Floor Statements

Under clause 2 of rule XIV, executive communications were taken from the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

1689. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the

Interior, transmitting the Department's semiannual report

from the office of the Inspector General for the period

October 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.

app. (Insp. Gen. Act), section 5(b); to the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform.

1690. A letter from the Chairman, Federal Maritime

Commission, transmitting the Commission's semiannual report

from the office of the Inspector General for the period

October 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013; to the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform.

[Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 232, the following report was

filed on May 28, 2013:]

Mr. CULBERSON: Committee on Appropriations. H.R. 2216. A

bill making appropriations for military construction, the

Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the

fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes

(Rept. 113-90). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House

on the state of the Union.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is one thing America needs to know that simplifies this debate very clearly. The only people exempt from ObamaCare is the President, the Vice President--the committee staff that wrote the bill exempted themselves from the bill, and the Federal agencies that are implementing ObamaCare are exempt from the very law that they're shoving down the throats of the American people.

The Democrat majority that passed this bill over the objections of the overwhelming majority of the Nation didn't even bother to read it. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said we have to pass the bill to see what's in it. They have no concept of what was in it.

I had the chance to ask the financial genius Charles Schwab recently what are two things we could do to really create jobs and grow the economy. He said: repeal Dodd-Frank and repeal ObamaCare--two of the most destructive pieces of legislation ever passed by the United States Congress, done by a Democrat majority that didn't even bother to read it and exempted themselves from it. The committee staff that wrote the bill exempted themselves from it. The Federal agencies that are implementing it are exempt from ObamaCare, but they stuck it on all the American people, including the Members of Congress. We're all under it, but President Obama and Vice President Biden are not. And that's all you need to know.

Will the gentleman yield?

The committee staff is exempt. The President of the United States is exempt.

Members of Congress are covered, but the committee staff that wrote the bill are exempt.

Mr. Speaker, why are House conservatives so determined to cut the budget and move towards a balanced budget?

Every 5 years, the Joint Chiefs of Staff get together and they do a strategic review of the threats facing this Nation. In the last review, they determined that the greatest threat facing our Nation was the national debt, that it would ultimately consume us and cause its collapse.

Just a few days ago, we celebrated Texas Independence Day. But for the debt the Republic of Texas accumulated, we would have continued as an independent nation. That debt caused a collapse of the Republic of Texas, and House conservatives are deeply concerned that these debts and deficits will ultimately crush the United States of America just as it did the Republic of Texas.

How do we even begin to get our mind around it and understand it? Think in these terms: in your personal lives, you always pay your mortgage and taxes first.

I deduct my mortgage and taxes out of my paycheck. We all do. You have to pay your mortgage and taxes first. America's mortgage and taxes are Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt and veterans' benefits. Those are things we must pay first. That's our mortgage and taxes.

When we pay our mortgage and taxes first as a Nation, it consumes all of our income. All that's left is about $185 billion. When we pay Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interest on the national debt, veterans' benefits, that's it. All you're left with is $185 billion, America, to run the government for the entire year. That will only run the Federal Government for about 10 days.

We, as a Nation, are living on a credit card that will be paid for by our children and grandchildren, which is a devastating heritage to leave to our kids. This is why House conservatives are so determined to balance the budget. But we recognize how essential national security is. We recognize how vital it is that our men and women in uniform focus on their mission, focus on defending America around the world. We don't want them to worry about whether or not they've got enough equipment, enough gas, enough ammo, that they've got the best facilities in the world, the best health care in the world.

That's why Chairman Rogers and Chairman Young put together this bill. I'm proud to be a part of it for my piece, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs portion, to make sure our men and women in uniform can focus on their mission and not look over their shoulder and worry for one moment that they have the full support of the Congress, the full support of the American people to do what they have to do to put their lives on the line to defend this great Nation.

This bill is essential because it funds the military at a level for fiscal year '13, which is a sufficient increase that will allow them to absorb these automatic budget cuts--the sequester. That terminology is confusing to folks, but it is essentially an automatic spending cut across the board.

All of us conservatives want to see those cuts go into place, and we'd like to shift them away from the military and move them into other areas; but we've got a situation in which conservatives only control, basically, one half of one-third of the Federal Government. We are outnumbered. We feel a little bit like the Spartans at Thermopylae. We're doing our best to get moving towards a balanced budget in a way that is prudent, that won't raise taxes, that protects our military and the veterans and the essential needs of this Nation.

Chairman Bill Young has done a superb job in putting together a Defense bill at this level of funding for the Defense Department. In fact, we determined yesterday from the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Odierno, that, by passing this bill today, we will solve at least a third of the problems that the Army would face as a result of the automatic spending cuts. By funding at fiscal year '13, when the cuts kick in, it's a far softer blow to the military than it would be if we were stuck at '12 levels. As well, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Greene, said that the difference was night and day. By passing this bill today, it will cushion the blow on the Navy dramatically.

I look forward to working with my colleagues from all over the country to continue to work to soften the blow on the military; but this bill is essential in order to make sure our men and women in uniform have everything they need to do their jobs to protect this country.

Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to have with us today as our guest chaplain, Dr. Glen Dale Bohannon, who now pastors a church in North Carolina, but who understands clearly the importance of this great institution that it's our privilege to represent. I think Dr. Bohannon's prayer was appropriate to strengthen these great institutions that were created for the sole purpose of protecting our liberty.

Dr. Bohannon was married to Jo Ann Summers on October 26, 1957, was saved on February 2, 1959, and became an ordained pastor on November 20, 1960. Dr. Bo is a graduate of Southeast Missouri University and received his master's of divinity from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1972 and his doctorate of ministry in 1985.

Glen and his wife, Jo Ann, have three children: Lisa, John, and Glen, Jr. John and his wife, Jody, have three children, Glen and Jo's grandchildren: Summer, Levi, and Joelle.

Dr. Bohannon has served churches in Missouri, Virginia, and North Carolina. He retired from full-time pastorate in 1996 after serving at Central Baptist Church of Richmond, Virginia, for 10\1/2\ years. He received his intentional interim training from 1996-1997, and has since served as an intentional interim pastor and as an interim pastor in several churches in Virginia and North Carolina.

Dr. Bohannon currently serves as the interim senior pastor at College Acres Baptist Church in Wilmington, North Carolina. He recently completed an intentional interim at Memorial Baptist Church in Arlington, Virginia, where my family attends when we're in the D.C. area. We're honored to have our good friend, Dr. Glen Bohannon, here as the pastor of the House for the day.

Mr. Speaker, the Proverbs tell us that our good name is our most valuable possession on Earth, and by that measure Ralph Hall is truly one of the wealthiest men in America. He's earned the trust of his constituents over and over again, as he has earned the trust of his colleagues, because we know, his constituents know, that Ralph Hall always keeps his word, that Ralph Hall always does what's right for America. He does the

right thing for the right reason on every occasion.

And he understands that his service in Congress is for his fellow man. Just as he served us in uniform in our Armed Forces, Ralph serves here as he served as county judge, as he served as State senator for the benefit of Texas, for the benefit of America.

It's an extraordinary privilege for me to serve with him, to look to Ralph Hall as a mentor, as a friend, as a colleague, as a fellow Texan, to honor him tonight, one of the great Americans, one of the great Texans ever to serve in the United States Congress, Ralph Hall. We honor and thank him for his service to the Nation and to the great State of Texas.

Madam Speaker, I have the singular privilege of representing Rice University, and I join my colleagues from Houston in recognizing and congratulating them on their 100th anniversary this year.

Rice has consistently been ranked as one of the Nation's greatest universities and recognized by U.S. News & World Report as among the Nation's top 20 universities. And they've consistently ranked in the top 50 universities in the world.

Rice University researchers are pioneers in a broad spectrum of fields, including space, energy, and my personal passion, nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is an absolute game-changer, revolutionizing everything that we will touch and see in the 21st century. Rice University is the birthplace of nanotechnology research.

Nanotechnology holds incredible potential for everything from curing cancer to improving the storage and transmission of electricity and moving electricity in ways that we cannot even imagine today, allowing us to miniaturize devices. Multistage nanoparticles will allow the delivery of cancer-curing drugs to individual structures within cells, allowing scientists to identify diseases at the cellular level, things that could not have been possible without the groundbreaking work at Rice University.

I congratulate them on their 100th anniversary today.

I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I want to be sure to point out to the House that the account is authorized. Under the Passenger Rail Improvement Act, in order for the metropolitan D.C. area to receive the funds, Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia have to match the money, which certainly helps. And I also note that the committee has included language, which is very important, that the Federal Government cannot provide more than 60 percent for the first time. That's important that the local communities do their fair share.

All of the money in the Passenger Rail Improvement Act for the D.C. area has to be used for safety and capital improvements only. They can use the money only to buy new cars and equipment to improve the safety of the system. And as my good friend from New Jersey has pointed out, if there's clearly evidence, apparently, of misuse of the funds, the inspector general can certainly investigate that and even bring criminal charges against those responsible for using the funds for a purpose other than that authorized by the Passenger Rail Improvement Act.

I think it's also important to point out that the bill, overall, cuts New Starts funding by $419 million and cuts the request for administrative funding for the FTA by $66 million.

These bills that Chairman Rogers has presided over that all of us on Appropriations have worked so hard on, for the first time we've got a whole series of bills reducing spending year after year. There's much, much more to do. And while I'm certainly in philosophical agreement with the gentleman's amendment, because of the careful balance the bill strikes in funding an authorized program, it can only be used for a limited purpose that must be matched, and the committee would like to ask for a ``no'' vote on the gentleman's amendment.

I am happy to yield to my good friend from New Jersey.

If I could reclaim my time, the gentleman and I worked together arm-in-arm on so many good conservative causes, and in this one area we do have a slight disagreement. I would point out that the statute requires that the metropolitan Washington transit entity has to submit a grant application. Under the law, they can't just automatically access these funds. They have to submit a grant application that complies with all the Federal Transit Administration's requirements. They have to demonstrate that the money will be used for the narrow purposes authorized by the act for safety and capital improvements, and they must comply with all of the other requirements that every other transit entity in the Nation complies with.

For all those reasons, to keep the careful balance the committee has struck, the overall reduction in funding, the committee would ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the committee strongly supports the gentleman's amendment. It is entirely important and vitally important that the Congress defund the administration's unilateral attempt to bypass the laws of the United States and implement an amnesty program by Executive order. It's unacceptable. It violates the law.

As all of us in Texas know--I had brought with me tonight for this debate, because it's so important to remember, that the first image on the first coin of the Republic of Mexico states, liberty and law. There is a wonderful image of the liberty cap over the scales of Justice. It points out quite correctly, the Republic of Mexico's, the first coin they ever minted, that there can be no liberty without law enforcement.

We strongly support the gentleman's amendment. How vitally important it is that we restore law and order to the border, that we enforce the immigration laws in this country in a way that is evenhanded and fair and just, because only when the border is secure, only when the immigration laws are enforced, will we be able to actually have a healthy commerce with Mexico, will we be able to actually have a guest worker program with Mexico and allow people to come here legally to work so we can actually restore the back and forth trade that has made Texas and all the border States so prosperous.

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is common sense. The city of San Francisco, for example, officially declared itself an illegal alien sanctuary city by the Board of Supervisors in 1989, and now lawmakers are taking that a huge step further by actually creating legislation to

grant illegal aliens official city identification cards.

The head of the Public Information Office of the National Association of Chiefs of Police reports that in California, illegal aliens in San Francisco are being assured through costly Spanish language advertising campaigns that they will never be reported to Federal law enforcement agents such as ICE, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or Homeland Security investigation, or the U.S. Border Patrol, or any other Federal agency that could initiate the deportation process. That's a direct violation of the Federal law that the gentleman from Pennsylvania just read.

I'm proud to coauthor this amendment with my friend from Pennsylvania because he's exactly right. This amendment will save lives.

If a local law enforcement agency refuses to follow Federal law, they should not expect to be rewarded with Federal grant money, and that's what this amendment would do--cut off Federal grant money to sanctuary cities across America. I suspect you'll see them repeal their sanctuary city policy very rapidly when they discover they don't have access to Federal money.

Most recently, in the city of San Francisco, a renowned gang member, a member of the MS 13 gang, was just convicted for three first-degree murders in 2008. A father and two sons were murdered by this illegal alien who had multiple run-ins with law enforcement authorities in San Francisco. But because of the sanctuary city policy in San Francisco, he was not deported.

I urge the Members of the House to support the gentleman's amendment. This amendment will save lives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.004

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

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise to accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

I want Ohio to run Ohio.

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

We've got other work.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing statutory law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law . . . ''

In this case the amendment directly amends existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Will the gentleman yield?

We're pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment. We accepted it last year, and we're proud to accept it this year to help encourage the VA to look to better-known businesses.

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

I agree to the amendment and accept it. I think it's important. Had the cemetery director in Houston been a veteran, this problem never would have arisen.

I also thank the gentleman for bringing both of these amendments to the floor tonight. I have personally witnessed the cemetery director interfering with the funeral services of veterans. It is outrageous, just absolutely unacceptable. I thank the gentleman for his amendments and speaking on this amendment first. I have no objection and will accept this amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and thank him for bringing it to the floor tonight, and urge its adoption.

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

We accepted this amendment, and it passed the House last year.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Texas for any further comments he would like to make.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I want to say again, as I mentioned earlier--and I think much of this has been said, so I won't belabor it--the State of Texas is a right-to-work State. There are very few, if any, labor unions in the State of Texas. We have them in a few industries, but not many.

We have to be good stewards of the taxpayers' precious dollars, and the gentleman from Arizona's amendment makes good sense. We should pay the free-market wage. We should not force taxpayers to pay an artificially high union wage when a free-market wage is available and you can get a job done well at a far better price. That just makes common sense.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an amendment to the bill. This is a procedural stunt, a motion to recommit that the public and the Members should not be confused about. This is a last-minute, a very sad, I think, and shallow and disappointing political stunt that the Members of the minority--this bill, more than any other--Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.

Mr. Speaker, our subcommittee, Sanford Bishop, your colleague from Georgia, our entire subcommittee has worked arm in arm since early this year, held numerous hearings, sought testimony from every organization, from the Veterans Administration--from any veterans organization. We have all worked arm in arm in producing a piece of legislation tonight that fully funds every need of every veteran and every active-duty military member of the United States anywhere in the world. We've funded every request. We've met every need. We've left no gap unfilled. In fact, not only during the committee process, but also tonight. We've been on the floor from 4:30 until 8 o'clock. Anyone could have come to the floor and offered an amendment. Frankly, you could have

walked down and drafted it right here on a yellow notepad and given it to the Clerk and offered an amendment at any time.

So this is not an amendment. This is a procedural stunt. It's disappointing and disheartening to see it offered at the last minute when we, on this subcommittee, more than any other subcommittee, have worked arm in arm in an absolutely bipartisan way in support of our troops.

It is important for the Members to know that our committee has fully funded the request of the Veterans Administration. We've given them everything that they needed, that they asked for--$583 million for medical and prosthetic research. We've increased funding for the VA by $2.3 billion to make sure that the needs of our veterans are met. We have increased Veterans Administration research by almost $1.9 billion. And we have, throughout this entire appropriations season, been open to any Member at any time to bring us any good idea on any subject that would help our veterans.

So this is not an amendment. This is a procedural motion that has nothing to do with the merits of the bill. In fact, I want to stress to my colleagues that during conference, if the Veterans Administration, if anyone can demonstrate to Mr. Bishop and me and to the subcommittee that there is a valid need, a demonstrable need that the VA comes to us and says, Yes, we need additional money for more research, of course we'll find room for it.

There is no gap between any of us on this House floor when it comes to supporting the needs of our men and women in uniform. We on this committee, more than any other, have worked together in a bipartisan fashion.

I urge the Members to reject this last-minute procedural motion to recommit. We will work together in conference if there is truly any additional need for funding, but Members, we have left no gap unfilled when it comes to our men and women in uniform, and I urge the Members to vote ``no.''

Parliamentary Inquiry

Thank you, very much, Mr. Gohmert, my good friend from Texas. We share great passion for the 10th Amendment, for the restoration of individual liberty and putting our government back in their box; and I appreciate so much the time that you've spent on the floor, Congressman Gohmert, focusing the attention of the Congress and the country on the fact that this is a government of limited powers, and most powers are reserved to individuals or to State and local government, and we, as a constitutional conservative majority, are working every day to do all we can to do much more than just control spending. It's much more than balancing the budget. We are determined to restore the 10th Amendment and individual liberty and put the Federal Government back in its box, let Texans run Texas and get the government out of our lives, out of our pockets, out of our way, and off our backs. I support you in that effort, and I appreciate very much you yielding to me for a minute.

I had a very brief housekeeping matter to take care of, as well as to be here to support your work in the restoration of the 10th Amendment, Mr. Gohmert.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) has been a leader in the effort to restore the 10th Amendment, and he has focused the attention of the country and the Congress on the uncontrolled spending that we have seen in recent years. The level of debt and deficit has reached a level unseen in our history. I deeply appreciate your commitment, Congressman Gohmert, to work to do all that we can from our perspective in the House, even though we're outnumbered--we've got a liberal Senate, a liberal President. We control only one-third of the government, but we have put the brakes on the spending by this President. We've put the brakes on the uncontrolled spending that we've seen since he took office, and we're going to continue to do that.

But it is bigger than that. It's bigger than spending. It's bigger than a balanced budget, because the fundamental root of the problem is that the Federal Government has gone so far beyond its limited bounds that they have now intruded themselves into every aspect of our lives.

We, as a constitutional conservative majority, are committed to restoring the checks and balances in the Constitution, the separation of powers, and to remind people every day until we are back in control of the Senate and we've got a Republican President. Once we've got a Republican House, Mr. Gohmert, I know we'll be working arm in arm to pass legislation to return power to the States, to restore individual liberty. As Thomas Jefferson said, if you apply the core principles of the Constitution to any problem, the knot will always untie itself.

So I deeply appreciate your commitment, Congressman Gohmert, to focusing on the core principles of the Constitution, and know that we are, all of us, every day that we're here, working hard to restore the 10th Amendment and individual liberty. I thank you for your leadership in that effort, sir.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the first coin ever minted in the Republic of Mexico contained the motto, ``Liberty in Law,'' something we understand so well in this country, that there can be no liberty without law. And fundamental to that is law enforcement, and this is a law enforcement issue.

This is a no-brainer. It really illustrates how utterly out of touch the Democrat minority is with the Nation's concern with the lack of law enforcement at our border.

My good friend from Arizona, who was the County Treasurer in Maricopa County, the largest county in Arizona, just pointed out to me that you experienced cost to your local taxpayers of $1.3 billion a year because of the cost of undocumented illegal aliens in Maricopa County.

In my work on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I've discovered that the Federal Government is only prosecuting about 15 percent of the illegal aliens entering the country in the Tucson sector. So 85 percent of those that they even catch are released, and they return voluntarily across the border so that they come right back.

There are wildly different levels of enforcement up and down the border. The people of the United States, all of us, understand particularly in the State of Texas, which I am so proud to represent, the importance of a healthy relationship with Mexico and the importance of a guest worker program that allows people to come and go freely with our number two trading partner in the world. Canada is our number one trading partner, and Mexico is our number two trading partner. We need a healthy back-and-forth relationship with our friends in Mexico, and the only way to do that is to have the laws enforced equally and fairly as to everyone.

There is no liberty without law enforcement. It is the first responsibility of our State officials to enforce the

law. We know under the Constitution that the police powers are reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment because the Founders understood that the local sheriff, the Governor, and the State police were primarily responsible for protecting the lives and property of the people of their States and their communities.

How many times does it happen every day that a bank robber is arrested or a money launderer is arrested by the State police or a county sheriff, and then because there are Federal charges involved the local prosecutor will hand the individual over to Federal prosecutors for prosecution? Entering the country illegally, crossing the border, is a Federal violation. Those individuals are often picked up by State or local police, who work every day arm in arm with Federal law enforcement authorities to protect the lives and property of the people of America. This is a no-brainer. Local and State law enforcement authorities do it every day.

Enforcing the law is fundamental to who we are as a Nation, because as the Republic of Mexico said on the first coin they ever minted: liberty in law. It's fundamental to who we are as Americans. If we are going to restore the healthy relationship that we've always enjoyed with the people of Mexico, it begins with secure borders, with the uniform--equal--enforcement of the law and by ensuring that the people who come here do so legally and properly so that we know who you are, how long you're going to stay, when you're going home, and that you're not accessing government benefits and costing the people of Maricopa County or the people of the United States money that we simply cannot afford.

As generous as we are, we are out of money. This Nation is living on borrowed income that our kids and grandchildren will have to pay off. It's unacceptable. This new constitutional conservative majority in the House is determined to see the budget balanced, our laws enforced, our borders secured, and this Nation of laws--the greatest democracy ever created in the history of the world--returned to the constitutional set of principles on which it was founded. That begins with liberty in law, which this amendment so wisely attempts to restore. So I strongly support the amendment, and I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, America has no better friend on the face of the Earth than the people of Israel. Israel is the only nation on Earth that can say they've stood by America 100 percent of the time for 100 percent of their existence. And it's so important today that America, that our President, that this Congress, stand behind the people of Israel at this moment of supreme peril.

When the Iranians are building a nuclear weapon as fast as they can, that the Iranians have said they're going to use it, America must stand by Israel. There should be no doubt in the mind of every Israeli, of every friend of Israel around the world that America will stand behind her best friend 100 percent the time, just as they have stood beside us 100 percent of the time.

We will be there for Israel to defend her safety, her security, and her prosperity against any enemy, any time, anywhere.

Mr. Speaker, my hero, Thomas Jefferson, always said that if you apply core principle to any problem, no matter how difficult, the knot will always untie itself. It was true then, and it's true today. If we would apply the core principles of the Constitution to the problems we face as a government, the knot will untie itself. And here just applying commonsense principles to our fiscal problems, the knot will untie itself. This is a remarkably simple and remarkably effective reform. We will no longer assume inflation into the beginning of our spending bills on the Appropriations Committee.

Now, unfortunately, we only control on the Appropriations Committee about 39 cents out of every dollar of spending the Federal Government does. But that 39 percent that we do control will no longer increase automatically year to year. These procedural institutional reforms that House conservatives are enacting into law will make

a dramatic difference in changing the direction of our Nation from insolvency and bankruptcy to getting back on a path to a balanced budget.

I'm very proud to help our colleagues, my chairman, Paul Ryan, Mr. Woodall, and Mr. Gohmert of Texas in enacting this fundamental, commonsense reform to put America back on track to a balanced budget. And Americans should take heart that constitutional conservatives in the House are doing the right thing for the right reasons for the country and redesigning the way we spend money in favor of taxpayers and not in favor of Washington bureaucrats.

Will the gentleman yield?

I chair the Veterans Administration and Military Construction Subcommittee in Appropriations, and I assure you we all work arm in arm together. My friend, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, and I will make sure veterans are taken care of. We will still be able to with this reform, but in the light of day look at inflation, medical inflation, which is generally higher than regular inflation, we will build that in, I promise you, as we go through our hearing schedule. But we will do it in open public hearings. It won't be built in automatically. That's all this does is remove the automatic increase and lets the people's elected Representatives do it in the sunlight of day in an open hearing. And I assure you that veterans will be taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the gentleman from Maryland. And as we all recall, the Military Construction and VA Appropriations bill passed the House almost unanimously because all of us in this Congress are arm in arm in support of our veterans, in support of our military to ensure that they get the very best medical care possible, that we're providing every benefit that they have earned by their service to the Nation.

And the only thing this bill will do is remove the automatic blind increase in the starting point for our spending. And we in the Appropriations Subcommittee, in the full sunlight of day on C-SPAN and public hearings, will go through and build in that increase that has actually occurred in medical inflation and regular inflation to ensure that we have compensated our veterans for that increase that has already occurred. But we'll do it in a public hearing; we'll do it in the full light of day. We'll do it so the taxpayers can see what we're doing.

The game is rigged today against American taxpayers; and House conservatives, constitutional conservatives are following core principle. We're honoring the Constitution. We're looking for ways to restore the 10th Amendment and individual liberty, shrinking the government, getting control back in the hands of individual Americans and State and local governments.

And then when it comes to the budget, we're implementing commonsense reforms that every American understands. We don't get an automatic increase in pay. If you're working for a company, you've got to earn it every year. We on the Appropriations Committee are going to go through and analyze every one of these accounts and make sure that we have built in, but in an open public forum, any increase as a result of the increase in medical inflation or baseline inflation.

We will, on the subcommittee, I assure you, Mr. Van Hollen, make sure that our veterans are fully compensated, as all of us take great pride in their service. And, truly, you see more unanimity on the Veterans' and Military Construction Appropriations bill than almost any other bill that we pass because we take such great pride in them.

So I urge my colleagues to please remove that argument from your repertoire, and let's focus on what's really going on here. The game is rigged today against taxpayers, and House Republicans are rigging the game today in favor of taxpayers in sunlight and transparency.

Sure. Bill Young's going to do that. Bill Young's going to take care of it.

Will the gentleman yield?

Just for a friendly conversation.

Truly, there's nothing misleading. We're doing this in the light of day. What we're, through this reform, going to do, Mr. Van Hollen, is have these hearings in public, in front of C-SPAN and the world, and talk about what actually has been the level of inflation this year, what actually do we need to do to increase funding this year for the veterans, for medical inflation, for regular inflation.

Bill Young, the chairman of the Defense Subcommittee and a great leader from Florida who works in a bipartisan way with Norm Dicks, your leader on the Appropriations Committee, they're going to build in, they're going to analyze what inflation's been.

The difference here, truly, all we're doing is doing it in the light of day. We're removing the automatic increase. That's all. I want the pilot with his hand on the steering wheel of the airplane.