i'm prepared to close if the gentleman -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, if you have no additional speakers, i yield back -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: the responsibilitiesor of the bill will close. she'll be the last speaker on this side. mr. chaffetz: she's going to close. all right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, i just make a further point on h.r. 5751, while it moves the structure slightly, gives more flexibility to the attorney general, obviously we want to see these laws and the

compliance fulfilled as much as possible. if there was in any way to help the attorney general in doing so, so be it. we are happy to support this bill. i still must reiterate that this speed in which this bill was offered, the lack of opportunity for members within the judiciary committee to properly debate this, the fact we were still dealing back and forth with some staff. and again i appreciate the bipartisan way in which it was done, but at the same time these are the types of things that get vetted and ferretted out with better discussion and review. i think we could have added real teeth to it. it's unfortunate. nevertheless we do urge its passage. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: how much time remains on this side? the speaker pro tempore: there are 18 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. to close for our side i yield

the balance of the time to the sponsor of the bill, the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kilroy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized. ms. kilroy: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of legislation i introduced, h.r. 5751, the lobbying disclosure enhancement act to help bring accountability to the way lobbyists do business in washington. back home many people will tell us that washington is broken. that we need to end politics as usual. well, one of the ways that we try to do this is to rein in lobbyists through the disclosure filings that they are required to file. and this amazing -- it's amazing how difficult it is to even make that happen. h.r. 5751 would create a task force to help prosecute and investigate, investigate first and prosecute violations of lobbying disclosure act.

if there is not some kind of push to enforce, then frequently people fall into noncompliance. they don't take it seriously. well, it's time for us to be taken seriously on this question. mandated by the honest leadership and open government act of 2007, recent studies found the need for more transparency and accountability for special interests in government. specifically they found that in 1996 the secretary of the senate has referred 8,281 potential violations of lobbying disclosure rules to the d.o.j. about 4,400 of those referrals occurred in 2009 alone. the office of the clerk has referred an aggregate of 760 potential nonclient registrants to the u.s. attorney for the district of columbia. and for nine years at least one organization reported lobbying the same 16 outdated and mostly

dead pieces of legislation it initially reported in 1999 until 2000. these statistics show a growing trend and the stakes for noncompliance that can't be ignored by this body. we have promised the american people more transparency and accountability and this -- >> would the gentlewoman yield? ms. kilroy: i yield. mr. chaffetz: mr. speaker, my question is about the fee. originally the title that there was going to be a fee and penalty. suddenly why did those come out? if you want accountability, why would you take out the pement? -- penalty? ms. kilroy: i fully would have support add fee such as included in the original bill. but we were informed by the clerk of the house that they could not administer such a fee. so i would be more than happy if you and others in judiciary would take up that question and return that question when we

return in september. taking back my time, i came here to change the politics as usual approach and help bring reform. the attorney general is given the responsibility to report back to congress the policy recommendations about how best to improve the lobbying disclosure act going forward and how to make the processing and enforcement seem self -- self-funded. i believe the taxpayers should not have to shoulder the burden and the creation of a self-sustaining fund could be possible. my slargse changes the current disclosure rules that prevented the department of justice from publishing the name and firm of anyone in violation of the lobbying disclosure act. we will now know the names of lobbyists who continue to file late or incorrect information. this reminds me of a phrase i heard, what you can't get through all truism you must get through shame.

i want to thank chairman conyers and the judiciary committee and staff who worked with me on this bill, as well as the majority leader for giving me the opportunity to speak to this bill this afternoon on the floor. yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. scott: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5751, as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

without objection, the title of h.r. 5751 is amended.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine rise? ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution h.res. 1559 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 226, house resolution 1559. resolved, that 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 h.r. 5822, making appropriations for military construction and department of veterans affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read through page 63, line 4. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with laws 2 of rule 21 are waived. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, except as provided in section 2, no amendment shall be in order except the amendments prnted in the report of the committee on rules accompanying

this resolution. . each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. all points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. in case of sundry amendments reported from the committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the house en gros and without division of the question. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, after consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on

appropriations or their designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the proponent. section 3, the chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee. the chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill as described in clause 9 of rule 18. section 4, it shall be in order at any time through the calendar day of august 1, 2010, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules. the speaker or her designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: mr. speaker, i raise a point of order because the resolution violates 426-a of the congressional budget act. it waives all consideration of the bill which includes a

waiver of section 425 which causes a violation of section 426-a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act of 1975. the gentleman has met the threshold burden under the rule and the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed will each control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. after that debate, the chair will put the question for consideration. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the speaker. i rise this point of order today not because of unfunded mandates in the bill, although there are probably some, but i raise it because it's the only opportunity we have here in the minority to protest the kind of treatment that these appropriation bills are getting in the rules committee and the manner in which they're coming to the floor. you know, it used to be, it's a time-honored tradition in this house to have appropriation bills come to the house under

an open rule. over the past couple of years that has turned into a structured rule, and so many members in this body, in the minority and majority, have not had the opportunity -- take last year, for example. every appropriation bill, all 12 came to the floor under a structured rule. there were some members on both sides of the aisle who offered multiple amendments throughout the year. the one chance they had to submit amendments on appropriation bills and they weren't allowed to offer one. many members were denied an opportunity to offer any amendments. there were some 1,500 amendments offered last year. just 12%, fewer than 200, were made in order. in fact, i offered about 635 myself. i was only permitted to offer 50 after the structured rule took effect. now, the leadership on the minority -- majority side will often say, well, we have to keep order in this place and

people will simple offer dilatory amendments and take too long in the process. i haven't been here that long, but just a couple years ago we would spend two or three or four days on one appropriation bill because that's what we do here. that's the important part of what we do. yes, the majority can't seem to -- yet, the majority can't seem to allow all amendments to these bills. instead of allowing debates on amendments to appropriation bills, let me give you some idea of what we've been doing over the past couple of months and why the statement that we simply can't allow people to offer this many amendments would be proper because we don't have time. well, here's what we've had time for and let me note that each one of these that i mention -- and this is just a fraction of these kind of suspension bills that we dealt with, eave one of these allows for 10 -- each one of these allows for 10 minutes debate. that's as much time we allow on

any amendment coming through the appropriation process. h.r. 1460, recognizing the important role of pollinators. that one we dealt with a month or so ago. h.r. 1491, congratulating the university of south carolina, the gamecocks, for winning the 2010 ncaa college world series. h.res. 1462, supporting the goals and ideals of railroad retirement day. now, these things may be nice to do and nice to those who receive these kind of accolades, but it's not the important business of this house. and so to say that we don't have time to actually debate amendments to these appropriation bills and the one that we are dealing with today, many amendments were submitted by members were turned away, were not allowed in this structured rule. another thing we dealt with, the goals -- supporting the goals of national dairy month. now, how in the world is that more important than allowing members to strike funding from

appropriation bills? i need not remind this chamber that 42 cents of every dollar that we spend this year, 42 cents of every dollar we spend this year will be borrowed from our kids, from our grandkids, from whomever overseas who buys our bonds. and yet we can't allow time to let members offer amendments to strike spending from these bills. we only allow a certain percentage of them. supporting the goals and ideals of american craft beer week. that was h.r. 1297 that we dealt with in the last couple of months, the time that we deal with appropriation bills. congratulating the chicago blalks. that was h.r. -- blackhawks. h.h.s. h.r. 1439. recognizing june 8, 2010, as world ocean day. as i mentioned, these might be good things to do, but when they're taking up time that the majority seems to say now we

don't have time for appropriation bills, that's wrong. and when they -- in the rules committee will say, sorry, the gentleman from colorado or wherever else, can't offer his amendment because we've taken too much time recognizing national nurses week, or supporting the goals and ideals of national learn to fly day, or expressing support for the goals and ideals of children's book week. recognizing the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the east bay regional park district in california. i think you're getting the picture here. it's a hallow statement to say that we don't have time to deal with these amendments on appropriation bills. the truth is the leadership simply doesn't want these things debated all that much. with that i'll reserve my time and i'll explain why in a minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine rise? ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i claim the time in opposition.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for 10 minutes. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i appreciate the thoughts of my colleague from arizona. i would say that i wouldn't stand up here and criticize nurses, dairy farmers, small brewries, which i have many in my state, or even the pollinators. i have a daughter who is a beekeeper. we recognize the importance of pollination. my friend on the other side of the aisle are trying to block important legislation by using a procedural tactic. they want to prevent this rule and the underlying legislation from going forward without any opportunity for debate and without an opportunity for an up or down vote on the legislation itself. i think that's wrong. i hope my colleagues will vote yes so we can consider this legislation on its merits and kill it -- not kill it with a procedural motion. i say let's not waste any more time on unrelated parliamentary measures. those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. we must consider this it rule and we must pass the continuing resolution today. i have the right to close, but

in the end i will urge my colleagues to vote yes to consider the rule, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the speaker. i want to say to the gentlelady -- first, i want to inquire of the time remaining. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has five minutes. mr. flake: the gentlelady says i am criticizing pollinators or beer distillers or whomever. i am not. i'm saying the congress doesn't need to congratulate everybody who wins a championship or everybody who distills beer. it's nutty for us to spend so much time on these things and then say, i'm sorry, we don't have time for members to offer amendments on appropriation bills. to actually strike spending so that we're not borrowing 42 cents on every dollar that we spend this year. let me mention why it is that the leadership in the appropriations committee may not be so anxious for members to debate these bills because

there are a lot of earmarks in them. this chart shows the -- 11 of the 12 appropriation bills that have gone either through the subcommittee or committee. it looks like a hungry packman here. what it shows in the -- pacman here. what it shows is the percentage of earmark dollars associated with powerful members of congress. that includes members of the appropriations committee, members of leadership or chairmen of committees. that represents about 13% of this body. yet, when you look at the number of earmark dollars or percentage of earmark dollars, homeland security, that 13% is garnering 5 2% of the earmark -- 52% of the earmark dollars. agriculture, 76% of the earmarked dollars are going to just 13% of this body. the 13% that are writing the rules here and are deciding that certain amendments simply won't be offered. that is wrong.

we shouldn't be doing that. 42% of the earmark dollars are going to just 14% of this body. is it any wonder that the leadership on the majority side does not want certain amendments debated here? milcon-va, 51% going to just 13% of this body. labor-h.h.s., 60%. in defense we just learned today that an amendment has been submitted -- i'm sorry, an earmark has been submitted, $10 million for the john murtha center, our beloved member who died a few months ago, wanted an earmark for $10 million in his honor in the defense bill. i think that ought to be debated here. but chances are we won't even get to the defense bill. it's unlikely we are going to very many of the appropriation bills this year. and the ones that we do will come to the floor under a structured rule where members will not be allowed to offer

amendments or just a few of them or the ones that the majority chooses to hear. they can choose the ones they don't want to hear and choose the ones that they hear. i'd love to hear a response from the rules committee as to what reasoning goes behind which amendments will be allowed under what is traditionally an open rule and which ones will not, and i will yield to the gentlelady if she would explain the rule or how the rules committee arrives at this rule. i guess the gentlelady doesn't want to respond on this. i wouldn't either. i wouldn't want to try to justify closed rules or structured rules coming to this floor on appropriation bills when we're spending more time doing things like recognizing the 50th anniversary of title 6 international education programs, recognizing the importance of manufactured and modular housing in the united

states. these are all good things. doesn't mean we should spend time that could otherwise be debating appropriation bills which is what we do here. we prioritize by funding. that's what congress does. we have the power of the purse, and yet we're shortchanging that process so that we can support the goals and ideals of student financial aid awareness month and raise awareness of financial student -- student financial aid. like i said, not a bad thing but not something that should be sue planting what we should -- supplantin what we should do here. i plead with the rules committee and more importantly the leadership on the majority side and realize that the traditions of this body, the institutional -- things that we have here, open rules on appropriation bills should be offered. i've offered a lot of amendments. many of which when we were in the majority. my own party didn't like these amendments, but they suffered through them because they knew that things matter here like

tradition or upholding the institution, and so they allowed all amendments, some of which targeted members of our own party. but the majority in power now doesn't seem to want that. they want to shield their members from difficult votes and also shield those who are getting these earmarks from any scrutiny. niece amendments aren't really scrutinized in the appropriations committee so if they argued and debated here they aren't going to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from maine. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. and to the questions of my colleague from arizona, i have to say you have far more experience in this body than i do. as you know i am a freshman member, so i've only operated under the current process that we have today. i can't speak to what the process was like in the past. i can say as a member of the rules committee a tremendous number of amendments come before our committee, and if all of them were allowed to

come to the floor and if this were an open rule i'm sure there would be some advantages and some opportunity for greater debate. on the other hand, the essential issue of veterans benefits, which i am going to look forward to speaking to in a few minutes, assuming we vote down this current point of privilege, i am looking forward to the opportunity to move forward on taking better care of our veterans. and if we had a tremendous number of amendments before us today, i'm not sure we would ever get there. in fact, when i look at some of the information that i have before me, i am reminded that during the d.o.d. appropriations bill in 2009 when i was sitting on the rules committee we actually had 606 amendments come before us. many of them -- i think everybody would agree on both sides of the aisle, many of them were just there to score political points. so do our constituents want us to take up our time today with listening to political back and forth taking day after day with 606 amendments or do they want

to get right to the heart of the matter and move forward on the issue of taking better care of our veterans? and let me make one other point. no, i'm not interested in yielding. but i would like to make one other point. you talked about earmarks and you are very eloquent on the topic of earmarks and i appreciate that. i think a lot of our constituents have great concerns of earmarks, how is it handed out, how does the budgets process work here -- budgeting process work here? i have a tremendous aunt of transparency on the issue of earmarks. we invite individuals with any kind of issue come before us that they would like to see appropriated, whether it's a highway, bridge or whether it's a community center or whether it's a particular project that might benefit anyone in our district, the university or some system. we actually ask each person who comes before us with an earmark request to make a three-minute video, then, we post it on our website. then, we ask our constituents, do have an opinion on this?

so while i understand much of the concerns about the earmarking process, i have to say as one member who i can't say is in the top 13% of the highest recipient of earmarks, i still appreciate the process which allows me to take my constituents' wishes before the appropriations committee and say, you know, this would benefit my district, this would benefit my university, this would create more jobs, and i do it in a fairly transparent manner so i believe my constituents have the benefit of knowing all the information around earmarking and doing the very best we can with making sure that process isn't handled in back rooms or in the dark of the night but is actually a very transparent process. i appreciate the concerns before you -- that you have brought before us today. i look forward on moving forward on the debate on this rule so we can move forward on what i think is a vital part of our appropriations process. that's taking care of our colleagues. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass this important legislation today, and i yield back the balance of

my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the question is shall the house now consider the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the question of consideration is decided in favor of the affirmative. the gentlelady from maine is recognized for one hour. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. speaker. for the purposes of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from florida. all time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you. i also ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on house resolution 1559. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. pingree: mr. speaker, house resolution 1559 provides for consideration of h.r. 5822, the military construction and

veterans' affairs and related agencies appropriations act of 2011 under a structured rule. the rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations. the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. the rule waives points of order against provision of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21. the rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the report. all poits against the amendment -- all points of order against those amendments except those aseroog under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21 are waived. the rule provides except those amendments reported from the committee of the whole the question of their adoption shall be put to the house engross and without division of the question. the rule provides one motion to recommit or without instructions. the rule provides that after consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their designee each may offer

one pro forma amendment to the bill for purpose of debate. finally, the chair may entertain a motion that the committee rise only if offered by the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee. mr. speaker, for more than nine years our country has been engaged in two conflicts halfway around the world. the number of wounded military personnel in iraq and afghanistan has put a financial strain on the department of veterans affairs. the v.a. expects to treat more than 6.1 million patients in 2011, including more than 439,000 veterans of iraq and afghanistan. in addition, the constant training, deployment, and redeployment of our troops has put a significant burden on our military. h.r. 5822 appropriates funding for military construction, veterans programs, and four related agencies. our troops have performed

admirably wherever they have been deployed. and congress has an obligation to provide the care and compensation to every eligible veteran. this bill also provides additional funding for the guard and reserves to address critical unfunded requirements as a result of prolonged and repeated deployments. in my home state of maine, thousands of guard and reservists have made invaluable contributions to our national defense and i am proud to see this funding included in the bill. h.r. 5822 renews our commitment to redeveloped closed military bases and their surrounding communities. the bill provides necessary funding to implement the 2005 brac and address the enormous backlog of environmental cleanup projects from previous brac rounds. this funding is essential to communities across the country including the towns of brunswick and topsome in my district which are already experiencing

economic difficulties from the closing of brunswick naval air station. we must do everything we can to support the communities that the brac bases leave behind. while the investments in military construction are vital, they are only a small portion of this bill. the vast majority of legislation is devoted to veterans programs. the bill provides the necessary funding for veterans' medical care, claims processors, and facility improvements, including increased funding for mental health services, assistance programs for homeless veterans, and innovative services for veterans in rural areas. the military construction projects in this bill are vital to ensure that the missions of each installation are carried out in a most efficient manner possible. one great example of the funding contained in this bill is the funding contained in this bill for ports myth -- ports mitt -- ports submit navy shipyard. it's overall repair and of

nuclear submarines. they have a reputation of delivering subsequent on time and under budget. this fall the naval shipyard will welcome the first virginia class submarine to maine for an overall. this bill contains 11.9 million to modernize the structural shops the yard which will improve the equipment layout and streamline process flow within the shipyard. it will help workers at the yard continue to do high quality work while increasing their efficiency and this funding is essential to this mission. increasing maint nabs efficiencies -- maintnns efficiencies will no doubt make the yard more competitive for navy sub projects in the future. it's an economic success story in maine. the yard is in the middle of adding approximately 160 new jobs this year, jobs like painters, sheet metal workers, electricians, welders, and engineers and the construction work this bill will fund will be done by outside contractors bringing even more jobs to the area. the funding in this bill will

help this economic engine in southern maine remain competitive and create new good quality paying jobs. finally i'm very proud of what this bill does for our nation's veterans. their service has earned them the world class health care benefits and congress has a moral obligation to provide the best benefits possible. this bill is an example of what happens when politics are put aside and veterans come first. i strongly support this rule which provides for consideration of this essential legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to thank my friend, the gentlewoman from maine, ms. pingree for the time. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. diaz-balart: each year congress undertakes its duty to fund the government through what is commonly known as the appropriations process. the appropriations process usually begins with the consideration of a budget. the budget acts to set, it sets

the parameters of congressional spending for the upcoming year. allowing the appropriations committee to begin assembling the 12 appropriations bills. but for the first time, for the first time since the congressional budget act was passed in 1974, the house of representatives has failed to even vote on a budget. because of what some suspect may be an attempt by the majority to protect their members from a vote that would increase what are already record budget deficits, yet the dysfunction does not end with the majority's abandonment of one of the most basic duties of governing. it continues today with the consideration of the first appropriations bill, the fiscal 2010 military construction,

veterans' affairs, and related agencies appropriations act. article 1, section 9, clause 7 of the constitution gives congress the power of the purse. it says that, and i quote, no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of the appropriations made by law, and a regular statement of account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time, end quote. the congress' constitutional obligation under article 1, section 9, clause 7 has traditionally manifested itself in an open appropriations process. that process calls for and allows every member of the house to propose any amendments, any amendments that are germane, to the 12 appropriations bills. that's the way it's been done. certainly since i have been here an i know for decades and decades and generations before.

yet class year the majority decided to close down the deliberative process of the house on appropriations bills. i came to the house floor to oppose that procedure last year and i stated that i felt that the majority's decision to block debate on amendments from members of both sides of the aisle was unnecessary and it was unfair. unjust. i thought it was a mistake. i said the majority would come to regret that mistake. today on the very first appropriations bill of this year , the majority has once again decided to close down the appropriations process. that's unfortunate. last year we were told that the majority was taking this unprecedented step in order to move the appropriations bills to the fed so that congress could avoid an omnibus appropriations bill. what happened was just the

opposite. despite the fact that the military construction-v.a. bill did in fact pass both the house and senate, the democratic leadership never allowed the bill to go to conference and instead that milcon-v.a. appropriations bill was wrapped up into an omnibus appropriations bill, contrary to the reasoning that had been given by the majority. what is this year's reason? i believe that it is so that the majority can again use a restrictive process on appropriations bills so if the leadership, the majority leadership has the ability to pick and choose which amendments the house will consider. although i strenuously disagree with the manner in which the majority leadership has decided to close the appropriations process once again, and in this case it has allowed only 14 of 35 amendments, i do wish to

congratulate my friends, chairman chet edwards and ranking member zach wamp and mr. crenshaw, for their bipartisan work on the underlying legislation. it is undoubtedly very important. we owe our military veterans and their families an extraordinary debt of gratitude for their service and sacrifices. and as a people. not just as a congress, i think we have to ensure that our veterans and their families who bear sacrifice and hardships as well receive all the benefits and assistance to which they are entitled and that they deserve. . ed underlying legislation that's been -- the underlying legislation that's been agreed to and drafted in a fair, bipartisan manner, provides crucial funding for military construction and for housing, for quality of life project for our troops and their families. the legislation includes a

total of $141.1 billion in discretionary funding for these agencies. of this approximately there are 120 billion is dedicated to the department of veterans affairs. the underlying legislation continues our commitment to the brave men and women who sacrifice so much to keep this nation safe. supporting service members deployed abroad to care for them when they come home. we recognize two important projects to south florida, which were included in the president's budget and is in the underlying legislation. this legislation provides $41 million to construct a permanent headquarters for special operations command south currently special operations command south is headquartered at homestead air force reserve base. headquarters personnel are

supported by temporary leased trailers. the trailers were not intended to support the headquarter's mission beyond three years, and they require significant repairs for continued use. the project will have an information facility. sensitive items storage, stand-by generator and general purpose administrative areas. it will include anti-terrorism measures to protect military personnel stationed there and will be able to withstand -- and in is important -- a category five hurricane. mr. speaker, as you know in homestead we had a category five hurricane the year i was elected to congress, and hopefully we won't see that again. it's important that this facility be able to withstand such force. i'm pleased that this legislation includes funding for new construction in doral,

in the congressional district i represent, the construction of the commissary will direct the military personnel and retirees within 20 miles of south come and thousands more -- southcom and thousands more beyond. it will greatly reduce the cost of living for those in florida and improve their quality of life. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from maine. ms. pingree: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentlelady from nevada, ms. berkley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from nevada is recognized for two minutes. ms. berkley: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in support of this bill. i especially want to thank chairman edwards and ranking member wamp for providing the resources our nation's veterans desperately need and providing additional funding for f.y. 2012. this advanced funding helps the

v.a. advance critical programs. we must take care of our brave men and women who serve this country and this funding goes a long way to address many of their needs. i also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including report language on veterans' burial benefits. i am concerned about the burial benefits provided to our nation's veterans by the department of veterans affairs. because the benefits are not indexed to inflation, their value continues to diminish with each passing year. as a result, families in state veteran sem tears have been left to the increasing costs. in f.y. 2009, the subcommittee included my report language urging the v.a. to assess the viability of increasing the plot allowance and burial benefits to cover the same percentage of veterans' burial benefits that they covered in 1973 when they were first

initiated. the department of veterans affairs has not heeded our recommendation. i'm clad the subcommittee recognizes the importance of the issue and has again included the benefits report language. however, we need to move on this, and i think having it included, once again, is a step in reminding the v.a. that this is an important issue. this congress i reintroduced h.r. 4045. it would increase the plot allowance to $745 for the veterans that are buried in a state or private cemetery. increase from $2,000 to $4,100 for veterans who die due to service-connected injury and are buried in the national cemetery. increase the burial allowance from $300 to $1,270 for a veteran who wishes to be buried in a national veterans cemetery and whose cause of death is not

service connected. i urge my colleagues to sponsor it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to my very good friend from florida, mr. crenshaw. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. crenshaw: i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i rise today to urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule. i want to make it clear that i'm very much in favor of the underlying legislation, but this legislation is being brought to us today under a rule that will restrict our members, both democrats and republicans, from offering amendments, having them considered. i thought i'd give you a little perspective because this bill has come to us today through a regular order, a very open and fair process. 16 hearings took place. all the members of the subcommittee had an opportunity to ask questions and feel like they were being treated fairly. listen to their input. at the subcommittee level, six

amendments were offered, four by the minority, two by the majority. they were all adopted unanimously in a bipartisan way. then, we went to the full committee, the full appropriations committee. at that point eight amendments were adopted, discussed and they were adopted as well. in a bipartisan way. four from the democrats, four from the republicans. and yet when we got to the rules committee that's where the fair and open process ran into a roadblock. a graveyard, if you will. because now we come to the floor, no longer a process where members can stand up, offer amendments, maybe make a good bill even better because this rule does not allow that. i would think that at this time when deficits are at record levels, when spending is more important to be looked at with a wise and efficient look that we would allow members to come to the floor and offer their input.

but, no, that's not the case. so while the underlying legislation is very important and very good, i urge my colleagues to vote no and bring this back under an open rule and allow them for participation. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from maine. ms. pingree: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, i yield four minutes to my good friend, mr. buyer from indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for four minutes. mr. buyer: thank you very much. i want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw. when the majority went to this process to be restrictive here on the floor with regard to amendments on appropriations, that was really a dark day for liberty. it's really very, very unfortunate. i understand the speaker wants to rule the house with a mighty hand, is utilizing the rules

committee to make congress an undemocratic institution. the american people are watching. they know that there's something going on in washington, d.c., that's not right. they don't completely understand all this process, but they know -- something they do know and understand and that's freedom and that's liberty and so we're charged with this responsibility to care for those whom now have been injured, not only in the workplace but also on the battlefield who wear the uniform. but when it comes time then to -- for us to have an open discussion and debate on how best to do that, freedoms are denied. it's pretty weird, pretty strange, very peculiar. i, as the ranking member of the veterans' affairs committee, i want to thank the three amendments that were made in order.

there were also two amendments that were not made in order. it would have transferred $32 million for the information and technology system account to go to other programs. in 2010 the v.a. conducted a review of the major i.t. initiatives. about 100 are still active or are in planning. about 100 are still being reviewed. the other 100 have been stopped permanently or have been paused. this amendment would have taken the $32 million in savings and put put the $-- and put the other to medical and prosthetic research by $50 million to fund further research into innovative treatments, such as the hyperbaric oxygen therapy, along with the prosthetic devices for female amputees who have difficulty with the fit and size tailored to the male

physique. with regard to the general operating account, increase it by $2 million for v.a. to conduct a lodge tude national study for participants to study the effectiveness of the program. also, increase the medical services account by $48 million. $30 million to improve v.a.'s ue side prevention programs. -- suicide prevention program. including $100 million for the v.a. suicide advertising campaign. $10 million to improve homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children. and for mental health. does that sound radical? that was made not in order. it's hard. that was not made in order. ok, why? i don't know. the rules committee didn't give me an answer. that should have been made in order.

that should have been discussed. we have had a challenge here with regard to the i.t. systems at the v.a., and i leave here in six months and the appropriators and the authorizers are going to have a real challenge here, especially as you go forward. now, fortunately, once we centralize the i.t. architecture, you have a really good -- roger baker as the chief information officer, very talented, doing assessments. he understands. he's doing this review. when you take down projects and you have those moneys, we can make judgments and choices with regard to use of some of those dollars and that's what we sought to do here. and that amendment should have in fact been made in order. and it's really unfortunate. will the gentleman yield an additional minute? mr. diaz-balart: an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. buyer: there is another amendment, and i know, mr. speaker, my good friend, chairman edwards, has had some

concerns about one of the amendments. in fact, was made in order. and i understand. and we can have a colloquy and we can get into that because i know you agree with what we're doing. mr. speaker, i believe that chairman edwards agrees with the initiatives and working with -- i guess we can call them green initiatives, green management initiatives but it's the portfolio being done down at the v.a. it's how we move moneys from accounts and at the same time what type of amendments can be brought to the floomplet i mean, i tried to do this a couple of years ago and the parliamentarian knocked an amendment out. and so i wanted to raise this issue on the floor that we have about 60 projects out there around $162 million and we got to figure out how to best fund these. i'll get into that with the speaker later. so i have -- my intention is not to offer that amendment that has been authorized to offer, and i'll work this out with chairman edwards.

but i'm going to ask to oppose the rule even though i compliment the good work that the committee has done. but we need an open process. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from maine. ms. pingree: i will reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker, it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the rules committee, mr. dreier from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank my friend from miami for his very thoughtful remarks, and i listened to his opening statement in which he talked about the greatness of this bill. this is a bipartisan bill, as has been pointed out by mr. men shaw, has been pointed -- crenshaw, has been pointed out by mr. buyer. democrats and republicans have come together because obviously if we don't take care of our nation's veterans, how are we going to insent our fellow -- incent our fellow americans to

join the armed forces when commitments are made they need to be kept? so we all need to do everything we can for all the brave men and women who have fought on behalf and served on behalf of the united states of america. obviously i'm here with sadness. i want here with the exchange that took place when our friend, mr. flake, was here, but i'm told that my good friend from north haven who is managing this bill from the majority indicated -- for this rule indicated if we had an open amendment process we would be -- we would be allowing partisan obstructionism or something along that line, to take place, and, mr. speaker, it's very interesting that we have made what i consider to be rather sad history in this place. my friend from north haven is a new member of this institution and has not once in her 18 months as a member of the united states house of representatives been able to

witness or participate in a bill being debated under an open amendment process. so i've got to say until it is tried, i would say to my friend, mr. speaker, until it's tried, i think that the notion of passing judgment on the problems of an open rule should really not be brought forward. i will tell you that it is clear that an open amendment process is messier and uglier and more difficult than having everything shut down. but that's really what the framers of our constitution wanted. they wanted there to be a free-flowing discussion. i just listened to mr. buyer a few minutes ago talking about the green initiative and he wanted to engage in a colloquy with chairman edwards about this and the fact is, when we get into an open amendment process which by the way, was done for every single year up

until last year, for almost all appropriations bills. in fact, virtually every appropriations bill has begun under an open amendment process and then if a bipartisan consensus, agreement cannot be struck to bring about some kind of limitation of debate between the chairman of a subcommittee and the ranking member, the rules committee has on occasion been called on. but the difficulty here for me to understand is that we're not even beginning with even a modicum of regular order. yesterday, the rules committee -- in the rules committee, i talked about the fact that william natcher, a great member of this institution, served as chairman of the appropriations committee two decades ago when i joined the rule committees, i discussed the appropriations process with chairman navepper. he was known for -- natcher, he was known far lot of accomplishments, but he was

probably known best for in all the years he served here, he never missed a vote. but he was a great institutionalist he understood what regular order consisted home believed since appropriations bills are considered privileged resolutions, that those measures didn't have to go upstairs to the rules committee. instead, they could come directly to the house floor and by virtue of doing that, it would mean that legislating an appropriations bill could be stricken by a point of order that a member would raise, but he believed that that was the best way to do that. we moved away from that he said he didn't think it was a wise thing, but he moved to the point where he would say if there are items in an appropriations bill that consisted of things like legislation, there was an agreement with the authorizing committee that the rules committee would protect those. it was understood and done pret toity much with bipartisan consensus.

-- pretty much with bipartisan consensus. then they would be able to offer germane amendments to the -- the bill. now we've gotten to the first time in the history of the republic, limiting the opportunities for members to offer amendments. so while this is a very, very, very good and critically important bill which virtually all of us will support at the end of the day, it's not the right way to do it. and process is substance. the american people learned that very clearly when we had the 300-page amendment dropped on us up in the rule committees at 3:00 in the morning that in fact said that we had just a few hours to look at that measure before it was to be debated on the house floor. can i ask my friend for 30 seconds.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 30 seconds. mr. dreier: let me -- let me close by saying it is very, very important for us to recognize that process is substance. the american people get that they understand we're preventing their voice, democrat and republican alike from being heard in this appropriations process. it is wrong and i hope very much that as we move through the appropriations process this year, we'll get back o-- back to regular order and i certainly hope that beginning next year, when a new appropriations process will begin, that we will have the kind of open amendment process that the american people expect and through their elected representatives deserve. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my colleague and far more experienced member and i take your criticism that perhaps though you didn't hear my words earlier today that had

i been here for the amount of time you had or had the previous experience, i wouldn't have said exactly what i said about the political posturing that could go on under an open rule. you're right. 18 months i've been here, i have never had any experience in this legislative body about the process that you -- on which you speak. so far be it from me to say what the differences were from then until today. but i will say a little bit about my own experience. i have the good fortune of sitting on the rules committee and perhaps someday, if i am here long enough and i move my way up the chairs and i'm the ranking member or the chair, i will advocate for doing things differently. i only know the experience i have had today. as a member of the rules committee. now, i see frequent meetings of the rules committee. i see a tremendous number of amendments come before us. and as my fellow members well know, mr. speaker, we often spend hours listening to potential amendments that could be heard here on the floor.

i think this afternoon we'll have the pleasure of joining the other members of the rule committees and hearing 120 or more amendments to the next potential appropriation bill that could come to the floor. i hear lively debate. i've been there to submit amendments. sometimes they're accepted, sometimes not. i see amendments come to the floor that i agree with and disagree with. i see a lot of back and forth about the number of amendments. perhaps it's not an open rule. i have never had the experience of an open rule but i've had the experience of the tremendous number of amendments, some of which are politically motivated, some of which could take up a tremendous amount of our time and i feel that generally the rule committees pares down the number of amendments to a reasonable number from each side, probably more from the majority than the minority, i'm sure that happened when the other party was in control too, but the fact is, i hear a lot of lively debate, i have only the experiences that i've had and i can't defend what might have happened in the past or may happen in the future.

mr. dreier: would the gentlelady yield briefly? ms. pingree: i yield. mr. dreier: i would say to my friend, she's right, having this 18-month experience, the fact is, if the rules committee were to follow regular order and report out open rule the meetings upstairs would last five minutes because we'd have the chairman and ranking member come forward and say, we've got this bill, we have an open amendment process, any member can offer a germane amendment to the measure, it's considered under the five-minute rule and we would end the meeting upstairs and we would allow the house to work its will which is again what was done up until last year when we had this shut down for the first time. i thank my friend for yielding. ms. pingree: i thank my friend for the words. i happen to enjoy many of the meetings we have when we consider the rules on both sides and the opportunity for what discussion will come to the floor. i appreciate being a member of the rule committees and being

part of that filtering process. i don't know if the process will change but we have a goodly number of amendments that will be considered on this and from my perspective, the most important thing we're doing today is moving forward on this rule which i hope will pass with a great majority and moving forward to the consideration of this bill, which i will remind my colleagues holds a tremendous amount of benefit for our home communities and our veterans and that is why we are here today. i wouldn't want to see extensive consideration of so many amendments that we never got to the point of what people asked us to do in this case, it's take care of our veterans and make sure they get the services they deserve after they've served our country. mr. speaker, i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. >> i yield three minutes to my good friend from nebraska, mr. terry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. terry: i must rise in opposition to this closed or

partially closed rule. 34 amendments is not overwhelming. back a couple of years ago, we'd have double or triple that on an open rule and it really saddens me to hear that if something will take time to debate or is controversial, that we're not going to allow it on the floor anymore. mr. speaker, democracy isn't supposed to be easy. dictatorships are. now, i will rise in support of the underlying bill because i'm going to stand with our men and women in uniform, whether it's current or retired, those are our veterans. in this -- this bill does a great deal of good for the air force base in the bellvue and omaha area. one of the most significant is $56 million for the design of a new v.a. in-patient hospital facility for that entire

regional area. the current facility was built 60 years ago. it's dilapidated to the point where it's no longer safe, let alone meets the appropriate standards. so i am proud that the v.a. has decided that in agreeing with the entire congressional delegation and the community that this in-patient facility must be replaced and we begin that process. the second has been a vision of our veterans' community. there is no national veterans' cemetery within the area of eastern nebraska, western iowa, northwest missouri. the previous administration realized that the rule that was applied needed to be changed and that was under secretary peak. and continued under the current administration. i want to thank general

shinseki and the administration in following through and determining that the service area for a veterans cemetery was 112,000 veterans that could be served. by doing that, that shot the eastern nebraska-omaha area to the top of the list. inside this bill is the appropriation to start the new national cemetery in the omaha-bellvue area. that has been a process a labor of love that started with a small group of veterans in my office a few years ago. now i get to see it come to reality. the last is specific to offitt air force base and it makes a reference in the milcon provisions that the new strat come -- the uh new stratcom headquarters will begin in 2012

and the costs need to be borne throughout the branches and the d.o.d. this is important for the community and psyche of this air force base community. the last thing i want to point out is these are based upon the herries, 30 -- 15 seconds. mr. diaz-balart: 30 asigsal -- additional seconds. mr. terry: these are based on the need for he the hospital, these aren't earmarks, these are things determined by merit by the v.a. and the department of defense and i want to go on record as the representative of this area in complete support of this bill and those projects. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for three minutes.

mr. moran: i thank the gentleman from florida my amendment proposed to the rules committee is one denied under this very closed rule. this appropriations bill does much to honor our nation's commitment to veterans who have sacrificed for our freedoms. but i'm concerned that our own government is unfairly taking away freedom from those veterans. many americans should be shocked to learn that an outrageous department of veterans' affairs is stripping the rights of veterans and their families who receive assistance managing their financial affairs. i had an amendment to support gun rights for veterans. i am disappointed that the majority did not allow my amendment to go forward and be heard and offered on the floor today. federal law prohibits certain individuals from possessing firearms because they pose a danger to society or

themselves. such as convicted felons, illegal aliens and those who are mentally ill. the f.b.i. maintains a system that prevents them from owning firearm. the v.a. has sent the names of over 100,000 veterans and their spouses and children not f.b.i. not because they pose a danger but because the v.a. determined they could not handle their benefits. they appoint fiduciaries who cannot manage their affairs due to health reasons. the v.a.'s process only examines a veteran's financial responsibility and does not look at whether he's a danger to himself or others. but when they're appointed fiduciary the v.a. deems them as, quote, mentally defective and forwards their name to the f.b.i. without so much as a hearing, they are often -- are then prohibited by law from purchasing firearms.

by compareson, the social security administration has assisted over five million beneficiaries with their finances but does not send those names to the f.b.i. it's wrong to take away their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms because they can't help their financial affairs. my amendment would have ended this unjust practice. the amendment would have required before the v.a. can forward the veteran's name to the f.b.i., an appropriate judicial authority must rule that the veteran poses a danger should he not own -- should he to himself or others own a firearm. i am disappointment my amendment were denied. i encourage my colleagues to support legislation that i and the gentleman from texas have introduced called the veterans second amendment protect tex act and restore gun rights to our country's veterans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maine.

ms. pingree: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: i'm pleased to yield to a brilliant new member of this house, the gentleman from hawaii, mr. djou. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from hawaii is recognized. mr. djou: thank you to my colleague from florida. i express my disappointment that my amendment was not allowed to be submitted to this body. i specifically wanted to highlight my amendment which was asking to restore funding for the relocation of american forces away from okinawa to guam as requested by president obama. i think it is a major mistake that this body is not going to support the president's request for relocation of american forces. as a member of the armed services committee and a member that represents a large portion of the pacific fleet in hawaii, i support realignment from oak that roy and guam -- okinawa and guam in h.r. 4822.

the guam realignment would be one of the largest moves of military forces in over a decade. postponement of construction of infrastructure will cause unnecessary delay and threats in our geopolitical positions in the asia pacific region. my amendment was also completely offset by relocating funds from military construction requests that were put above what president obama had asked for. mr. speaker and members, i want to highlight to this body that right now as all of us talk two days ago the united states armed forces began the largest war game operation in the korean peninsula in the yellow sea since the end of the cold war. the reason we entered these war game operations is because of the instability that exist in east asia and the korean peninsula. by failing to support the president in reallocating sufficient funding to establish

new force location in guam, over the short term we might be ok but over the long time this is a major geopolitical mistake this congress is taking. i hope the congress reconsiders it and i hope the senate re-exams it. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from hawaii yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: having no further speakers we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the passage of this rule is a vital step towards improving our military infrastructure and ensuring that the quality of care for our veterans and their families is worthy of their sacrifice. my home state has one of the highest population of veterans per capita in the country. in a state of 1.3 million people, maine is home to over

155,000 veterans. these men and women have served without question, without politics and without hesitation. we must make a promise to them and to all of our veteran that we will do the same. we must provide them with the health care and benefits that they deserve without question, without politics and without hesitation. by passing h.r. 5822, we will begin to keep that promise. i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine yields back the balance of her time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to, and without objection -- mr. diaz-balart: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. diaz-balart: we request 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. 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 the adoption of house resolution 1559 will be followed by five-minute votes on the motion to suspend the rules with regard to h.r. 4692 by the yeas and nays, h.r. 1543 by the yeas and nays, h.r. 5827 by the yeas and nays. this is a 15-minute vote on the adoption of house resolution 1559. members, 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 243. the nays is 178. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is on the vote of the motion of the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5692, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar

number 331. h.r. 4692, a bill to require the president to prepare a quadrennial national manufacturing strategy, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. 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 380. the nays are 86.

without objection --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 379, the nays are 38. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from colorado, mr. polis, to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1543, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house 1543, resolution honoring the educational significance of dr. jane goodall, the 50th anniversary of the beginning of her work in tanzania, africa. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. 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 416, the nays are zero. 2/3 being nate firmtive, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. mccarthy to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5827 as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5827 a bill to amend title 11 of the united states code to include firearms under the types of property allowable under alternative provision for exempting property from the state. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. s that 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 307, the nays are 113. 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 on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from northern mariana island seek recognition? mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent to remove my name from 1528. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. sablan: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 5822. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 1519 and rule 18, the chair delairs the house of the committee of the whole in the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 5822. the chair appoints the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 5822 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, 2011, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from texas, mr. edwards, and the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. edwards: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: without objection. mr. edwards: madam speaker, could i ask for order in the house, please. the chair: the committee will be in order. members will please remove their conversations from the floor.

the committee will be in order. members and staff will please remove their conversations from the floor. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: madam chair, it's a privilege for me to present the fiscal year 2011 military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill. i believe this bill and the work we have done since january of 2007 is a work all of us can be very proud of. in this time of war we have continued our tradition of a bipartisan military construction and veterans affairs appropriation bill. it is honored in a meaningful way to service and sacrifice of our service men and women, their veterans, our veterans and their families. with passage of this fiscal year 2011 bill the congress will have increased veterans health care and benefits funding by 70% in the last 3 1/2 years.

in addition, we have funded a new 21st century g.i. education bill, 510,000 service men and women, veterans and military children have used to further their education. this is an unprecedented increase in congress' commitment to veterans. and in our book, our veterans have earned every dime of this funding. we have among other things increased by 10,200 the number of permanent claims processors in the v.a. to reduce v.a. case backlogs. provided an additional 145 community-based outpatient clinics, built 92 new vet centers and this bill will add 30 mobile vet centers to serve rural communities. allow the veterans health administration to hire an additional 18,000 new doctors and nurses. these resources mean that our veterans have better access to the health care they need and deserve, including improved access in rural areas, increased

access for v.a. health care to low and mid am income vets -- middle income vets. these resources ensure that our veterans receive on a more timely basis the services and benefits that they have earned. we've also worked hard to make sure that our military knows that the congress respects the sacrifices that they and their families have made each and every day to keep our great nation safe. we've heard time and time again in testimony that the best support we can give our military when they are deployed is the knowledge that their families are cared for here at home. we've listened and have funded initiatives such as $2.8 billion for new military hospitals, so our service men and women know that their families will get the best possible health care and high quality facilities. new child care centers to serve 20,000 military children. over $500 million in additional fund funding for barracks because congress needs to show

our volunteer forces from day one that we respect and honor their decision to serve. the subcommittee for military construction and veterans affairs did not accomplish this alone. there are several key leaders who have worked tirelessly behind the scenes to support our efforts. speaker pelosi promised our veterans that they would be a top priority for her and that she -- the fact is she has more than honored that promise. her fingerprints are on every bill that is provided for our military and veptrans in the past 3 1/2 years through our subcommittee and i thank her for her leadership in these efforts. also, we would not have seen the historic funding increases that i have just highlighted were it not for the dedicated support of chairman dave obey who in my book is the unsung hero of america's veterans. i must also salute and want to salute the v.a. committee chairman bob filner for his strong leadership every day on

behalf of america's veterans. he is truly -- he has truly made a difference. lastly but definitely not least our ranking member, mr. wamp of tennessee, has been a vital partner in putting together this bill and last year's bill as well. mr. wamp has a genuine heart for america's service men and women and our veterans and he has championed their cause. it has been a privilege to work with him and also with andrew crenshaw who has filled in when mr. wamp could not be with us in some of our deliberations this year. mr. crenshaw has truly been a partner every step of the way in putting together this bipartisan bill and i thank him for that. and i also thank mr. farr on the democratic side, our vice chairman of our subcommittee who has done an outstanding to be for our veterans and military -- job for our veterans and military. i'd like to outline key initiatives in this bill. it continues an initiative begun last year to provide advanced appropriations for v.a. medical care.

this will allow the v.a. to invest taxpayer dollars more effectively and efficiently and it is a top priority of america's veterans' service organizations. second, we provide $190 million to new troop housing for army trainees. over 60,000 of who are presently living in barracks that don't even meet minimum d.o.d. standards. 18 and 19-year-old military recruit, they don't have many lobbyists running around the halls of capitol hill. but they deserve our nation's respect and support for their decision to serve in our military during a time of war. third, we provide $200 million for a guard and reserve construction initiative, recognizing the vital role these troops are playing in iraq and afghanistan. fourth, the bill provides $1.3 billion in emergency appropriations for military construction at facilities in support of our military operations in afghanistan.

fifth, recognizing the mental wounds of war can sometimes be more painful and long lasting than the physical wounds of combat. we provide $5.2 billion for the v.a. to continue its improvements in ptsd and mental health care for america's veterans. sixth, this bill includes funding for 4,048 new permanent v.a. claims processors in order to help veterans receive their earned benefits on a more timely basis. the secretary of nt initiative i would highlight, this bill also continues to open up v.a. medical care, to more middle and low income veterans, by 292,000 and the number of these veterans receiving v.a. health care since reopening enrollment in 2009. and finally we want to ensure that historic increases in funding for the v.a. are spent wisely. so to increase oversight of the taxpayers' dollars, we provide

an additional $6 million to v.a.'s office of inspector general. madam chair, i'm going to skip over some of the numbers that we have in this bill but i would be remiss if i did not thank the committee staff, very professional committee staff, a dedicated committee staff, for their hard work and long hours during this process. the minority staff, led by martin delgado, liz dawson, and kelly shay, and gilbert from mr. wamp's staff. and the majority staff led by subcommittee clerk tim peterson, walter hern, sue, todd and michelle on my staff. they don't get public credit for the work but the work of this bill would not have been done had it not been for their professionalism and i thank each of them personally. in conclusion this bill keeps our promise to our veterans. that is what the paralyzed

veterans of america, disabled american vet and veterans of foreign wars have said. i quote them in their letter saying, we offer our strong support for the fiscal year 2011 military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill. and we hope that the house will quickly pass this critical legislation. this bill send as clear message to america's service men and women, their families and our veterans that we appreciate and respect their service and sacrifice. madam chair, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i might consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. crenshaw: thank you very much. first let me just say that i rise in support of this appropriations bill, the first appropriations bill that will bring to the floor today -- we'll bring to the floor today

and i think it's an excellent bill. and i'd like to start by thanking chairman edwards not only for his leadership but for the example that he sets, to make every member of this subcommittee feel like they are valued and he's treated everyone with a sense of fairness, it's been an open process, bipartisan process, and we appreciate that very much. i think because of that atmosphere that everything we do in this subcommittee is really geared to make sure that we put the best interests of the men and women in uniform first and put their families first, the veterans and those fallen heroes. i want to say a word about ranking member zach wamp, i'm here in his stead, he's back home in tennessee, trying to represent tennessee in a different way, as governor of the state. even though he's not here, he has been very much a part of this process. i think this bill is a

reflection of his dedication, his commitment to the men and women in uniform. i know that i've heard mr. wamp say on occasion that serving as the ranking member of this subcommittee has been the highest achievement of his career here in the house of representatives. so we wish him well as he leaves. i want to also say a word about mr. young. he's not here today, but he's been a longtime member of this subcommittee and i think chairman edwards agrees again he's been a great champion of the men and women in uniform. he and his wife beverly are often visitors at our military hospitals to see the folks who have come back, the wounded warriors. if he were here, i'm sure he'd stand up and say this is a very good, bipartisan bill. he's recovering from some surgery himself. so i know we all wish him well in this committee. mr. edwards has done a great

job of talking about kind of an overview of what goes on here. i don't want to repeat that. i want to echo his words of congratulations to the staff. we thank everyone for their hard work. but i want to mention a couple of items that were brought up that were concerns that because of the open process, because of the bipartisan nature, that in our subcommittee markup, members had a chance to talk about issues of concern. one was, and mr. edwards mentioned that we found that while we were adding dollars to most of the programs in the v.a., the inspector general was kind of held to last year's level. so we all felt like, it was a bipartisan agreement that the inspector general has so much to offer in terms of oversight, in terms of accountability by doing audits that they ought to have additional resources, so

we added $6 million there. another concern that was raised at the subcommittee level was the v.a. had decided to they wanted to reduce the number of claims processors they had in the new g.i. bill, part of the veterans affairs. you remember when we passed that updated version of the g.i. bill, added benefits, the so important to our veterans, yet we found out that last year there had been quite a bit of problem because of the increased demand on those claims processors. we thought it would be kind of a bad idea to reduce the number of folks that were processing those claims when last year this chaos was created, my office got calls, i know other members got calls because the tuition payments weren't being made in a timely fashion, the claims weren't being processed. sometimes the checks were written by hand and delivered without much accountability. so while we applaud the v.a.

for saying we want to try to do more with less we thought that right now, that would be penny wise and pound foolish. so we added back those claims processors. we want to make sure we get everything done on time. next year, they're estimating the increase been 31k9, over $2.2 million claims made under the new g.i. benefits and we want to make sure they're paid on time. so we added back those individuals. finally, there was a concern about arlington national cemetery. i think a lot of people read about some of the horror stories that went on there we found out the management was really a little bit behind in terms of modern day. so the secretary of the army, john mchugh, acted very swiftly and very forcefully. he came and set up some guidelines we can improve what's going on at arlington national cemetery. mr. young offered an amendment

in the report language to make sure the members of the subcommittee will have a chance to exercise appropriate oversight. so those are areas of concern i think were addressed because -- because of the open process, those amendments were adopted unanimously on a bipartisan basis. i would say from the big picture standpoint, as mr. edwards talked about, i came to congress, i think, primarily because i believed that the number one responsibility of the federal government is to protect american lives. i still believe that today. but what i found when i was assigned to this subcommittee that we also have a sacred responsibility to make sure that the men and women who wear the uniform are treated with respect, that they have adequate housing, they have the quality of life they so richly deserve. so this bill continues the commitment that we've made there. sometimes when you think about military construction projects, you think about a newhan garr

or new dock or ship or landing strip or wharf, but as mr. edwards pointed out, housing is so very vital and we've done a great job and we continue that commitment, whether it's a bare rack or a married housing. we want the housing we'd want our sons and daughters to live in. we're making great progress in that area. i think we all agree we have got the best trained and best equipped military in the world. and we work hard to do that. but we're also beginning to make sure that when people come back that have been under some stress, under unique situations, that they have adequate counseling, that they have those kind of programs that are so very important. i think this bill continues that commitment. finally, i would say a couple of important projects that are funded this year as part of the administration's budget dealing with my district in northeast florida.

there's a naval station, mayport, that the navy has decided to make that home port for a nuclear carrier and so last year, there was money to begin dredging to begin wharf upgrades this year, there's $2 million for planning and design to continue that process. i worked with the chief of naval operations, in fact, spoke with him about a month ago, the navy is still very committed because of national security to make sure we have a -- the ability to disburse our assets, to make sure we have a backup nuclear maintenance facility. also in northeast florida, the marines have a project called blood island where a great deal of materiel goes and comes through that port to the middle east. there's money to upgrate and make that a world class facility. this is a great deal we can all be proud of. it is the result of the leadership of mr. edwards, the

hard work and leader -- leadership of mr. wamp and his hard work, and we have a bill that truly honors our american heroes. it speaks to the people that defend us today. it speaks to those who have returned as veterans and also to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice system of for those reasons, madam chair, i urge everyone to support this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: i'd like to join with my colleague in supporting mr. young of florida. he's not here today but he spent a lifetime working on this. i see also mr. lewis on the

floor, the former chairman of the defense committee and the appropriations committee, i thank him for working on this bill and working on this throughout his long career here in congress in support of our men and women in the armed forces. it's one of the true honors of my lifetime to introduce and recognize chairman david obey. in the last 3 1/2 years, this congress has increased veterans' funding by more than any other 3 1/2 year period in history that would not have happened had it not been for the allocations and personal leadership of david obey. while others of us have been the ones sometimes recognized by veterans groups for our work over these past 3 1/2 years, it's been chairman obey's leadership and partnership with speaker pelosi behind the scenes that made all these new programs, including the funding of the g.i. bill, that's helped over 500,000 service men and

women and veterans and their families. it's been mr. obey's leadership that's made a difference in this process. of his many great legacies, i hope he will always be remembered as a true championship of america's veterans. with that, i yield five minutes to chairman obey. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. obey: i thank the gentleman for his time and for his overblown words and i do bant to extend my best wishes to bill young who is one of the most loved members of this house, one of the most respected. i also want to congratulate the gentleman from texas for the superb job he's done in putting this bill together. it is a well balanced bill and everyone understands the gentleman's convictions and his passionate desire to defend the

interests of american veterans. madam chair, there are more than six million veterans and their families who depend on the department of veterans affairs for medical care or disability payments and education benefits and this bill represent ours obligation to them. it builds on our actions of the last two years which provided the most significant enlargement of education benefits for veterans since the passage of the original g.i. bill of rights. one of the bill's highest priorities is to help cut through the bureaucracy that disabled veterans face over their claims. they shouldn't have to wait months and months for their paperwork to be processed before receiving the benefits owed to them. the bill provides for an additional 4,000 permanent claims processors, 25% increase, work through more than one million disability claims. these resources are especially

needed now that the vietnam veterans will be el visible to file claims for disabilities caused by agent orange. veterans' medical care is the largest component of the bill. according to the v.a., more than 6.1 million patients will be treated in 2011, including nearly 400,000 veterans of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. many people think of veterans health care as being solely focused on physical injuries. we understand now better than ever how combat threatens soldiers' mental health as well. we owe it to every one of them to address not only their physical wounds but also the mental and emotional consequences of war. this bill includes added resources for services to veterans suffering from traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and other mental conditions. full access to this care remains a problem for some

veterans. we're see -- where seeing the right specialist can mean expensive trips and hours and hours in the car. in northern wisconsin, for instance, there are tens of thousands of veterans who cannot regularly see a counselor because there isn't a vet center anywhere near their homes this bill makes critical investments to meet our obligations to them. this bill also addresses the high rate of veterans' homelessness. on any given night last year, 107,000 veterans were homeless. that is shameful. with the goal of ending veterans' homelessness in five years this bill matches the budget requests for homeless assistance grants and services for veterans and their families who need them. at the end of the day, it's important to remember that this bill is not just about dollars and programs, it's about our duty to american veterans to respect their service and sacrifice, not only with

flowery words on the fourth of july, but also with actions like this on days like this that are less noticed but every bit as important. i congratulate the subcommittee for the bill they've produced and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: madam chair, at this time, i'd like to recognize the vice chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on military construction and veterans affairs mr. par of california who has been a champion on this committee for veterans and our troops and fair families and all the issues involved in the subcommittee affairs, i reck him him for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. farr: thank you, mr. chairman. madam speaker and our current acting, ranking member, mr.

crenshaw, thank you for giving me this moment to speak on this very important bill. yesterday, the house of representatives had a very important vote, a very controversial vote and the vote was on funding the war effort in afghanistan. those votes ought to be controversial. whether we go to war, where we go to war, and how long the mission is going to take, those ought to be votes that you can cast for and against. but there's one bill you can't vote against, that's the bill that supports the troops in their residence, in their training, and back here at home. the quality of life that we provide defense personnel, military personnel. this is the bill that funds the child care centers, this is the bill that creates the housing for men and women in uniform, who voluntarily join the service. this is the bill that creates clinics and hospitals, the support system that any kind of community of support and a

special one for military personnel needs. the one can vote against the war, but one cannot vote against the support here at home. and this bill has bipartisan support because it is interested in not home improving the quality of life of military personnel who voluntarily come into the military, but everybody who passes through the department of defense ends up becoming a veteran. you cannot be a veteran without having served in active duty. so now this committee also supports the continuum of care. we ought not to have a silo of defense department quament of care in and a separate silo for veterans. we're making it seamless. we're making it when you enroll in the department of defense, you also automatically enroll in the department of veterans affairs. department of veterans affairs takes care of you the rest of your life and we owe it to any man and woman who has ever served in the military, to provide them the promises that were made. these promises were made but the quality of care here to now has

not been that great. it has changed. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. farr: please support this appropriations bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: continue to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: madam chair, i'd now like to recognize for a minute and a half, a very important member of our appropriations subcommittee, mr. salazar, who has been a real champion for our vets and our troops. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sali: thank you, madam chair. i want to -- mr. salazar: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to thank ranking member wamp and mr. crenshaw for their valued efforts in putting this bill together. i don't think that i've had a greater honor than to serve on a committee of this type where we all work together in a bipartisan manner. chairman edwards and ranking

member wamp and mr. crenshaw and all of us have worked very hard on veterans and their families, all 17 1/2 million living veterans in the united states should applaud you for your diligent work as you fight for those who have provided us freedom. madam chair, as the chairman mentioned, it's important to recognize the bipartisanship and fiscal responsibility in this bill. with bureaucratic 2005 being completed, the sub-- with brac 2005 being completed, the bill included a total of $57 billion, an increase of nearly $4 billion, for veterans, medical care, disability and educational benefits. veterans in colorado are a mainly winner in this bill again thanks to the president of the subcommittee for their continued support of a new v.a. medical center in denver, colorado. again, i want to thank all those members who continue to fight for the good fight for our veterans and military personnel. thank you again, mr. chairman,

and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i yield myself one minute and would ask mr. edwards if he would engage in a brief colloquy. it's my understanding that the committee authorized a study in march to review various portions of the veterans health administration and as i understand the committee has just received the report, once the report has been analyzed by the committee staff, i believe it would be important that as we move this veterans appropriations bill forward we use the recommendations in the report, if feasible, to provide oversight, better oversight, better transparency, to the health care spending at the v.a. mr. edwards: will the gentleman yield? mr. crenshaw: i yield. mr. edwards: i want to thank the gentleman both for the points he's making now and his focus on oversight. as we have provided these historic increases in veterans funding over the last several years, working together on a bipartisan basis, i think it is

also very important that we see that those tax delares are -- tax dollars are spent wisely, efficiently and effectively. i've been concerned for some time that the large increases we've provided the v.a. health care system has not always made their way down to individual hospitals on a very rapid basis, as quickly as we'd like. the chair: the gentleman from florida. does the gentleman wish to yield himself more additional time? his time has expired. mr. crenshaw: i yield myself an additional minute. please continue. mr. edwards: i thank the gentleman. because of that and our work together we ask the s&i staff to do this study to help us understand the process the department's using in distributing money and to highlight areas where we can exert more oversight if necessary to ensure the efficient use of taxpayer dollars. the report just completed is quite large and in the coming weeks staff on both sides of the aisle will be evaluating it to determine how its

recommendations can be incorporated into our final bill and report. i certainly look forward to working with the gentleman on examining that report and seeing how we can incorporate some of his ideas into the final conference report on this bill. mr. crenshaw: sthau. i continue to reserve my time -- thank you. i continue to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: madam chair, i rise to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from indiana and would yield to mr. donnelly. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. donald donald thank you marks dam chair. i -- mr. donnelly: thank you marks dam chair. i want to thank the chairman. as we all know, there are veterans across the country including thousands in my district who are forced to drive long distances to receive the medical care they earned through their service to the nation. but i understand that included in this bill is $5 million for the v.a. health care center advanced planning account which would go toward new v.a. health

care centers and which could help these veterans. i wonder if the chairman wouldn't mind going into some detail on this item. mr. edwards: i want to thank the gentleman for his hard work on behalf of our veterans. he's been a leader on these issues and thanks to you, mr. donnelly, this bill directs $15 million that you referenced to planning the v.a. health care centers across the country. it's an innovative way to make more services available to veterans locally. i understand that among the locations due to having new v.a. health care center in south bend in the gentleman's district and south bend's demonstrated need for such expansion of v.a. health care services was noted by the committee in its report language. furthermore, the committee expects that this account will be utilized by the v.a. as soon as possible. mr. donnelly: thank you so much and for your leadership. eds ed thank you. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is

recognized. mr. crenshaw: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: madam chair, i'd now like to recognize mr. murphy who has worked very hard on behalf of our veterans and troops. for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you to you and the committee for bringing this bill before us. there's $13 billion in this legislation for construction. that's more in the last four years combined than any four-year period since the 1940's. that will mean transformal things for our veterans. i want to briefly highlight this afternoon what it will mean for the people that will do that work. we've lost two million construction jobs in this recession and the associated general contractors of america estimate that almost 400,000 construction jobs could be created just by this bill alone. that's good news for jobs in this country.

but we can have even better news if we make sure that the materials used to build those buildings are bought here in america as well. many of us have been working very hard on reinforcing our buy america law. this construction funding presents us with a unique opportunity to not only serve our veterans, not only honor our commitment to them but also grow the types of jobs in construction and construction materials that this economy badly needs. i'm so thankful to the chairman for all of his work bringing the bill before him and what it will mean for jobs. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida voiced. mr. crenshaw: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: the gentleman is awful reserved today. never reserved when it comes to standing up for our vets and i thank him for that. madam chair, there are several other speakers on our side of the aisle who said they would like to speak but perhaps we've progressed more quickly than they thought.

i think we do have -- ok. we do have a member of the appropriations committee, mr. rodriguez of texas, who is a texas member of the appropriations committee, is invocal in his strong support of our veterans and troop it's and i'd like to recognize him for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. rodriguez: thank you very much. i wanted to take this opportunity to come down to the house floor and congratulate our chairman, congressman chad edwards, on his efforts in this y. i feel really elated in term it's of the amount of resources that we have been able to put for our veterans. having been on the veterans' committee and the appropriations side and the authorizing side, i had the opportunity to witness the situation that we suffered on when we had to do the co-payments and require our veterans to come up and pay co-payments. we cut category eight veterans from that, in addition not only

that, but we asked them to pay for additional fees for services and in the last three years, you know, it's been a turnaround and this bill provides resources there for the first time, it allows an opportunity for us to be able to look at our infrastructure and improve on those areas that are out there. we have a good number of hospitals out there that are lacking on infrastructure and i'm hoping that in the few fur we continue to do this. this bill -- future we continue to do this. this bill puts us on the right track to provide additional resources and i want to thank him personally also. i know he's been able to put additional resources in creating additional trauma centers. we have four in the nation. now we have a fifth in texas. and so i want to thank him personally. there in san antonio, for the trauma center that has had the resources to be able to begin to provide those needed items that our veterans need. i also want to thank him also for putting the resources there

and just advertise the fact that just in the last year and a half we have over 240,000 veterans that are now taking advantage of the g.i. bill and this is a tremendous bill. we expect to have over half a million veterans that have participated in the g.i. bill and that in the future will show a tremendous amount of positiveness when those individuals get their bachelor's, their master's and their doctorate degrees when they move forward. in addition to that bill it allows their kids and spouses to take advantage. congratulates -- congratulations on the great work that you've been doing. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i would continue to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: madam chair, i'd now like to recognize mr. hall who is a leading voice of america's veterans on the veterans' affairs authorizing committee. i'd like to recognize him for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new york voiced for two minutes. mr. hall: thank you, madam speaker, thank you, mr. chairman.

on behalf of the veterans of the hudson valley of new york and all those who have served our country in uniform, i'm strongly supportive of the bill which we're considering today. it's a solemn contract that we who do not serve in uniform, we've enjoyed the benefits of their sacrifice and their personal risk and their families doing without them, need to uphold our part of the bargain which is to take care of them any time after their return. and therefore i think it's really critical that we pass this bill to fund not just military construction but veterans facilities. we don't know yet what the cost will be from the conflicts we're currently engaged in.

unfortunately our country has a habit of deciding to go into a conflict without an educated, informed figure being given out or a guess even that's very accurate as to what the lifetime cost may be for care of the veterans created by that conflict. but it's essential that we protect those veterans facilities, that we have and improve them as needed, construct new ones as needed. and i'm concerned first of all with passing the underlying bill, and secondly i'm also concerned with some amendments that have been offered to this bill which i will speak to later when the amendments are being considered. which move money from what's considered to be or what's called minor construction and particularly from an urgent care center and m c