Floor Statements

We're sending this bill back to conference because we share Speaker John Boehner's core governing principle to do the right thing for the right reasons for the country. And the right thing to do here is to make sure nobody's payroll taxes go up for at least a year. The House bill does that.

If you want your payroll taxes to go up in 2 months, then you would support the Senate bill.

We are sending this bill back to conference because the Senate bill, unlike the House bill, the Senate bill does not require people applying for unemployment to either get a GED or show that they're working their way towards a degree. The Senate bill doesn't do those things. So we're obviously sending this bill back to conference.

The House bill also gives States the flexibility to require unemployment beneficiaries to submit to drug testing, which is something common sense that everybody in the country can understand.

The Speaker also included in the House bill the ability for businesses to expense 100 percent of the money they invest in new investments and that, obviously, is going to create jobs immediately. The Senate took that language out.

This is just not complicated. If you want your payroll taxes to stay the same for 12 months, then you would support the House bill. If you want your payroll tax to go up in 2 months, then you'd support the Senate bill. This is not a complicated debate. This is very straightforward.

We in the House want to make sure that nobody's tax goes up for at least 12 months so people can plan, so businesses can predict, so they can expense money that they can invest so that they can create jobs. We also want to make sure that businesses in America can continue to create jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to thank the Congressman from Virginia. Bob Goodlatte has been a relentless and tireless advocate for balancing the budget of the United States of America with a constitutional amendment. And we are here tonight debating it because of his perseverance. I want to thank Speaker Boehner. I want to thank the people of America for electing a constitutional majority to the House--elections make a huge difference.

We must pass this amendment to the Constitution tonight. The Senate must take a vote on it. And the people of America should hold every Member of Congress accountable for their vote because this is a defining vote on a defining evening for the United States Congress. How much more prosperous would America be today if the Senate had passed this amendment 16 years ago? How much stronger would America be today?

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said, as has been pointed out earlier, that America's greatest strategic threat is our national debt. What better evidence of that is there than that the people of Europe tonight are facing panic selling of European Union debt. Greece, Italy, and Portugal are all on the brink.

We cannot let America continue down this path. We have an obligation to our children and grandchildren to ensure that the Nation's books are balanced just as every American must do, just as 49 out of 50 States must do, just as every business in America must do.

This is just fundamental common sense. No amount of confusion or distraction on the part of the opponents can divert the country's attention from the simple, commonsense fact that an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget requires America to live within its means, to spend no more than is brought in by revenue.

My hero, Thomas Jefferson, said, and his words ring so true today in light of the problems we face, that to preserve our independence as Americans, we must not let our rulers load us down with perpetual debt. We must make our choice, America, between economy and liberty and perfusion and servitude.

I want to thank Congressman Goodlatte for his leadership and perseverance on this vitally important issue. And I'm looking forward to the day, in 15 to 16 years from today, when this amendment passes the Congress, when it passes the States overwhelmingly, so that my daughter and her children will inherit an America that's more prosperous and more secure because of Bob Goodlatte and John Boehner's leadership in bringing this to the floor tonight so that we will, as a Nation, continue to live within our means.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chairman, the air contains mercury. The environment contains mercury from natural sources. The Communist Chinese, of course, are the world's largest polluter, and the plume of pollution from Communist China stretches all the way across the Pacific Ocean and covers up the Western and Central part of the United States.

This map, which I hope you can see there, Madam Chairman, shows the Western and Central U.S. covered by a plume of red. These are mercury deposits coming from Communist China. The United States, through the Clean Air Act and with the efforts of industry and individuals across the Nation, has dramatically reduced pollution levels in the air and in the water.

We are all committed to making sure that our kids are drinking clean water and breathing clean air. This amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont is a simple statement that we find we're exposed to mercury. Congress might as well also issue a finding that we're exposed to carbon dioxide. I'm exposed to carbon dioxide right here. They're trying to make that a pollutant.

What the Obama Democrats have done to crush jobs in the cement industry is an illustration of what Obama Democrats have done in their attempt to crush job creation all over the United States.

In this EPA regulation on the cement industry, the Obama Democrats have set an impossibly high standard far beyond what even the European Union seeks. What the Obama Democrats attempt to impose on the cement industry is like asking them to win the decathlon, where you have to get a gold medal in every event. They've set, for example, this rule that 98 percent of all mercury has to be eliminated. The technology doesn't exist for that, yet the industry has to comply with the Obama Democrat rule by next September, wiping out much of the cement industry in the United States at a time when the construction industry in America is already in a state of depression.

It is evident from the record that the cement industry today is producing at a rate equivalent to 1962, yet the Obama Democrats seek to crush it further and eliminate more job creation in an absolutely vital sector of American industry, which will simply have the effect, as they have already done in so many other industries, of driving the work offshore--driving more cement production to Communist China, where they have no pollution controls.

For example, in the auto industry, the Obama Democrats have set automobile mileage standards so impossibly high that no automobile in America today can meet it other than the Prius. So the auto industry is going to be crushed. In the oil industry, they've set impossibly high standards for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, driving offshore drilling to Brazil and other countries. All those big rigs are gone. They won't come back, but we're trying to open up drilling in the gulf.

In sector after sector after sector, Obama Democrats are crushing the American economy and crushing American business owners with impossible regulations that cannot be met.

This is common sense. Constitutional conservatives in the House are trying to get this economy back on track and to grow jobs by eliminating regulation, by cutting taxes, and by cutting spending. This legislation today is a straightforward, simple attempt to postpone the damage. All we can do by controlling the House is to stop the damage inflicted by Obama Democrats on the American economy. That's what we can do with this legislation.

Give us 5 years more to implement it until we get reinforcements and have a constitutionally conservative Senate and a constitutional conservative in the White House, which is when we can really grow this economy and cut taxes and cut spending and can put the Federal Government back in the box designed by the Founders.

Get out of my pocket. Get out of my way. Get off my back. Unleash American entrepreneurship, and you'll really see the American economy grow if you'd just leave us alone. Let Texans run Texas. Let Kentuckians run Kentucky. Let us manage our own businesses, our own families, our own affairs--to manage and invest and save or spend our own money in the way we wish.

You'll see American industry protect the environment, grow jobs, drill here and drill now for oil and gas safely and cleanly in the Gulf of Mexico and across the United States. You'll see the cement industry and the construction industry come back if we just stop crushing them with impossible regulations that cannot be met by any available technology anywhere on Earth.

For all of those reasons, I ask the Members of the House to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Waxman, there is no definition of ``adverse'' in the act. That's in this amendment. That's one of the concerns. If there's any adverse impact, then the act doesn't go into effect, nor is there any definition of ``disproportionately.'' Those terms are not defined. Would you agree there is no definition?

Any negative.

Will the gentleman yield?

If there is any adverse impact or any disproportionate negative impact, the act is not going to affect that, no matter how small.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2017) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, and concur in the Senate amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 6 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, October 3, 2011, at 2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, the duty we perform today to cut and cap America's spending, to put us on track to a balanced budget, and to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution are vitally important but pale in comparison to the sacrifices and duties of our Armed Forces, our men and women in uniform.

It is with profound sadness today that I join with the family and friends and the neighbors of United States Army First Lieutenant Dimitri del Castillo in mourning his loss. On June 25, 2011, he was killed while fighting in Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

In 2004, it was my privilege to nominate Dimitri for an appointment as a cadet to the United States Military Academy at West Point. Upon his graduation, he was commissioned in the Infantry, where he sought out the Army's toughest challenges immediately. He graduated from the demanding Airborne and Ranger courses and later passed a series of rigorous skill and endurance tests to earn the Army's coveted Expert Infantryman Badge.

Dimitri deployed with his unit to Afghanistan in April of 2011, and while conducting combat operations he was tragically killed when his unit came under fire by enemy forces. For his heroic actions that day, Dimitri was awarded posthumously the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart.

Though we mourn his loss, we are immensely proud of Dimitri's accomplishments and we are immensely proud of the men and women who fight for us every day to make it possible to savour the freedom left to us by our founders. May the Lord bless and keep Dimitri's soul, and may God help his family find comfort in the nobility and valor of his deeds.

Madam Speaker, I think it's important for everyone to know the reason the House is considering this bill today is to put up another guardrail to show what the House cannot do. It's important in any compromise to understand what can and cannot be done.

The new constitutional conservative majority in the House will not pass the Reid bill because of its devastating cuts to our U.S. military. The House is going to find a way to compromise with the Senate, but it is not going to include massive cuts to the military. As we've established, it's not going to include tax increases. It looks like it's going to include some select committee that's going to make recommendations to the Congress.

We're going to find a way to make sure that American companies do not hit the brick wall of running out of the ability to borrow. But this is one of the most important debates, one of the most important votes we'll have in our brief time here in Congress is to make sure that we're protecting our kids and grandchildren from a crushing unaffordable level of debt. So we're working hard to find what the limits are of what the House and the Senate will do.

We've got to have this vote today to show what the House will not do. And we're not going to cut the military, as the Reid bill would.

Madam Speaker, I think it is very revealing in the debate today that the American people can see that the opposition to the proposal before the House is that we are attempting to even suggest that there be a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, not any specific amendment.

We want, as a constitutional conservative majority, to see a vote in the House and the Senate on a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, something I've coauthored since 2001. Yet the majority is strenuously objecting to that. The minority objects to our effort to control the debt and the deficit without raising taxes. They object to strong spending caps in the future, which by the way, exempts anyone over the age of 55 and under Medicare, Medicaid. They're exempt under the Paul Ryan budget; they're exempt on the proposal that Speaker Boehner has brought to us today.

The Speaker has attempted to find the largest possible cuts with the strongest possible enforceable budget caps that could pass a Democrat Senate in order to get it on the desk of the President before the August 3 deadline. The Speaker and this new constitutional conservative majority are doing everything in our power to avoid a default while honoring the trust that the Nation put in us in this landslide election which just occurred in November. The Nation spoke decisively in electing this new majority to the House. We were sent here to control spending, to control the size of the government, to get the government out of our lives, out of our pocket, and back within the bounds of the Constitution as designed by the Founders. And we've attempted to do that.

I applaud Speaker Boehner for working so diligently to find the largest possible cut that could possibly pass a temporarily liberal- controlled Senate in the very short span of time that we've got here. We would all like to get more. But if you can get 60, 70 percent of where you need to go to get the Nation back on track to a balanced budget and avoid the brick wall that lies ahead of us on August 3, we need to do so to avoid a default.

I applaud the Speaker for bringing this package to the floor and urge all the Members to support it.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in the 7 months before the blowout, there were 49 deepwater permits issued. And in the 7 months since the moratorium was allegedly lifted, there's only been seven deepwater permits issued. We in the committee adopted this amendment, which I was proud to offer, simply to shine sunlight on the process. All the language in this bill requires is that the agency report to the American people and report to Congress the reasons why a permit for exploration or for drilling has been slowed down or delayed.

We're all committed to transparency. We all want to know where and how our tax dollars are being spent. And the slowdown in drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has had a catastrophic effect on employment. We've lost 60,000 jobs since 2008 in the Gulf of Mexico area. If we would get back to the levels of drilling, of permitting, both shallow and deepwater, that we were before the blowout, it's estimated that as many as 190,000 jobs could be created in the Gulf of Mexico in about 18 months, with about 400,000 industry-supported jobs across the United States supplying equipment to the offshore oil industry.

No one has a stronger stake in protecting the environment than we have that live there. These folks that work for these great companies are my friends and my neighbors. I'm proud to represent so many of these companies. Houston, Texas, is to the oil industry what Silicon Valley is to the computer industry.

These are engineers. These are the scientists. These are people who live and work in and around the Gulf of Mexico, who fish there, whose kids play on the beaches. Being a Houstonian and growing up along the gulf, I remember tarballs were common on the beach in Galveston. You just don't see it anymore.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

In reclaiming my time, as for the permits that have been approved, of course that's a matter of public record; but as for the permits that have been rejected and that are not yet a matter of public record, we want to see those and know why they've been rejected, why they've been delayed. That's all this language requires is that they shine sunlight on every corner of the process. Many of these permits have been rejected for reasons that are not directly tied to the substance of the application. I've seen permits that are rejected because the typeface wasn't, in the opinion of the permitter, correct. It is clear that there has been a slow-down and that this administration overreacted to the spill. It has deliberately slowed down the permitting process and has made it more difficult for Americans to find American oil and gas.

We are committed to drill here and drill now in a way that is safe and clean, that protects the environment but yet takes advantage of the natural resources that God has so abundantly blessed this continent with. The Gulf of Mexico demonstrated that it can be done cleanly and safely; and there is no quicker way to generate high-paying jobs than to open up drilling in the continental United States, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. Those rigs are gone, by the way, Mr. Dicks. Once those rigs leave the Gulf of Mexico, they don't come back.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from Ohio.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio, and I urge the House to defeat this amendment.

I would be happy to yield to my friend from Washington.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Cleanly and safely.

Reclaiming my time, I couldn't agree more. We find ourselves in agreement that sunshine is a healthy thing, and that's the purpose of the language in the bill.

With all due respect, Mr. Dicks, it is important that the House reject this amendment so that we can have sunlight in every corner of the permitting process and so that the public and the Congress can know why these permits have been delayed or denied so that we can open up the Gulf of Mexico to drill here and drill now--cleanly and safely.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is honoring a pledge that we made to America in the largest landslide election in 70 years last November when the people of America spoke clearly and elected a new majority to govern the House to take America down the path to a balanced budget to restore prosperity, to restore jobs that had been lost under this President.

The American people spoke decisively last November and asked this new constitutional conservative majority in the House to cut spending, to cap spending, to enact a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, to shrink the size of the government, to get the government out of our lives and out of our pockets and put us back on a path of prosperity, which this legislation does.

I am very proud to be a coauthor of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act of the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, which has worked so well in Texas. Texas is a beacon for other States. We have demonstrated in Texas when you live within your means, when you cut taxes, when you limit litigation, when you limit regulation, when you get the government out of our pockets and off our backs that American ingenuity, American entrepreneurship will thrive and the economy will grow.

People have been voting with their feet to move to Texas, and we in this new constitutional conservative majority in the House are doing today what we promised America we would do last November. We are cutting. We're reaffirming the Ryan budget which, by the way, does not affect--anyone over the age of 55 is unaffected by the Ryan budget, is unaffected by this Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, but if we do nothing, if you are under the age of 55, you will be affected because Medicare is on a path to bankruptcy, as is Social Security.

So we're taking decisive action today, Mr. Speaker, to put America back on a path to prosperity, to grow jobs, to get the Federal Government back within the bounds of the Constitution with a balanced budget amendment. I am very proud today, Mr. Speaker, to be here in support of this legislation, which will honor the promise we made to America.

Mr. Speaker, due to family obligations, I was unable to attend the vote on H. Res. 268 last Wednesday, July 7, 2011. However, I would like to make it known that as a co-sponsor of the resolution, I would have proudly voted for H. Res. 268 in support of Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's motion.

I rise in opposition to the motion.

Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs has worked in an arm-in- arm, bipartisan way in support of our troops, in support of our veterans. And we have provided funding for every need that was presented to the committee to help our men and women in uniform do the job that they do every day defending this Nation, to help our veterans as they move out of active duty into retired status, to help the Veterans Administration treat not only the veterans who have suffered or been injured in combat in defense of this Nation, but also those veterans who have suffered in some way psychological trauma that would put them at risk of suicide, a growing problem, and one that the committee is deeply concerned about, and, in fact, the committee has fully funded at the President's request of $69.9 million. The committee has provided essentially $70 million at the President's request, at the request of the Veterans Administration. We have fully funded in every way the request of the professionals in this area, what they believe is necessary to meet the need that they have determined is out there among the veterans of this Nation.

One of the great joys I know that all of us have as Members of Congress is to provide the support that is necessary for our men and women in uniform to do the extraordinarily difficult job that they confront every day and to ensure that their families have the peace of mind that their son, their daughter, their father, their husband, their loved one has been given every piece of equipment, every possible support logistically with the love and comfort and prayers that we all send them with their families.

We as Members of Congress also have a sacred obligation to ensure that those men and women who are out there defending us don't ever need to look over their shoulder, that they don't ever need to worry that they are lacking in any way the equipment, the support. Everything that they might possibly need in the course of their day defending this Nation we have made sure, on the Appropriations Committee, that the men and women in uniform have. We've made sure that the Veterans Administration hospitals across the Nation have everything they need to take care of our men and women in uniform who have retired and gone on to the private sector to work in some other capacity.

As a general rule, I've heard the number, the average time, that a man or woman serving the Nation may serve in uniform is--I think the numbers I've heard are about 36 months, but they will spend the rest of their life in the care of the Veterans Administration. And it's an extraordinarily important trust that our subcommittee takes very personally, as a truly sacred obligation on our part to make sure that these wonderful men and women, these extraordinarily courageous men and women who have sacrificed so much have everything they need when they move into the VA system, that the VA Hospital is providing them with the very best possible medical care, physically, mentally--and suicide prevention, in fact, is one of those areas that we on the subcommittee have fully funded and worked again in a bipartisan way.

In fact, our committee as a whole has always worked together in a very bipartisan way, and particularly the subcommittees that deal with the men and women in uniform. Whether it be the Military Construction, the Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee, or the Defense Subcommittee, the members of the Appropriations Committee don't pay attention to party labels. We're focused on what's best for the men and women of the United States military. We're focused on what's best for their families and for the Veterans Administration, the health care that our men and women in uniform are given physically--again, mentally. And without regard to party, without regard to any other distinction other than what's good for these men and women who serve our Nation, we have worked together without really any real serious disagreements.

We, of course, have a problem today in the Nation of unprecedented debt, unprecedented deficits, record unfunded liabilities. And the new conservative majority that controls the House today is determined to do everything we can to reduce the unconscionable burden that's being passed on to our children and grandchildren. So we have found savings in this bill in money that was unspent, in accounts where money has been set aside for years and unspent, where savings have been produced from reduced cost of concrete and steel, reduced bid savings, for example, that we then returned that money to the taxpayers. We found areas that we could save money, but not at the expense of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw my reservation.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2055, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

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

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

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

So we will accept the amendment at this time.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Point of Order

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

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the ranking member yield?

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

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