Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2055) making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it's my privilege to lay out tonight for the House for consideration the appropriations bill for Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and my good friend, Mr. Sanford Bishop of Georgia, we have worked together arm in arm in this committee to make sure that our men and women in uniform have everything they need to do their job. We on this committee think of our job as sort of we are the peace of mind committee for the United States military and for our veterans.

We have an obligation--this Congress, this government--has an obligation, first and foremost, to provide for national security, to make sure that our men and women in uniform, not only here at home, but overseas have everything they need to do their job.

The scope of our appropriations bill today includes construction, of course, of all the military bases here and overseas. We have fully funded in this bill all the requests of the branches of the military for our men and women in uniform on active duty. We've made sure that all the retired men and women who have served this Nation have everything they need when it comes to the veterans hospitals, the Department of Veterans Affairs.

We are laying before the House tonight this funding bill as a part of our Nation's--I like to also think of it as part of our Nation's mortgage payment. This is one of those fundamental obligations that we have as a government to ensure that our military is fully funded, that they've got the equipment, the logistical support that they need, that their housing is the best it can be, that the facilities are the very best they can be, and this is one of those fundamental obligations we've absolutely got to take care of.

In this bill and in all the appropriations bills, Mr. Chairman, brought to the House for the first time, this new Republican majority, this conservative majority is for the first time--money that has been left in the Treasury unspent in previous years was just spent in other areas. For the first time under the leadership of Chairman Hal Rogers of Kentucky, our committee, the other subcommittees of Appropriations, are returning that unspent money back to taxpayers to reduce the deficit.

Chairman Rogers and the leadership of the House, Speaker Boehner, our Republican leadership, all of us are committed to bringing the Nation-- doing everything in our power to get back to a balanced budget, to reduce Federal spending, to bring the size, scope, and cost of the Federal Government back under control.

While we recognize our responsibility to fully fund and take care of our troops in military construction, of our veterans in the Veterans Affairs, the hospitals, through the VA, we also have an obligation to manage the money in a way that's fiscally sound. So we've identified rescissions, or returned money, unspent money, to taxpayers in the amount of $388 million, again, the first time that's ever be done.

Again, these savings don't impact in any way the level of services provided to our veterans. This in no way impacts or diminishes the quality of housing or the level of service necessary on bases here in the United States or overseas.

But we have found savings. For example, $100 million in planning and design money that was left over from previous years. We found $100 million in unspent funds from the BRAC, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 1990, money that was unspent and left over. We found money in a variety of accounts, Mr. Chairman, that in previous years would have been respent elsewhere.

And under the leadership of Chairman Rogers and Speaker Boehner, our

subcommittee, every subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee is committed to return that money to taxpayers and to find savings everywhere we can that will not diminish, again, the level of service provided to our military because we want to make sure they have absolutely no worries as they stand on the wall defending our freedom every night, every day, 24/7.

We have also incrementally funded, Mr. Chairman, five projects and found savings of $304 million that we have been able to return to taxpayers. In three cases, we found there's three projects which we did not fund for the F-35 aircraft facility at the Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada because that aircraft is not ready to be fully deployed. There is a central distribution facility in Germany, a commissary building, a variety of savings that we've looked for, not just unspent money but looking for ways we can save money for taxpayers while maintaining that very high level of service for our men and women in uniform while being good stewards of the public's precious tax dollars.

In the areas of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Chairman, we were able to find savings of $25 million in the general administration of the VA. We also found savings of $136 million in information technology. And in a whole separate category of accounts for minor construction, we saved about $75 million there. All of this money has been returned to taxpayers to reduce the deficit, to do everything we can within our power to reduce the level of obligation that our children and grandchildren are going to inherit.

Finally, I want to point out we also found savings--the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims had asked for a new courthouse. And in light of the unprecedented size of the debt and the deficit, we did not recommend to the House that that new courthouse be built. That resulted in a $25 million savings. The Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims does a great job. They're working in a leased facility right now, and we recommend that that be continued.

Mr. Chairman, the situation the Nation faces today is truly unprecedented. We calculated that about $2.2 trillion in revenue comes into the Treasury every year, yet the existing obligations of the Federal Government to pay the current liability of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt, and our veterans benefits are all programs that have to be funded upfront. That is sort of our national mortgage payment. And those programs alone consume $2.3 trillion.

So if you just look at the math, right out of the gate, the Nation begins the year, at the stroke of midnight on the first day of the year, American taxpayers are already $105 billion in debt.

So every dollar the Appropriations Committee spends all year is borrowed. This is why you see fiscal conservatives, all of us, constitutional conservatives in this new majority are so passionate, so determined to get us back on path to a balanced budget, to do everything we can within each one of these subcommittees to find savings. I am so grateful to Chairman Rogers and Speaker Boehner for the first time returning unspent money to reduce the deficit.

We have had to reduce the overall amount of money available to every sector of the government dramatically. And it is tough. We have a lot of tough savings. But in the area of supporting our military, when it comes to making sure that they have got the best equipment, that they have got the absolute best in their housing and their hospital care, whether you are active duty military or if you are retired and in the care of the Veterans Administration, you can be sure that the United States Congress stands behind you. We are immensely proud of you. We have made sure that we have fully funded every need that you have got, and we have made sure that you are given the absolute best medical care.

All of the family members out there who have sons or daughters or fathers or mothers serving in the U.S. military need to know that, despite this tough budget environment, this Congress stands behind your father, your mother, your brother, your sister who serves in the military, and we are absolutely committed to ensuring that they have the very best equipment possible on the face of the Earth, that they have got everything they need to do their job, to stand on the wall defending this great Nation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as they do so beautifully.

We are very fortunate on this subcommittee, Mr. Chairman. We have an extraordinary group of people working behind the scenes--we have had for years--to make sure that this subcommittee has produced a bill that this House can support in a bipartisan way with great pride.

I want to make sure to thank our extraordinary staff: Tim Peterson who is our chief clerk of the subcommittee and has served with the Appropriations Committee for 22 years and served on the staff of the Secretary of the Navy for 9 years. Tim has done an extraordinary job, and I am very grateful to him for the time and effort he has put into this bill. I want to thank Sue Quantius for her work on the committee and her expertise when it comes to veterans affairs. To Sarah Young who has done such an extraordinary job as well and has been such a great asset. They have all done a magnificent job, and we are lucky to have them.

On the minority side, Matt Washington has just done an extraordinary job, as has Danny Cromer. All of us have worked together, arm in arm. My good friend, Mr. Bishop from Georgia.

This is one bill, Mr. Chairman, that I know that Members of the House will be able to support in a bipartisan way with great pride because our subcommittee has produced this bill in a bipartisan way without regard to party label. Our entire focus has been: How can we make sure that our men and women in uniform, active duty and retired, have got everything they need? How can we be better stewards of the taxpayers' precious dollars?

We identified things, for example, we share a concern for money that was unspent. Veterans hospitals and the giant facilities like the new one in Denver that I understand had $978 million unspent for years, and we put language in this bill telling them they are going to lose that money after 5 years unless they make sure that they get it obligated and get these hospitals built.

We had great support from Mr. Bishop on ensuring that our veterans who have valid claims for disabilities get those disability claims handled in an expeditious way.

We worked together arm in arm not just to find savings, but to make sure we identify efficiencies. How can we make sure that our men and women in uniform not only have the best housing, but veterans who are retired are given the best possible service?

We have, on every occasion throughout the year working on this bill, found that we have areas of agreement in this bill, and we produce it in a way that is really unanimous. It is a real privilege for me to work with Mr. Bishop and with our ranking member from Washington State, Mr. Dicks. It has been a real privilege to work with him.

But above all, I am extraordinarily proud to serve as the subcommittee chairman under my chairman, Hal Rogers of Kentucky, who I count as a role model and as a mentor to me. Mr. Rogers has been a very good friend and a great leader for this committee and is a stalwart fiscal conservative, committed to making sure that our men and women in uniform continue to be the very best military in the world.

It is my privilege to be here tonight to present this bipartisan bill to the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, Congressman Hal Rogers.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say very briefly, again, truly how much I appreciate working with all the members of this committee, including the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop). All of us have worked with one goal in mind, and that is to ensure the peace of mind of our men and women in uniform and our retired military members, to ensure that no matter where they go, no matter what they're doing, they don't have a worry in the world. We want to make sure they are taken care of. And we've done so in a way that is fiscally responsible. We've done so in a way ever mindful of the record debt, the record deficit, of the inability of many of the projects the VA has worked on before getting done on time or, frankly, even getting started, making sure that disability claims are paid on time.

We are also presenting the bill tonight, Mr. Chairman, giving any Member of the House an opportunity to come down and file an amendment and be heard in an open and transparent way, something that we in the new majority committed to do, that every American would have an opportunity to read the bill online at least 72 hours in advance. It is vitally important that we, doing the Nation's business, do so in a way that's absolutely transparent and open and straightforward, especially when it comes to supporting our men and women in uniform. When it comes to making sure they are taken care of and have no worries, there are no party labels. It's really been a privilege to work with each and every one of you on this committee.

I see my good friend Mr. Farr of California is here. He's been a particularly valuable member of the subcommittee. He has brought great expertise to the committee. I look forward to hearing from him tonight as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say very briefly that one of the reasons we're trying to move expeditiously on this is we want to make sure our men and women in uniform have everything they need as soon as possible. We're trying to get this bill through to ensure that we not only get it, but that we get it done in an expeditious fashion.

We are waiting for an amendment to be completed drafting, but it's important, I think, to reemphasize, if I could, in the time I have remaining, the scale of the problem the Nation faces. This is not just a record deficit and record debt we face. It's actually a whole lot bigger than that.

As we make sure that our men and women in uniform are taken care of with their housing, we've made sure that, for example, all the BEQs, the bachelor enlisted quarters, are fully funded; that the Army, the Navy, the Air Force is fully funded; our veterans are fully funded. We've had to do this in a way that is fiscally responsible because we are ever mindful of the scale of the problem the Nation faces financially.

It is difficult to even begin to comprehend how huge the problem is that has been created by so many years of previous Congresses, of previous administrations, too many promises to too many people on too many occasions on money that was borrowed from future generations. The result has been that today, the unfunded liabilities facing the taxpayers of the Nation are about $49.6 trillion. Those are liabilities at present value.

For example, the publicly held debt, military and civilian pensions, retiree health benefits and other explicit, direct liabilities of about $16.9 trillion. The entire U.S. economy is about $13 trillion. Our gross domestic product is, I think, right at about $13 trillion. So just the explicit liabilities that we have to pay already exceed the size of the entire U.S. economy.

We've got long-term contingencies and implicit liabilities. For example, the future cost of Social Security benefits is $31 trillion.

Future Medicare benefits under part A, part B, and part D all added together create--and this is unfunded liability for which there is no source or revenue lined up to pay for this--about $50 trillion, $49.6 trillion. And to give you an idea of how big that number is, in order to pay that liability off, every living American would have to write a check tonight for $159,000 to pay off that future unfunded liability. I've had constituents ask me if they just write that check, can they be done? Is that it? They're done? I wish it were that simple. But we, on the Appropriations Committee, this vast amount of money that we spend every year, this extraordinary responsibility with which we have been entrusted by our constituents, the amount of money we spend every year pales in significance to the size of the unfunded liabilities in the future.

The amount of money that we spend every year on the Appropriations Committee--a little over $1 trillion, an extraordinary amount of money, $1,000 billion--is dwarfed by the size of the unfunded liability that we face in the future.

And it's important for everyone, Mr. Speaker, listening to this debate tonight to remember that the money we spend here tonight in support of our troops, the money we spend on Homeland Security, to build highways, to pay for all the things the Federal Government does, it's all borrowed. The hole is so deep that's been dug by our predecessors, and again, too many promises to too many people on too many occasions, too many Big Government promises--I'm still wondering about Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty, that is, how many trillions of dollars later and that still hasn't worked out.

We, in the new constitutional conservative majority, are absolutely committed to getting us back on track to a balanced budget because we recognize the scale of the problem, the urgency of these impending unfunded liabilities, this massive bill that's going to come due to our children and grandchildren. In fact, the Joint Chiefs of Staff do an analysis about every 5 years on the strategic threats facing the United States. And analyzing all the threats facing our Nation, the Joint Chiefs concluded that one of the greatest strategic threats America faces is our national debt, this unfunded liability, these crushing obligations that our kids are going to inherit if we as a Congress don't work--as we have on this subcommittee in a way without regard to party for the benefit of the Nation--to find ways to make sure that Social Security and Medicare are solvent, that we get the entitlement programs under control because they're going right off a cliff unless we make sure we rescue them and make sure they're solvent and there for our kids. But we've got to make sure that we are doing everything within our power in the annual appropriations process to save every single dollar that we can.

There has been some debate, Mr. Chairman, some Members of Congress in the past have said, well, we just need to raise taxes. My predecessor, Bill Archer, who was chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, had an analysis done that showed that even if you were to confiscate all of the corporate income--100 percent of the corporate income in America-- that would generate about $1.3 trillion. If the government were to confiscate 100 percent of all individual income, over $200,000, that would generate about $2.1 trillion. So you can see that it isn't possible to solve this problem by raising taxes. And that is something that we also understand instinctively as conservatives; if you just simply get the government out of our lives, out of our pocket, out of our way, and leave us alone to raise our kids, to run our businesses, to run our lives--let Texans run Texas, let Georgians run Georgia. If you unleash the entrepreneurial creativity of the American people, the economy will grow, people will invest and save their own money far wiser than the government will, and we will begin to dig out of this hole that we're in.

We're committed not just to saving money year to year through the appropriations process, we're committed to ensuring that Medicare, Social Security, that these social safety net programs that are so essential to our Nation are there for the future, for our children and our grandchildren. We're going to do everything in our power to make sure that we have done our job in a fiscally responsible way this year. When it comes to Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, or Homeland Security, or Transportation, or Labor, Health and Human Services, all the various subcommittees of appropriations, that's year- to-year dollars that we have direct control over right now, but we're also thinking long term.

We also want to eliminate that threat that the Joint Chiefs of Staff

identified, the greatest threat to our long-term national security they identified as the national debt--much of which is held by nations hostile to the United States. Deeply, deeply disturbing, Mr. Chairman, that the Communist Chinese Government buys so much of our debt. They're the largest purchaser today of gold. The Chinese economy is thundering. They have a very aggressive campaign underway to acquire as much intellectual property as they can through espionage and acquisition. We have, as a Nation, in allowing this debt to be created and allowing so many nations that are hostile to the United States to buy our debt, have placed too much power in the hands of the Chinese, of sovereign wealth funds.

And we here tonight, when it comes to supporting our military, through this construction bill, through the Veterans Affairs, we've made sure our men and women in uniform have everything they need in a fiscally responsible way. And this is just a first step of many that we will take on this committee to get America back on track to a balanced budget.

Mr. Chairman, the Members of the minority and our staff have been working to put together an en bloc amendment so we can attempt to continue to expedite this process and ensure that this bill is done as quickly as possible in order that, again, our men and women in uniform can have the peace of mind of knowing they're taken care of--there is no bubble in the logistical supply chain. And they are not going to have to worry about disability claims if they go to a veterans hospital, or make sure their housing needs are taken care of on bases.

We have an en bloc amendment, Mr. Chairman, that should be on the brink of being ready for consideration so that we can move very rapidly to passage of this bill and get it over to the Senate--because we know how long it sometimes takes the Senate to get things done.

I yield to my good friend from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 10 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by myself and the ranking member.

This is an amendment which we've worked hard again to come up with arm in arm in a cooperative, bipartisan way to increase, for example--we're making sure we've got $20 million set aside for suicide prevention outreach. A terrible, terrible problem among veterans and a high priority for us to do everything we can to help prevent suicide, that amendment offered by Congressmen Holt and Runyan.

Also, this is another amendment we are submitting to attempt to reduce wait times for mental health services, also to increase research funding by $22 million offset by a reduction in general administration. And also, Mr. Chairman, to set aside $100,000 for the purpose of a study of Veterans Affairs, VA historic properties.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).

Mr. Chairman, I would note we're pleased to support this amendment. As the gentlewoman has just pointed out, this Veterans Hospital was created, I think she said March 30 of 1865. That would have been one of the last acts on Earth of President Abraham Lincoln. So we're pleased to accept her amendment to ensure the preservation of this very historic and important piece of American history.

Mr. Chairman, I do support Mr. Altmire's amendment.

Obviously, we are all committed to supporting prosthetics research. Our military doctors have done an extraordinary job of saving the lives of these young men and women who are wounded in combat, and we want to make sure we are giving them all the support they need.

I am glad Mr. Altmire has brought this amendment to us. I understand he is on the way to the floor because he would like to speak on his amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in an effort to expedite consideration of this bill and ensure our men and women in uniform get all the help they need as soon as possible, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

I certainly agree with the gentleman from Florida, our distinguished chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that we need to do everything we can to support our National Guard. I look forward to working with the gentleman in conference.

We will accept the amendment, again, as an expression of our support for making sure that our National Guard and Reserve components have all the support they need. But we'll work with the chairman in conference to see if we can find the best source of funding for this addition plus-up on the National Guard. We, of course, want to make sure that they're not only taken care of in the State of Florida but around the Nation.

I know the chairman shares my concern with border security. The National Guard plays a vital role in helping our Border Patrol agents and in helping all of our law enforcement and Homeland Security folks in securing the border. So we want to make sure those elements of the National Guard's role in securing our Nation's borders are fully funded as well.

So we will accept the amendment at this time.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, again, we accept the amendment and move its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This is a straightforward vote to the House about whether or not we will, on behalf of American taxpayers, vote to impose union collective bargaining requirements on any private company doing business with the Federal Government. The Executive order that our bill does not fund and the amendment attempts to strike, language in our bill which does not fund this Executive order, the Executive order says that ``in awarding any contract in connection with a large-scale construction project, the administration may require the use of a project labor agreement.''

A project labor agreement, under the Executive order's own definition, means a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations. So the Obama administration through this Executive order is attempting to unionize any private company in America that wants to do business with the Federal Government. That's just an outrage.

Again, in looking at a Wall Street Journal editorial from April 14 of 2010, it reiterates data that is widely available and that has been repeatedly verified: that only about 15 percent of the Nation's construction workers are unionized. So from now on, under this Executive order, the other 85 percent of America's construction workers will have to give up the opportunity to work on a Federal project, or not be unionized.

This is just a blatant attempt by the Obama administration to impose union collective bargaining on any private company in America that wants to do business with the Federal Government. If indeed the idea were to reduce the costs, that's fine. We are in an era of austerity unlike anything this Nation has ever experienced. We confront record debt, record deficit, record public debt held by foreign nations. This is unlike anything we have ever seen before.

As I showed when we debated this bill earlier, just before the break, every single dollar of Federal revenue that comes in the door is already spent on existing social welfare programs. In fact, 104 percent of Federal income is obligated to pay for the existing social safety net. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, and interest on the national debt consume 104 percent of our Nation's income. Therefore, America is living on borrowed money, and it is our obligation as stewards of the Treasury to ensure that we do not waste any of these precious dollars and that we cut spending everywhere we possibly can so that we do everything within our power to limit the atrocious debt burden that we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. This is an unacceptable direction the Nation is taking because of uncontrolled spending by previous Congresses.

Why would we voluntarily, knowingly, allow our kids and grandkids to pay, as The Wall Street Journal points out and as the Veterans Administration discovered, and why would we voluntarily pay 12 to 14 percent more for construction contracts? In a study they did, the VA discovered, when they looked at the construction costs for hospitals in three of five markets, the cost of construction would jump by as much as 9 percent. The Beacon Hill Institute at Boston Suffolk University in 2006 said, when you impose these project labor agreements, it will increase school construction costs by 12 to 14 percent. Why would we voluntarily do that?

This amendment must be defeated. This amendment is an effort to prevent Congress from saving precious tax dollars. If this amendment passes, the Obama administration will be able to impose collective bargaining on any private company that wants to do business with the Federal Government. I strongly urge Members to oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. We will accept Mr. Meeks' amendment because it's vitally important that all Federal agencies, the VA included, understand that the Member of Congress representing that district, he's their voice.

I represent Houston, Texas. I'm proud to do so. I have an obligation, obviously, to look after the entire Nation. But first and foremost, I am the Representative of the people of District Seven in Houston, Texas, as Mr. Meeks is the Representative of his constituents in New York. And I think it's vitally important that every Federal agency understand that they need to work with and earn the support of the Representative of that district before they move forward with a major project of any kind.

And as Mr. Meeks has said, the community is opposed to the direction the VA is taking. And I would join with my friend, Mr. Bishop. And we strongly support the VA looking to the private sector to partner with the private sector to find innovative, cost-effective ways of providing better services to our veterans by partnering with the private sector.

And certainly, the committee does not want to discourage in any way the VA's expansion of private partnerships to give better service to veterans. We encourage it. We want the VA to look for ways to save money, to provide better service to our veterans, to use the extraordinary expertise of hospitals and medical communities like the Texas Medical Center, which I represent. The work that Mr. Bishop is doing with Fort Benning and the VA in his district has created a marvelous partnership with private physicians to provide better services. We want the VA to continue that effort.

But it is absolutely essential that the VA understand that they have to earn the support and approval of the community. That means they have to earn the support and approval of the Representative for that district. And in this instance, I hope the VA is tuned in and listening. The VA needs to earn the support and approval of Congressman Meeks before they move forward with this effort.

So for that reason, we will accept the amendment. And I want to know that the VA is not only returning Mr. Meeks' phone calls, but they are listening to, responding to, and satisfying the needs of the community, the needs of his constituents, the needs of the veterans that he represents; and that the VA, once they have earned the support of the community, they are going to have the support of Mr. Meeks. And when Mr. Meeks comes to the subcommittee and says that the VA has earned his support, the community has earned his support, then the committee will be prepared to move forward and support the VA work at St. Albans.

So for those reasons, we will accept the amendment. And I am looking forward to the day when Mr. Meeks comes

and tells us the VA is in his office and earning his support and the support of the community.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this important amendment. I strongly support this amendment and urge the House to adopt the gentleman's amendment because it will save, again, our children and grandchildren a significant amount of money.

We are in an era of austerity unlike anything America has ever experienced. We are living on borrowed money. Every dollar the Federal Government brings in goes right out the back door to pay for the existing social safety net. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt and veterans' benefits consume 104 percent of America's revenue. Therefore, all the money we appropriate for the entire year for military construction, for the VA, for transportation, for homeland security, for the Defense Department, all of it, is borrowed. Therefore, we need to do everything we can to cut, to save money, to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse and to avoid spending more money than we should.

Here, very straightforward, the gentleman's amendment would save American taxpayers a significant amount of money. It depends on what study you're looking at, but my very capable staff has looked at this and analyzed a whole variety of studies that indicate that there's a whole range of savings. The Chamber of Commerce believes that Davis- Bacon, or paying union prevailing wages in, for example, a free market environment like in Texas, we don't pay prevailing wage. We in Texas on a highway project pay the competitive free market wage.

First of all, not only are we going to save money, but why would we discourage competition? Why, in this terrible

economy, would we prevent contractors, businesses, from coming in and competing for a job?

As on the last amendment, the LaTourette amendment, which I hope the House defeats, that amendment we need to defeat so that we could encourage companies to come in and compete for Federal contracts, this amendment needs to be adopted to encourage businesses to come in and compete for Federal contracts. This would expand the universe of companies that could compete and apply for work. As in Texas, for example, on a highway project, we pay the competitive, best price for bids, and in the Chamber of Commerce's opinion, if we eliminate the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage, it would save about 15 percent on average on project construction. The Cato Institute estimates a 10 percent savings.

Thank you very much.

If I could, Mr. Chairman, point out that the Heritage Foundation estimates that there will be a 22 percent savings to taxpayers by eliminating the Davis-Bacon requirement. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston estimates a 10 percent savings.

This whole variety of savings, if you line them up, for example, we'll just say, for the sake of argument, that there is about a 10 percent savings in construction costs, we as a Nation living on borrowed money should not voluntarily, willingly pay 10 percent more. It makes no sense.

The gentleman's amendment is extraordinarily important. It will save taxpayers a significant amount of money on every construction project. On average, you're going to wind up saving, under the gentleman's amendment, about 10 percent. Ten percent goes a long way on a lot of these massive construction projects. The gentleman's amendment is vitally important in this economy. The adoption of the gentleman's amendment will increase the number of jobs available for people to work on Federal projects. The gentleman's amendment will create jobs and save money for taxpayers. In an era of record debt, record deficit, and record burden that we simply cannot pass on to our kids, it is vitally important that the House approve the gentleman's amendment, and I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I will happily accept it, because it is evident that the administration is in direct violation of the War Powers Act, which requires the President to either certify to the Congress that the United States has been attacked or there is a national security interest of the United States at stake, and, if not, then we need to be notified. I think we are still waiting for the administration to talk to us, to justify, to explain the involvement of U.S. forces in Libya. Now we read over the weekend that the administration may send U.S. forces, our young men and women, into harm's way in Yemen. What are we going to do, Syria next?

The Congress of the United States has an obligation to make sure that, in the stewardship of our precious tax dollars and the responsibility we have to ensure the protection of our men and women in uniform and the people of this Nation, that we are enforcing the War Powers Act, that we are directly involved as a partner in the defense of the United States.

The administration has persistently and consistently refused to involve the Congress in these decisions to send our men and women into Libya and whether or not we are going to go into Yemen. Mr. Sherman's amendment is very reasonable and points out that, simply, we are not going to spend any money in violation of the law, we are not going to spend any money in violation of the War Powers Resolution.

The distinguished Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House is unable to speak, but I have to say that Mr. McClintock's editorial, the positions that the gentleman from California has taken, I agree with completely.

The action in Libya, as Mr. McClintock has said, there could not be a more clear violation of the War Powers Act than the President's involvement of American Armed Forces in Libya. The Congress has never been notified. There has been obviously no attack on the United States. There is no strategic interest of the United States at stake in Libya or in Yemen. Where else is he going to send our troops without notifying the Congress and the people of the United States as required by the War Powers Act?

So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I want to rise in support of Mr. Tom McClintock of California's eloquent defense of the War Powers Act, and I urge the House to adopt Mr. Sherman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.

I certainly agree with the gentleman's sentiment. It is important that we as Members of Congress don't spend any money to name anything after ourselves. It is inappropriate. It just ought not be done.

I know that my colleague from Texas (Mr. McCaul) has also been working on this to prevent the use of taxpayer funds from being spent on monuments built at taxpayer expense to Members of Congress that are still living. This rule is in place for the House of Representatives. It ought to be in place for the Senate and the President of the United States.

Point of Order

Unfortunately, the gentleman's amendment imposes a duty on Federal agencies in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, so I regret reluctantly I have to raise a point of order against the gentleman's amendment in that it proposes to change existing law, Mr. Chairman, and therefore constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and that the amendment seeks to impose additional duties on a Federal agency or entity.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.

The United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. We've been blessed by the good Lord with extraordinary resources. We have, apparently, the world's largest supply of shale gas, shale oil. Yet the administration is doing everything in their power to prevent us from even finding or locating additional shale oil or gas. The administration is doing everything in their power to prevent us from drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which we've done for decades cleanly, safely, economically.

We could create hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs in the United States if the administration would simply get out of the way and let Texans run Texas, and let the gulf States and the energy community unleash American ingenuity to do what they do best--produce domestic oil and gas cleanly and safely. The jobs that are produced in the Gulf of Mexico in the energy industry across the United States are safe, high-paying, high-quality jobs that the economy and the people of America desperately need.

Mr. Flores has brought a very important amendment to the floor which would expand the use of petroleum derived from coal. The United States is blessed with abundant amounts of coal. This Federal law, section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act, discourages the production of liquefied gas or fuel from coal--and that's a vital part of our energy future. We understand, as constitutional conservatives, as the new majority in the House, that the United States needs to continue to invest in alternative technologies for the future. We are all in support of finding new ways to generate electricity to move the United States into the next era of energy beyond petroleum. But in the meantime, in the short term, we need to drill here and drill now. We need to use every available resource that the good Lord has blessed this Nation with in a way that's obviously clean, safe, ecologically friendly. We've done it in Texas for years.

Mr. Flores has extensive experience in the energy industry. I'm proud to represent the energy corridor of Texas. Houston is to the energy industry what California and Silicon Valley are to the computer industry. We've proven time and time again that we can produce oil and gas safely, cleanly. We desperately need to open up drilling in the gulf. This administration has deliberately and systematically shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which increases our dependence on foreign oil, while the administration has used our tax dollars and its influence in the International Monetary Fund to attempt to prop up and support Brazilian exploration for oil and gas, discouraging American development of oil and gas. It's a policy that continues to drive up the unemployment rate and drive down the production of American oil and gas. Mr. Flores' amendment will allow us to expand the production of one vital American resource that we have in abundance--and that's coal.

So I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I want to express the committee's strong support for the gentleman's amendment.

We are all in agreement that the Nation needs to look first to attempt to hire our veterans who have served this Nation, to attempt to encourage the businesses that are developed and built by veterans to thrive and to prosper; and the gentleman's amendment is a great way to encourage veteran-owned businesses to thrive.

We should, in the work the Federal Government contracts out, do everything we can to encourage the development of, and hiring of, small businesses owned and operated by veterans; and we strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the ranking member yield?

Mr. Bishop, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has raised a very important matter that we need to look into in the subcommittee as we move into conference. And I want to reassure the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the subcommittee and I will work diligently with him to look further into this issue to find ways that we can help make sure that the veterans who need guide dogs and service dogs get them.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the LaTourette amendment. But before I get into the details, I would like to speak to the comments that were just made.

I happen to have the privilege of serving currently on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and I would say to any Member of Congress who would like to know about the thousands of jobs that were, in fact, created and maintained through the American Recovery Act, I would be more than happy to give them a copy of that document. Let me move into, though, the topic that is at hand, which is really the LaTourette amendment, which is not in reference to the American Recovery Act.

I strongly speak in support of this amendment because, one, it protects American jobs; two, it completes projects safely; and, three, it oftentimes saves the taxpayers money. The LaTourette amendment ensures that funds for large-scale construction projects utilize the most cost-effective and efficient process for the awarding of Federal contracts. Section 415 of H.R. 2055 prohibits agencies from being able to use all available methods to ensure that Federal contracts are cost efficient, including the utilization of project labor agreements.

Our ranking member, Mr. Dicks, just recently spoke a few moments ago about section 415, and I will only reiterate two points: One, section 1, subsection (b) says, ``Accordingly, it is the policy of the Federal Government to encourage executive agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements.'' Section 3, subsection (a) says, ``In awarding any contract, executive agencies may, on a project-by-project basis.'' And then finally, section 5 says, ``This order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement.''

So, if we're going to speak on the floor of this House, it's important, if we're going to talk about facts, let's actually say those facts. So this dispels the myth that Executive Order 13502 makes requirements in the awarding of Federal contracts.

Now let's talk a little bit about those project labor agreements.

There is no substantial evidence that says that PLAs decrease the number of bidders on a project or increase the costs of construction projects. In fact, project labor agreements promote cost-effectiveness and efficiency in those construction projects. Having project labor agreements prevents labor disputes; it eliminates project delays and, thereby, helps us to get the projects done.

We can all talk about facts and figures and dates and sections, but I would like to talk about what's happening in my district. I know from firsthand experience that project labor agreements work. In California, we have seen project labor agreements negotiated and implemented with incredible success.

There have been many who have talked about project labor agreements. Here are just a few of the many examples of successful project labor agreements in California:

One, the construction of the L.A. Metro's Blue Line; number two, the expansion and renovation of the Los Angeles World Airports; the recent Middle Harbor Project at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which are the largest ports in this country; and then, finally, the $2.2 billion Alameda Corridor Project. That was a project that was completed on time and under budget.

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would ask respectfully that Mr. LaTourette's amendment would be found in order and that all of our colleagues will join in support of it.

Finally, I would just like to say, for those who say that PLAs drive up the cost of construction, if they would say that, then we would simply ask: Why is it that Walmart is increasingly using PLAs and Toyota Motor Corporation has built every one of its North American manufacturing facilities under a project labor agreement?

So, when we talk about this, Mr. LaTourette has been a leader on this issue. I strongly support his amendment. I stand in lockstep.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

All of us in Congress are looking for ways to rein in the deficit.

I strongly support the LaTourette amendment.

Project Labor Agreement Activity in California 1984 Through March 2010

This is a working list maintained by Kevin Dayton,

Government Affairs Director of Associated Builders and

Contractors of California. Identification comes from primary

documents as well as secondary sources that include web

sites, union publications, and newspaper articles. PLAs on

private projects are often not publicized, so this list may

not include all PLAs imposed on refineries, power plants,

industrial facilities, and housing projects.

Large Infrastructure

Implemented

Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority--Blue

Line--1984.

San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor--1993.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--

Eastside (Domenigoni) Reservoir Project--1994.

Contra Costa Water District--Los Vaqueros Reservoir

Project--Three Components--1994-1995.

Contra Costa Water District--Ralph D. Bollman Water

Treatment Plant Upgrade--1995.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--Inland

Feeder Project--1996.

San Francisco International Airport Expansion and

Renovation--1996.

U.S. Department of Energy--Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratories--National Ignition Facility--1997.

Sacramento Regional Transit District--South Corridor

Extension--1998.

Alameda County Transportation Authority--Alameda Corridor

Project--1998.

Los Angeles to Pasadena Metro Construction Authority--Gold

Line--1998.

Los Angeles Department of Public Works--Hyperion Full

Secondary Treatment Plant--1998.

Port of Oakland Maritime and Aviation Expansion and

Renovation--1999.

Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District--

Seismic Retrofit Phase I--1999.

San Diego County Water Authority--Emergency Storage

Project--1999.

Los Angeles World Airports Expansion and Renovation--2000.

Contra Costa Water District--Multi-Purpose Pipeline

Project--2000.

Los Angeles Department of Public Works--East Central

Interceptor Sewer and Northeast Interceptor Sewer--2000.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Pier 400 Phase II--2002.

San Jose International Airport Expansion and Renovation--

2002.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California--Capital

Program--2003.

Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District--Affholder,

Inc. (a general contractor) signed for Lower Northwest

Interceptor Northern and Southern Sacramento River Tunnel

Crossings--2004.

San Diego County Water Authority--Policy to Consider PLAs

for Projects Over $100 Million--2005.

Contra Costa Water District--Brentwood Water Treatment

Plant--2005.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Berths 90-91 Cruise

Terminal Baggage Handling Building--2006.

Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District--

Three contractors signed for Napa River Flood Protection

Project--2006.

City of San Francisco--Measure A--Water System Improvement

Program (Hetch Hetchy)--2007.

Contra Costa Water District--Alternative Intake Project--

2007.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Berth 408 Liquid Bulk

Petroleum Terminal--2008.

Port of Long Beach--Middle Harbor Project--2010.

Negotiations Approved

East Bay Municipal Utility District--Supplemental Water

Supply Project--1999.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--All Future Projects on Port

Property--2008.

Proposed

Temperance Flat Dam--Madera/Fresno Counties--2002.

Contra Costa Water District--Los Vaqueros Reservoir

Expansion--2003.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Berth 93C-94 Boardwalk--

2003.

San Francisco International Airport--West Field Cargo

Redevelopment Project--2003.

City of Santa Paula--Wastewater Treatment Plant--2008.

City of Long Beach--Airport Expansion--2009.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority--

Metro Gold Line Foothill Extension--2009.

Proposed but Rejected or Not Implemented

Los Osos Community Services District--Wastewater Project--

2003.

San Diego County Water Authority--Twin Oaks Valley Water

Treatment Plant--2005.

Palmdale Water District--All Work--2007.

Central Marin Sanitation Agency--Wet Weather Improvement

Project--2007.

San Diego County Regional Airport Authority--Terminal 2

Expansion--2009.

Prohibited by Presidential Executive Order 13202

Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District--

Seismic Retrofit Phase II--2001.

East Bay Municipal Utility District--Walnut Creek-San Ramon

Valley Improvement Project--2001.

Sacramento Regional Transit District--Folsom Line

Extension--2001.

Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Agency--Interstate

405 Improvements--2006.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--Highway Improvements to

Harry Bridges Boulevard--2010.

Municipal

Implemented

City of Los Angeles--Convention Center--1990.

Contra Costa County--Merrithew Memorial Regional Medical

Center--1994.

City of West Sacramento--Palamidessi Bridge--1995.

City of Concord--Police Station--1995.

City of Sacramento--Sump 2 Improvement Project--1998.

City of Concord--Concord Avenue Parking Garage--1999.

Contra Costa County--Family Law Center--2001.

Contra Costa County--All Work Over $1 Million (revised--

original policy never implemented)--2002/2003.

Solano County--Government Center and Parking Garage--2002.

City of San Jose--City Hall/Civic Center--2002.

Contra Costa County--Two Small Renovation Projects in

Richmond and Antioch--2002.

Contra Costa County--New Discovery House Facility--2003.

City of San Mateo--New Main Library--2004.

Santa Clara County--Valley Specialty Center Bid Package 2--

2004.

City of Carson--All General Contracts over $125,000, All

Specialty Contracts over $25,000--2005.

City of Santa Cruz--West Coast Santa Cruz Hotel and

Conference Center Redevelopment--2005.

Santa Clara County--Gilroy Valley, Fair Oaks, and Milpitas

Health Centers; New Crime Lab--2005.

Santa Clara County--Required Staff Analysis of PLA Benefits

for Projects Over $10 Million--2005.

Los Angeles Department of Public Works--New Police

Headquarters, Metro Detention Center, Harbor Area Police

Station and Jail Facility, Fire Station 64, Hollenback Police

Station, Main Street Parking/Motor Transport Division and

Aiso Street Parking, Automated Traffic Surveillance and

Control (ATSAC) Systems--2005-2009.

Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach--2005-06, 2006-07 Site

Improvements--2005.

City of San Fernando--All General Contracts over $150,000,

All Specialty Contracts Over $25,000--2005.

City of San Mateo--New Police Station--2005.

El Camino Hospital District--Measure D--Hospital Bldg.

Replacement and Central Utility Plant--2005.

City of Milpitas--New Library, Parking Garage, and Other

Midtown Projects--2006.

Solano County--All Work Over $10 Million (Threshold

Increased from $1 Million Estab. in 2004)--2007.

City of Richmond--Civic Center--2007.

San Joaquin County--New Administration Building--2007.

City of Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency--All

Work--2008.

City of Milpitas--Senior Center--2008.

City of Brentwood--Civic Center--2009.

Solano County--321 Tuolumne Street/Solano Justice Center

and 355 Tuolumne Street Renovation--2009.

City of Vallejo--Downtown Parking Garage--2009.

Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District--Future

Capital Improvement Projects--2010.

City of Brentwood--Parking Garage--2010.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District--Corporation Yard--

2010

Negotiations Approved

City of Long Beach--All Work--2005, 2007.

Alameda County Medical Center--Highland Hospital Acute Care

Tower Replacement--2008.

Alameda County--All Work--2008.

Santa Barbara County--All Work--2010.

Proposed

City of San Diego--New Central Library--1999.

City of San Jose--Convention Center Expansion--2002.

City of Union City--Intermodal Station Mixed Use

Development Project--2002.

City of Alhambra--West Main Street Corridor Redevelopment--

2005.

City of South El Monte--All Work--2007.

City of Los Angeles--All Work--2004, 2008.

City of San Leandro--All Work--2009.

Various Projects in Ventura County (Santa Paula, Fillmore,

Oxnard, Piru)--2009.

City of Long Beach--Airport Expansion--2009.

Proposed but Rejected or Not Implemented

City of Sacramento--Sewer Maintenance Building--1996.

City of Pinole--City Hall--1996.

City of Redding--Civic Center--1998.

City of Sacramento--All Work--1998.

City of San Francisco--All Work--1998.

City of West Hollywood--All Work--1999.

City of San Diego Convention Center Expansion--1999.

City of Fresno--All Work--2000.

Sacramento County--Sacramento International Airport Parking

Garage--2000.

City of Sacramento--Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant

Replacement Intake--2000.

City of Santa Rosa--The Geysers Recharge Project--2000.

City of Santa Rosa--Downtown Hotel and Convention Center--

2000.

City of West Sacramento--City Hall/Civic Center--2001.

City of San Diego--SeaWorld Hotel and Expansion--2002.

City of Cupertino--New Library--2003.

City of Watsonville--Civic Center--2004.

City of Gardena--Gardena Transit Facility Project--2006.

City of Fairfield--All Work--2007.

Washington Township Health Care District--Measure FF--

Central Plant and Hospital Expansion--2007, 2008.

Imperial County--Green Retrofit Program--2009.

Terminated

San Francisco Housing Authority--All Work--1994-2003.

Orange County--All General Contracts over $225,000, All

Specialty Contracts over $15,000--2000-2005.

Solano County--All Work Over $1 Million (Threshold

Increased to $10 Million on 5/22/07)--2004-2007.

Prohibited by Presidential Executive Order 13202

City of Richmond--Former Ford Motor Assembly Building.

City of Richmond--Bay Area Rapid Transit Village.

City of Richmond--Former Port Terminal One.

City of Vallejo--Downtown Parking Garage (not built during

Bush Administration)--2000.

Orange County--Resurfacing of Santiago Canyon Road.

Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center Replacement Project--

2003.

San Mateo County Youth Services Center--2004.

City of Pasadena City Hall Restoration--2004.

Orange County--Glassell Street Bridge Replacement Project--

2004.

City of Hayward--Water Pollution Control Facility

Improvement Project--Phase 1--2005.

Union City--Union City Intermodal Transit Village--2006.

Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District--MetroBase

Project--2006.

Prohibited

City of Fresno--All Work (ordinance)--2000.

City of Antioch--All Work (sense of the council

resolution)--2002.

Orange County--All Work (ordinance)--2009.

San Diego County--All Work (ordinance)--2010.

Proposed but Rejected or Abandoned Prohibitions

Riverside County--All Work (ordinance)--2010.

proposed prohibitions

City of Chula Vista--All Work (June--2010 ballot initiative

for proposed ordinance)--2009.

City of San Diego--All Work (qualification for Nov. 2010

ballot initiative for charter amendment)--2009.

City of Oceanside--All Work (June 2010 ballot initiative

for new charter)--2009.

City of Roseville--All Work (proposed June 2010 ballot

initiative for proposed charter amendment)--2009.

Educational

Implemented

Los Angeles Unified School District--Proposition BB,

Measure K, Measure R, Measure Q--1999-2009.

West Contra Costa Unified School District--Measure E,

Measure M, Measure D--2000-2005.

Vallejo City Unified School District--Measure A--2001.

Los Angeles Community College District--Proposition A--

2001.

Rialto Unified School District--District High School #3--

2001.

San Mateo Community College District--Proposition C--2002.

San Mateo Union High School District--San Mateo High School

Modernization Phases I and II--2002.

Rancho Santiago Community College District (Orange

County)--Measure E--2003.

East Side Union High School District (San Jose)--Measure G,

Measure E--2003,--2008.

Solano County Community College District--Measure G--

Certain Larger Projects--2004.

Oakland Unified School District--Measure A after February

2004 (adopted by administrator)--2004.

Peralta Community College District--Vista Campus (Measure

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would decrease the NATO Security Investment Program by $25 million and increase the Army National Guard account by $25 million. We support the Guard and our Reserves wholeheartedly, but I want to join Chairman Culberson in some concerns that I have about the amendment.

The MilCon portion of this bill for the most part is flat-funded, and the resources provided in this title were distributed, we believe, in a very judicious manner. The bill funds the Guard account at the budget request level, which makes the needed investments in Guard facilities.

In addition, I am concerned that the offset that the gentleman has chosen could cause shortfalls in the NATO Security Investment Program, which in turn could cause further delays in the NATO Security Construction Program. The Security Investment Program provides support for many of the important operations that we are involved in, including our current operations in Afghanistan. I believe that we have to get the NATO program back on track because it will ultimately save us money in the long run.

While I agree with the spirit of the amendment, I do have some concerns about the gentleman's amendment. I won't oppose it at this time, but I hope that we will be able to work through those concerns as we work through this process and as the bill goes to the Senate and it comes back and we can deal with these concerns in conference.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as much as I agree with many of the objectives expressed by the chairman in his discussion just a few moments ago, particularly that we want to make the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars, I think the very arguments that he makes support why we need to have project labor agreements.

This has nothing to do with union or nonunion workforce standards. The project labor agreements do not mandate or predetermine that a workforce has to be union or nonunion. It allows for the project owner, such as the government or a private sector entity, to establish workforce standards that both union and nonunion workers have to meet in order to be hired by contractors and subcontractors under the project labor agreements.

This is a model that increases the efficiency and the quality of construction projects. Of course the ultimate objective is that we will have a workforce that will ensure construction projects are built correctly the first time so that we won't have cost overruns, so that they are built on time, so that we won't have to extend the contracts, and so that we won't have safety problems because of having unskilled workers. Basically, in the awarding of these contracts, these project labor agreements will make sure that the government's money is spent well. We want to get the most bang for taxpayer bucks. We want to make sure we make the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

There has been study after study after study that illustrates how the use of these project labor agreements does not extend costs to the taxpayers or to other projects--rather, that they often save money. In fact, in most cases, they do save money because, as a result of having a higher skilled workforce, they don't have to worry about equipment being broken; they don't have to worry about the waste of resources and materials; they don't have to worry about the contracts not being performed on time. It's to the contrary. If you're worried about protections, project labor agreements will prohibit strikes or work stoppages by any kind of construction workers on the project. They will establish a single procedure for handling workforce disputes.

It is a tool for ensuring that large and complex projects, as many of our government projects are, are completed on time. It allows for the employment of local citizens. And right now, with the unemployment rate as it is and with so many of our skilled workers out of work, it allows for flexibility.

The Executive order, which seems to be the source of the complaint, really does not require that they be used. It gives the government the option of making a decision that is in the best interest of the American taxpayers. Certainly, we want to do everything that we can possibly do to make sure that we come in on budget or under budget, with the highest quality, with the safest work environment, and that we are able to employ the people in our communities to get the job done. As much as we need to improve employment, to increase the number of people who are working, these project labor agreements just add another tool to allow, in the awarding of taxpayer funded contracts, the most efficient use of those dollars. So I join the gentleman in support of this amendment. I think it is well thought out and that it's a benefit to the taxpayers.

With all due respect to my colleague on the other side who is opposed to this amendment, I think, when it is all said and done, the bottom line is these project labor agreements in this Executive order, while not requiring the use of project labor agreements, will be an added tool in our arsenal to get the most bang for taxpayer bucks to enhance what we do for our country, for our citizens whom we put to work, and to make sure that the conditions and terms of their employment and the work that they do is done with appropriate standards.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The Davis-Bacon Act is a pretty simple concept, and it's a fair concept. What it does is to protect the government as well as the workers in carrying out the policy of paying decent wages for government contracts.

I noticed that the previous speaker was really concerned about the possibility that Davis-Bacon would raise the cost of the performance of these contracts, but it only requires that prevailing wages in the area where the contract is going to be performed is maintained. For example, if in some of the urban areas where labor costs are very, very high and the prevailing wages are there, the standard of living and the wage payment for that area would be consistent. If it was in a lower wage area, then Davis-Bacon wages would be the wages that were paid in that market. So basically it just allows the workers to be paid at a rate consistent with where the project is being conducted.

The act requires that every construction contract that the Federal Government participates in in excess of $2,000 has to have this provision defining the minimum wage. It was taken up by this House just a few days ago, and, of course, three times this House has defeated attempts to repeal this Davis-Bacon requirement. It would appear to me that this House has exercised great wisdom three times in this session in preserving the right of workers to earn the wages that are paid in the area where the project is being constructed. That just makes sense. We want our workers to be paid fairly. We don't want the government to overpay. So we won't pay higher wages in an area where prevailing wages are lower. We won't pay lower wages in an area where the prevailing wages are higher, where the cost of living is higher, where the cost of doing business is higher, where the cost of doing the construction would be higher. We want the government to get the best bang for the buck.

These amendments are probably very well-intentioned. We want to save the taxpayers' dollars, but we cannot and we should not be penny-wise and pound-foolish. The repeal of Davis-Bacon, I think, and I think that this House has stated on at least three occasions on this floor during this session of Congress, would be pound-foolish.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the Davis- Bacon Act prevents competition for construction contracts from artificially depressing local labor standards. The Davis-Bacon Act will prevent subverting the prevailing wage laws, which will lead to shoddy construction and substantial cost overruns.

Under the prevailing wage laws, contractors are forced to compete on the basis of who can best train, best equip, and best manage a construction crew, not on the basis of who can assemble the cheapest, most exploitable workforce, either locally or through importing labor from outside.

The Davis-Bacon Act does not require a union wage; it requires prevailing wage based upon surveys of wages and benefits that are actually paid to various job classifications of construction workers, such as iron workers in a community, without regard to whether they belong to a union or not.

According to the Department of Labor, a whopping 72 percent of prevailing wage rates issued in 2000 were based upon nonunion wage rates. A union wage prevails only if the Department of Labor survey determines that the local union wage is paid to more than 50 percent of the workers in that job classification.

Now higher wages and skills result in greater productivity and lower cost. It's so much greater among high-wage, high-skill workers that projects that use high-skilled workers and high-paid workers often cost less than those that use the low-wage, low-skilled workers due to repairs, revisions, and lengthy delays.

The opponents who claim that the government could save billions by eliminating the Davis-Bacon protections ignore the productivity, quality, safety, community development and other economic benefits which contribute to the real cost effectiveness of Davis-Bacon. A study of 10 States where nearly half of all of the highway and bridge work is done in the United States showed that when high-wage workers were paid double the wage of low-wage workers, they built 74.4 more miles of roadbed and 32.8 more miles of bridges for $557 million less.

Driving wages down will not help balance the budget. The Davis-Bacon Act will improve our local economies and it will result in increased productivity.

I am convinced that, again, we have people with good intentions that want to save us money, but if you pay cheaper wages, you will have to employ less skilled workers. If you hire less skilled workers, they will, in all likelihood, have to have work redone that will have to be repaired. It will extend the cost, it will extend the time, and ultimately it will cost our taxpayers more money, and we will not get the efficiencies that each and every tax dollar should have because they are hard-earned tax dollars, and our taxpayers don't give them up lightly. But when we do pay our taxes, everybody in this body and across this country wants to make sure that we get the best bang for the buck. Davis-Bacon would give us that result. It has proven that. The studies show that.

I would submit that this amendment is ill-advised and should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I certainly can appreciate the concerns that the gentleman raises that have caused him to offer the amendment. Yet I want to remind the gentleman of the awful incident that occurred at Fort Hood in Texas. There were a lot of our servicemembers who were present who experienced that awful, awful situation. Under this amendment, it would prevent the veterans and servicemembers, once they're discharged, from being able to take advantage of the benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs because they were at Fort Hood as opposed to Afghanistan or Iraq or in some other place of hostility.

Also, I would remind the gentleman that the servicemembers who operate our unmanned aerial vehicles, such as the Predator, which has great capability for causing destruction in war--it's one of our great weapons--actually can see on video, in realtime, the death and the destruction and the dismemberment that is caused by the utilization of that, although they're in Nevada and the weapon is actually making its impact in Afghanistan. Of course, because of that, they would be disqualified.

Under this amendment, I think the gentleman's point is well taken in wanting to make sure that only those people who are entitled to veterans benefits in fact get them, but I think that perhaps there are some problems in the artful drafting of the amendment, which should be clarified. Because of that, I am reluctant to support it, and of course must oppose this amendment.

Let me just say that the gentleman's amendment is very, very well taken. I fully support it; and it works in tandem with some other legislation, some authorizing legislation that I think the chairman, Mr. Culberson, and I, along with Mr. Dicks and Mr. Young and many, many others, on a bipartisan basis, have often called the Hiring Heroes Act, which basically supports our veterans as they come back to make sure that they can be gainfully employed and that they are duly allowed to participate in the economy, to work and to engage in gainful employment.

I think that this amendment, as far as small businesses go, as far as veterans preferences, is very well taken, and I think that we ought to do that, as well as everything else we can possibly do, to make sure that the transition from full-time active service to the civilian population of our country on the part of our veterans is fully supported by this Congress and by the people of the United States.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah) brought a matter to our attention that is very, very important and significant, and I think it's appropriate that we ought to at least examine that in the form of a

colloquy here on the floor as we consider this Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, many veterans have returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan with severe disabilities; and when their service results in a disability, we have a duty to help them. And one way that veterans receive this help is through the use of guide dogs. Now, the way the process works, veterans are assessed and they're trained for orientation and mobility. If a veteran needs a guide dog, information on how to contact guide dog schools is provided. Essentially, the veteran is referred to a nonprofit. There's no funding provided directly from the VA to these nonprofits; and with the costs associated with training these dogs, it takes time to raise the money which, in turn, causes a backlog for veterans, as well as for nonveterans.

We have to look at this issue and see what it is that the Veterans Administration can do to help because these dogs mean so much to those who need them.

I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Fattah and other Members will be very, very appreciative of you. We thank you for your comments, and we look forward to working with all of our colleagues to support our veterans and their families.

I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Thank you very much for your comments.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.

For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bill. House Resolution 288 provides for an open rule for consideration of H.R. 2055, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2012. This rule provides for ample debate and opportunities for the Members of the minority and majority party to participate in that debate. The rule places no limitation on the number of amendments that may be considered as long as they comply with the House rules.

Similar to the open rule that was passed yesterday on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, the only differences are in section 2 of this rule: it does allow for a separate vote on a title addressing the Department of Veterans Affairs. In doing so, we are delivering on the Speaker's promise to reduce the so-called omnibus bill and give Members the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on Cabinet-level Departments contained in the bill.

Part of the Speaker's and Rules Committee chairman's commitment is to have a more open and transparent process. In the end, that is what this does. This is an open rule that allows for debate and for amendments.

I think every Member of the Congress was elected by a group of people in their district, citizens in their district, and they assumed that that Member would be able to come and debate and offer amendments to bills at will. Sometimes that is not the case, but it is the case this particular time. Every one of us who comes here, Republican or Democrat, liberal, moderate or conservative, comes with a desire of affecting public policy in a real way. The only way that can happen is when the process is more open and more honest and more transparent, and that is what this rule does for this particular bill. It has been a long time, yesterday being one of the first times, but a long time since we have considered an appropriation bill with an open rule.

This bill has truly been, I would say, a bipartisan effort. It is one of the first times, and I am very delighted to present the underlying bill through this rule because it is such a bipartisan effort. Even the rule itself was adopted by unanimous consent by the Rules Committee, which is something I have not experienced in my first 5 months here. So that, too, is something very, very different.

I think that is the way the process should work. I think we have got to work together. We have problems in this country, and they are deep problems. If we don't work together, we will never solve them. I think this may be a start of something that might be a little different than the way it has been.

The Democrats on the Appropriations Committee said these things about this bill: the bill sufficiently funds critical military construction, family housing and quality-of-life improvements for our brave men and women in uniform and their families. The bill meets the needs of our military veteran communities for the coming year.

That really states the purpose of this bill, and so to me, it has met the needs not only in the eyes of Democrats but also Republicans.

Further, the care for our veterans and service men and women is not a partisan issue. It's not. It's proven out in this particular rule and this bill.

I would like to stress that there are many programs funded at previous levels or above previous levels that have kept the promise made to our men and women in uniform. It increases the Veterans Affairs budget for things like veterans' benefits and health programs by $8.7 billion to $127.7 billion. It includes the full funding for VA compensation and benefits: education benefits, vocational rehabilitation, and housing programs. It contains $52 billion in advance funding for the VA. The same level passed in the House budget resolution for medical services, medical support, and compliance and medical facilities. This advance funding will ensure that our veterans have full access to their medical care needs regardless of where we stand in our annual appropriations process.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. The Appropriations Committee has worked to provide us with a fiscally responsible appropriations bill that promises to meet the needs of our military construction and our promises to the American veterans. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my Republican colleagues and I are committed to providing a more open, transparent and accountable process here. Today's bill is a monumental step towards that right direction, and it's an example of a big desire within our own Speaker's heart to change the way things work here in Washington.

The underlying bill has bipartisan support. It went through the regular order; it provided an open rule to allow Republicans and Democrats alike to bring up their ideas and debate them; and even some that have been brought up by the minority here, those are brought up in a way that we will have an opportunity to amend at a later date.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

In doing so, we are delivering on the Speaker's promise to reduce so-called ``omnibus'' bills to a smaller, more understandable bill that gives Members the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on Cabinet-level Departments contained in the bill.

I will tell you that I experienced the same thing. I used to be a leader of a group in Florida which was known as the House of Representatives. And as Speaker there, we did the same thing. It was the first time ever, and I always knew, a lot of people with questions, can you divide up the different appropriations and send them to a Senate who may have a smaller--yes, you can. And basically all we did was break up the conferences. The conferences stayed exactly the same. The Members were appointed, and two bills, let's say, instead of one were sent to a particular conference while the Senate added their one. And then they were combined at a later date and passed as a general appropriation act.

So it can work, I promise you. I know it's new; I know it's different. You probably would question that there is something behind it----

I do believe it's a good idea. And the reason I believe it's a good idea is because I think there was some angst about looking at a large package at one time, and this is just an opportunity to break it up. I don't think it changes anything. I think it gives us an opportunity to actually scrutinize in a better way.

I don't know.

Reclaiming my time, I will start where I left off.

The vote on the rule, which provides an open and transparent process, which makes no limitations on amendments, where ideas and policies will rise and fall on their merits and their bases and debate and so forth, is an awesome opportunity for this House to speak its will, not just an up-or-down vote on one bill, but an up-or-down vote on amendment after amendment in order to perfect the bill.

The clash of ideas is a good thing. And as we debate these ideas and we hear them on the floor of the House and then we have an opportunity to vote on them, it makes a good bill a better bill. This is what the American people expect from their elected officials. It is an expectation that is fulfilled by the rule and produced in the underlying bill. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this bill.

For over two centuries, our U.S. military has protected America from both our enemies and the enemies of our friends. The valor and dignity and courage of our men and women in uniform remain strong. From Valley Forge to Desert Storm, from San Juan Hill to Operation Enduring Freedom, the fighting spirit of American soldiers shines throughout history.

It is due to the lives selflessly lived and lost in defense of our country that we have the privilege to stand here today free and grateful. So thank you, veterans. And I, too, am glad that this happened just a few days after Memorial Day because it is a great way to remember the people that have given their lives for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.