Memorialize Our Guardsmen and Reservists Act

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 5854, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I know that my colleagues feel the same way I do that one of the most gratifying, most rewarding parts of this extraordinary job that we're entrusted with in addition to being guardians of the Treasury, to being good stewards of the public's business, is to do everything in our power to help ensure that our men and women in uniform have all that they need to do their job as they stand guard and over this Nation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in every scary, dark corner of the world.

Today, Madam Chair, it's my privilege, with my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), to lay before the House and ask for its approval the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for 2013.

On our committee, we feel as though we are the peace of mind committee for the United States military. We want to ensure in the work that we do in the Military Construction and in Veterans Affairs that we have done everything we can to ensure that our men and women in uniform don't have any worries, that they don't have to worry about when they are in uniform; they don't have to worry about the quality of their barracks, their living conditions; they don't have to worry about the condition of the military facilities that they are living and working in.

We want to make sure that they have got everything that they need. The United States Navy, when it comes to piers or sub pens, or the Air Force for runways, or the Marine Corps or for the Army, we have done everything in this bill that the Pentagon has asked us to do and fully funded it in a way that's fiscally responsible, Madam Chair.

We have also taken care of our veterans, of our men and women in uniform when they leave the Armed Forces and become veterans, because they will spend most of their time out of the military, and we wanted to be sure that our Veterans Affairs Administration was fully funded, that they have got all the resources that they need in order to take care of our men's and women's health care needs, psychological and physical, and in a way that's fiscally responsible.

In this environment, Madam Chair, in this era of record debt and deficit, our subcommittee, along with the full Appropriations Committee, has done everything in our power to find ways to save money, to be good stewards of the public's precious, hard-earned tax dollars. And in our subcommittee, something we have done together in a bipartisan way, arm-in-arm, we have made sure to ferret out every unspent dollar from previous years that could be returned to taxpayers, to avoid spending increases while making sure that our men and women in uniform are taken care of while they are in uniform and also, as I say, when they leave active duty and become veterans under the care of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

We have, because of decreases, Madam Chair, of the Air Force, the Army, the Pentagon, our Armed Forces are reassessing their deployment needs around the world. We've seen a reduction this year in the level of spending requests for military construction around the world that enabled us to increase spending for the Department of Veterans Affairs while holding overall spending for this bill flat. That reflects not only our finding cost savings in various parts of the bill, but, in particular, the Air Force, among the branches of the service, asked for significantly less money this year.

But we have also taken into account in our legislation the pay freeze that is in place for the entire Federal Government. We have applied that to Federal civilian contractors working in the military construction field or for the VA.

We have also, Madam Chair, in our legislation, made sure that the VA uses their construction funds within 5 years. In the past, they simply could hold that money year after year after year; and we want to make sure that that money is used for the purpose that Congress intended it, and that is to build VA facilities.

We have been able to find savings in a variety of other areas, Madam Chair, all of which have permitted us to fully fund the request of the Pentagon in giving our Armed Forces around the world everything that they need to do their job without a worry in the world. If they are out there on watch, guarding the United States of America and protecting our liberty, our committee has made sure to give them as much peace of mind as possible.

Two other things I want to make sure to bring to the Members' attention that is extremely important.

At the Veterans Administration, for years there's been an effort to get a combined medical record. When you're in uniform, on active duty, you have got one set of medical records with the Department of Defense. Then when you enter the Veterans Administration, that medical record is not compatible with the computer systems or their recordkeeping systems at the Veterans Administration, which causes terrible inefficiencies and threatens lives, endangers the health of our men and women in uniform.

This committee has taken very seriously the task that Chairman Rogers has charged us with to ensure that we move the Department of Defense and the Veterans Administration as rapidly as possible to a unified medical record. Then when our young men and women leave the active duty service, that medical record stays with them in the VA.

Finally, I want to also make sure to thank my good friend, Sanford Bishop from Georgia. It's been a privilege to work with Mr. Bishop and his staff. We are blessed with an extraordinarily capable staff on this committee.

This bill, more than I think perhaps any other, Madam Chair, illustrates how unified the Congress is in support of our men and women in uniform. We have found common ground on every section of this bill, on every issue. We've worked together arm-in-arm to make certain that the men and women of the United States military can focus on their mission of protecting this great Nation with complete peace of mind, knowing that the Congress of the United States is behind them and will support them in all they do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.004

It's my privilege at this time to yield 5 minutes to the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chair, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).

Madam Chairman, I want to assure my colleague from California and all the Members, and all the members of the military tonight listening, if you have retired recently, our subcommittee is going to really bore in on this and make sure that the claims backlog is dealt with, that it's done expeditiously. Obviously, we want to make sure that these men and women who, again, have earned everything that this country can possibly give them, to make their life comfortable and secure, to make sure that their health is taken care of, that that claims backlog is dealt with.

I also want to reassure my colleagues--and I know that we've got a rapt audience at the Veterans Administration here tonight as well--that we are going to really bore in on this medical records problem. It is utterly unacceptable for Federal bureaucracies to not work together on something as vitally important as medical records.

The example that Chairman Rogers gave us of a young man who lost his eyesight because of a bureaucratic inadequacy and just foolishness is just not acceptable. We had another story of a young man who actually lost his life in Bill Young's district, Chairman Young of Florida. So we're going to make sure that those issues are dealt with, and again, to make sure that our men and women in uniform don't ever have to look over their shoulder to worry about what the United States Congress has done to support them.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Yes, Mr. Cuellar. Absolutely, we're going to bore in on this.

MD Anderson, of course, is one of the Nation's greatest cancer centers. We have had complaints and concerns expressed to my office about the slow pay of the Veterans' Administration for MD Anderson's treatment of VA patients. And absolutely, we're going to get to the bottom of it. There's just no excuse for it.

If services have been rendered--and clearly, MD Anderson, again, if you're lucky enough to be treated by MD Anderson, they're the greatest in the world. We're going to make sure that they're paid promptly. I understand that MD Anderson is currently owed over $1 million. It's just unacceptable. We'll do everything we can to help.

I also want to be sure to thank my colleague from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and say how much I've enjoyed working with him over the years in securing our border in Texas. We've got language in the bill, which Mr. Cuellar suggested, to encourage the Army National Guard to work with our Border Patrol and law enforcement authorities on the border in a cooperative way to ensure that the laws are enforced because, of course, we want that border to work securely and fairly so we get that strong economic growth back and forth while keeping out the criminals and gunrunners. Henry, you've been a leader in this effort to secure the border, and it's a privilege to work with you on this

Madam Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

Madam Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield such time as he might consume to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Madam Chairman, my colleagues from Pennsylvania raise a really important issue that absolutely the subcommittee will look into. It's a constant source of concern for us to see Federal agencies waste our constituents' precious tax dollars for, it appears to me from the way you've described it, possible elimination of existing good service, duplication of existing service, and unnecessary expenditure of tax dollars.

We will work very closely with you and do all that we can to help make sure that the veterans that you represent are being given the very best possible health care at the best value for taxpayers.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a friend and colleague from Texas, Judge John Carter.

Madam Chairman, at this time I'd like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the House Transportation Committee, Mr. Mica of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman for that purpose.

Yes, absolutely, Chairman Mica. We're going to ensure that there are enough Federal resources to complete that veterans facility, but also to ensure that we're good stewards of the treasury and that our tax dollars are spent wisely and carefully. And we're going to make certain that the VA is not wasting money and not engaging in cost overruns, sir.

Thank you, Chairman Mica. You've been a stalwart leader on behalf of veterans for many years here in Congress. And thank you for bringing this to our attention. The subcommittee is going to give it our full attention and make sure that facility is built in a way that's cost effective and takes care of your veterans.

Madam Chairman, as we wrap up the opening part of this bill, I think it's important to point out to the Members of the House, to the country, that this is the third appropriations bill that has been brought to the House floor under the leadership of Chairman Rogers, the third appropriations bill that we've brought up as a new majority in the House. And this, to my knowledge, is the first time in American history that there have been three successive spending bills in a row.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

What I was remembering, my good friend, Mr. Dicks, is when we first came in the spring, I think there was an omnibus bill that had to be dealt with.

What we've done, I know on this committee, is work arm-in-arm to find ways to solve the Nation's problems.

We are indeed. We're going to finish this bill tonight, Mr. Dicks. But it's important to point out, I think, that Chairman Rogers deserves a great deal of credit. This committee has worked. We have searched every nook and cranny we can of the Federal budget under our jurisdiction to save every possible dollar we can, and this is the first time, certainly in my memory and my knowledge of American history, that we've had multiple appropriations bills in a row that have reduced Federal spending.

Our constituents want us to do, obviously, far more. Yet when it comes to the military, when it comes to Veterans Affairs, we have worked arm in arm to save every possible dollar while at the same time preserving the quality of care for our veterans in the VA health care system. Then, in the armed services of the United States, when they're in uniform, we have made certain that all of their needs are taken care of when it comes to housing, when it comes to the education of their kids, when it comes to the caliber of the facilities that they have to live and work in. So it is our privilege to bring this bill to the House tonight in a bipartisan fashion.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to increase by $10 million the Department of Defense's investment in planning and design funds for the Energy Conservation Investment Program, which is certainly a worthwhile program. I accept the amendment, but I cannot stand idly by when I hear the gentleman refer to energy independence.

There is no greater energy independence for America than a ``drill here and drill now'' for American energy resources. I proudly represent the west side of Houston. My neighbors, my friends, my colleagues are geophysicists and engineers who have kids in school and who play at the beach. I've grown up on the Galveston seawall while watching oil and gas rigs right off the shore. We can produce American oil and gas cleanly, safely, immediately, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, vast wealth for the Nation and making America energy independent in the short run and in the medium run.

Clearly, we need to make investments in the future for alternative sources of energy, and I certainly agree with the gentleman from Oregon about the need to make investments looking out into the future. Rice University, which I also proudly represent, is doing extraordinary work in developing ways of using carbon nanostructures to transmit electricity ballistically so that we can transmit, store, and transport electricity in ways that were never possible before. That holds the promise of making America energy independent, but that's way down the road.

I do have to say that, while I support the gentleman's amendment, I feel compelled to point out, if you would just unleash the entrepreneurship, the good judgment and the extraordinary technological capability, then the people of America, many of whom I proudly represent in west Houston, would be able to produce vast amounts of American oil and gas right here in the United States immediately. It would be a tremendous boost to the Nation's economy, making America energy independent in the short run. Clearly, because we've got enough shale gas, we could, frankly, support ourselves on shale gas and oil for who knows how long.

I do agree with the gentleman: for the long term, we do need to look at energy alternatives. Certainly, with regard to the Department of Defense, you've reduced one account by $10 million and plussed up this account by $10 million so that the overall cost of the bill does not go up. I do accept the gentleman's amendment, but I have a respectful disagreement with the premise of his argument.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we have no objection to the amendment and will be happy to accept it.

We will accept the gentleman's amendment. He raised an important point for the committee's consideration.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to consider out of order amendment No. 1 by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and an amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Schock).

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

The gentleman brings to the attention of the Congress and the country an extraordinarily important issue that the committee is focused on. Post-traumatic stress disorder is so extraordinarily important and difficult to diagnosis in many cases.

I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. We welcome it and will continue to do everything we can to help make sure to alleviate the suffering of a lot of our veterans and what they go through as they return from serving this great Nation.

We accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'm the first one to be a strong advocate of the 10th Amendment. As a Jeffersonian, I really believe very strongly in the whole idea of individual liberty and letting local governments make local decisions and State governments make decisions at the State level.

In some States, as in New Jersey and New York, certainly the labor union movement is very strong and PLAs may work in those States. It certainly may make sense in New York or New Jersey, but Texas is a right-to-work State, and proudly so. We don't have many labor unions-- in fact, very few at all. In the construction industry in particular, there really are no unionized construction firms. There are none.

So if the President's executive order--which he issued almost as soon as he came in, President Obama signed an executive order that said the President of the United States--now, just imagine if you're the head of a local VA and you get an order from the President of the United States saying the President recommends that you, as the head of the VA, hire a construction firm that uses a project labor agreement, you're probably going to follow that advice. It is impossible to do that in the State of Texas.

My friend from Arizona, Arizona is a right-to-work State. Many States across the country are right to work. We don't have labor unions. I believe Georgia is a right-to-work State. We don't have a State income tax in Texas. We don't have many labor unions. Trial lawyers have to really have a good lawsuit before they can go to the courthouse. Taxes are generally low. The streets are safe. We've got, in Texas, a thundering economy.

If I recall right, Texas has created most of the jobs in this Nation over the last 10 years. And one of the reasons Texas' economy is so strong is we don't have many labor unions. But of course that's up to us in Texas. And people have been voting with their feet and moving to Texas. We've had tremendous influx of people from other parts of the country.

The language that is in the bill, my good friend from New York, my friend from New Jersey, the language in the bill does not prohibit the use of project labor agreements; it really doesn't. The language was carefully written so that the government cannot discriminate against or give preference to a construction firm that uses PLAs. Nor can the government--and I'm going to read it here exactly--nor can the government require a contractor to enter into or adhere to a project labor agreement.

A project labor agreement--I need to make sure folks understand what we're talking about--is essentially a requirement that if you want to do business with the Federal Government, you have to unionize your shop. That doesn't make any sense in Texas, it doesn't make any sense in Georgia, it doesn't make any sense in Arizona where we have no unionized contractors--or virtually none, to my knowledge. You can't build a house, you can't build a building in Houston, Texas, if you require the use of a unionized contractor. They don't exist.

Reclaiming my time, you're right. And that's the problem, my friend, Mr. Dicks, from Washington State. Truly, you're exactly right. The VA can and will require a nonunion contractor in Texas to unionize before they can even----

Yes, sir. That's correct. I'm about to run out of time.

If I could point out, the gentleman from Washington is correct; on this vote, they're not required to unionize, but they're required to adopt the higher prevailing wage. They're required to adopt all the other higher, more expensive standards that a union may require. That puts that contractor at an immediate competitive disadvantage with all of the other contractors out there.

There are no unionized--or very few unionized contractors in Houston, Texas--throughout the whole State, and that's the problem. While perhaps in New York, while perhaps in New Jersey, while perhaps in Washington State PLAs may actually wind up saving you money--for reasons mysterious to me as a free market guy, but it may save you money.

This language does not prohibit the use of a unionized contractor in New York. Let me repeat, in the brief time I've got left: none of the funds in this act can be used to discriminate against or give preference to a union shop, and the government cannot require a contractor to enter into an agreement. So, you see, the language, as written, we're all on the same page here, guys. This language does not require unionization. It doesn't force a non-union shop to adopt a prevailing wage, for example. And it enables everyone to bid without discrimination.

Our concern is, with the President's executive order, which says that the President of the United States encourages the local VA to hire a contractor that follows union guidelines, they don't exist in Texas. That makes no sense. That's why the gentleman from Arizona wrote this amendment this way. And that's why it's important that the House defeat this amendment to save taxpayer dollars and to allow non-union contractors in right-to-work States to compete for these government construction projects.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and thank you for the extra time.

I do.

Our point was that in right-to-work States where we have virtually no labor unions, we don't want contractors to be required to adopt prevailing wages or adopt union guidelines in order to bid on a contract. And in States like yours, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, you should be free to do so.

And I think the way, truly, if I may, the way the amendment is written, we have obviously a difference of opinion, but it is written very clearly that the government cannot require or prohibit contractors from adopting these PLAs, so it leaves it really up to the local VA to decide whether they're going to bid it out to a nonunion shop or a union shop, depending on the State. In your State, fine. In Texas, you know, we're a nonunion State.

I think we're headed in the same place, which is that you'd like to preserve the ability to hire union contractors in Ohio, New York, and New Jersey. We share that. I have no objection. Under the 10th Amendment, if that's what you guys want to do, God bless you.

So what I would ask is that perhaps we could postpone the consideration of this amendment briefly. Would you guys come up with some language to amend Mr. Flake's language to make it even clearer in your mind; so let New Jersey run New Jersey and New York run New York and Ohio run New York, and let Texans run Texas?

I want Ohio to run Ohio.

Will you offer an amendment, because you're a very capable legislator, and may we postpone the consideration of this amendment briefly so that you could amend his language to let Texans run Texas and Arizona run Arizona and Ohio run Ohio?

We've got other work.

No, but we could fix this, though. Let's fix this.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, as you know, the allocation provides $71.7 billion for the FY 2012 Milcon-VA bill, which is equal to the FY12 enacted bill. In my opinion, the allocation is what we could have expected if the Republicans would have stuck to the bipartisan agreement that established $1.047 as the committee's allocation.

I've stated at every step of this process that I strongly disagree with the path that the majority has chosen to take. I just want to point out that the $1.028 trillion allocation puts House Republicans at odds with House Democrats, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, and the White House. In fact, the Statement of Administration Policy recommends a veto of this bill because the overall 302(a) allocation fails to stick to the framework established by the Budget Control Act. I believe the lower allocation does nothing but slow down the appropriations process, and if it stands, will stall economic growth and impede job creation.

With that being said, I'm pleased to join Chairman Culberson as the House takes up the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies. The Milcon-VA bill is critically important to the strength and the well-being of our military, our veterans, and the families who sacrifice so much to defend our country. In fact, Madam Chairman, I find it quite fitting that we're debating this bill after observing Memorial Day earlier in the week.

Working with Chairman Culberson and the members of the subcommittee, we've crafted a bill that will address the funding needs of military construction and family housing for our troops and their families, as well as other quality of life construction projects. In addition, it will provide funding for many important VA programs as well as agencies like the Veterans Court of Appeals and the American Battle Monuments Commission.

The bill before us today touches every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman. In addition, the bill will also impact military spouses, their children, and every veteran that participates in our VA programs.

I want to commend the chairman for his work. Together, we sat through numerous hearings, gaining valuable insight into the workings of all of the agencies under our subcommittee's jurisdiction. I would also like to thank all of our subcommittee members and recognize them for their hard work on the bill. We had a lot of contributions and a lot of input. I believe that the minority was treated fairly during this process, and I want to thank the chairman for ensuring this bipartisan result.

Chairman Culberson has already provided the funding highlights in the bill, and I won't repeat them all, but I would like to point out a few items that I think are very important.

DOD Schools. The bill before us today includes $546 billion for the renovation and replacement of 10 Department of Defense schools. Madam Chairman, I believe that providing the funds for DOD schools will help our servicemembers' children get a quality education in a safe facility, and it will give our servicemembers and their families some peace of mind.

Medical Center Replacement. I was pleased that in the bill we were able to include $127 million for the second increment for Medical Center Replacement in Germany. As you know, a large proportion of serious casualties from the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters are treated there, and I'm pleased to see that we're making this important investment in Landstuhl.

Veterans Affairs. For Veterans Affairs, I'm very pleased that the bill meets the discretionary budget request in all areas of administrative expenses, research, medical care, information technology, and facilities. The bill contains $54.4 billion in advance appropriations for medical services, medical support and compliance, and medical facilities at the VA, which is $1.9 billion above the amount included in FY12.

Madam Chairman, I strongly believe that advance funding provides timely and predictable funding for the veterans' health care system, and they don't have to worry about the exigencies of a budget not being agreed to or appropriations bills not being passed for their medical care.

Overall, the bill provides adequate funding for programs included in the bill. However, I'm especially troubled by one of them. Unfortunately, during the full committee markup an amendment was adopted that essentially nullifies the decisionmaking ability of the Department of Defense to use a project labor agreements business model. The sponsor of this language believes that it doesn't limit the Department from using PLAs. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I had the minority subcommittee staff check with the Department regarding this language. The Department confirmed that if this bill is enacted with the current PLA language included, it would prohibit the Department from soliciting bills for FY13-funded construction contracts where, as a condition of award, the awardee must negotiate a project labor agreement.

In addition, we do not know the effect this language could have on other agencies included in this bill. Using the Milcon-VA bill to address this issue is really the wrong place to do it. This language is purely an ideological and political provision that goes well beyond the scope of this bill. The Milcon-VA bill has always enjoyed broad bipartisan support and avoided divisive issues like this one, no matter which party held the gavel. I believe that including this language will only cause unnecessary complications and does nothing to help our servicemembers and our veterans.

Madam Chairman, please know that as we continue through the process I will work to address this issue because an item like this has no place in a bill that has always placed our troops, their families, and our veterans above ideology.

Before I close, Madam Chairman, I would like to recognize the staff for all of the hard work and the time that they have put into this bill. From the minority committee staff I would like to thank Matt Washington, Danny Cromer, as well as Michael Reed and Chris Chon from my personal office. From the majority committee staff I would like to thank Donna Shabazz, Sue Quantius, Sarah Young, and Tracey Russell.

I would also like to thank Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers, who serve as the distinguished ranking member and chairman of this committee and who set an extremely great example of how committees and ranking members and chairmen should work together. There's a collegial atmosphere, although we do have reasonable minds disagreeing on several of the issues. But we work together collegially, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member, Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers, for their example in doing so.

I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time I'd like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee.

At this time I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

At this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

At this time, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, we have no more speakers. I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that the Department of Defense should be doing all that it can to reduce energy costs and to help us be energy independent. The Energy Conservation Investment Program is a fairly small, but key, component of the Defense Department's energy strategy.

The goals are to improve supply resiliency, implement energy security plans, and alter energy consumption at individual installations. Investing in this small program helps the Department to reduce its energy costs and help meet its facility energy mandates.

The Department has been funding ECIP as far back as 2001, and the committee has seen great progress on energy savings. For example, at Fort Liggett, they are building a 1-megawatt solar grid which will help that installation ease its energy consumption.

ECIP is a cost-saving program I think all Members should be happy to support. Therefore, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I'm delighted that the chairman has accepted it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.

The language included in the bill says that none of the funds made available by this act may be used by any government authority or agent thereof awarding a construction contract on behalf of the government, and any solicitations, bids, specifications, project agreements, or other controlling documents, to require or prohibit bidders, offerers, contractors, and subcontractors to enter into or adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations. Language currently included essentially nullifies the decisionmaking ability of not only the Department of Defense, but also the Department of Veterans Affairs, the American Battle Monuments Commission, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Arlington National Cemetery to use a PLA business model.

To put it another way, all of these agencies currently have two choices: yes, we want to use a PLA, or no, we don't want to use a PLA. Without this amendment, the agencies will no longer be able to make that yes or no choice. If this language is maintained, then every agency in this bill will literally not be able to make a decision on the business model that they want to use for their construction projects.

The language is a backdoor way to ensure that the project labor agreement business model is not available as an option for the Federal Government to even consider using on any of the construction projects in the bill.

Keeping this language would be a mistake since PLAs ensure that construction projects are built correctly the first time, on time, and as a result, on budget for the end-user. Furthermore, PLAs prevent costly delays that usually result from an unskilled workforce's lack of knowledge regarding the use of building materials or tools, as well as job site safety measures.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, we don't know the effect this language could have on VA projects. And I don't believe that this Congress should include any language that could further delay vital Veterans Affairs projects.

I find this language to be unclear and believe it will only add uncertainty and confusion to the construction process. I don't understand why we would take this option off the table. If a project labor agreement is good for Toyota, or Boeing, or Wal-Mart, why isn't it good enough for the Federal Government?

I urge all the Members to vote ``yes'' on the Grimm amendment. It's sound, and it will help us to get our construction done on time and on budget and safely.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2013 Military Construction and Veterans Administration Appropriation bill. This bill continues the strong tradition of bipartisanship and finding common ground as members traditionally work together to fund construction of military facilities and strive to improve the quality of life and care afforded to our veterans and military families.

I want to associate myself with the remarks made by Chairman Rogers about Tim Peterson. He was and has been one of our outstanding clerks on the committee. I have had the pleasure of working with him throughout his entire career, and we're going to miss him, but wish him well in his future endeavors.

I also would say that this subcommittee has a very strong staff, and it's great to see the way Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Sanford Bishop have worked together.

And I want to say also that Chairman Rogers is absolutely correct, we have to overcome this inability to get information between our military and veterans hospitals, and the private sector as well. We've got to do everything we can to improve the treatment of our troops.

I have previously stated my objection to the Majority's decision to renege on the bipartisan agreement that was reached less than a year ago in the Budget Control Act. I believe the reduced discretionary allocation in the Ryan budget threatens to stall economic growth and job creation, and in the near term it introduces uncertainty in our appropriations process that imperils our ability to produce these bills in a timely manner. Accordingly, it is my belief that we could save a considerable amount of time in the appropriations process if we simply returned to the agreement reached last August--the $1.047 trillion allocation level for this year--a level which even the Republican Senate leadership concedes is where we will eventually end up.

I am, however, encouraged that this bill fully funds the Department of Veterans Affairs discretionary budget request of $60.7 billion. It meets the overall budget request in all areas of administrative expenses, research, information technology and facilities. The recommendation contains $74.6 billion for the mandatory VA programs providing compensation and pensions, educational benefits, vocational rehabilitation, life insurance and housing loan programs.

I am particularly pleased that the Military Construction account includes $546.9 million for construction and replacement of Department of Defense Education Activity schools. A total of 10 schools will be refurbished with this funding--six in the United States and nine schools at overseas installations. Many of these schools are in exceedingly poor condition and these improvements are long overdue. I have been a strong advocate for the modernization of schools serving the children of our nation's service members and I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member on their commitment to this effort.

In addition, this bill continues to ensure that we are providing high-quality, safe, and healthy living accommodations for our single military members. Many of the older barracks in the military are at the end of their 30 to 50-year design life cycle and do not meet current design standards or current building codes. This bill includes $927 million for 21 barracks, dormitories, and bachelor enlisted quarters that will address substandard living conditions and boost morale among our troops. While this bill makes significant progress in addressing current deficiencies, it does not address all the housing shortfalls for our single service members. The quality of our installations is a measure of the nation's commitment to the troops who defend it, and we must continue to improve the substandard conditions of the military's barracks, dormitories, and bachelor quarters in the future. I encourage the Department of Defense to continue to replace these facilities in a timely manner.

There is one provision in the bill that concerns me. During full committee consideration, an amendment was passed that would restrict the use of Project Labor Agreements on military construction projects. Current policy gives the Defense Department the option to choose whether a PLA is appropriate for a particular project--whether it will save money or accelerate construction schedules at the government's convenience. An amendment will be offered on the floor later today to remove this harmful language and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

Will the gentleman yield?

I know the gentleman wouldn't want to mislead the House. This is the second bill. We're going to get to the third bill, but this is number 2.

That was last year. H.R. 1. We remember it. It was 800 amendments, 600 on your side, 200 on our side.

We're going to get the third one up tomorrow or maybe tonight even.

The distinguished chairman--who does a great job, and we're trying to work together--if we understand this, a non-union shop can be considered for work under a project labor agreement. You don't have to be a union shop. So a non-union company can do it. All they have to do is to agree to the terms that are part of the project labor agreement; in other words, that they will use the wages and other standards that the project labor agreement has. If they will abide by that, then they can be considered for

work. So that doesn't mean that there aren't any.

Thank you for yielding.

No, no, no, no. If the gentleman will yield?

They don't have to unionize. They just have to agree to the prevailing wage and other things that are part of the project labor agreement, but they don't have to be unionized.

It will be very brief.

The Office of General Counsel of the Department of Defense says about the gentleman's amendment:

If enacted, the attached provision would prohibit the

Department from soliciting bids for FY13-funded construction

contracts where, as a mandatory condition of award, the

awardee must negotiate a project labor agreement with one or

more labor organizations for the term of the resulting

construction contract.

That means they can't do it.

That's not what they think. They think that if your language does what I think you----

Well, that's not how they interpret it.

If it's neutral, what does it do then?

Well, what does it do then?

Will the gentleman yield just briefly on that point?

Just briefly, the President doesn't require that they use a project labor agreement. He just suggests that they might be able to use it. That's pretty neutral.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Let's get back to some facts here. Under the CRS report that was referenced earlier, the National Labor Relations Act, as we know, gives most private sector workers the right to join or form a labor union and to bargain collectively.

A project labor agreement is a collective bargaining agreement that applies to a specific construction project and lasts only for the duration of that project. In February 2009, President Barack Obama signed an executive order that encourages Federal Agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements on large-scale construction projects.

The EO describes a large-scale project as one where the total cost to the Federal Government is $25 million or more. The order States that Agencies are not required to use project labor agreements. Regulations implementing the executive order went into effect in May 2010.

Now, if that isn't neutrality, what is neutrality? I think this is a big to-do about nothing.

I mean, this amendment is not necessary. The President didn't mandate anybody to do anything. The Agencies decide if it is in the interests of the government to do this in a particular case. This administration has hardly done any project labor agreements as far as my understanding is, at least with the Department of Defense.

Again, I don't quite understand all of this concern, especially when nonunion contractors can be part of the agreement. They can bid, they can be part of the agreement as long as they will abide by the law, but with the prevailing wage agreements or things of that nature.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

There is no evidence of that.

Tell me who's done project labor agreements?

That's not what it says. That's not what the President's statement says.

Reclaiming my time, I would just point out that the Department of Defense thinks the gentleman from Arizona's language is prohibitive, that it doesn't give them any leeway, that they must not do a project labor agreement.

May I ask the Chair how much time I have remaining.

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), the author of the amendment, if he would like to make any further comments here.

The best and safest thing to do is to defeat the Flake amendment. That's kind of a standard. That's the surest way of protecting the executive order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment to offer.

I commend Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop for their outstanding work and leadership on this appropriations bill. It provides for our veterans, for our military families, and it makes great strides for greater energy efficiency on military installations.

But I think it might be able to go farther.

My amendment would strengthen military national security and save taxpayers money by decreasing the Pentagon's energy consumption. The amendment would simply align the House bill with the Senate mark for the Energy Conservation Investment Program, ECIP, by providing an additional $10 million for planning and design.

The Department of Defense is the largest manager of infrastructure in the United States and the largest consumer of energy in the world, using over 300,000 barrels of oil per day and almost 4 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year.

That's as much energy as the entire State of Oregon, which I call home.

The Pentagon operates 500 installations with over a half million buildings and structures worldwide. Given the size and scope of our military's infrastructure, it's not surprising to find that the Department of Defense accounts for more than 70 percent of all energy consumed by the entire Federal Government.

I believe that the Pentagon and Congress have an obligation to taxpayers, who foot the Pentagon's bill of $17 billion a year, which is spent on gasoline and diesel fuel, to not only decrease the military's overall level of energy consumption through efficiency efforts, but to move towards greater energy independence from the petro-dictators.

It's a necessity for our continued national security, that of freeing our military from the tethers of foreign oil as resources grow scarcer and suppliers more unstable. It's also an obligation for anyone who is serious about cutting our national debt. Every $10 increase in the price of petroleum costs the Pentagon an extra $1.3 billion a year on top of what we're already spending.

There are alternatives. There are solutions.

Congress needs to act by providing the resources and the authorities the Pentagon needs because ``supporting our troops'' means securing their energy future. In some cases, Congress simply needs to stand out of the way so that the Pentagon can continue making progress. The $160 million in the Senate bill is only a drop in the giant gasoline can if it is not accompanied by a significant investment in alternative energy sources for use by the military. Leaders in the Pentagon and our veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan stand behind the idea of making the military leaner and meaner by reducing its reliance on fossil fuel.

Speaking in reference to this amendment, Mike Breen, a veteran and vice president of the Truman National Security Project, said:

As an Operation Free veteran and former captain in Iraq and

Afghanistan, I saw firsthand that we have a 21st-century

military shackled to a 20th-century fuel. All of our civilian

leaders must match the military's commitment and stop putting

shortsighted politics ahead of good policy.

But some colleagues are tied to the past, and they've scuttled any and all efforts to provide for greater efficiency and alternatives in military vehicles.

The amendment I offer today must be accompanied by future investment in sustainable fuels in the military, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize that the only way to truly sustain a strong military and achieve energy independence is to stand up for these investments, not only today, but in future appropriations as well.

I thank the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee for their hard work. This appropriations bill puts us closer to where we need to be, and I hope they will join me in making this last push. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I offer an amendment.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. This is such a well-oiled machine, the subcommittee galloping ahead, and I apologize that I turned my head. I think it is worthy to go back and deal with this amendment offered on behalf of my colleague, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and myself.

Today, America stands on the precipice of discovery when it comes to understanding how the human brain operates. These discoveries have huge implications for taxpayers--who cumulatively spend over a half trillion dollars a year on treatments for brain-related issues--and for some of the most pressing medical challenges we face.

Scientific breakthroughs in neuroscience research have led to a higher quality of life for the 50 million Americans who are affected by neurological illnesses every year. Two of the most pressing examples of how outside trauma and events can drastically alter the structure and function of our brain are under the purview of this subcommittee: posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.

These injuries can often be hidden from the naked eye. Almost one in five soldiers in the previous decade suffered a traumatic brain injury, and 15 percent of veterans are diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder. That represents hundreds of thousands of cases of cognitive and physical impairment due to TBI and PTSD that impact the lives and the loved ones of our servicemen and -women.

Today, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and I, as cochairs of the Congressional Neuroscience Caucus, are offering an amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Appropriations Act to ensure that the Veterans Administration continues to have the resources it needs to find innovative new medicines and enhanced diagnostics for what can truly be termed an epidemic. The amendment does not increase or decrease any accounts in the appropriations bill. It simply requires that no fewer than $35 million of the medical and prosthetic research account go towards posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury so that we can expedite a cure for active duty personnel and veterans suffering the effects of brain and psychological trauma incurred during their service.

We are keenly aware that translating research into effective treatments and therapeutics is a long and difficult process. Every area of research undertaken by the VA to help our veterans must be a priority. But we believe that TBI and PTSD research must be further prioritized in this bill because we are so close to the finish line in our race to find the right treatments for these brain injuries that now is the time to dig deep and make the final push.

Also, these items demand our special attention because their effects can so easily harm a soldier's family and loved ones if not properly diagnosed. Early detection and prevention preempts chaos, hardship and, indeed, in some cases, further loss of life.

We must commit to better understand how the brain's 100 billion nerve cells grow, interact, and are altered by our environment. It's hard to think of a more fitting gesture from this body a few days after Memorial Day than supporting this amendment to demonstrate our commitment to finding effective treatments and therapies for these neurological impacts which plague our military personnel who dutifully serve our country. We must remember our duty to the wounded warriors who face a long journey to recovery. These harms may not be as visible as a missing limb but can be even more damaging to a veteran's future and relationships.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, a commitment from Congress to our servicemembers that we will continue to do all we can to develop new medicines and technologies to improve the lives for those in need.

Again, I appreciate the extraordinary courtesy of the subcommittee and respectfully urge adoption of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

It seems Republicans are incapable of legislating without exacting a toll from federal employees.

Earlier this year, in order to prevent a Social Security tax increase on all Americans, House Republicans insisted that future federal employees nearly quadruple the amount they contribute to their own retirement.

Without a corresponding increase in benefits, the larger contribution was simply a pay cut.

After the tax extenders bill, Republicans sought a toll from federal employees on the Transportation Reauthorization bill.

That bill's price for federal employees was a 1.5 percent reduction of agencies' contribution to their retirement benefit.

Federal employees would have been forced to make up the difference-- again, a pay cut.

The most egregious attack, unsurprisingly, came from the Budget Resolution offered by Mr. Ryan.

Mr. Ryan's budget directed the House Oversight and Government Reform committee to indentify nearly $80 billion in ``savings'' from federal employee benefit programs over a ten year window.

The committee recommended increasing retirement contributions by 5 percent with no corresponding increase in benefits for all current federal employees, immediately increasing retirement contributions to 5.8 percent for all new federal employees, and eliminating the Social Security supplement for all federal employees who retire before becoming eligible for their earned Social Security benefit.

And just today, it was revealed that the Republican Leadership has proposed using federal compensation cuts to offset a student loan rate reduction extension. What a shame.

This evening I rise to speak against the federal employee cuts contained in the underlying bill.

The MILCON/VA bill would freeze the pay of some 305,000 civilian employees of the Veterans Administration and some DoD employees for a third consecutive year.

It is astounding that Members of this body would stand up this evening and proclaim the solemn debt our country owes to our veterans knowing this bill cuts the benefits of those who treat and care for our retired servicemembers.

Today there are approximately 100,000 homeless veterans. VA employees work every day to reduce that tragedy and as a reward this body will freeze their pay.

According to the most recent reports, veteran unemployment has actually dropped below the national average.

The VA counselors that assist veterans in their search for employment undoubtedly deserve some recognition for this trend.

To thank them, this body will again try to freeze their pay.

Finally, an estimated one in five veterans from our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan will return home with some type of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Mental health providers and counselors in the VA and DoD will treat these wounded warriors.

In fiscal year 2013, if this body gets its way, they will see no increase in their pay.

The United States has unarguably the greatest civil service in the world.

Republican attacks against civil servants are unwarranted, unjustified, and extremely disappointing.

Every day, federal employees provide vital services that help keep our nation healthy, safe and strong.

I strongly oppose the federal employee cuts contained in this bill.

Mr. Chair, the amendment before us would correct a fundamental misunderstanding that has been allowed to slip into H.R. 5854, the FY 2013 Military Construction/VA Appropriations bill.

The Grimm Amendment would not have the effect of mandating that public contracting entities adopt Project Labor Agreements, as its opponents claim. In fact, as has been amply pointed out by my colleagues, Section 517 of the bill would prevent the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies from requiring the use of project labor agreements (PLA).

Similar efforts to bar PLAs have been tried in other venues, including a recent attempt in Michigan which was declared unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge. The court correctly ruled that federal law explicitly allows for PLAs in the construction industry, when the government entity determines that it is in the best interest--in terms of efficiency, quality, safety or any number of other factors--of the local community.

But it isn't only constitutional; it is also smart. There is ample evidence demonstrating that PLAs can serve as an important tool to manage large construction projects and maximize efficiency by creating collective bargaining benefitting both contractors and workers. Washington Nationals Park, Disney World, and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline all benefited from the use of PLAs.

In Northern Virginia, taxpayer interests were best served by employing a PLA in the first phase of the massive construction project on the rail extension to Dulles Airport. Facilitating better access to Dulles Airport is important to

my constituents in Northern Virginia, and it is important to me that the project makes the most of public money it receives. The PLA utilized has helped to accomplish this goal.

Academic research confirms that PLAs can contribute to the quality of large, complex infrastructure projects. The Cornell School of Industrial Labor Relations released a study stating that PLAs ``make sense for public works projects'' and their use increases the efficiency of planning while reducing labor costs. The Federal Government does not mandate PLAs. Executive Order 13502 specifies that federal agencies may require them to be used on construction projects that are valued at more than $25 million. This is smart policy. It provides flexibility for local norms. At this time of concern over budgets as well as employment, we should retain that flexibility to make use of PLAs.

PLAs can contribute to efficiencies, quality and cost savings. We should not be forcing Federal, State or local governments to rule them out for large construction projects, based on misguided, ideological grounds, which assume that everything that benefits workers must be bad for everyone else.

I support the Grimm Amendment because it will ensure that government contracting authorities are not barred in a disingenuous effort to tie their hands with regard to the use of PLAs where they might be appropriate.