Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the world's newest nation, the Republic of South Sudan. On July 9, 2011, after months of preparation, South Sudan will officially declare its independence from Sudan. In January 2011, South Sudan held a referendum on the issue of secession, where 97.5 percent of Southern Sudanese turned out to vote and an overwhelming 98.8 percent voted for separation. Tomorrow, the independence of South Sudan marks the end of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), which ended 22 years of war between northern and southern Sudan, and the birth of a new country based on the principles of self-determination, freedom, and justice.

However, South Sudan faces numerous challenges that will need to be resolved after its independence. South Sudan and Sudan still have to agree on issues such as revenue sharing, especially oil revenues, border disputes, security agreements, national debt, citizenship, and currency. In addition, South Sudan lacks two critical resources: government infrastructure and personnel, which are crucial to creating a strong and viable government.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the people of South Sudan on achieving their dream of independence, and extend my deepest sympathies to those who lost loved ones in the fight for freedom. I encourage my colleagues in Congress to join me in commemorating the struggle and sacrifices of millions of Southern Sudanese, and to work with the international community to ensure that South Sudan becomes a politically and economically stable nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Highways Bettering the Economy and Environment Act with my Co-Chairman of the Congressional Pollinator Protection Caucus, Representative Tim Johnson. This bi-partisan bill provides much-needed aid for the birds, bats, bees and butterflies that pollinate our food.

The Highways BEE Act seeks no new monies and involves a limited federal role. It has received widespread endorsement from a diverse group of scientists, researchers and members of the business and environmental communities including the National Audubon Society, Lafarge Construction, National Farmers Union, the Isaac Walton League, American Farmland Trust, Waste Management, and Defenders of Wildlife.

This bill provides for existing authorities and funding sources to incorporate integrated vegetation management practices along America's highways, which includes things like reduced mowing and replacing invasive plant species with native forbs and grasses. This kind of roadside vegetation management provides much-needed habitat for pollinators and other small nesting animals.

The Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials Vegetation Management Guidelines released in March advances integrated vegetation management principles and recommendations consistent with the objectives of this legislation. A number of states, including Minnesota, are already doing this and reporting maintenance cost savings of 20 to 25 percent from reduced mowing alone.

Mr. Speaker, there are around 17 million acres of land where significant reductions in mowing and maintenance can reduce costs for cash-strapped states. The millions of acres of agriculture and wildlife ecosystems adjacent to these roadways will benefit from the increased pollinator habitat resulting from integrated vegetation management practices.

To understand how worried we should be about declining pollinator populations, consider that rising global food prices are the primary topic of discussion at the G-20 meetings in Paris right now. This is the first time that agriculture has had the top spot at a meeting and is indicative of how serious the issue is. Food prices have already led to global riots overseas and a declining pollinator population will only make the situation worse. Seventy-five percent of all flowering plant species rely on creatures like birds, bats, bees and butterflies for fertilization. One out of every three bites of food that we eat, as well as $20 billion of products in the United States alone, derive from pollinators.

If we don't solve these problems soon, we won't have any bees. Without bees, we won't have any food. The benefit to cost balance in the case of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is an easy choice.

It's high time that Congress asserts its authority and engages proactively with the administration on this most serious question of war. I just wonder where my colleagues have been all these years that we have had Presidents and war. It will be interesting to see a matchup of their votes with this one.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation authorizes the limited use of United States forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya. This legislation is a bipartisan effort to prevent the kind of open-ended, indefinite military commitments we have elsewhere in the world. Register that as Afghanistan and Iraq. This resolution is a companion to forward-leaning Senate legislation introduced by Senators John Kerry, John McCain, Benjamin Cardin, and Richard Durbin. Immediately after they introduced the resolution in the Senate, I brought it to the House so that we can make progress on this very important debate before us.

If I had my way, Mr. Speaker--and I don't--we wouldn't be in Libya at all. But I don't have my way, and here we are, and the solution now is not to cut off all funding and suddenly walk out. We have a responsibility to our allies. As long as we are continuing to supply logistics, materiel, and critical intelligence and operational capabilities--and no boots on the ground--we must support our allies who are carrying out the direct combat operations. We must stand with

This authorization prohibits the use of ground forces and at the same time requires the President to continually report to Congress. I would rather us use some of Libya's frozen assets so that we could have them pay for the mission that they began.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2219, the Defense Department Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2012, represents $530 billion in regular discretionary spending, $8.9 billion below the President's request, but $17 billion above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level.

Before going further into my remarks, I would like to thank my friend and fellow Floridian for yielding time to me, and I extend a personal thanks to him and his family, and particularly his three sons that are serving in the Army. I don't have three sons, but I had three uncles who served in the Army in another era, in the Second World War. And as I was proud of them, I am also proud of Mr. Nugent's sons and the many families and servicemen and -women in our military.

From pay raises for military operations, this legislation offers a basically reasonable and comprehensive approach to our Nation's defense activities.

Yet I'm deeply concerned by really the staggering amounts of money this country continues to devote to the military. At a time of fiscal austerity when the majority is slashing tens of billions of dollars from essential social programs, it's, in my view, absurd that we continue to exempt the Department

of Defense from the same scrutiny that we apply to our domestic programs. For all of the rhetoric that I have heard through the years from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about runaway spending, the fact of the matter is that Republicans actually increased spending in this bill. While they insist that more families must go hungry, fewer students need to go to college, fewer firefighters and teachers need to work in our cities, and fewer jobs need to be created, the Republican majority believes that $649 billion still isn't quite enough.

The United States accounts for 43 percent of all military spending on Earth. We already outspend Russia and China, the next biggest spenders, by a factor of six. We tell teachers they can't get classroom supplies, but we don't tell admirals that they can't have more submarines. We tell mayors that they can't have more cops, but we don't tell generals that they can't have more ballistic missiles. And we tell Americans that they can't get their roads fixed or their levies strengthened, but here we are funding a next generation of nuclear weapons, not to mention that we already have enough nuclear weapons to kill everybody on Earth 25 times over.

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that our priorities are askew and our spending on defense is unsustainable. Let me give you an example:

The Republican majority recently cut one-third, or proposed cutting one-third of the budget--almost $500 million--from the Food for Peace program. Over the course of almost 50 years, this program has delivered lifesaving food supplies to over 3 billion people. As John F. Kennedy correctly noted when he was running for President, ``food is peace.'' Yet these cuts mean that millions of people in vulnerable and underdeveloped regions of the world will not receive food aid from the United States.

The Arab Spring uprisings that arose in Tunisia were largely because of the concerns for food, and that is true elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa. And this particular year should be a reminder that conflict erupts when people go without their most basic needs, including food.

At the same time when people see that the food they receive is coming from the United States--and I've had the good fortune of visiting around the world, having served over a period of time, 8 years over a period of 10 years on the Intelligence Committee here in Congress and having served previous to that on the Foreign Affairs Committee and now serving on the Committee for Security and Cooperation in Europe, I have had an opportunity to see firsthand in Germany countless amounts of food stamped with ``USA'' on them, and I've seen them in camps, and I suffer with the people now in southern Sudan. My colleague, Donald Payne, and a former colleague, Harry Johnston from West Palm Beach, were together at a refugee camp in Nemili and previous to that in Mombasa, Kenya. I've seen our food aid around the world reduce the kind of anti-American extremism that often festers in these regions and manifests itself into conflicts that we wind up having to go and fight about.

So the reality, Mr. Speaker, is that food aid is actually critical to our national security. And the spending that we do to preempt or prevent conflicts means the less money that we have to spend later fighting them.

We're doing a disservice to our servicemen and -women by cutting programs that reduce the risk of war while adding billions to programs that create ever-more powerful methods to wage war. At the same time, we need to recognize that the increasing amounts we spend on the military means the less money we have here at home to address our pressing domestic concerns.

All of us heard the President of the United States last night speak to this issue, that while it may appear and might readily be perceived as nation building that we are doing in some countries, it is time for us, as the President said, to begin domestic building.

When I went to Iraq a few years ago, they showed us the remains of a water treatment plant. We spent 14 million U.S. dollars building that plant, and just as soon as it was finished, somebody came and blew it up. Mr. Speaker, I see us building water treatment plants in Basra and in Baghdad, in Kandahar and Kabul. But I don't see us building much- needed water treatment plants in the cities of the Glades that I represent--Belle Glade, Pahokee, and Clewiston--as well as others, Deerfield Beach, and Miramar, my hometown, I've had requests for water treatment matters, as well as Riviera Beach. Every year cities and counties in the congressional district that I'm privileged to serve come begging and asking for money to support infrastructure projects that no one is likely to blow up, and yet we don't fund them.

I don't say that we shouldn't help the Iraqi or the Afghan people develop their country, but I do say that we ought to be mindful that in our own country we have bridges collapsing, dams breaking, levies failing, roads crumbling, and water utilities leaking away. We simply cannot justify to the American people our willingness to spend tens of billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan while neglecting those same efforts here at home.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this measure contains several billion dollars in aid to Pakistan. As I have said before, you can't readily say the word ``Afghanistan'' without also saying the word ``Pakistan.'' To the extent that we are involved in Afghanistan, we also are involved in Pakistan. But we send billions of dollars to Pakistan only to see large sums of that money being used against American interests, funding the very same extremist groups that we are trying to eliminate.

A recent article in the New Yorker magazine noted that the Pakistani military submits expense claims every month to the United States Embassy in Islamabad. No receipts are provided and none are even requested. We're sending money out the door into one of the most conflict-ridden regions of the world without so much as an understanding of where that money is going, what exactly it is being used for, who in Pakistan is giving it to whom, and why someone is receiving it. We know that the Pakistani military and intelligence community support some of the extremist groups that are engaged against United States interests and which have committed acts of terrorism against civilians.

So again, Mr. Speaker, I come around to the point that we spend absolutely too much money on military and defense matters that we do not give half the same attention to debating as we do about cutting nutrition support, as is proposed for women, infants and children or financial aid to college students.

When Belle Glade, Florida, in the congressional district that I serve, comes looking for less than $1 million to fix their infrastructure and provide jobs for their local residents, the Republican majority has a whole long list of reasons of why we can't afford it. And yet, before us today, I see $5 billion for two submarines, $2 billion for one destroyer, and $6 billion for 32 fighter jets.

I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that our level of defense spending is on an unsustainable course. And at a time when we are demanding that the American people do more with much, much less, we also have to make choices and set priorities when it comes to our Nation's military spending.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased to yield 4 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), an icon in this Nation and a passionate person on the subject at hand.

Thank you, Mr. Nugent. Again, I appreciate your complimentary remarks regarding mine, and I compliment you with regard to yours. I don't think we have a single bit of daylight between us when it comes to the support of the men and women that are in the military.

I do quarrel with, across the 14th Street bridge, the amount of money that we spend at the Pentagon. I have personally seen generals serving generals. And somewhere along the line, that just does not add up to frugality.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us provides a comprehensive accounting of our Nation's military activities and includes much deserved pay raises for our troops, critical funding for health programs, and disease research.

Let's make it very clear. The only thing that we could afford was a less than 2 percent raise for our troops. And I personally, and I believe Chairman Young of the subcommittee and the distinguished Floridian who has served on this committee for a protracted period of time and has no peer when it comes to support of the military--he did have one peer that I know extremely well, and he does as well, and that's Ike Skelton, who was not reelected.

We miss Ike and the extraordinary service that he put forward on behalf of this country, first as a soldier and then as a Congressperson.

We can come up with the necessary expenditures to keep our military well-equipped, well-trained, and superior to any other force, but at the same time we need to devote greater attention to the use of these precious resources. I wish that the Republican majority would have devoted as much concern for the non-defense portion of our budget as they do to the vast level of spending contained in this measure. We need to appreciate that spending money on conflict prevention, as my friend Mr. Lewis pointed out, is far, far cheaper in the long run than spending money on conflict engagement.

We cut social services programs here at home and around the world at our own peril. For when people lack food, lack resources, lack dignity, lack a future and lack hope, their nations will much more easily succumb to the kind of extremism, violence, and instability that we are spending billions fighting.

I have no quarrel with providing the necessary funding to support our servicemen and -women or to carry out their missions. Our Nation needs a lean and powerful and effective military. And we owe a debt of gratitude--as has been expressed and likely will be continuously throughout this appropriations process--to the members of the military and their families for the sacrifices they make and the devotion to duty they demonstrate. When they are sent on difficult missions overseas, it's our duty to see that they have our full and complete support.

But we also have great needs in this country, and we cannot continue to slash funding for essential programs here at home in favor of ever- increasing funding for wars abroad. We cannot continue spending money overseas that will go to waste when water treatment plants get blown up. We can't continue funding dubious efforts in regions where our money trickles down to the very extremists it is supposed to be defeating. And we cannot keep increasing our military budget year after year while devastating essential programs are left by the wayside here at home.

I do have one concern about this rule, and that is the new section that was added to this rule at the last minute that set forth restrictions on the amendment process.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Post-Deployment Strategy Act of 2011, which would amend the War Powers Resolution to require the President to develop a post-deployment strategy when introducing our United States Armed Forces into combat operations.

Going to war is one of the most important decisions a government can make. From the sheer magnitude of financial burden to the devastating effects of loss of life, war is among our nation's costliest undertaking. This is why it is crucial to develop a set of objectives and a clear plan of action prior to engaging in a conflict. Currently, the President is not required to have such a plan in place before sending our men and women in uniform into combat.

Estimates put the direct and indirect cost of the Iraq War at a staggering $3 trillion, with

over 4,000 American lives lost and over 33,000 soldiers wounded. Our U.S. debt increased from $6.4 trillion in March 2003 to $10 trillion in the pre-financial crisis months of 2008, and the war in Iraq is directly responsible for at least a quarter of that sum. While there are many contrasting perspectives on U.S. involvement in Iraq, all can agree that having established a clear and informed plan for the country's occupation and stabilization prior to the invasion would have helped to decrease the loss of life, injuries as well as the wasteful use of resources.

This legislation will require the President to submit a post- deployment strategy to Congress not later than 48 hours after introducing our military into combat operations. This plan will articulate the interests of the United States, define the goals and objectives of the operation, and lay out a strategy for success.

Establishing a clear and informed plan for a country's occupation prior to introducing Armed Forces will help better allocate resources, and decrease the loss of life and the cost of conflicts. It is crucial to have the tools and resources in place to ensure the stabilization of conflict areas, and the safe return of our troops. It is both unacceptable and irresponsible to send our loved ones to war without a long-term plan of action.

Mr. Speaker, as instability escalates in the Middle East and with U.S. military operations in Libya underway, the need for a clear post- deployment strategy is greater than ever. We owe our soldiers, their families, and the taxpayers clear justification for sending our Armed Forces into combat. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Madam Chair, I offer an amendment to the bill.

Madam Chair, in the past I have made the statement regarding offshore drilling as a native Floridian that I will be the last person standing opposed. But it would seem to me there is ever-mounting evidence that Republicans are willing to expand offshore drilling regardless of cost to the environment.

This particular iteration of what I describe as a near-criminal energy policy takes the form of a sellout of hard-working Americans' right to breathe clean air. In particular, this bill excludes Shell Oil's icebreaker ships in the Arctic from regulation under the Clean Air Act.

Shell has and will continue to argue that since its icebreakers are regulated under title II of the Clean Air Act, the vessels don't also need to be regulated under title I. Yet the fact is that Shell's ships would not be regulated under title II due to the fact that they are foreign-flagged and predate the effective date of the regulations.

Shell is asking Congress, and Republicans are obliging, to create a legal loophole so that Shell, their company, can pollute with impunity and not be bothered by complying with environmental regulations designed to minimize our desecration of the Earth.

This loophole would create a dream scenario for Shell and the rest of the oil industry, currently taking in record profits as gas prices soar for the average American family. For its 2010 drilling operations, it was not the amount of emissions from the drill ship itself that triggered the application of the Clean Air Act regulations to Shell's operations, but the emissions from Shell's icebreakers.

The exploration drilling proposed by Shell, as has been noted, would release particulate matter well in excess of 800,000 cars traveling 12,000 miles. These kinds of support vessels are responsible for up to 98 percent of the air pollution from drilling outfits, and Republicans are asking Congress to close our eyes to this matter.

My amendment would bring the oil companies' dreamworld crashing down around them. My amendment eliminates the loophole created in this bill, giving EPA the authority to regulate the support vessels and the emission sources that they are.

I was in the Rules Committee. I heard this argument about 5 years and Shell, and I also heard my colleague Mr. Rush clearly explain that Shell filled out applications that were not fully filled out, and then when they were sent back at some point they even pulled their application before sending it back incomplete. Now, you can't have it both ways.

But, more important, I would ask every speaker that speaks in favor of this measure, tell the American public today how much this is going to reduce the cost of gasoline today, tomorrow, or next week, or next year.

The fact is, Hilda Solis, the Labor Secretary, did something today about the next iteration of jobs. She announced grants for different segments of this country in the amount of $38 million in grants for the Green Jobs Innovation Fund program. That is where our head needs to be. Our heart may still be in the need to use fossil fuels, but this measure isn't going to make one whit of a difference with reference to the cost of gas.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time and ask for a record vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, June first marked the official start of the 2011 hurricane season. As we prepare for this upcoming season, I am proud to reintroduce the Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2011.

I cannot help but recall the devastation left in the wake of hurricanes that have hit my home State of Florida, such as Andrew, Ivan, Jeanne, and Katrina. These storms were some of the worst any of us had ever seen. We can all remember the haunting images of our coastal communities from Florida to Louisiana left in utter destruction. It is easy to picture the faces of those who were most affected, and to remember the stories told by survivors. Even today, the impact of these disasters are still being felt in many communities along the Gulf Coast region.

The damage from these storms affects us all. Hurricane damage has cost our Nation an average of $35.8 billion in economic losses per year since 2001. Between 2002 and 2007, we experienced over $180 billion in losses due to hurricanes.

As a nation, we have been caught off-guard by these storms. In the past, we were not ready for the destructive forces that came our way. We could not anticipate the extent to which these storms would change our coastal towns and cities. In short, we were unprepared.

Looking back, it is easy to see why. In recent years, we have allowed hurricane research to lapse. It is a failure that must be addressed. Every year, we pay the price in environmental damage, fiscal devastation, and human lives.

More research must be done on these storm systems. Therefore, I am proud to reintroduce the Hurricane Research Initiative Act of 2011, which authorizes critical hurricane research funding to help our scientists study and better understand how hurricanes form and intensify, research that will help us prepare for many hurricane seasons to come.

The legislation also provides for enhancing early warning systems, infrastructure durability standards, and severe weather tracking and prediction capabilities. A National Infrastructure Database will be established under this legislation in order to develop standards and create public policy to better understand hurricanes and tropical storms.

This version of the bill also restores funding to perform a necessary update to our Nation's Joint Polar Satellite System, funds that were cut in the Republican budget for Fiscal Year 2011. The Continuing Resolution eliminated the means to perform this necessary update. Satellites are designed with a limited lifespan. When the end of that lifespan is reached, our ability to track severe weather systems such as hurricanes and blizzards also ends. By restoring funding for the JPSS, this bill ensures the continuation of our ability to forecast and track severe weather systems before they happen.

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to close the gap in hurricane research funding. Correcting this lack of scientific research is imperative and will help us to preserve our environment, protect our property, and save lives. I urge my colleagues to support this critically important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation authorizing the limited use of United States forces in support of the NATO mission in Libya. This resolution is a companion to a Senate joint resolution introduced today by Senators John Kerry, John McCain, Benjamin Cardin, and Richard Durbin.

Since Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi responded to peaceful demonstrations by attacking Libya's own citizens, the United States has been actively engaged with our international allies in thwarting the ability of the Qaddafi regime to visit violence, murder, and destruction on the people of Libya. This past February, the United States imposed economic sanctions on Libya and froze the assets of its leadership, promising to hold Qaddafi, his family, and the government of Libya accountable for its human rights abuses. Qaddafi responded by increasing his assaults on civilians. As Libyan forces approached the city of Benghazi, in which Qaddafi vowed to show ``no mercy'' to opposition forces which had captured the city, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1793, mandating ``all necessary measures'' to protect civilians in Libya, implementing a ``no-fly zone'', and enforcing an arms embargo. On March 19, the United States Armed Forces and our coalition partners launched Operation Odyssey Dawn in an effort to enforce the Security Council resolution. That mission has since come under NATO command and is now called Operation Unified Protector.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no question that the United States is engaged in hostilities in Libya. Our Armed Forces have assisted in combat operations including providing intelligence, aerial refueling, targeting, and other aspects of NATO's daily bombardment of Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi. The President engaged in these hostilities without an authorization from Congress, and has anyway exceeded the 60- day War Powers limitation on the use of force without congressional consent. It is high time that Congress asserts its authority and engages proactively with the administration on this most serious question of war.

But the solution, Mr. Speaker, is not to simply cut off funds. Instead, Congress must limit and closely monitor the President's commitment of forces. This resolution authorizes the use of force in Libya for one year from the date of enactment, limiting the President's ability to engage our Armed Forces indefinitely. This resolution bans the use of ground forces and requires the President to continually report to Congress on the progress of our military operations, the plans to achieve our stated goals, and the changing situation on the ground. We must also make an effort to put Libya's frozen assets to good use, returning funds to the Libyan people and using some of that money to offset the cost of NATO's operations.

It is too late to debate whether we should be involved or not: we already are. What we must do is ensure that the legislative and executive branches are working in harmony to maintain a military commitment that is limited and brief, and that best serves the people of Libya. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Mr. Fritz Carl Stein, Jr., a founding member of the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida. Mr. Stein was the vice president and secretary-treasurer of the Belle Glade cooperative and a third- generation farmer in the Everglades Agricultural Area. He also owned and operated Stein Sugar Farms and a cattle ranch in Highlands County.

A talented farmer and businessman, Mr. Stein had a heart as big as the Everglades. He was a leader in many organizations, donating his time to the Boy Scouts and the Belle Glade Little League, among others. Mr. Stein served on the boards of the South Florida Conservancy District, the South Florida Water Management District, and the Palm Beach County Soil and Water Conservation District.

Demonstrating his concern for the less fortunate, Mr. Stein was chairman of the Belle Glade Housing Authority. As an example of the trust and respect he enjoyed among his fellow Belle Glade residents, he was a founding trustee of Glades Day School. He was also a longtime member of the Belle Glade Rotary Club and the Belle Glade Missionary Alliance Church.

Mr Speaker, Mr. Stein was a graduate of Belle Glade High School and the University of Florida and he served honorably in the United States Army. He made great contributions to the sugar cane growers cooperative and contributed immensely to the economic health of the Glades area. His passing will be mourned by his wife, Lois, six children, nine grandchildren, two great-grandchildren and people throughout the community surrounding Lake Okeechobee.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of the life and legacy of Mrs. Bloneva Bullard. Bloneva was born on October 13, 1936 and was raised in Deerfield Beach, Florida.

As a young woman Bloneva graduated from Carver High School also in Delray Beach. As a young woman, Bloneva showed great promise with her hands as she became a licensed cosmetologist. However, she felt a greater calling for her life--she felt a calling to heal those who were sick. Bloneva Bullard enrolled in Broward Community College and became a Licensed Practical Nurse. She later would complete her training and become a Registered Nurse. As a nurse, she opened doors by becoming the first African-American Recovery Room Charge Nurse at North Broward Medical Center, where she worked until her retirement.

Bloneva was not only a motivated career woman, but she was also a tireless community servant. Her many affiliations include: Founder and Director of the R.U.B. Foundation, Pride of Ft. Lauderdale Elks Lodge #395, Rosebud Heroines of Jericho, and the Sickle Cell Disease Association.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Bloneva Bullard passed away on May 17, 2011 after a very full life. Her life was spent working for the betterment of humankind. Mrs. Bloneva Bullard was a true stalwart that touched the lives of many.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the life and legacy of John Hardwick. John Hardwick was the personification of a community servant. Born in Miami on March 27, 1970, Hardwick grew up in Hallandale, Florida. It is in the City of Hallandale that he touched the lives of so many with his hands and his heart.

Hardwick served as president of the Class of 1988 of Hallandale High. By the age of 19 he started his own business as a barber and three years later he chose to reinvest and renovate his business rather than relocate. He would go on to serve on the Hallandale Beach Chamber of Commerce board of directors, he was instrumental in founding Top Shops, a consortium of mostly minority owned beauty salons in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, and he also served on the committee that gave his often forgotten community a name, ``The Palms of Hallandale.''

Hardwick's community service efforts sent young children to see live theatre, he was instrumental in organizing the city's Martin Luther King Day parade, and he fought to remove a sanitation transfer station thereby keeping his community beautiful. In general, Hardwick was the type of individual who could give you a haircut while simultaneously educating you about the events in your community. He was the cornerstone for personal grooming and civic awareness. Hardwick's life was cut short last week by complications he suffered from a stroke at the young age of 41.

Mr. Speaker, John Hardwick kept his community looking good and feeling good because he was a good person. It is with privilege and sadness that I honor his life today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the life and legacy of Alzen Floyd. He was born March 15, 1919 and passed away on May 20, 2011.

As a young man, Floyd showed leadership by helping his mother in the purchase and renovation of their home while he was just sixteen years of age. In 1937, he joined the U.S. Army and he retired in 1960 as a Sergeant First Class.

After serving his country Floyd returned home and became a prominent member of his community though several entrepreneurial ventures. He owned and operated ``Al Floyd's Soul Food,'' ``Al Floyd's Photo Service,'' and ``Al's Security.'' He would go on to open Broward County's first Black-owned security corporation, ``Floyd & Associates Protection Corporation.'' This company would grow to half a million dollars in assets.

Floyd was a lifetime member of the NAACP and a faithful member of First Baptist Church Piney Grove since 1929, where he was a member until he could no longer attend.

Mr. Speaker, Alzen Floyd's motto was ``If I can help somebody.'' His life was an example of dedicated service: service to his family, service to his country and service to his community. It gives me great honor to recognize his life and his service.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank my good friend from Florida (Mr. Webster) for yielding the customary time.

Mr. Speaker, as he has said, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2012 provides $144 billion in appropriations for veterans' programs, military construction projects, and other agencies and programs.

This bipartisan effort--and Mr. Webster underscored that, and I echo his sentiments in that regard--brought Democrats and Republicans together to craft legislation that provides the necessary funds for important military construction projects as well as improves the quality of life for veterans and military families.

One of our colleagues who no longer serves here would be very proud of this measure. He and Mr. Dicks and others worked together for years. I know Ike Skelton spent the greater portion of his career working to improve the quality of life for veterans and military families, so I pay homage to him that I have the privilege of presenting this measure on the floor.

This measure increases overall funding for veterans' health and benefits programs, ensuring that servicemen and -women who have dedicated themselves to our country will continue to receive the benefits they deserve.

This legislation provides $14 billion in military construction for a wide range of new, upgraded and improved housing projects for members of the military and their families. This funding also includes important upgrades for military medical facilities and Defense Department education facilities located both here at home and on bases around the world.

The Department of Veterans Affairs is provided a total of $128 billion in budget authority, an increase of almost $9 billion over last year. This legislation ensures full funding for essential VA compensation and benefits programs in areas like education, vocational training and housing assistance. It also includes $52 billion in advance funding for the VA, ensuring that veterans will continue to have full access to their medical care needs regardless of where Congress stands in the annual appropriations process. This underlying legislation includes funding for important national programs and activities, such as Arlington National Cemetery, the American Battle Monuments Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the Armed Forces Retirement Home.

However, Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed to see that the majority included, unfortunately, a political and possibly divisive amendment regarding project labor agreements.

In February 2009, President Obama issued an executive order to allow Federal agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects. This executive order did not mandate the use of these agreements. In fact, the order explicitly states that Federal officials have the option to determine if these agreements are right for a project.

Unfortunately, the committee adopted an amendment to the underlying legislation that prohibits funds from being used to implement this order, effectively blocking agencies from even considering such labor agreements. These labor agreements are useful to promote the economy and efficiency in Federal procurement practices. A project labor agreement is a pre-hire agreement that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project, and it can be a useful tool to ensure coordination on large-scale projects involving multiple employers.

The executive order still allows for competition in contracts and subcontracts, contains guarantees against strikes and similar job disruptions and provides mechanisms for management and labor cooperation; but while the executive order does not mandate the use of project labor agreements, the language adopted by the committee rules out that possibility altogether. The executive order ensures that construction projects are built correctly the first time, on time and, as a result, on budget.

Frankly, this is an inappropriate and unnecessary politicization of this appropriations bill, and I believe, in the end, it will simply add cost to the taxpayer through a less efficient procurement process.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I am also troubled by the provision regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees. This legislation--indeed, all of the appropriations bills--are going to include provisions to prohibit funds to renovate, expand or construct facilities in the United States in order to house Guantanamo Bay detainees. Let me say the same thing I said during last year's appropriations cycle when similar language was included:

The language in this bill is not going to solve the problem of what to do with the indefinite detention of individuals at Guantanamo Bay. The debate over Guantanamo is missing the larger picture, and that is the need to reform our entire detainment policy.

As I have maintained, the problem is the policy, not the place. Without a

system of justice to deal with suspected terrorists wherever they are held, we are left with a broken system that has been a significant recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other groups which threaten our security. We need to deny them that image of America. We need a judicial process that accomplishes three things: one, protects our national security by holding and prosecuting those who have committed crimes or who pose a threat to our country; two, upholds international standards of human rights; and three, strengthens our Nation's image as a country that upholds the rule of law and does not resort to arbitrary justice even while under threat.

The underlying legislation is the second appropriations bill this cycle to contain provisions relating to Guantanamo. I expect that the remaining bills will also include this language. At some point soon, we are going to need to move beyond trying to legislate this matter into appropriations bills and, instead, deal with establishing new and appropriate policies and guidelines to bring our national security needs in line with our historic national values.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation contains essential funding for critical military construction programs and for our Nation's veterans. It is fitting that we consider this legislation so soon after Memorial Day when the sacrifices made by so many servicemen and -women are still on our minds. Veterans deserve our thanks and our admiration, and we owe them the necessary resources to meet their health care, education and housing needs.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that during the Rules Committee hearing, Mr. Sanford Bishop, the ranking member of the subcommittee, raised a concern about the consequence of requiring separate votes on various parts of the bill. We feel that this is a serious issue, and we intend to continue to monitor the process closely as we consider the remaining appropriations bills.

I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, so soon after commemorating Memorial Day and honoring our Nation's veterans, we all can be pleased by the level of bipartisan support provided in this legislation for essential veterans programs. We all know that they deserve the very best support our Nation has to offer, and I am pleased to note that Democrats and Republicans came together to craft legislation that provides the necessary resources for veterans and their families.

As I pointed out, I wish that the language relating to project labor agreements was not in this bill. I believe that President Obama's executive order gives, rightly, Federal officials flexibility in determining the most cost-efficient method of completing large-scale construction projects. The executive order simply provides options, and the language in the bill by the majority closes those options off. This is going to be, in my view, inefficient and costly and shouldn't be included in the underlying legislation.

So, too, must this Congress deal reasonably with the issues that I spoke of regarding Guantanamo Bay. Congress has a responsibility to ensure that the United States upholds the rule of law, remains true to the great foundational ideals of our democracy, and has flexibility in its counterterrorism policies to ensure an effective national security strategy.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was in room 2103 of the Rayburn Building, and the electronic buzzer did not go off. I missed the vote on the Democratic motion to recommit on H.R. 1216. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' And on final passage of H.R. 1216, had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to honor Rachel Wheeler of Lighthouse Point, Florida.

At 11 years of age, Rachel has succeeded in raising over $170,000 to build houses in Haiti. She first learned of the nation's extreme poverty 2 years ago after attending a presentation by Food for the Poor President and CEO Robin Mahfood. Rachel took immediate action and set a goal to build 13 homes, each costing $2,600. Her campaign included chamber meeting announcements, television news appearances, a webpage, and advocacy throughout her school and neighborhood. Her zeal and devotion were met with widespread support, and she soon expanded her goal to a 25-residence village that includes larger homes. Now, Rachel would like to expand her project to include a school.

Though Rachel first launched her efforts prior to the earthquake that devastated the nation's capital, Port au Prince, those efforts are now even more invaluable in the tragedy's wake. Having spent much of my career fighting for the people of Haiti, I am both honored and humbled by Rachel's work. She has been able to garner coast-to-coast support and was named one of the country's top 10 youth volunteers in the Prudential Spirit of Community Awards competition. We here in Washington can certainly learn from her tenacious spirit, prodigious initiative, and momentous impact. If Rachel can do it, why can't we?

Mr. Speaker, I am most impressed that despite the fact that this remarkable young lady has accomplished more in her 11 years than many do in their lifetimes, she readily acknowledges that her efforts have only just begun. Rachel's vision and success are a shining example not only to her peers, but to anyone who has ever questioned how much of a difference one individual can truly make. As I rise to honor her passion and dedication today, I look forward to the great things she will undoubtedly accomplish in the future.