the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 228. the nays are 195. the bill is passed. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal which the chair will put de novo. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 7-c of rule 22, i hereby give notice of my intent to offer a motion to instruct conferees on h.r. 3230, the

conference report on the veterans' access and accountability. the form of the motion is as follows. mr. barber: i move that the managers on the part of the house at the conference on disagreeing -- on the disagreeing votes of the two houses on the house amendment to the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 3230, an act to improve the access of veterans to medical services from the depth of veterans affairs and for other purposes be instructed to, one, receive from disagreement with section 701 of the senate amendment relating to the expansion of the marine gunnery sergeant john david frye scholarship and, two, receive from the house amendment and concur in the senate amendments -- senate amendment in all other instances. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's notice will appear in the record. mr. barber: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an

enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 697, an act to provide for the conveyance of certain federal land in clark county, nevada, for the environmental remediation and reclamation of the three kids mine project site and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i have a motion to instruct at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. gallego moves -- of texas moves to recommit the managers on the part of the house that the conference on the dig agreeing vots on the two houses on the house amendment to the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 3230, an act to improve the access to veterans to medical services from the department of veterans affairs and for other purposes be instructed to receive from disagreement with section 601 of the senate amendment relating to authorization of major medical

facility leases. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 7-b of rule 22, the gentleman from texas, mr. gallego, and the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, letch will control 30 minutes -- each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. thank you, mr. speaker. we've all heard so much about the challenges the v.a. faces and how it has totally, thoroughly and completely failed many of our veterans. this motion to instruct the conferees would be a motion to ask that we essentially recede to the senate provisions on leases for v.a. facilities. what this does or what it would do is to provide and expand 26

v.a. facilities from across the country and improve access to care for our nation's veterans, including the 1.7 million veterans from across texas. in the district that i represent, as an example, district 23, which comprises about 24% of the land area of texas, it is 800 miles or so from one corner of the district to the other. and in that district are a very large number of veterans. the challenge is, first off, to be able to get the veterans who have served who are from the rural areas to get them access to the nearest v.a. facility. from my hometown of alpine, for example, to el paso, where there is a v.a. clinic, is some 220 miles. if you live further south in brewster county, that distance is longer. if you live here in eagle pass, in maverick county, for

example, you got to go all the way down to the rio grande valley before you find the nearest veterans' facility. actually, all the way down to corpus. the senate provisions would allow for an additional 26 facilities, including a new facility in lubbock and improvements and consolidation to facilities in san antonio that are critical to veterans and their families. new facilities will help address the wait times for medical care where it's needed for veterans in our communities. frankly, these facilities will help open up appointment slots. according to an internal v.a. audit that had been released, there are more than 57,000 patients who have waited at least 90 days for their first appointment, and unfortunately some v.a. facilities in texas have among the highest average wait times in the nation and

that's totally inexcusable. it fails the people who stood up and served their country and did so much to maintain and protect our freedom. while we need to explore all our options, including more contracted care to address the backlog, we also have to make sure that the v.a. has the capacity to fill the needs for our vets and especially those who have unique health care needs. i maintain that regardless of where you live in texas or any other state, you have as much right to health care as any veteran from any other part of the state. and by creating an additional 26 facilities, you would actually be creating more slots and giving more access to more people for rural vets, who face additional barriers, for example, if you're driving from alpine to el paso and that's 220 miles and you need a driver and that driver has to take time off from work, you need

probably to spend the night in el paso, that's a hotel room. you got to eat while you're there, so that's meals. all of those additional expenses. the other thing, frankly, is many of the rural vets tend to be older, sicker and poorer than the justice population. these -- than the general population. these facilities may be life savers for this population. this will help address the wait times for the medical care where they are needed and they are crucial. and frankly i know there's been conversation on the house side with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle about creating more facilities than 26. i know that my friends from oklahoma, for example, would like to see an additional clinic in tulsa that would serve oklahoma. oklahoma veterans, as texas veterans, as veterans across the board in every state, deserve more access to health care. and better access to health

care. this week, in fact, the acting secretary of the v.a., secretary gibson, told members of the senate veterans' affairs committee that we need to increase the internal capacity at the v.a. and while we need to do a lot more than just that, these additional facilities would help achieve that goal. one thing is clear. we have a growing demand for care. as we drawdown from all of the places where we are right now, afghanistan, for example, as we change the shape of our military going into the future, we will have more and more veterans entering the health care system. they deserve better treatment than the veterans in our health care have had. frankly, the entire system needs to be upgraded and provide a-1 health care for

everyone that's served and their families. we must grow the capacity. we must continue to meet the growing demand of our veterans. these leases that i'm talking about in some 18 states, they'll address some of the underlying problems that lead to treatment delays. if you look at it, we're funneling all of the veterans into a very few health care facilities across the country. we will have community-based outpatient clinics or specialty clinics, it will be a huge help to everyone and that's incredibly important. as you look at this map, it gives you some idea in a microcosm just in one congressional district in this country what difference additional v.a. facilities would make. look at the distance from the nearest -- if you live here along the texas-mexico border

and you're trying to go up to the nearest facilities which are either in el paso or in big spring or over here in san antonio, the distances are enormous. and that is so much to ask of the world war ii vet or a korean war vet who's getting older, who's having to ask for help for somebody to take time off from work to take him for a basic appointment. and then frankly as we've seen, to be unable to get the health care that he or she needs and deserves. there's no part of the population in this country that is more deserving of health care than our veterans who have served in uniform in any conflict or frankly even if they haven't been in conflict. they have stepped forward. they have put themselves at the nation's disposal and they have protected our freedom each and every day that they wore that uniform. they deserve much better than they've gotten over the course of history, and i would point out this isn't a new issue.

there were more than 15 reports at the v.a. that indicated that care was substandard. congress has known about this for a long time. the challenge with congress is it is a crisis management institution. whatever the crisis of the day is, that is what congress responds to. and if there is a subsequent crisis that takes the first crisis off of the front page, then suddenly congress is reacting to the new crisis and forgets about the old one. this is too important to forget about. this is too critical to our veterans. it has to be taken care of. it has to be resolved, and it has to be resolved once and for all so there are not an additional 15 reports out there about problems with the v.a., so we don't hear every day from the american legion or the veterans of foreign wars or any of these other organizations that for years have been telling congress that the v.a. has problems. let's step forward. let's fix it. let's fix it now and for all, and we can take that first step as a body, mr. speaker and

members, we can take that first step as a body by making sure there are at least, at least 26 new leased facilities across the country that will take care of this issue and that will provide additional service to our veterans across the country. i point out that these additional facilities are in places like texas and louisiana, florida, puerto rico, california, connecticut, massachusetts, missouri, tennessee, illinois, nebraska, south carolina, arizona, new mexico, new jersey, georgia, hawaii and kansas. whether you're a democratic member of this body or a -- or a republican member of this body, you should be in favor of additional v.a. facilities, you should be in favor of broadening up that funnel so it's not so clogged up and we're not trying to put so many people through such a narrow slot and create all these problems where people don't get the health care that they need and deserve.

new facilities, as i said, will help address the wait times for medical care where it's needed and as a guy who represents a vastly rural area, but who also represents urban areas in el paso and san antonio, i will tell you that this helps everybody. it helps every single veteran, whether you're a rural guy or an urban guy, whether you served in uniform in world war ii or whether you are a service man or woman from the most recent contract. you deserve, and america has made a commitment to you that you will get health care and you will get quality health care. this is the first step in that direction. it's incredibly important. right or left, center, democrat, republican, independent, whatever you think you are, you ought to be in favor of additional facilities for the v.a. you ought to be in favor of better health care for our veterans. and you ought to be in favor of

using the senate language. and frankly, again, i know there are some members from my colleagues who are from oklahoma who would like to see additional facilities and would want one in their state, a-- i agree with that too. the more we can do to help our veterans and meet our commitment, the more we ought to do. and frankly we ought to do a lot more than we've been doing. again, i move that we instruct , conferees on h.r. 3 30 veterans access to care through choices, accountability, and transparency act, accede to the senate's provisions under title 6, 601. it's incredibly important, not only to me, not only to the 23rd but it's important to 435 members of the body and it's important to every single veteran in every single one of our congressional districts. i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. crenshaw: i rise in opposition to the motion to instruct -- >> i rise in opposition to the motion to instruct and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> while i appreciate -- mr. miller: while i appreciate the work done on this bill on the other side, in the senate, i remind the house that it's been the house committee that's conducted the oversight, that has brought this issue to light. the corruption and arrogance that's taken root at the department of veterans' affairs did, as my colleague said, did not happen overnight. but i just want to tell my colleagues a little of the history about what brings us here today. since the ninth of june and july 24, the house committee of veterans affairs will have held

12 full committee hearings, highlighting the problems that exist at the department of veterans' affairs. but beginning with the 112th congress, the house committee on 196 ans affairs has held hearings of which 126 were oversight hearings and in the 113th congress alone we've held 96 hearings to date. we're doing our work. as a result of our work, both the house and the senate correctly moved to address the problems that exist at the department. and as is often the case, the bills we pushed through have reflected our good intentions, but there has been a vacuum while waiting for the c.b.o. to score the bills. but it's important to remember that the current scandal at v.a.

really entails two issues. timely access to the health care that veterans have earned, and accountability. because of the culture of corruption that exists among far too many senior leaders who have put their own welfare ahead of those they're supposed to be serving. the c.b.o. finally provided us with a formal score on the senate amendment on the 16th of july. since that time and even prior to that time my staff has been in daily contact with our senate counterparts and we are making progress on the conference report. and therefore differences of opinion as to what the final conference report in fact is going to say. that's the nature of our work. but to my knowledge, there's no impasse that has been reached at this point. now i'm confident that the good

will on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the hill will present a report that both the house and the senate can pass before the august recess, so it really makes no sense to take the senate position on the leases at this time. in fact, some of the provisions in the senate version are similar to the house bill's that have been waiting in the senate for months and they could have been sent, any one of them, on to the president for his signature and that brings me to the specifics of the motion to instruct today. on december 10, 2013, the house assed h.r. 3521 by a vote of 346-1. that bill contained provisions to authorize 27 v.a. community-based outpatient clinics. it includes the tulsa, oklahoma,

clinic that my colleague referred to not being in the senate bill. and like nearly a dozen other house bills, passed in a bipartisan fashion, they are stalled in the senate. the senate could pass and send the 27 clinic bill that we sent over to them in december, today. i must point out that on a teal of six different occasions, senator visiter from louisiana and others, both republican and democrat, have gone to the senate floor to request a vote on h.r. 3521 and have been blocked by the democrats in the senate. perhaps the notion instruct today should be revised to instruct the majority leader of the senate, or the democrat caucus in the senate. again, we're making progress on the conference report and to

recede at this point to the senate position would be premature at best. let me spend a few moments talking about today's news regarding the v.a.'s budget needs. in each of our annual budget hearings, members have asked the secretary of v.a., do you have the resources you need to get the job done and every single time the secretary has said yes. now today, suddenly, because of the oversight of the house committee on veterans affairs -- veterans' affairs, acting secretary gibson testified before the senate that they'll need approximately $17.6 billion in additional resources to meet current demand for the remainder of this year and into 2017. in his testimony, acting secretary gibson stated that about $10 billion of this money would go to purchase care and to hire 10,000 new clinical staff. he further stated that the purchased care would decline

over time with a gradual shift back to reliance on internal v.a. care. he also said about $6 billion would be spent on new infrastructure. so what the acting secretary is saying is, give us billions of more tax dollars to continue reliance upon care that will continue to force veterans to drive, as my colleague has said, in many cases, too far. hundreds of miles for the care that they have earned. and oh, by the way, give us billions of more dollars to dump into our construction program that's been shown to be so ineptly managed to result in major projects being on average 35 months, not days, 35 months behind schedule and at least 366 -- and at least $366 million over cost. now again, why would we automatically stand up, salute, and write a check when the

inspector general and the g.a.o. have both said we cannot trust v.a.'s numbers on multiple occasions. o the department which rob abes -- neighbors describes as having a corrosive culture, asks for more. we can't continue to allow the department of veterans' affairs to consider itself a sacred cow. decades of kid glove approach by congress to holding v.a. accountable has led us to the issues that confront us today. so i would urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to instruct and this time -- and at this time, i would like to yield such time as he may consume to mr. jolly of florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. jolly: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, thank you.

i rise in opposition, respectfully, to this motion, not because anybody here opposes expanded access to care, i believe we all do. but i oppose it today because it interfierce, i believe, with the urgency of getting a clean bill out of conference. the chairman has done great work. there are bills over there that the senate could approve tomorrow. but if we encumber our conferees and we encumber this conference committee anymore, we risk delaying final passage of a bill that is intended to get health care to the veterans now. to clear the wait list now. that is the urgency. we all have ideas for long-term reforms. this member has his own ideas for long-term reforms. we have to work those through the process. i believe we should consider giving every veteran a choice card, let them choose where they want to go. i believe we should consider competitively awarding

management contracts for many of our v.a. health care facilities so veterans who ant want to stay in the v.a. system can do so but rely on more efficient and responsible management. i think we should consider screamline -- streamlining d.o.d. health and look for efficiency there is. but those are matters for another day, for another committee hearing, for another bill, for another piece of legislation. we should not encumber our conferees anymore than they already are in having to negotiate with the senate. the fact is, the senate bill is encumbered with labor provisions and directed projects and these labor provisions and directed projects do absolutely nothing, nothing to get the veterans off the wait list now. let's have the conferees agree to what we can agree to, which is if you live more than 40 miles away from a v.a. facility, give them immediate access to private care. if they're on a wait list, give them immediate access to private

care. we can pass those now, the conferees can agree to that here's the absolute absurdity to all of this. i'm a new member. new perspective. i understand how this body work. but we have two to three weeks left before we go back to our districts for august recess. we have a president who, every single day, demands that this congress provide funding for expanded health care to those who are coming here illegally right now. we cannot honestly have a dialogue and suggest that we need to immediately fund health care for those who are coming here illegal if we have a v.a. bill that is stuck in conference committee and is encumbered by unnecessary provisions. we should demand that our veterans receive the health care services that they deserve before we begin to have a conversation with the president about how we ever expand health care services to those who come

here illegally. so i appreciate my colleague's concern for expanded care and i agree with that. there's a bill that's been passed that's sitting in the senate. the senate should pick it up and pass it. but encumbering the conferees is not the right way to do this. frankly, it complicates the process and delays the process. we need a v.a. reform bill back here from conference committee as quickly as possible. to ensure that our veterans receive the health care that frankly this house supported with 390 votes when this bill passed. this is not a controversial measure. i appreciate the chairman's work on this and i know that the chairman has the same dedication that my colleague does to expanded care. we will continue to work these issues. but the immediate need is to expand health care choices for our veterans today and as i mentioned before we ever begin to talk to the president about expanding health care for those

who come here illegally. mr. speaker, thank you very much. mr. chairman, thank you. yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. gallego: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim the time left. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. without objection. mr. gallego: and mr. speaker, i'd ask how much time is remaining. the speaker pro tempore: 18 1/2 minutes. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i am in my first term as a member and in growing up as a kid in alpine, texas, i always heard this saying with respect to things that were really, really hard. and that saying was, it takes an act of congress to do that. and for the first time in my life, mr. speaker, i finally understand what that means

because part of our challenge as an institution is that we are so wrapped up in who goes first, whether it's the house or the senate, the house passed a bill by 390 votes, that's great. the senate version passed by 93-3, and here we are discussing whether the house version or the senate version is better and in the meantime we are failing our veterans. my own view is that people across the political spectrum, veterans and nonveterans alike, are tired of the political blame game and the finger-pointing. notice that once -- not once did i ever really talk about the differences between democrats and republicans because frankly there are both democratic virps and republican veterans and lib -- veterans nd republican veterans and

libritarian veterans and apolitical veterans. the issue of veterans is something that should bring us together in a cohesive fashion so we can move forward as a country and show that congress can function as intended, that it can actually work its will as a body and move a product forward. the idea that we would have to wait for a clean bill, that we would have to wait for procedure to take its course and for things to happen is telling people, we'll get to it. along the border there is a saying and that saying is manana. manana seems to be the busiest day of congress' week. manana. we'll do it tomorrow. tomorrow seems to be the day that congress takes action on every single issue, and veterans are too important to be left till tomorrow.

the american people view congress as an institution that is very full of hot air, and don't understand why we recess in august when it's hot here because we would fit right in with the rest of the environment in the month of august. the approval ratings for congress are lower than they've ever been since the gallup organization started taking polls, and it would appear to me there's good reason for that. i have great respect for the chairman and the other members of this body. their work i admire. i don't admire, though, how much time it takes for this congress to move forward. another day, another hearing, another conversation, another headline, all of that while another veteran waits and

another veteran waits and another veteran waits. my motion to instruct doesn't touch top side or bottom the rest of the senate bill. my motion to instruct talks about one particular provision of the senate bill and that one particular provision deals with additional space, additional leases for additional facilities. it doesn't talk about choice ards or private pay or the rates or any of those other things which are crucial and important. my motion just deals with this issue that i talked about earlier which is the funnel. we have such a narrow opening in this funnel that we try to channel all of our veterans through and there's not enough space. there's not enough resources there. we don't have adequate health care providers in the mental health fields, for example.

we don't have enough specialists. we don't have enough places to put them. we don't have enough facilities. people have to go too far in order to get their health care, and as a result they're not getting their health care at all. mr. speaker, manana isn't good enough. manana, tomorrow, should not be the busiest part of the week. this is not an issue left for tomorrow. this is an issue congress can decide now, immediately. we can instruct our conferees not on the rest of the aspects of the bill, because i understand that takes time and negotiation, but we can come together on one part of the bill. we can come together on the one part of the bill that says we need additional facilities, not only in texas -- although texas needs them -- but in other states as well. that serves all of our veterans well. this isn't about a democratic

position or a democratic senate versus a republican position and a republican house. this is about our veterans who served every day in uniform, who sacrificed every day so that 435 people here in this body and 100 people in the body across the way could serve and do our jobs and vote and participate in the american democratic experiment. we wouldn't be here participating in this american democratic experiment but for the service and the sacrifices of our veterans. if we recognize that, if we truly recognize that, then we would step forward now, not tomorrow. we would step forward now and admit that we desperately need additional v.a. facilities. we desperately need those 26 additional places, and we could put off for the conferees and allow the conferees the latitude to discuss all of the rest of the bill, but we ought

to be able to come together on that one thing and that one thing is those additional 26 facilities. waiting for a clean bill, i can't tell you, mr. speaker, how many times in meeting with the v.a. or the -- with the v.f.w. or the american legion or any one of the number of organizations like the vietnam veterans, i can't tell you how many times they tell me they have been asked to wait another day. wait. you'll get your bill. wait. we'll take care of you. wait. we understand you're important. they don't need a pat on the head. they don't need a pat on the shoulder. what they need is what they've earned, and what they've earned s health care and those 26 additional facilities would help us get them their health care and help us get them

exactly what they need and what our government has committed to hem regardless of party -- them regardless of party, regardless of partisanship, regardless of blame or regardless of whatever. if i started my saying, it takes an act of congress to do this, this is a great opportunity for congress to we forward and say understand how important the veterans are. we're not saving that till tomorrow. you'll get your 26 facilities, your 26 additional facilities. we will broaden that pipeline so that more veterans across this country will have access to health care and we'll do it now. and mr. speaker, i don't think that's too much to ask. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: mr. speaker, who loses?

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: thank you. how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from miller has 18 1/2 minutes, and the gentleman from texas has 10 minutes. mr. miller: it's curious to me that my colleague talks about not waiting, not waiting, not .aiting, manana the house passed a bill in december. in december. how much longer do veterans have to wait before the bill that resides in the senate is passed? that's what we've been waiting for. and i cannot figure out what my colleague has against the veterans in tulsa, oklahoma, because that's the clinic

that's missing out of the bill that he is wanting to instruct us to accept. why would we not give access for care to the veterans in oklahoma? it doesn't make any sense. o when my colleague says manana, saying that for some reason we're trying to delay access to care, i say oh, no, oh, no. what this bill actually does is expands care way beyond what v.a. has ever purported to be able to do. the clinics that we are talking about authorizing may not even be necessary in future years. not talking about these specific clinics, because veterans will be able to go out into the private sector. no longer will there be a

bottle neck within the department of veterans affairs, providing access to veterans. you see, that's what happened with v.a. really since the 1940's. they have been trying to force veterans to drive for hours to facilities to get their care in places that they don't want to have to get their care at, to get their care when v.a. says they'll get their care, not when the veteran says they want their care. so let's change the formula a little bit. let's give veterans their care where they want to get it and when they want to get it. and so i say to my friend that if we truly want to service the most veterans, you got to ask the senate to pass the bill

that we passed in december, because for some reason the senate doesn't want to put a clinic in tulsa, oklahoma. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. and the chair would note that the gentleman from texas has the right to close. the gentleman from texas is ecognized. mr. gallego: mr. speaker, if the gentleman has anything else to say, i'm ready to close unless the gentleman has additional -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. miller: no, sir. we have no more speakers at this time. we're prepared to close. i would urge my colleagues to oppose the motion to instruct and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from texas. mr. gallego: thank you, mr. speaker. let me start by in all sincerity saying i have the

greatest respect for chairman miller and the work that he's been doing. i follow his comments and his remarks and his committee regularly because the issue of veterans is an issue that is near and dear to my heart as it is to so many of us. and i have great respect for his views and his expertise, and i certainly, while i may differ in my opinion, i ertainly would never, ever think that his motives are impure because they are not. he is very sincere and very driven to help. but here is what i don't understand. for veterans across the country, they don't care, in my view, if the first two letters s.r. ill are h.r. or at makes no difference top

side or bottom to any veteran i talked to, and i urge my colleagues to talk to as many veterans they can and to ask them specifically, does it matter to you, does it matter to you if this is a senate bill or a house bill? i guarantee you that every veteran across the country will say no, it doesn't matter. and so the idea that we are stuck here at this point in the process because the house wants a house bill and the senate would like a senate bill, frankly, that's ludicrous and it's offensive to the veterans who have served our country. >> if the gentleman will yield? mr. gallego: i'd be happy to. mr. miller: it's not a house bill or senate bill. because this is a house bill

that the senate amendmented, so it's not a matter of whether -- amended so it's not a matter of whether it's a senate bill, house resolution. it is a house resolution that the senate has amended. thank you for yielding. mr. gallego: absolutely, mr. chairman, i'm happy to yield. but i'd point out that part of the conversation that we had is asking the senate to take action on a bill that the house sent over when that's even a better argument for this motion because the house bill is already back from the senate in the house and we can settle this question once and for all by instructing our conferees to accept that language. and i would urge that we have 26 additional facilities and i would commit to the chairman that i will do all i can to make sure that it's not just 26 facilities, that if it needs to be 27, i'm happy to do that. i have worked in a very bipartisan fashion with the democratic and republican members of the armed services

committee, particularly the freshmen members of this ommittee, in order to do that. mr. chairman, i'm always happy -- happy to yield. mr. miller: the problem we're going to have is that a conference report is a privilege red port, it's not amendable. so you will not be table add an additional clinic in the conference report. even if we recede to the senate position, we will be stuck with 26 clinics. that's why it's critical that the house bill that's been languishing for seven months that's over there be passed and sent to the president today. mr. gallego: mr. speaker, again, i'm always happy -- i love the process. and i'm a huge believer in the democratic system. but i will tell you that the idea that we're stuck at 26 and we're stuck at 26 forever is not

a credible argument. because there are other vehicles in the process that would be just as rapid and just as fast if we would get over this idea, this pride of authorship and if we would all work together on a bipartisan basis to fashion a solution that all veterans can live with. and that is incredibly important. for me, this is a starting point, not an ending point. it is important, it seems to me, and i hope to do that by example, mr. speaker that we stay away from the fingerprinting and the blame game, that we not be guilty of the fiery rhetoric. i've never understood, as a west texan, my instinct is always to put fire out. it is never my instinct to add additional fuel. and so the partisan fires that rage in this building, it seems to me, need to be put out and the interests of the american people and in this case the american veteran need to be put first and foremost and at the

front and center of everything that we are doing. we shouldn't stand and salute the v.a. as the chairman has indicated. i agree with that. but we should stand and salute every single veteran who has served and every single veteran who deserves health care and doesn't get it. and we should apologize, mr. speaker, to every single veteran who has stood in line for those months and months at the v.a. and not been able to make it through that small funnel and we should apologize to them if we don't broaden that funnel to allow more people to get more care. yeah, there may be changes to the system but those changes to the system are further down the hall, further down the way, further down the road, further down whatever. today, here, we're talking about additional v.a. facilities. that one question we can settle tonight or tomorrow, whenever the vote is on this, and we can make sure that we expand that

pipeline so that we don't try to push so many veterans through this really narrow pipeline so that some of them get squeezed out of the system. we should make that pipeline bigger so that more people get served and each of us, eachous -- each of us, republican, democrat, independent, libertarian, agnostic, each of us should be proud of that vote. stand up and salute our veterans. stand up and salute our people who served. stand up and admit they need access to health care. that's what this motion does. mr. speaker. on that note, i'm happy to close. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time for debate has expired. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question isen the motion to in-- is on the motion to instruct. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. gallego: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.

a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause of rule 20, further proceedings on the -- on this question will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, natural gas production in the mar se ulous and utica shale formations is expected to go 36% by 2035. according to a recently released

report from i.c.f. international. according to the report, quote, well data from producers suggests recovery of gas in marcellus will average 6.2 billion feet per well, up from 5.2 billion cubic feet per well in the last report, released quarterly. according to a recent administration drill regular port, pennsylvania -- gas production in pennsylvania alone has quadrupled from 2009 to 2011. today bloomberg news reports, and i quote, record natural gas production is helping send u.s. output to an all-time high. another recent industry report from the morningstar incorporated noted that pennsylvania is now ranked third in the nation for natural gas production and that the marcellus is expected to account for nearly one fourth of u.s. gas output by 2015. natural gas continues to provide jobs and family incomes that are much needed. at the same time we're moving

closer to energy independence. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the chair lay pfers the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. poe of texas for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert is recognized as a -- for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. schweikert: i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume to my friend, mr. shimkus from, it's probably soast illinois, isn't it? mr. shimkus: i want to thank my colleague for yielding, mr. speaker. i rise today to celebrate the lives of two extraordinary public servants, both considered from southern illinois, one from

deep southern illinois, state senator allen dickson and congressman kenny gray. both passed within the last week or so but our mourning has turned into remembrance and reverence for their undeniable commitment to all of us. senator allen dickson or as he was commonly known, al the pal, as we from illinois knew him and eventually everyone else in this institution and in washington knew him as that also, was a larger than life personality with a can-do spirit, if you will. he came to washington to get things done, particularly for his beloved illinois from his beginnings in belleville and sinclair county, to be being state treasurer, he modernized the offices he served in to better serve the people of the state. elected to the senate in 1980, he realized that illinois lacked

a cohesive message in washington, d.c. he began monthly illinois get togethers that continue to this day. it begins -- it brings together members of the house and senate, down state chicago, conservative, republican, moderates, liberals, we sit around and talk about the illinois agenda and how we can work together to advance it. our prayers and best wishes go out to his wife jody and his family and friends. i would also like to single out a couple of other people who are very special in his life, one was gene callahan and scot shearer, their public service on his behalf is emblematic of that of all those who worked with my friend, al the pal. just on a side note to my colleagues, we have a colleague here who is a member of congress, sherry bustos, who is the daughter of gene and there's

that great connection of in essence a politically active family that continues to serve. we'll misal the pal, he was a -- we'll miss al the pal, he was a great friend and great public servant. let me turn to kenny gray. kenny gray is a very colorful member of this chamber, well known for spending many hours in the chair. he loved this house so much that after he retired he ran again and came back. cult known as really a personality, in a sea of washington gray suits he stormed through this place in a fluroy -- flurry of colors that had never been seen before. but you dared not look away as the prince of southern illinois was here and determined to fight for his constituents. kenny made a big difference in southern illinois as the coal industry started suffering challenges. he worked hard, he was known as

the prince of pork. the prince of southern illinois, he worked diligently to bring the interstate system to southern illinois. and he's also credited with bringing a major water conservancy, wren lake, which provides much of the needed drinking water to southern illinois and i would argue deep southern illinois. i'm reminded of how he helped young people from southern illinois come and grow here in d.c. a favorite example is my friend brenda otterson of west frankfurt who came out to d.c. a few years back. she came here as a republican, kenny, a democrat. but as a republican, brenda came from a family of democrats. try as he might, kenny worked hard to convert her. when he finally realized she wasn't budging, he said, fine, and helped her get fall-time job with a republican member. she served with distinction and

never forgot her kenny gray roots. kenny's wife toti and their family deserves a special prayer and tranks from all of us. mr. speaker, we -- time comes and time goes. rabid debates, a flurry of activities, we always take time out to remember those who -- of our colleagues from future generations who have served, served nobly and then gone home. i think it's just fitting to remember that we remember those who served selflessly for many years as we take up their call to continue to do the same. it's also important to remember to enjoy each and every day, enjoy life, work hard, because everything has its time under the sun and everything is passing. that's why i appreciate the opportunity to serve.

i love the chamber. i love my colleagues. and with that, thank you for this opportunity for my colleague, mr. schweikert, and with that, i yield back to mr. schweikert. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. shimkus. for efficiency, i'm going to come down to the well only because we have a number of boards we'd like to present in our next portion here. mr. speaker, a couple of weeks ago, i came to the floor and did a bit of a presentation of some of the numbers we were seeing on what was actually happening in our debt in our future economic growth. why we were so stagnant in today's economy and the overhang

that was, i believe, the very thing that was slowing down future economic growth. i had a number of phone calls, a number of emails and a few comments on facebook asking for a little more definition, a little more presentation system of i thought i would come to the floor this evening, take some of this leadership hour and walk through some of the numbers. and i have to apologize to everyone right now, i'm going to throw out a lot of math a lot of numbers, but you're goinl to see a theme -- you're going to see a theme here of what is coming at us and it's coming at us very, very fast. after we do this, i want to do a little talk b about a piece of legislation that i have that has made it through committee and i'm hoping over the next couple of months will come to the floor and what that piece of legislation, i believe, means to sort of transparency here in our government with the e.p.a. and hopefully as just sort of the future of how we deal with data

in this federal government. the chart alongside me, and i know there's a lot of lines in it and it's hard to read, but it has a very, very, very simple theme. i'm going to show variations of this on a couple of different boards. the red you see down at the bottom, that's what we call discretionary spending. that's what we substantially get to come down and vote on. and that discretionary spending, if you look at the next decade, on this chart, basically stays the same. so the military, the park service, the f.b.i., all -- education, these things that are programmatic, that we come down and vote for on the discretionary side of the budget are pretty much staying even for the next 10 years. do you see the blue lines? they doubled, just slightly shy of doubling, but they basically doubled over the next 10