and to other things which sound and are good in and of themselves. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hall: i'm concerned -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hall: thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: thank you marks dam chair. i continue to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the chair recognizes that the gentleman from florida has 20 minutes remaining and the gentleman from texas has six minutes remaining. mr. edwards: madam chair, i'd like to recognize mr. kennedy of rhode island for five minutes and as he approaches the well let me just thank him. this will be his last year to be in the house, a member of this committee, and he has been an inspiration to veterans throughout america and to every member of our subcommittee on both sides of the aisle and his championing the cause of mental health care services and other services for our veterans, care

for our homeless veterans and i thank the gentleman. it will be a legacy that will live on for many decades to come. . mr. kennedy: i thank the chairman and ranking member. ladies and gentlemen, if our soldiers were caught behind enemy lines, we would think nothing of mounting the full might of military power, to go in and retrieve those members of our military. in fact, every american would wrap yellow ribbons around their tree in solidarity in order we may set those prisoners of war free, in order to bring back

those hostages of the hall tan or the terrorists or whom ever may have captured them. but, ladies and gentlemen, something is going on in this country, something very tragic. our military, our veterans affairs everybody talks a good game, talks a very good game of patriotism when it comes to saying when we are going to stand by our guardians of freedom. well, those guardians of freedom aren't free themselves. they may have come home in body, but they have not come home, many of them, in mind. they are suffering, suffering from the signature wound of this war. what is that? traumatic brain injury. what is that?

post-traumatic stress disorder. my colleagues, these veterans, in essence, are being held hostage. they're being held hostage all over this great country. theyr in essence, prisoners of war. they are prisoners of this war. prisoners of traumatic brain injury and its symptoms, many symptoms. loss of memory, loss of cognitive ability and the symptoms that ensue. many of them self-med indicate, many of them isolate. why? because these injuries are invisible, invisible to the naked eye but not invisible to anybody who loves them. these are real injuries. they are injuries that can turn their lives upside down. all of the commanders in d.o.d.

say they're doing something about it. i'm not seeing it. in fact, i was briefed a year ago, on some neuroscience drug that is used to treat bleeding in the intestines, to reduce swelling. they thought it may reduce swelling of a concussion and onset of swelling in the brain. guess what? it proved to be effective. initial findings showed if this were the battle of aids that drug would have been in the field helping our sholed years. but no, we don't have the urgency we have with aids. somehow, we don't have the urgency when it comes to our veterans and the signature of

this war wound that we bring when it comes to something like aids. we don't set aside partisan, we don't set aside the value of someone's proprietary research concerns. when are we going to make our special interests the veteran? there's nothing dirty about special interests so long as we make it the right one. when are we going to agree there is one special interest. in this town, there should be no disagreement about, and that's the veteran. when are we going to say with our actions, not just our words, that the veteran is the one who counts. when are we going to release them from terror, the terror and

tyranny of their bondage, of their disability because they served us? ladies and gentlemen, this study showed that if you reduce the swelling in the brain, you can reduce the long-term impacts the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kennedy: 15 more seconds. mr. kennedy: it reduces the ability for a bruce that is absorbed by the regular body to be absorbed by the brain. this drug helps reduce the swelling. the d.o.d. has the obligation to implement it. they are not, they should and ought to. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i continue to reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is

recognized. mr. edwards: if i could inquire, i believe i have less than a minute left, is that correct? the chair: the gentleman has 45 seconds. mr. edwards: i would like to retain the right to close if the gentleman has any other speakers or would like to make his closing comments, i will finish off with my time remaining and then move into the amendments. mr. crenshaw: thank you. i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. crenshaw: we have heard today what a well-balanced bill this is as we said in the beginning and it demonstrates and it's an example of what happens when people come together in an open process, in a fair process, in a bipartisan process. i think this bill demonstrates the work that we can do when we work together.

so, again, i'm honored to be part of this process, to work with the chairman, ranking member. i urge everyone to support this bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: i want to finish by thank mr. crenshaw for his leadership on this and working together and on so many parts of this bill and doing so in a bipartisan manner. and we thanked a lot of people in this process. it has been a work of good faith from both sides of the aisle. i want to save the best of the last and thanking our veteran service organizations and their partnership in putting together this legislation. i would like to ask unanimous consent to add two letters, one from the d.a.v., paralyzed veterans of america and another from the president of the national guard association of the united states in support of this legislation.

the chair: the gentleman's request is covered under general leave. all time for general debate has expired. purn to the rule, the bills to be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and the bill should be considered read through page 63, line four. no amendment is in order except those printed in house report 111-570. each amendment may be offered in the order printed in the report. may be offered by a member designate nd the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and opponent and should not be subject for demand for division of the question. after consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their zessig knee may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the proponent.

it is now in order to consider amendment number one, printed in house report 111-570. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. holt: i have amendment number one at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report 111-570 offered by mr. holt of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1559, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. holt: i want to thank the rules committee for making this amendment in order and for the strong support and encouragement i received in this effort from the chairman of the military construction and veteran affairs subcommittee. mr. edwards' leadership of the subcommittee and his concern and compassion and advocacy for the needs of veterans is truly an inspiration. madam chair, we have few

responsibilities as solemn and as important in ensuring that our veterans receive the care that we have promised them as a nation. to that end, my amendment directs the department of veterans affairs to allocate $20 million for direct advertising, the use of online social media and other media for suicide prevention outreach. let me take a moment to tell you why this issue means so much to me and i would like to tell you about one family from my central new jersey congressional district. a little over a week ago on july 14, i had the privilege of introducing mrs. linda bean of east brunswick, new jersey. linda was appearing before the oversight and investigation subcommittee to say how her son came to take his own life in september of 2008. lippeda made it clear why she traveled to washington to, i

would say share her family's painful story. quote, i owe a duty to my son and our debt to the men with whom cole man served. he was a two-tour veteran of operation iraq freedom. like so many of our troops, he developed post-traumatic stress disorder. in between and after those tours, he sought treatment for his ptsd. ballings sergeant bean was a member of the individual ready reserve, the i.r.r., a pool of soldiers not assigned to any unite but asigned for mobilization, he could not get treatment for his condition because the department of defense and veterans refused to take ownership of sergeant bean and the thousands like him. a few weeks after coleman took his life, the v.a. called to

confirm his appointment. as linda closed her testimony before the house veterans committee, she relayed how one v.a. official had told her, if they won't walk through the door, we can't help them. linda's response must be our response. of course we can help them. it is our duty to figure out how, not theirs. earlier this year, i secured the inclusion of a suicide prevention provision in the annual defense authorization bill that would require the secretary of defense to conduct periodic telephone or in-person outreach and counseling calls to reservists like coleman. the idea is to check on the i.r.r. members' well-being and treat any i.r.r. members who are deemed to be at risk for harming themselves. because the other body has failed to act on the fiscal year

2011 authorization, i have sent a letter to secretary gates asking he takes whatever administrative action is necessary to reach out and monitor this large pool of at-risk reservists and ask they meet with the beans and explain in detail what those departments intend to do to prevent other iraq and afghanistan war veterans from suffering coleman's fate. our commitment to reduce suicide must be comprehensive and un wavering. this is designed to give the v.a. resources and the direction to get appropriate, broad-based outreach under way as soon as president obama signs this bill. i hope this amendment will be supported on a bipartisan basis, because, as linda bean says, it's not their job to figure out, it's ours. and now i yield so much time as he may consume to chairman

edwards. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: i commend the gentleman for his leadership. it is a heartbreaking tragedy every time a veteran takes his or her life as a result of their service to our country and i look forward to working with the gentleman and mr. crenshaw and mr. wamp to see that we do more than everything that is already being done to see that we stop and prevent suicides from occurring. if we save one life, then the gentleman's and our service here in congress will be time well served. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman. in closing, i would say -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. holt: i thank the speaker. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. crenshaw: i would like to claim time in opposition, but i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. .

mr. crenshaw: i commend the gentleman for offering this amendment. i think so often we have resources that are available, like this, that sometimes our veterans are not aware of. and so i think we made great strides in dealing with we have a suicide prevention hotline. we're working every day. i think he makes an excellent point that so often people are not aware of the services that might avail themselves to. so i commend him for this, and i would certainly favor this amendment so that we can get the word out to know that we're trying to help folks. so with that i -- yes, i'd yield to the gentleman the balance of my time. mr. kennedy: i want to join and pay tribute to mr. holt for this amendment and also to the chairman, chairman edwards, for

his diligence to this mental health issue in the bill. as i said earlier, these wounds may be invisible but they are not invisible to the members of our uniform who are suffering from them. i think it may not come to surprise to most people that those service members dying of suicide outnumber those who are killed in action. and that does not include our veterans. it wasn't until this defense bill that we just passed that we included provisions that the president of the united states would actually send a letter of condolence to the family of those who had taken their life in the field. and we all know what the pressures are on those individuals. more tours of duty, longer times away from their families and more stress. the fact of the matter is i think that this work that

you're doing is to be commended. i think it's important for everyone to note that this historic health bill that we just passed will encompass 72% of all veterans will get their care thanks to this congress' work to include mental health parity in the health care reform bill that was just passed. 72% of all vets will never see the v.a. for their health care, but rather through private health insurance, and this congress passed legislation making it illegal for them to be discriminated against based upon health status, whether it be mental, physical, and we all know mental now is a neurological disorder. so thanks again for your good work. again, thank you to the chairman and ranking member for their good work on this. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. crenshaw: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-570. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. buyer: i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 111-570 offered by mr. buyer of indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1559, the gentleman from indiana, mr. buyer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. buyer: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in support of my amendment to h.r. 5822. this amendment will provide $10

million in the v.a. vocational expense account. the goal is to put disabled veterans back to work and for the most severely disabled to live as independently as possible. i would ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks . the chair: without objection. mr. buyer: i will submit them for the record. at this point i will yield to the chairman. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: i want to thank mr. buyer for this amendment. without this amendment, the v.a. will actually be reducing at the very worst time the number of vocational rehab v.a. employees. we ought to be increasing those numbers, and that's what we will be doing for this. particularly given a lot of our troops coming back from iraq and afghanistan are having difficult times finding jobs, they need this support. the v.a. gets a lot of things right, but i don't think they got part of their budget right. i support the amendment.

mr. buyer: with the chairman's support i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. does any member seek time in opposition? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana, mr. buyer. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 111-570. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. buyer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 111-570 offered by mr. buyer of indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1559, the gentleman from indiana, mr. buyer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. buyer: i have -- i ask unanimous consent to modify -- the chair: the clerk will report the modification. mr. buyer: i have a modification to the amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amendment number 3 printed in house report 111-570 offered by mr. buyer of indiana. the amendment as modified is as follows -- page 54, after line , insert the following -- section, of the amounts made available for fiscal year 2011 for medical facilities in public law 111-117, $162,734,000 shall be available for renewable energy products at the department of veterans affairs medical facility campuses subject to section

8103 of title 38, united states code. the chair: is there objection to the modification? if not, the amendment is modified. the gentleman from indiana. mr. buyer: thank you very much. i'll now proceed on the modified amendment. after discussions with chairman edwards and with the ranking member, mr. crenshaw, we've all agreed to a better way forward on the amendment. i appreciate your efforts on the modification. accordingly, what we're seeking to do here is overcome some challenges that we have with regard to the advanced appropriation and how dollars can be dedicated to particular uses. and so the appropriations committee has worked with me and for that i am deeply appreciative. i want to express my thanks to chairman edwards and to mr. crenshaw. both of you have been very good

friends. i respect your leadership, and i appreciate your good faith in working with myself and my staff. over the years, the 18 years that i've been here and the years that i have been privileged to work in leadership as chairman and as ranking member, i have respected the cooperation, the interoperability and cooperation between the appropriations' staff and the authorizers. it's worked really, really well. at times they can disagree but they can professionally work it out, and i've been impressed by that. and it has continued. so i want to thank you for that. and this is a prime example. this is one of them whereby i look back to 2008 when we wanted to do these renewable energy projects and you were challenged at the time because the speaker didn't want renewable energy projects in the bill but you agreed that this was something that we needed to do and we tried to figure out how we could do it. so i recognize it couldn't be

done at the time but it was something you all impressed and supported and i went down the street like i said i wanted to do and met with the secretary and we did 166 these renewable energy projects. then we come back in 2009, you and i do a colloquy and we're $147 million already down the road. that's how far into this we are now, chairman edwards and mr. crenshaw, and this is a good thing. the v.a. is such a very large enterprise, large consumer of energy and being the second largest department here of government, what you're doing here in this green management and renewable energy, geothermal, wind, solar, this is smart. this is -- it really is. it's smart what you're doing. and so i really want to thank you for doing this. we've got more project identified.

there are around 60. these moneys will allow the v.a. to stay on track, on their timelines, and i really appreciate you working with me to do this. i yield to the gentleman. mr. edwards: i just want to commend mr. buyer for his leadership. this is not the first time he's come to the floor fighting for renewable energy project and conservation projects for the v.a. and as he leaves congress at the end of this congress, i want to thank him for this effort. every dollar we save by conservation investments and renewable energy investments is a dollar that's either back into the taxpayers' back or a dollar that goes back to provide better health care for america's veterans. so that's why i'm enthusiastic in my support of this amendment, i commend the gentleman for his authorship of it. mr. buyer: reclaiming my time. i also want to extend my appreciation to the secretary, mr. shinseki, for his support and the previous secretary.

i yield back since the chairman is in support of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields. does anyone seek time in opposition? hearing none, the question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment, as modified, is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-570. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. buyer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the chair: -- the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-570 offered by mr. buyer of indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1559, the gentleman from indiana, mr. buyer, and a

member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. buyer: madam chair woman, i rise today in support of my amendment, h.r. 5822, as reported. this would provide $10 million in v.a. general operating expense funding for the v.a. paralympics adaptive sports program for disabled veterans. we restructured the united states olympic committee. once we did that by the relationships that developed by the reorganization of the lp -- olympic committee we then become a nation of war. i then sought to revive these relationships with the v.a. and their sports programs and i looked at this how can we use sports as a platform for healing, and when i look back on this, yes, we moved out and

we embraced it. i probably -- i started at the top and probably should have started at the bottom. i started where i started and it was with the olympics, the olympic committee. not everyone is an olympian. i mean, that's the reality of this. you know, not everyone was blessed with an olympic body or the mind or the will, but it's how do i -- how do we as a nation use sports as a platform for healing? and most of our warriors are athletes, and so when they get injured how do we inspire them? and now when we brought the olympic committee and the sports programs from the v.a. together, we were able to leverage that whereby our military athletes then could actually have an avenue to be part of the olympic team. and that has in fact happened and has been done.

now, last year -- and i want to thank chairman edwards. you supported the $10 million that went into this adaptive sports program. the olympic committee helps with this grant program now to take the same ideal, the olympic ideal and move it throughout all the communities in the country. and so an individual of whom may not be an owe livian can be an owe -- olympian can be an olympian of their own community, you know, can actually compete. it's not -- it's that competition, it's not the winning, it's, have you improved yourself, have you bettered your time? and making someone feel good about this, this adaptive sports program whereby it's done at the local level and then builds up is really good. and this is a very good program. we're at our infancy. i want to thank the chairman and -- for supporting this last time. so the concept i think is

pretty simple. . this is a picture of disabled veterans running the 100-meter dash. and when you see this, we have a mixture here. this gentleman -- this is below the ankle. here is below the knee amputation, and this is a double amputation. and they are sprinting the 100-meter dash. think about the inspiration that they have. these warrior athletes truly remarkable. i want to show you another photo of a double a.m. pew tee. -- amputee. and this was in can cufere in

march of this year. he was a army ranger. he was wounded while serving in iraq and lost both legs as a result of that attack. his grandfather served in world war ii and his father in vietnam. he then sought to serve his country and lost both legs and dedicated himself then to overcome this challenge and made the united states olympic team and competed in vancouver. so these olympians mentor and inspire others. so this is remarkable. this is building off the olympic ideal to help our warriors and we are achieving the goal and that is use sports as a platform for healing. $10 billion can be a lot of money, but talking about what we get out of this, the intangibles we can get out of this, when these men and women feel so good

about themselves and take their bodies to new levels. guess what? they feel good about their families, their jobs. and our goal here is to make sure that they can live as full a life as they possibly can and i yield to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. cry fer -- mr. crenshaw: i claim time in opposition not necessarily opposing this amendment. i just wanted to say that i think this is a wonderful program. i'm a little bit aware of that, because in my home district in jacksonville, florida, there is an organization called wounded warriors and work in conjunction with this program and i have met and seen some of these wounded warriors and the thing i hear over and over again, they say this gives us our spirit back. we can compete and enjoy life and be with our families.

and i think it's something that is very, very worth while and commend the gentleman for bringing it up. mr. edwards: i want to commend you and mr. buyer. these photographs are an inspiration to all of us, to our veterans and wounded warriors, but to every american. this program is inspirational. i am in full support of this amendment. i also want to thank mr. buyer, along with mr. perlmutter and mr. langevin who over the last several of years have been champions of this program. and i'm honored to support the amendment. mr. crenshaw: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the yeas have it.

the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number five printed in house report 111-570, for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. cuellar: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five printed in house report 111-570 offered by mr. cuellar of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1559, the gentleman from texas, mr. cuellar, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. cuellar: my amendment is a commonsense amendment and ensures no taxpayer dollars will be used to purchase first class tickets for employees of agencies funded by this bill except in special circumstances as allowed under law. this is important because it prohibits the first-class

traveler and references the code of federal regulations to prohibit this type of premium travel for federal employees. this is a way to save taxpayer dollars and the chairman is in agreement. mr. edwards: would the gentleman yield? mr. cuellar: yes. mr. edwards: i am glad to support this amendment. mr. cuellar: i have no further business on this amendment and i yield back. the chair: does any member seek time in opposition to the amendment? hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number six printed in house report 111-570. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will

designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number six printed in house report 111-570 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1559, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes, the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: thank you madam chair. this amendment is straightforward and it would prevent the earmarks and return the funds to the original account. i'm not here to dispute the merits of these projects. i have no doubt these projects are worth while and improve the quality of life for our service members and their families, but that is not what is at issue here. it is the spoils system that this process of earmarking represents. this year's military construction v.a. appropriation bill shows the spoil system is alive and well. it's happened in previous years and it's no different this year.

the only difference here is basically just one party engaging in it. and so the spoils are even more concentrated and fewer members. powerful members represent -- let me just put this chart up here. these are the fy 2011 earmark dollars associated with powerful members of congress, those on the appropriations committee, those in leadership or those who are chairmen of committees and if you look at the appropriation bills that have go through the subcommittee or full committee, you see this spoil system in action here. this looks like a pac-man chart here with a hungry pac man. and the red represents the earmark dollars. 5 % go to just 13% of this body.

agriculture, 76%. h.u.d., 42% and milcon-v.a., 51%, more than half of the earmark doll ars are going to 13% of the members of this body. that is not right. we shouldn't be doing this. yet year after year we do it. no matter what kind of reforms we enact, we have the spoil system alive and well. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. any member seek time in opposition to this amendment? mr. edwards: madam chair, i would like to claim in time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. edwards: madam chair, i respect the gentleman. he takes principal position on congressesally-sponsored projects, but i strongly oppose this amendment. the flake amendment, despite its intentions or regardless of its intentions would cut $163 million out of important military construction projects, the national guard and reserves, which are playing a key role in our war in iraq and afghanistan. this amendment would cut $57 million out of force protection, safety and security forces' facilities, including more secure entrance gates, fire stations to protect our troops and families on posts. the flake amendment would cut $30 million from quality of life facilities earned and deserved by our troops, bar racks, roads. and it cuts 44 projects that are in the department of defense future years' defense program.

one of the programs this would cut is $1 million i put in this bill as an earmark to provide for a new soldier readiness processing center at fort hood so those soldiers will not have to go through a processing center, which was the site of the murder of 12 army comrades just months ago. a yes vote on this amendment will cut these kipeds of worthy projects. now, mr. flake will claim and has claimed that d.o.d. will have the money to spend but that's not correct because this amendment is flawed in the way it's drafted. let me say, let's get rid of the pretense that cutting earmarks would save taxpayer dollars. but the reality is because of the flawed nature and the way this amendment was put together, it would be the worst of both worlds. one, it wouldn't save taxpayer dollars because the

appropriations would go to the department of defense, but because it would be in an account for programs not authorized. that money could not be spent for all of the worth while kinds of projects that i have just mentioned. let me put in perspective what we are talking about here. this is $140 billion bill. less than 3/10 of 1% of this bill were designated by members of congress, working with community leaders, military leaders and military base leaders. if i could ask my staff for the chart and show what a small part of this total bill goes to congressesally sponsored projects. mr. flake has more trust in the obama administration than i did. i don't think bureaucrats in washington are right 100% of the time. and it's not wrong, in fact, it's right to say that members of congress, working with

military leaders and community leaders ought to have some voice in where their taxpayer dollars go. i want to point out, this graph shows how much is spent in this bill. the part of the bill that mr. flake is objecting to is the red part right here. probably from that side of the aisle, it would be hard to see it. but i want people to understand that the administration gets a voice on this amount of money in the bill. members of congress working with military leaders get a voice on this amount. this is what we're talking about. but i want to talk and say that this amount is significant, because if this amendment were to pass, and i hope it will not and i do not believe it will, it would harm important quality of life and protection projects for our servicemen and women and it would kill a major initiative in this bill to increase funding for the national guard and reserves, who are playing a vitally important role in iraq

and afghanistan. may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. edwards: i yield that time to mr. ortiz. mr. ortiz: i rise in opposition to the flake amendment. this amendment would seek to strike certain modifications to the military construction appropriations bill. i believe that it is essential that this body work with the administration and determine a budget that is best for the nation. i believe the process that my subcommittee chairman has put in place accomplishes this goal. for example, the project that this amendment will seek to strike has been individually reviewed by the administration and the way it's going to be executed. the projects are carefully compared against a very long list of requirements of the department of defense. this project has been included

in the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2011 that this body has done in the past. finally, all of these military construction projects are included at the end of this process including all of the projects that this amendment seeks to strike. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona has three minutes remaining. mr. flake: i would yield 30 seconds to the gentleman. mr. ortiz: we are involved in two wars. we have soldiers in 120 countries. you know. whatever we do today, let's do it for our service people, they are my sons and daughters who are serving our country. thank you so much. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized.

mr. flake: you know, i plan to withdraw this amendment. i planned to from the beginning. what i wanted to do was come down here and explain the spoil system that this kind of earmarking represents. the problem -- the gentleman mentioned that this amendment is crafted in a way that it would prohibit the spending of money on these projects. it would. the problem is there is no way to craft an amendment that wouldn't do that. so what we have here is a situation where we simply can't go in and say, this is a good earmark, and this is not. not through this process. that's part of the whole flawed aspect of what we're doing here and why we need to change this. but the gentleman is correct, we shouldn't give the administration a free ride to say this is where things ought to be spent. we have the power of the purse. this is article i stuff and we ought to exercise it. the problem i have is we basically exercise authority over that much of it and leave

the administration with this, instead of saying through the process of authorization, appropriation and oversight, we have more control over what the administration is doing. instead we say, we don't like the way you're spending this money. we say that to the executive branch, so we're going to run a little parallel track in the congress where we determine where this much goes and then when we determine where this much goes, 51% of it goes to just 13% of this body. . mr. edwards: i do respect his principle on this. the reason we don't spread out earmarks evenly among 435 members is military bases in the united states is not spread out evenly among 435 congressional districts. so it is logical and it makes sense and it's good policy that members that represent military bases get more earmarks than members that don't represent military bases. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. that's a valid point.

although i'd argue that members with military bases don't necessarily align with the 13% represented in this chart. i would, again, before asking unanimous consent to withdrawal this amendment make the case that we are dealing with another appropriation bill tomorrow that is cleaner than this one in terms of being able to target earmarks and prohibit funding for them and actually save money. this -- the way this bill is structured makes it difficult to do that, but i recognize it. i just wanted to make the point and then to drive it home again through the process of authorization, appropriation and oversight we can do a far better job. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. flake: i would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman's amendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-570. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition?

mr. hill: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-570 offered by mr. hill of indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1559, the gentleman from indiana, mr. hill, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. hill: thank you, madam speaker. and i want to thank chairman edwards for crafting this critically important bill for our nation's veterans. my amendment simply removes funding from the v.a. general operating expense account and puts it back in the very same account. my intent in doing this is to highlight an issue for my colleagues and for the v.a. i believe that the v.a. needs to examine its practice in how it accounts for return post-9/11 gimplet benefit payments and they should submit letter no later than january 1, 2011, on changes they intend to make to ensure accurate, timely and efficient accounting of any

return post-9/11 g.i. benefit payments. i, along with many of my colleagues, enthusiastically supported the post-9/11 assistant act of 2008. this provides qualified veterans with a full four-year college scholarship, restoring a commitment our country paid to our world war ii era veterans. i believe that the post-9/11 g.i. bill can spark another period of economic growth and prosperity for the current generation of veterans, much like the montgomery g.i. bill did for the previous generation of veterans. that is why i believe it is so critical that this law be implemented accurately. i understand that the v.a. legitimately requires some payments to veterans and universities to be returned. there can be instances of a student taking fewer classes than what was originally thought. accidentally duplicating payments. this is a reasonable -- this is reasonable to an extent. i believe that these funds need

to be counted for accurately. however, this is a two-way street. it has come to my attention that there has been some difficulty with the v.a. to properly and accurately account for returned payments from universities and veterans alike. in some instances, this has resulted in the v.a. withholding further post-9/11 educational benefit payments to the student in question as they are credited with an outstanding debt, despite having already paid back the necessary accounts. this is even after the returned checks have been cashed by the v.a. this issue needs to be addressed in a timely manner. i do not believe that the v.a. is acting with any malice in this measure, far from it. i applaud the work that the v.a. is doing to improve the lives of veterans. they deserve this benefit but they deserve for it to work for them. with that i would like to yield to the chairman, mr. edwards, for the purpose of a colloquy. mr. edwards: i thank the gentleman. i support this amendment.

through no one's malicious intentions, students or veterans, service men and women using the new 21st century g.i. bill are punished for mistakes they did not make. perhaps paperwork mistakes by school administration or by the v.a. the result can be sometimes students can have halted their additional g.i. benefits in order to continue college. this is really an important issue. i salute the gentleman. we're going to see that this issue is solved with his leadership, and i look forward to working with him. mr. hill: i thank the chairman for his support. this issue was brought to my attention by indiana university, which is a university i represent back home in indiana. i've also been working with a community college, ivy tech in indiana, with the same problem. i thank the chairman for his support of this amendment. i encourage my colleagues to support it as well. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. does any member seek time in opposition to the amendment? hearing none, the question is

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 111-570. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. gingrey: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 111-570 offered by mr. gingrey of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1559, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: madam chairman, thank you. my amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to exercise eminent domain

without just compensation to the individuals involved. this is necessary because the keylo vs. the city of london supreme court decision expanded the so-called public use provision of the takings clause of the fifth amendment. this decision allows state and local governments to practice eminent domain for the benefit of one private party over another. in this specific case, madam chairman, the city of new london, connecticut, used its eminent domain authority to actually seize private property to sell to private developers in order to aid a struggling economy in the name of economic development but not specifically in the traditional interpretation of public use. justice john paul stevens' majority opinion states that the fifth amendment does not require a literal public use.

however, the fifth amendment of the document this nation holds sacred, and i have it right here with me all the time, madam speaker, the fifth amendment of this document clearly reads, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. this decision represents the disparity between constitutional interpretation and, yes, judicial activism. government should compel an individual for public property for the public use but not for the benefit of another private person. i agree with the views in the case which point out that the decision is an intrusion in the private citizens' lives and it picks winners and losers in the private market at the cost of an individual losing their personal property. madam chairman, according to the fifth amendment of the constitution, all levels of

government have a responsibility and a moral obligation to defend the property rights of individuals and only exercise eminent dough nain when it's necessary for -- domain when it's necessary for public use. the literal interpretation of public use, and then just compensate is paid to those affected individuals. any use of eminent dough nain by state and local government -- domain by state and local governments that does not adhere to these laws is an abuse of power and the abuse of property rights as defined in the fifth amendment. so my amendment would take one step toward assuring the property rights of citizens are protected and they are justly compensated when they are taken for public use. with that, madam speaker -- mr. edwards: will the gentleman yield? mr. gingrey: i will be glad to yield to the gentleman from texas. mr. edwards: i want to thank the gentleman. i will support his amendment. i want to make it clear there

is nothing to my knowledge in this bill intended to allow the exercise of eminent domain without payment of just compensation. but i believe in the principle of just compensation and i'd be glad to support the gentleman's amendment. mr. gingrey: mr. chairman, i would just say -- reclaiming my time, and i thank mr. edwards for that commitment. i certainly appreciate his comments. and again i would urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment. and let's end this abuse of eminent domain. eminent domain is being abused in this definition of which with the help of a very liberal interpretation by the supreme court in some cases has allowed one private entity to benefit over another. and the gentleman from texas says that's the intent of the amendment. with that i am grateful for his support. with that i yield back the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. does any member seek time in opposition to the amendment? hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 111-570. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. gingrey: madam chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed in house report 111-570 offered by mr. gingrey of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1559, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: thank you, madam chairman. i rise today to offer an

amendment to ensure that no funds in this bill are used to construct or to renovate any facility in the united states to house gitmo detainees. now, i realize that the majority will likely support my amendment given that the bill contains no funds for this purpose, but today, madam speaker, i want to challenge the democratic majority to commit to adhering to an underlying principle. that being that it is wholly unnecessary to transfer the detainees and to close guantanamo bay, or gitmo. no matter what bills we are considering today, milcon-v.a., c.j.s. this fact still holds true. we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on gitmo.

debating that status is for, in my opinion, for public relations. during my third site visit, the detainees are treated with dignity and respect. they are allowed access to their attorneys. they are allowed access to the international committee of the red cross. they are provided with excellent medical care. i know what i speak as a physician member. they're even allowed to live in a communal setting. if they consumed everything provided to them on a daily basis they would take in 5,500 calories per day. indeed, most of them have gained anywhere from 15 to 25 pounds since they were originally detained. their religious customs are respected. they're provided with everything necessary to care for those customs. we would not be facing the

prospect of spending hundreds of millions of dollars more money we don't have unless commean will continue to lend it to us to do duplicate what we are already doing at guantanamo bay. madam chairman, transfer of the detainees to the united states could eventually lead to their release on american soil which would put our own citizens at risk. it could create significant immigration issues as aliens could become eligible for asylum or other forms of immigration-related relief. it would certainly make any facility where they are held a terrorist target, not surprisingly, madam chair, the american people are overwhelmingly opposed to closing gitmo. . in a recent poll, 60% think that we should continue to operate the prison at guantanamo bay. the battlefield is not limited to our military operations in

afghanistan and iraq. they have recently witnessed two attempted attacks on our homeland in the skies over detroit and on the streets of new york city. the american people know that detainees located at gitmo are not minor, but they include terrorist trainors, bomb makers, osama bin laden's bodyguards, terrorist recruiters and would-be suicide bombers. one of three has been tried by a military tribunal at guantanamo bay and another was subsequently killed on the battlefield after returning to the fight in afghanistan. madam chairman, the american people believe bringing guantanamo bay detainees to american soil for any purpose puts americans at risk and is a national security threat. it's time this congress listens to the collective voice of the

american people and stops perpetrating the washington-knows-best mindset. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and on all other appropriations bills to prevent the transfer of detainees of guantanamo bay to american soil. mr. edwards: i support this amendment. i would want to clarify that there is no funding in this bill of any type to fund any kind of facility to house detainees from guantanamo. but having said that, i will be glad to support his amendment. mr. gingrey: madam chairman, reclaiming my time, and again i thank my friend from texas. and i'm not surprised that he would support this amendment, knowing him and his heart. but i want to ask the gentleman, i would like to ask him a question, mr. edwards. can i count on you to commit to

supporting this amendment in future appropriations bills so we can end the debate on whether guantanamo bay should be closed once and for all? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. does any member seek time in opposition to this amendment? hearing none, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the ce opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. mr. gingrey: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman has request add recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-570. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek

recognition? ms. halvorson: i have an amendment at the desk? the clerk: amendment number 10 offered by ms. hall vor son of illinois. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois. ms. halvorson: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i like to chairman praise chairman obey and chairman edwards for their commitment. their committee made a commitment and renewed the promise to care for those who have served in our armed services. they have kept that promise and dramatically increased funding for our veterans by 70% since 2007. as the only member of congress from illinois that sits on the veterans committee, i really can speak to the critical need that these funds have addressed for

illinois veterans. my amendment is simple. it adds $10 million to the v.a. major construction projects and subtracts $10 million from the general operating expenses. much of the v.a. medical structure is outdated and in many cases obsolete. according to the budget which is written by some of the largest veteran service organizations, a great number of current medical facilities were built after world war ii and were constructed with a structurally obsolete design that, quote, do not typically meet the needs of modern health care delivery. the result of these outdated buildings has left them with a long list of major construction projects waiting for congressional funding. right now there are over 60 medical construction projects in the backlog. that means there are over 60 locations that are in need of

major construction, renovation or modification. it means that there are 60 locations where our veterans are not receiving care in modern facilities. unfortunately, this bill was only able to address a total of five of these projects and only two of them are new medical facilities. with more women and men service members transingsing from active duty to v.a. care with multiple illnesses, we will require more new and modified medical facilities. though $10 million is far less than what is needed to address these aging medical facilities, infrastructure and construction needs, the amendment still will play a role in ensuring more veterans are receiving the care they deserve in a modern and quality health care facility. this amendment is supported by the american legion. and i urge my colleagues to stand up and support modern

medical facilities for our veterans and to vote yes on this amendment. thank you, madam chair. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves haven't anyone stand in opposition to that amendment? mr. crenshaw: i have a couple of questions, not necessarily opposed. i have asked the gentlewoman, we have a process for building outpatient clinics and i just wondered, is this amendment anyway trying to circumvent the process? does it direct where the money would be spent in anyway? ms. halvorson: absolutely not. and you have the amendment, as do i. and it just takes $10 million out of the general operating to put it into major construction. there are needs everywhere. i wish it was in some way to help my district. we have needs, but it does not.

this major construction is $28 million less than it was last year. so i would like to see we get it back up to the $28 million at least that it was last year. mr. crenshaw: so the amendment allows the v.a. to use this funding, any location that it seeks? ms. halvorson: any location, anywhere. i wish i could say it was for someplace special, but it is not. mr. crenshaw: i would point out there is $1.666 billion for construction. that's $15 million above the request. but i can appreciate that she'd like to spend even more. and apparently is not trying to circumvent the process because a lot of people would like to have a clinic in their district and a lot of people have been waiting in line and watching this process work. but but if it doesn't seek to

spend in one location, then that's helpful to me. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. ms. halvorson: i thank you, madam chair. our veterans deserve the best care in the world and at the best and most modern medical facilities. that's why we are working to accomplish this here and in this body, we need to keep those promises. this is something that is very important i think to all of us here in congress and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 111-570. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. bilirakis: i have an

amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will gn the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 111-570, offered by mr. bilirakis of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1559, the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognize is the gentleman from florida. mr. bilirakis: my amendment would provide $9.5 million to acquire and instruct up to four-long-term care brain injury medical facilities. the primary danger faced by our troops in operation enduring freedom and operation iraqi freedom comes in the form of improvised explosive devices. when an i.e.d. explodes, it can result in our service members suffering catastrophic injuries.

traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress. wounded warriors with these complex injuries require high level of health care coordination with an interdisciplinary clinical support team and a wide range of specialized services. since 2003, almost 2,000 southeasterlyly injured service members have received care at one of the department of veterans affairs four trauma sebt centers. what happens to these heroes when they are discharged? some of them require intensive medical care for the rest of their lives. my amendment addresses the problem of how to provide ongoing recovery for these wounded warriors. these heroes honorly served their country. now we have to step up to meet our obligation to them. they need a place to go that

will provide for paste-acute, long-term care, rehabilitation and outpatient rehabilitation with the dignity, respect and honor they have earned. their families who are enduring the extreme stress of having one of their own come home with catastrophic injuries also need this long-term facility for their loved ones. my amendment will enable the v.a. to construct facilities that are specifically designed to provide ongoing recovery for wounded warriors. such facilities will enable families to visit in an atmosphere that is conducive to the rehabilitation and the re-integration. these facilities will be paid for with existing funds within the v.a.'s budget and will allow the v.a. to select locations that are close enough to

existing v.a. medical facilities to ensure that intensive, ongoing medical and specialist care is easily provided. at the same time, the facility can be in a location that would be natural and importantly family friendly. by supporting my amendment, you will be acquiring funds already available to the v.a. to be directed towards releaving the obvious need for long-term, ongoing recovery for our veterans suffering from trauma injuries. a properly selected and designed facility is so important, madam speaker. my amendment will enable medical specialists from the v.a. to develop a special plan to allow our veterans. that is so important. it should be our top priority. a doctor would be able to look

in the eyes of a wounded warrior and tell him or her, and i quote, this is your home. and we are going to help you participate in the society and visit with your family. the facilities my amendment would promote, madam speaker, would enable our young wounded warriors to focus on hope and to focus on honor and have hope for a future. we owe them that, madam speaker. let's give them that. i ask my colleagues to recognize the extreme difficulty faced by our catastrophically wounded warriors and show your support and i yield back -- i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

. mr. edwards: i care deeply about this. we all care deeply about it. in fact, several years ago i personally put the money in our v.a. appropriations bill, the bill, a new polytrauma center where there was not one in the entire southwestern part of the united states. i wish the gentleman could agree to work with the majority and the minority from now to conference committee to try to find a way to also work with the v.a., to find a way to address the very important needs that he is wanting to address. if he's not willing to pull this amendment down, i must reluctantly rise in opposition to it for several reasons. first, the v.a. is studying this issue right now and we ought to sit down with them and find out what they have learned and what they think are the best ways to use taxpayer dollars to address these needs.

secondly, i don't know if we need four of these long-term centers or six or eight or 10. rather than spending money on four centers, perhaps it would be better to do smaller renovations on 10 to 20 centers where our traumatically injured veterans could receive care closer to the homes of their loved ones. third, i don't know what the full cost of this is going to be. the $9.5 million, i don't think even comes close to providing for the full cost of the construction of these four projects. perhaps the gentleman could help illuminate for awful us both the cost of the construction plus the cost of the operations of those centers. and there are a lot of unanswered questions. important questions. such as, where would the staff come from to man these centers? would they come from existing v.a. facilities? i don't know. perhaps there are good answers to those questions, i just don't think the committee has them at this point. and finally, there are pay-fors

on this. the consequences of how this gentleman would pay for these would be that we would have a dam sillry extended stay unit -- an extended stay unit wouldn't be replaced, a surgery center weent wouldn't be completed in new mexico, an you are jebt care center would not be -- an urgent care center would not be renovated in new york. it was not the intention of the gentleman to try to prevent these five important probablies from being completed but it is the consequence -- project from being -- projects from being completed but it is the consequence of what was written. i yield to mr. scott. mr. scott: i yield in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from florida, i support the underlying goal of the gentleman's amendment to construct long-term medical facilities for veterans surning from severe -- suffering from

severe brain injury. it is offset by a decrease in what is called the construction account. this would jeopardize an important project in my district at the hunter homes hospital and if this amendment was adopted it would hinder the dialysis unit. this is an important project and services many veterans in the richmond area need very desperately. so i appreciate the gentleman's intent. however i believe that circumventing the veterans affairs department's construction priorities is an inappropriate way to achieve that goal. the nation has promised our veterans access to quality health care services and we owe them to ensure that those services are there. so, madam speaker, i urge the rejection of this amendment so the underlying projects can go forward. >> i appreciate the concern it's that -- concerns that have been raised there and as you point out, this is a very important

subject, very wort while. and to the question of where -- worthwhile. and to the question of where that money comes from, i think everyone has a concern about that. but if mr. bilirakis is willing to work, there's probably a way to find an offset that doesn't impact the minor construction. there are some funds that might be available. mr. crenshaw: and i would encourage mr. bilirakis, with your commitment to say, let's try to figure out a way to do this find a way to pay for it, find out what the real costs are and it says up to four, maybe there's a way to just begin that process because we know based on what mr. kennedy had said earlier, it's a very, very important issue. mr. edwards: reclaiming my time. if mr. bilirakis would be willing to ask unanimous consent to bring down his amendment, i would make my genuine commitment to work with him because i salute him for pointing out the important need that needs to be addressed here. i work with mr. crenshaw, the active ranking member, mr. wamp, the ranking member of the

subcommittee, and we'll get together with the v.a. and try to find a pay-for that doesn't take away from important projects such as mr. scott's and many others. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from florida. birlbirl if you agree to work -- mr. bilirakis: if you agree to work with me on this particular amendment, this is a very important project, as you know. we do have a polytrauma center, but we need the long-term care for our heroes and this is a top priority of mine. if you'll work with me on this then i will withdraw. mr. edwards: i appreciate that and i will work in good faith. and let's see by working with the v.a., the minority, the majority, see if we can find way that most efficiently and effectively takes care of these great americans that have suffered such a sacrifice and do so without impacting these other important projects throughout the country. mr. scott: will the gentleman yield? mr. edwards: yes, sir. mr. scott: i would join in support of this tremendous brain injuries is a very important

problem. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. bilirakis: i have studied this issue and it's a top priority of mine and we need to get this done. so thank you for your willingness to work with me. on that i appreciate the gentleman's willingness to work with me and i look forward to doing so. thank you. the chair: does the gentleman seek unanimous consent? mr. bilirakis: of course. i seek unanimous consent. i seek unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. thank you. the chair: without objection, so ordered. the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 111-570. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. peterson: i have an amendment at the desk -- mr. petri: i have an amendment at the desk --

mr. peters: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1519, the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: i yield myself such time as i might consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peters: i rise today to offer an amendment that will save taxpayer dollars by reducing waste and prescription medications at the v.a. currently whenever patients leave a v.a. hospital, leftover medications like eye drops and inhalers are just thrown away. often veterans would have to go right to the pharmacy to refill what was discarded. my amendment simply directs the v.a. to implement a program that would relabel prescription drugs used in v.a. hospitals to be sent home with discharged patients for outpatient use. my amendment offers a simple commonsense change that will save taxpayers an estimated $14 million over 10 years while saving patients both time and

effort. i'm proud that this amendment has the support of the american legion and the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america and urge its passage here today. i reserve the balance of my time. >> i just want to commend the gentleman. this is such a good amendment. sometimes commonsense can prevail. mr. edwards: it certainly make noes sense to take drugs that a veteran is using, prescription drugs, using in a v.a. hospital and then have a half a bottle or three quarters of a bottle of those pills left have to throw them away and then go to the pharmacy to get those exact same prescription drugs to take for use at home. so, this is going to save taxpayers money and every dollar that's saved can be put back into much-needed medical care for our veterans. i'm thrilled to support the gentleman's amendment and salute him for working on this. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. peters: i reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does a member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. peters: madam speaker, my amendment is a commonsense change that saves taxpayers money, saves time and effort for veterans and i urge passage. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in house report 111-570. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. peters: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 111-570 offered by mr. peters of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1519, the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan.

mr. peters: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peters: while i applaud the progress this congress has made in ensuring that our nation's veterans receive the care they deserve and the efforts of secretary shinseki in making the v.a. a more proactive institution, we must continue to work to improve the responsiveness of the v.a. both in terms of treatment of our veterans and the care in which the v.a. or any agency handles taxpayer money. it is with this spirit that i am offering my amendment to the milcondoleezza rice-v.a. appropriations act. it works to -- mil clrvings on v.a. appropriations act -- milcon v.a. appropriations act. there was a sample of over 18,000 v.a. contracts which identified some areas of concern regarding contracting that remain un-- contracts that remain unfulfilled with no oversight for months thief contracts.

it is projected that $55 million a year and $261 million over five years could be put to about ther use. by conducting a simple review after a period of 90 days in which the contractor or the contract is inactive and fulfilling the contract, millions of dollars can be deobligated from contracts that no longer need to be fulfilled or can be fulfilled in a more productive manner. the american legion agrees with my amendment as a commonsense change and a step in the right direction and i urge its passage here today. mr. edwards: will the gentleman yield? i once again on this amendment want to thank the gentleman for bringing this before the house. this could save up to $55 million in taxpayer funding, according to the inspector general. it's a good amendment and glad to support it. mr. peters: thank you. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves the balance of his time. does anyone claim the time in opposition? the gentleman's recognized. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. peters: thank you, madam

chair. my amendment is a commonsense change that frees taxpayer dollars for better use to care for our receipt advance and i urming its passage here today. i -- veterans and i urge its passage here today. the chair: those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 111-075 -- 570 -- 111-570.

the chair: i request unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks recorded vote on amendment number 9 printed in house report 11-5070 by the gentleman from georgia on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the gentleman -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14

printed in house report 111-570 offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1559, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the chair. this amendment would increase the amount of funding for grants for construction of state veterans cemeteries by $7 million, while reducing funding for construction of other projects. the v.a. provides funding for cemeteries through the grant for construction of state veterans cemeteries programs. all pending projects are evaluated about -- evaluated by the v.a. and ranked in priority so this is not an earmark program, t.s.a. competitive ranking process. the current policy list shows there's $121 million worth of probablies where the state matching funds are already in place. more than half of these projects totaling $70 million are still awaiting matching grants. yet the appropriation bill we

are considering today provides only $46 million for state cemeteries. the first priority of the state cemetery program is to provide expansion of existing cemeteries and the second priority is for the construction of new cemeteries according to geographical need. the third is for improvements to existing cemeteries. so what this means is that existing cemeteries which require improvements do not receive the necessary funding. for example, my state of new jersey, it's home to the bgwc memorial cemetery. this cemetery is the busiest state veterans cemetery in the nation. on average with seven burials per day. the cemetery had two important improvements projects but there hasn't been funding for natching federal grants. the following state also has state matching grants. tennessee, minnesota, kentucky, alabama, california, idaho, south dakota, hawaii, maryland,

montana, virginia, nevada and maine as well. and to make matters even worse, the state veterans cemetery program has been underfunded over the last several years. even though the number of world war ii veterans that are needing internments is rapidly increasing. . it is one of their top priorities. so this bipartisan amendment would increase the amount for this program for $7 million and the construction of minor programs is fully funded at a level that is $40 million above the v.a. and president's request. last year during the consideration of fy milcon-v.a. appropriation bill i introduced an identical amendment and the

only difference was $4 million versus $7 million and it passed by voice vote. i resevere the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. edwards: i rise to claim time in opposition. i salute mr. garrett on focusing on the need to fund our state veteran cemeteries. i think they're an important partnership between the federal government and our state government. so i have absolutely no objection to his wanting to find additional funding for state cemeteries. however, i will object and ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment because of the way in which he pays for it. while not intended in anyway, it turns out the money he would be taking out of the v.a. minor construction project would come out of these specific projects.

a state unit will not be replaced in butler, pennsylvania, a kidney dyalisis unit will not occur in richmond, virginia, an ambulatory center will not be completed in albuquerque, new mexico and another in new york. so you have an amendment that won't even guarantee that one dime of this amendment's funding will go to state veterans' cemeteries in new jersey. the last list i saw that v.a. has put out has the new jersey projects significantly down the list. but regardless of that, i think it's just not right to take funding out of these much needed health care construction projects and i yield to mr. altmire for any time he would like to consume. mr. altmire: i thank the chairman and i rise in opposition to the garrett amendment to the military construction veterans affairs appropriations bill, which would transfer $7 million in funding

for the grants for construction minor projects account into another related account. this would adversely affect veterans by shifting away from priority projects such as the extended stay unit in butler, pennsylvania. that facility is a vital source of shelter for homeless veterans in western pennsylvania and i will not allow it's upkeep and improvement to be compromised by this type of unwise amendment. last-minute shifts in concerns take away from projects and plans that the v.a. has determined to be necessary for veterans' health and safety nationwide. i ask my colleagues to join me in strongly opposing the garrett amendment to prevent harmful construction project cuts for the v.a. and i yield back. mr. edwards: i yield time to mr. scott of virginia. mr. scott: thank you. i rise in opposition to the

amendment. as has been said before, this would jeopardize the dyalisis unit in richmond. i appreciate the gentleman from new jersey's intent, i do not believe shortchanging projects to improve and expand quality health care for our veterans is the appropriate way to achieve that goal. we have promised veterans' health care and decreases in what is called the minor projects account will jeopardize important projects, including one in richmond, virginia. so i urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. hopefully we can work out another pay-for. but we don't want this to jeopardize projects around the country. mr. edwards: i yield to mr. hall. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hall: i rise in opposition to the amendment, although i do support the underlying intent. but not, however, the pay-for. one project that would be affected by this cutback is the

renovation of the urgent care center in new york. it was built in 1926 and oldest v.a. hospital in the country and never undergone a major renovation. the project would increase urgent care at castle point and make it accommodating to female veterans. so i ask that you -- before you vote on this measure, take a moment to consider the unintended consequences and negative consequences, not just in the hudson valley but the entire country. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. the gentleman from texas. gentleman has 30 seconds remaining. mr. edwards: no one objects to the gentleman's goal and we would be glad to work in good faith to see if we could find another pay-for to improve funding for our veterans cemeteries but i ask my

colleagues to object and vote on this amendment because of the damage done to important veterans at this facility that they would not otherwise get if this amendment were passed into law. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: i remind the gentleman, the money you are appropriating is $40 million over what the president has asked for and what the v.a. has asked for. mr. edwards: would the gentleman yield? mr. garrett: i don't have much time. i yield one minute to the the gentleman from new jersey. >> i rise in support of congressman garrett's amendment sponsored by congressman adler on the other side of the aisle and by me. this is bipartisan in nature and we believe that across the country, veterans and families are dealing with overcrowding at

cemeteries. in new jersey, there is only one state veterans' cemetery, the doyle veterans memorial cemetery. not in my district, but this is bipartisan in nature on our side of the aisle. and certainly, we think this amendment will help fund these projects and reduce existing backlogs in the states' veterans cemetery grant program. and the funding is over what has been requested by the administration and we believe and we believe strongly this is in the best interest of the united states. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: another minute? the chair: one minute remaining. mr. garrett: there is a need for the cemeteries, not just in the state of new jersey, but across the country as well and in a

bipartisan, we passed this bill with the support presumably from the chairman last year and in a similar manner we are doing this year. as stated already, the amount of money that is already appropriated is $40 million more not only what the white house wants but what the v.a. wants. i find it curious the chairman comes to the floor and fights what programs could be cut when our staff tried to ask them to identify which ones would be cut and we could never get an answer from them as to what would be cut whatsoever with regard to priorities. now the chair comes and says this program, this program, this program will be cut. how can anything be cut when we are expending $40 million more than what the v.a. and administration is asking for? this is a duty, a duty that we owe to our veterans and we should do it in the proper manner and do it now and should not be pointing fingers saying we want to cut from this and that. we have do it in the past and we should meet that moral

obligation. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. garrett: ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments p6 c1 proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 111-570 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number nine by mr. gingrey of georgia, amendment number 14 by mr. garrett of new jersey. the first electronic vote will

be conducted as a 15-minute

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 4899, an act making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. the court -- recorded votes on postponed questions will be

taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. frank: i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 587 . -- 5872. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman call up the bill as amended? mr. frank: yes. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5872, a bill to provide adequate commitment authority for fiscal year 2010 for guaranteed loans that are obligations of the general and special risk insurance funds of the department of housing and urban development. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, and the gentlewoman from west virginia, mrs. capito, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the f.h.a. has become a very successful program. it has taken up the slack that was created by problems elsewhere in the housing area. it is being run very well. they deserve a great deal of credit. in a bipartisan way, the committee on financial services has cooperated with them. we recently passed a bill and the ranking member mrs. capito was here to enhance their authority to allow them to do a better job statutorily of guarding against abuse and flasmede program has been sufficiently successful so that they have now run out of commitment authority. this bill would give them $5 billion more commitment authority. but it is not expenditure. it is the opposite. this will save $94 million.

we have structured the f.h.a. so that it makes a small profit for the federal government. if we do not pass this bill before the end of next week, us first and then the senate, the f.h.a. program will stop until october that will deny people housing, this is housing, home ownership and housing that are responsibly done, it will be a further shot to the housing sector of the economy which is so important. i will submit for the record with unanimous consent, mr. speaker, letters from the american bankers association and a joint letter from virtually every organization that deals with housing either from the standpoint of consumers or from the standpoint of financing and i said either, it should only be two, so i take back either, or those providing housing. financers of housing, consumers of housing, all agree we need this bill.

it should not be controversial because it extends a very successful program, stops it from being interrupted between now and october and it will present savings of $94 million. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, and the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from west virginia is recognize. mrs. capito: briefly, i would like to join with the chairman of the full committee, mr. frank in full support of this bill. i would also like to thank the appropriations committee for letting us bump up two bills so we could get ahead a little bit on our evening. i would like to reiterate very quickly, this f.h.a. program is a critical source of financing for affordable rental housing and i am in full agreement that we should pass this bill as it will help to mitigate any disruptions in the housing market and with that, i have no further speakers. i'm prepared to yield back.

mr. frank: i yield myself another minute and a half to say that actually some of the home ownership parts will continue but there are important pieces here, health care facileties, multifamily housing and there is some home ownership that would be lost if we were not able to do this. i am glad to be joined by my colleague from west virginia and i hope the house will promptly pass this bill and the senate will promptly pass this bill, though that's always a greater hope. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield back? mr. frank: i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from west virginia. mrs. capito: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5872. 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 bill is passed and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. frank: to correct the omission just called to my attention in that i didn't ask for general leave for all members to have five legislative days to revise and extend -- five days extends past labor day, do i still want five days? whatever days is appropriate. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk two privileged reports from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the titles. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1568, resolution providing for consideration of the bill, h.r. 5893, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to create jobs through increased investment in infrastructure, to eliminate loopholes which encourage companies to move operations offshore and for other purposes. report to accompany house resolution 1569. resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 5850, making appropriations for the departments of transportation and housing and urban development and related agencies for the fiscal year

ending september 30, 2011, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered precipitationed. -- printed. for other purposes the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition -- for other purposes the gentleman from west virginia seek rec -- if you were the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition -- for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? the clerk: h.r. 5874, a bill making supplemental appropriations for the united states patent and trade mark office for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. monaghan, and the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mollohan: i thank the

speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 5874. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mollohan: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mollohan: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the united states patent and trade mark office on an annual basis practically has budgetary problems that arises from the system under which they are funded and estimate their own finances in the -- and the appropriation committee's response to that. it's important because the predictions are obviously imperfect. they are talking about revenues that they may or may not receive into the future. the activities of the -- and this legislation addresses their concerns for this year. the activities of the u.s. patent and trade mark office are fully financed by user fees and

every year congress appropriates an amount for the agency's activities that is equal to what the agency estimates it will collect in fees. based on higher than estimated fee collections to date in fiscal year 2010, it appears that the agency could potentially collect more in fees this year than was earlier estimated. and these additional fees would be available to the agency this year under its current 2010 appropriation level. what this bill, mr. speaker, will do is allow uspto to spend up to an additional $129 million in patent and trademark fees. if the agency actually collects fees over and above the current appropriation level of $1.887 billion. this additional appropriation was requested by president obama's administration and is based on a revised c.b.o.

estimate of the agency's c collections for fiscal year 2010. this bill reflects the administration's and congress' commitment to make fee revenue available to uspto for pat ebt and trade marc activities. the timely and efficient processesing of applications is critical to the competitiveness of american businesses and the contributions of individual inventors to economic best. the uspto currently takes an average of over 34 months to complete the examination of patent application and has maintained a backlog of unexamined applications for several years. there are approximately 1.2 million patent applications now in the system with over 750,000 awaiting an initial review by a uspto patent examiner. we should be clear, however, about what this bill will do and

what this bill will not do. if the additional fees are actually collected in the remaining weeks of the fiscal year, the additional 129 -- $129 million in budget authority provided by this bill will begin to help the agency address the ongoing patent backlogs. mr. speaker, what this bill will not do is fix the underlying structural flaws in uspto's revenue mechanisms that are the mainly cause for the patent pendency and backlog problems that have plagued uspto for years. the only path to a meaningful and permanent reduction in patent pendency and the backlog is for stake holders to support and congress to approve new fee authorities for uspto that will lead to patentsies that reflect the actual cost of the agency and to our government. but that's beyond the scope of

this appropriations bill. over four -- before concludesing, mr. speaker, i want to reiterate that the appropriations committee consistently appropriates budget authority for uspto based on the agency's own estimates of fee collections and the current year appropriation with no exception to this rule. the administration's request for this supplemental appropriation is based on a higher than expected fee collection. in cases where fees collected by uspto but not appropriated in an annual appropriations bill are credited to a specific account within the general treasury, those additional resources can be made available for the appropriation to uspto and subsequent appropriation acts, such as the one we are considering today. while the bill before us today will not address the underlying problems that uspto -- of uspto,

it will provide additional relief to the agency as it seeks to address the patent backlog issue and i urge my colleagues to support it. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from west virginia reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wolf: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday the house passed the supplemental appropriations bill under suspension of the rules and think i would ask somebody to look, i think this congress, every congress has a history and has a name. i think this will be called the suspension congress. we have taken more legislation up under suspension of the rules without any opportunity for people to be offering amendments and i think, you know, whatever side you're on, whatever party you're on, there really ought to be the opportunity for members

to offer an amendment. so i think, i don't know how you do it, but i officially would request that the clerk of the house look to see how many suspension bills at the end of this year were passed by suspension and to see if i was right by calling in the suspension congress. -- calling in the suspension congress. we're now considering an auds and ends bill on suspension. this bill can clearly be put on our own bill. on july 12, the administration requested language to allow the patent and trademark office to spend an additional $129 million in fiscal year 2010 with debt sired effect being the redusks backlogs in processing patent applications. the bill before the house does that and fully offsets the funding as requested with the rescission from the excess amounts appropriated for the 2010 census. the language in the bill differs somewhat from the language

requested by the administration. i personally and maybe others on the committee have, but personally i have not seen the bill until today after it had been placed on the suspension calendar. so you're going to bring a bill up under suspension and the minority, we haven't been given the opportunity even to see it. since there was no subcommittee or full committee consideration and no discussion with the minority prior to the introduction, i don't know why the changes were made to the request. it sort of says, we're not going to talk to minority, we're not going to discuss these things. frankly i would tell the patent and trademark office, you haven't been offered to talk to anybody. just because the party in power happen it's to be the majority power this ought to be an issue of nonpartisan or bipartisan, working together, but again it all just sort of rolls out and comes up. finally i would just say that this issue could have easily

been addressed in regular order, either in the committee markup or the supplemental where i'm sure the chairman, mr. mollohan, as we go to conference on a bill, and i appreciate the leadership of mr. mollohan on the committee, we could have rolled it in for timely action for the f.y. 2011 c.g.s. appropriation bill. i don't know why we're doing it at this hour. secondly, any time one party pushes the other party, and i would say this to my own party, if we ever get back into the majority, we ought to be sure that we treat the minority the way that we wanted to be treated when we were in the minority. because there were times past when we were in the majority that we maybe treated the minority in ways that we should not have treated them. so i would just say for, speaking only for myself, but the party i belong to, i think it's important if or when we

return to the majority that we have respect for the minority, to notify them and tell them and do everything we possibly can to make sure that we're doing things in a bipartisan basis, particularly on bills that are not republican or democrat, but are good for the country. with regard to that, i just reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. mollohan: mr. speaker, i note the distinguished ranking member's comments about the suspension congress and lack of notice with regard to pieces of legislation. at i just point out that -- i just point out that, first of all, he is very familiar with this bill, very familiar with uspto, has handled this legislation very confidently as chairman, as ranking member and as a member of the committee. so he is very familiar, i know,

with the subject matter of which we speak. and the difficulty that uspto faces because of the structural nature of its -- of the way it achieves funding every year. he also knows that they're estimating the beginning of the year is an imperfect process because it's a prediction and it's based upon that prediction coming true in the future and it rarely does. in this case, they have financial needs that are -- can be better met with this additional $129 million and the good news is, for uspto, they underestimated last year. consequently, if they continue to collect fees at the current rate they will collect $129 more than they projected. given that, it's only right that we try to address those needs in

the context of their projected -- newly projected fee collections, so that they will be able to reduce this unacceptable backlog. as the gentleman from points out, in a negative way, that's not known until really until it happens or until the trend line becomes to become apparent and it is becoming apparent. we're going on recess here in consume of days and it would be great to have notice on everything a week in advance or three days in advance or whenever in advance that would be satisfactory. this is a pretty simple proposal, actually, and i don't think it's difficult to understand. i must say we on the majority side weren't noticed many minutes before the minority was about the approach to this. but i know the gentleman is, or i believe from his remarks and

his attitude in the past with regard to recognizing the uspto's needs, its structural needs of how you fund it, it's certainly not opposing this -- is certainly not opposing this and i just wanted to assure him that there's no intent on our part in any way. wolf -- mr. wolf: if the gentleman would yield. i just want the record to show that mr. mollohan and his staff have been very fair. and i would not want to have the connection of what i said earlier with regard of that. mr. mollohan and his entire staff have been very, very fair and treated us very, very well. i didn't want that to be sort of, referred. with that i yield back. i thank the gentleman. mr. mollohan: i would be chagrin if we do anything but treat the member fair. there are three members of the congress, a lot of people are very interested in uspto, and very interested in uspto, and interested in fixing i