Floor Statements

I yield myself such time as I may utilize.

(Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

It has, once again, been an honor to work with my friend from Florida, Chairman Bill Young, to prepare the Defense appropriations bill for FY 2012. In the longstanding tradition of this committee, the bill has been prepared on a bipartisan basis, and I support the bill. I know that Chairman Rogers will be glad to hear that.

I am happy to report that the bill provides the funds necessary to support our troops both at home and in the field. It also makes the investment in research and development and acquisition needed to fully equip our troops and maintain our Nation's technological edge.

Within the funds provided, and after careful review, the committee exercised its constitutional responsibility

to allocate resources to those programs that best support the requirements of our military forces.

In writing this bill, the committee had to make hard choices. The allocation for this bill is $530 billion, $9 billion below the request. While this is $17 billion above the fiscal year 2011-enacted level, much of the increase is absorbed by the military pay, operation and maintenance, and the Defense Health Program accounts.

The bill also provides the funds needed to support U.S. service personnel. Examples of this include the military pay accounts fund at a 1.6 percent raise, consistent with the budget request and the level included in the House-passed fiscal year 2012 armed services authorization bill.

The bill also provides $32.3 billion for the Defense Health Program, including $125 million above the request to continue the committee's longstanding efforts to improve research and treatment of traumatic brain injury and psychological health conditions. The bill also includes funding increases for several research efforts including peer- reviewed breast cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and lung cancer research.

The bill fully funds $2.3 billion requested for family programs and adds funding for several initiatives including $250 million to replace schools owned by local education authorities and $40 million for Impact Aid.

The bill addresses many of DOD's most pressing investment needs. It funds 10 ships, as requested in the budget, and 32 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. I would like to have seen more Strike Fighter aircraft because I believe they're doing a much better job on this program. Last year it was in some trouble. This year Admiral Venlet has said repeatedly that they're, in fact, ahead of the training schedule. So I think this is very good news.

The bill also adds funding to fill gaps in DOD capabilities. Some examples include the M1A2 System Enhancement Package: $272 million is included to prevent a break in production of tanks. And this is something that our committee agreed with on an overwhelming basis, that shutting down the tank line in Ohio would be a terrible mistake because we'd lose the skilled workers and then we're going to reopen this tank line in 2 or 3 years, and it would just be a waste of money. So we bridged that gap.

HMMWV Force Protection: $50 million is added to develop and test and improve armor and other blast protection technologies on the HMMWV.

Long Range Strike: $100 million is added to reduce technical risk and schedule risks for this program. We're moving ahead on a replacement for the Trident submarine. The C-17 replacement is included to replace the operational loss of a C-17 aircraft. The committee has steadfastly replaced--when there have been operational losses, we've replaced the equipment. This is another example.

Special Operation Command shortfalls: this is one thing we had in our bill in 2011, and this year an increase of $250 million is added to address unfunded requirements identified by the Special Operations Command.

National Guard and Reserve equipment: $1.5 billion is included to fund equipment shortfalls in National Guard and Reserve equipment.

Intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance: $50 million is included above the request to continue to fill gaps in DOD ISR equipment.

Israeli missile defense programs: $130 million is added to enhance Israeli missile defense programs including the Arrow missile defense system.

Small business innovative research: $50 million is included to continue the committee's efforts for SBIR Phase III transition.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities: $20 million is added to continue defense research at Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Energy efficiency improvements: the bill includes $82 million above the request to field equipment that will reduce the energy footprint of deployed Marine Corps units. The bill also includes $10 million above the request for pilot programs to improve DOD energy efficiency.

The bill provides $118.7 billion for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq and for continuing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. The bill ensures that troops have essential force protection and provides the means for the Afghans to provide their own security. The bill includes $12.8 billion to train Afghanistan's National Security Forces.

While the bill provides essential support for our troops, I remain concerned about our Nation's direction in Pakistan and ongoing operations in Afghanistan. There is cause to question the reliability of our partnership with both countries. In the light of recent events, we must reassess the extent of U.S. military involvement and the objectives of U.S. foreign policy in that part of the world, reexamining whether U.S. national security requires a continued deployment of over 100,000 U.S. service personnel.

I welcome President Obama's decision to start the withdrawals, and I also urge a ceasefire and a political settlement. After a careful review of the security situation, I believe it is time to significantly accelerate the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

To accomplish this objective responsibly will take some care. By necessity, a political solution in Afghanistan will involve negotiations with Taliban representatives. It will also demand taking into account the interests of surrounding nations to ensure that those neighbors do not fight with one another along sectarian or tribal divides within Afghanistan.

Finally, we must guard against creating a vacuum similar to the one that occurred at the end of the Soviet occupation in 1989. Even with these cautions in mind, I believe it is time to begin the process of bringing the level of deployed U.S. troops in line with a new assessment of our security interests in the region.

I look forward to hearing from General Petraeus and General Odierno. We worked with them on the surge in Iraq, which turned out to be very successful. The military has done a very good job in Helmand and Kandahar and has dominated the Taliban in recent times, which is very positive.

We still have a problem on the eastern front between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we need to continue to put pressure on al Qaeda, though the capture and death of Osama bin Laden was something that all the troops that have served here since 2001 should take satisfaction in, the person who led the effort against the United States in one of the most horrific acts and one of the most economic destabilizing acts that has ever occurred to our country.

While I have concerns about our Nation's policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I strongly support this bill. It's a bipartisan bill, and it provides the resources needed by our troops. I urge your support for the bill.

I also want to thank the staff. I know Chairman Young will join me in this. We have a tremendous staff that works together. They worked together when I was chairman. They're working together now that Chairman Young has--he had been chairman before and has now regained his chairmanship. And the staff has done an extraordinary job. It's a major piece of work to put together a $530 billion bill and know all these programs, and I commend them for their good work.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who is a former member of the Defense Subcommittee and now is the ranking Democrat on the Military Construction-VA Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Appropriations Committee and someone who is a very dynamic leader on our committee and that I enjoy working with.

I yield the gentlewoman 2 additional minutes.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to again thank the chairman for his great work and the work of the staff.

The President did lay out the rationale for why we got involved in Libya. He said that we were there to help protect the Libyan people. There were two resolutions adopted by the United Nations. And it wasn't just the United Nations. You had the Arab League and NATO involved in this. And, yes, I think the President would have been better advised to have asked for authorization, but this was a situation where the Libyan people were going to be slaughtered and the President felt that he had to act.

Some of us just got back from a trip. We saw the men and women who handle the equipment, who fly in there, do the jamming, all the different things that are done. They have done a phenomenal job. And now the President has turned the leadership of this over to NATO and they are taking the lead, though the gentleman from New Jersey is quite correct; they cannot do all these things without tankers, without other things, some of the special intelligence and reconnaissance that we have that just isn't out there for anybody else.

So I hope that tomorrow's debate will be on the merits. Let's look at this thing; let's talk about it. I think this will be a worthwhile discussion. But remember, there was going to be a no-fly zone, an embargo. We were going to protect the people. I think the President laid out exactly what this was about.

We have to look at this in terms of Egypt and the other countries in the area. Thousands and thousands of people are fleeing from Libya, and this is going to cause a major problem in the countries that surround Libya.

Ronald Reagan attacked Libya. I think he called Qadhafi a ``mad dog,'' and I don't remember him coming to Congress before he let the bombers go in there and attack him.

So I am one who is very restrained at the use of force, but in this case I think the President had to act, and he had the United Nations, the Arab League, NATO, he had the French and the British demanding action.

I think we have to look at the result here, too. I think right now the rebels have a very good chance of succeeding, and I hope they can do it in a timely way. We would all like to see this over as quickly as possible. But remember Kosovo. That took a significant amount of time before that worked out. There were a lot of critics, a lot of critics of President Clinton when he did that, but in the end it turned out very well for everyone. In Libya, I think Qadhafi should be replaced. I wish we were more candid about that, and the President has said that.

So I hope we look at this fairly and realize the damage that would be done to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization if the United States all of a sudden pulled all of its forces out of this. They would not be able to continue. This would be a worldwide embarrassment to the United States of America, to our great country and to our military.

I think we have to look at all of the ramifications of this issue. This is a serious matter and should not be politicized. Senator Jackson from my State used to say, when it comes to national defense, the best politics is no politics. Call it on the merits and do it in the best interests of our country and in the best interests of people serving our military.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would just say to the Chair and to the author of the amendment, who's a doctor, a medical doctor, remember the Hippocratic oath: Do no harm.

This amendment, if it is enacted, will deny millions of people getting food. Millions of children's lives have been saved because of this program and I hope the Broun amendment will be defeated.

You don't think your amendment will do harm, sir?

It's your amendment, sir. I didn't get up here and offer an amendment that would cut funding.

I will revise my words and make sure that it will not be an insult to the gentleman.

I appreciate him withdrawing his point of order.

Will the gentleman yield?

We've already cut this program by 38 percent below the President's budget request and 31 percent below last year. That is a major cut in this program. To go any further, I think, would be a big mistake.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

A point of order.

I think the gentlelady has already spoken on her amendment.

We never heard that. I object. If you withdraw the amendment, I won't object.

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

I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I just want to point out, also at the White House picnic, if you walked far enough down, you could see the garden with fresh vegetables and everything that was being grown. It had a label about what was what.

Again, I just don't see what the harm is here if they're taking it out of existing funds. I always thought that the farmers of America were supported on a bipartisan basis in this Congress and that we like to know who our farmers are. So I agree with the gentleman, and I hope we can defeat this ill-considered amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I appreciate the gentleman from California yielding.

With an allocation that cuts $2.9 billion below the current level and $5 billion below the amount requested by the Obama administration for the next fiscal year, the subcommittee has drafted an Agriculture appropriations bill that drastically reduces funding for food programs that serve women, children, and the elderly, and for the Food and Drug Administration, among other drastic cuts.

The economy is still struggling, Madam Chairman. Unemployment is still far too high, and people around the country are still hurting. American families need help just to make ends meet. The bill slashes funding for WIC, the Women, Infants, and Children Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, leaving more people to fend for themselves during the worst recession since the Great Depression.

While I am pleased that we were able to provide a slight increase for the WIC program in full committee markup with the acceptance of the DeLauro amendment, this bill still drastically underfunds this critical program. This bill reduces funding from $6.73 billion this year, 2011, to $6.5 billion, a cut of more than $650 million below current levels. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the drastic reduction would require us to turn away anywhere from 200,000 to 350,000 eligible low-income women and young children next year. That's a tragedy. Unemployment is still hovering around 9 percent, and the economic recovery has faltered since the new Republican majority took the reins with their illogical ``cut and grow'' strategy. Again, this is no time to be pulling the rug out from underneath the people who can least afford it, Madam Chairman.

The cut to the budget of the Food and Drug Administration represents

another perfect example of the Republican majority's commitment to shortsighted budgeting. In the aftermath of several nationwide recalls, Democrats in Congress passed a food safety bill that added new and important capability to the FDA, but this bill actually moves us backward in protecting our food supply and medical products. It is 12 percent below the current level and 21 percent below the amount requested by the administration. These cuts will increase the risk of recurring outbreaks of food-borne illness. The FDA would inspect fewer firms that manufacture food and conduct fewer inspections of imported food.

This bill also takes a shortsighted approach with respect to our international food aid programs, cutting Food for Peace by $457 million below current levels and the McGovern-Dole Food for Education Program by $19 million, 10 percent below 2011. By slashing funding for these critical overseas programs, we risk exacerbating food insecurity and strife in some of the most vulnerable parts of the world and are essentially undermining our own national security interests.

Beyond food programs, there are numerous other programs that take egregious cuts. Notably among those is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC takes a cut of $30 million below current levels and is funded at $136 million below the President's request.

The requested increase for FY 2012 is needed in order to implement the measures put forward in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill and provide oversight and regulation of the options and futures markets that wrought such havoc on our economy just a few years ago.

One can't help but notice the efforts in this bill to drastically cut food assistance to the poor while actively undermining any efforts of oversight and regulation of the wealthy on Wall Street. So I urge all Democrats to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I move to strike the last word.

The gentleman's amendment would strike the provision in the bill prohibiting the use of project labor agreements on any project funded in this bill. PLAs are a benefit to both employers and unions. They provide uniform wages, benefits, overtime. A PLA sets the terms and conditions of employment for all workers on site, including work conditions and rules. In addition, a PLA prohibits strikes and work stoppages. A PLA provides a single collective bargaining unit which allows for easier management of a project.

Executive order 13502 only encourages executive agencies to consider the use of project labor agreements. There is no requirement to use a PLA. It should be up to the agency and project manager if the use of a PLA is appropriate for their particular project. And I was pleased that the chairman, Mr. Culberson, read the language and it says ``may,'' not ``shall.''

Two weeks ago during the consideration of the FY 2012 Homeland Security appropriations bill, an amendment was offered to prohibit the Department from allowing project labor agreements, and it was defeated. We should support the option on the use of PLAs.

I urge the adoption of the LaTourette amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and I completely agree with him. I don't think there's any evidence that except for some of the people like the Wall Street Journal who say this, I don't see any evidence of it; and as the gentleman says, if there was evidence, Congress would not approve of project labor agreements.

So I, again, rise in strong support of the LaTourette amendment and urge that it be adopted.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Some in the minority continue to try to repeal Davis-Bacon, despite the House being on record supporting the protection of labor standards.

Two weeks ago, the full committee voted to strip the anti-Davis-Bacon provision that was added by the chairman of the subcommittee. A similar amendment repealing Davis-Bacon was offered during the consideration of the FY 2012 Homeland Security appropriations bill. It failed on a vote of 183-234.

I have been a longtime supporter of Davis-Bacon's prevailing wage requirements. It helps ensure that local projects provide local jobs with affordable middle class wages. The law protects the government from contractors trying to win Federal contracts by bidding too low to attract competent workers. I strongly oppose this amendment.

I point out, if there is a problem here, it's because we do not do the wage surveys on a continuing and consistent basis. That is a real problem. That rests with the Department of Labor, and we need to make sure that they're doing their part of the equation.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise today in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is intended to ensure that any alternative fuel that is introduced to replace conventional petroleum-based fuels must have greenhouse gas emissions that are less than or equal to the fuel it is replacing. That is a commonsense approach. The Department of Defense alone is the single largest energy consumer in the world. Its leadership in this area is critical to any credible approach to dealing with energy independence issues. Section 526 provides an opportunity for DOD to play a substantial role in spurring the innovation needed to produce alternative fuels which will not further exacerbate global climate change.

I would like to congratulate Secretary Mabus, Secretary of the Navy, for his energetic approach to trying to find alternative fuels. I think he, as Secretary, has done an outstanding job. He has put the Navy on a path towards energy independence and reducing the amount of petroleum products that we're using today.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this very shortsighted amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

We are trying to vote on the Flores amendment. Could you have waited until we had voted on the amendment to make your 5-minute speech? This is totally irrelevant to this debate.

I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Veteran- owned companies are a great asset that we should be further encouraging. These businesses obviously play a positive role in the economy by providing not only jobs, goods, and services, but also are reducing unemployment amongst veterans who are already struggling with the unemployment rate greater than that of the general populace.

Furthermore, the government has done poorly in reaching its 3 percent contracting goal for veterans. For example, agencies' contract awards were below 1 percent from 2003 to 2006. The most recent figures for 2009 show agencies awarded only 1.98 percent to service-disabled veterans. We must do more to ensure that our veterans are transitioning from soldiers to civilians and we are actively encouraging new opportunities for vets.

I believe this amendment will help the Department of Defense and VA to do better. I support this amendment and urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to mention a program called Pets for Patriots. I happened to have attended an event here just about a week ago where there is a national organization being created to get pets for our returning veterans and especially for some of those who have very serious injuries. So I think there is a real need for this, and I think it's been demonstrated. And I commend Mr. Fattah for his diligence and for your help in raising this issue.

The debate in the House today concerning the extent of U.S. involvement in the military action in Libya, now led by NATO, is a necessary and important debate, and I appreciate the role that Dennis Kucinich has played in this.

Both resolutions being considered today recognize the essential role of Congress in authorizing and in funding the use of U.S. Armed Forces consistent with the War Powers act and the Constitution. Both resolutions require the Members of the House to reflect on the appropriateness of the use of military force in this operation, as outlined by the President. And both resolutions initiate the entirely appropriate debate over the objectives of this operation as well as its duration.

In my judgment, the President's initial commitment of U.S. airpower and naval forces to support the international effort was appropriate and certainly within his power as Commander in Chief. The U.S. effort was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, some of our closest friends, and it followed a resolution adopted in the United Nations Security Council authorizing all necessary measures to protect Libyan civilians attempting to overthrow the oppressive regime of Muammar al Qadhafi. The Qadhafi government's response to the uprising-- inspired by the Arab Spring movement--was to use force against civilians and opposition forces, and the brutal measures prompted the international outcry and the U.N. action.

At the time, the President stated clearly that our leadership of the NATO effort would last a matter of days, not weeks. While the direct U.S. leadership of this effort lasted a brief time, U.S. forces remain engaged in the NATO operation; and at this point, it is clear that Members of Congress are not comfortable with the extent of information they have been given about the direction, the duration, or the cost of the operation. Under the War Powers act, the President has an obligation to report to Congress and to seek concurrence if our military involvement extends longer than 60 days, and clearly such consultation has not been effectively accomplished.

We are encouraged by statements from the Obama administration that U.S. ground forces will not be used in Libya. And last week, 416 Members of Congress supported the Conyers amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to deploy ground forces in the country.

At issue now is whether Congress should act through the Kucinich resolution to effectively terminate the U.S. involvement in the NATO effort within 2 weeks or whether Congress, through the Boehner resolution, should scold the President for not providing greater detail about specific actions, contributions of other nations to the effort, and the possible involvement of Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, and other organizations in and outside the region in providing support to the Libyan Government.

I believe the Kucinich resolution is premature and that it could materially harm our relationship with NATO allies from which we will undoubtedly require support in the future.

I believe the Boehner resolution is an attack on the President, something most of the Republican Caucus would vote against if its party was in control of the executive branch.

I do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and the cost of U.S. military forces engaged in the Libya operation, both in the Defense and Foreign Affairs-related committees here as well as in the full House. I am neither prepared to end our involvement unilaterally, as in the Kucinich amendment, nor do I believe Congress should officially declare our involvement in this effort that has not been properly explained by the President.

I think the President made a very strong statement to the American people about why we were going to use this for humanitarian reasons. I think the Qadhafi regime is a brutal regime that should be replaced, and I hope that we can accomplish that.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule and need to take a moment to explain why, because I know many Members, especially Members of the minority, appreciate the openness of the amendment process. My concerns lie elsewhere with this rule; namely, that this rule for the first time requires a separate vote in the House on title II instead of following the regular order process.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this procedural change sets a very bad precedent for the Appropriations Committee and for the House as a whole. Our committee currently has 12 subcommittees which cover every agency and program we fund through discretionary appropriations. Over the years that I have served on this committee, those jurisdictions have been changed--broadened, narrowed, switched places. And we have even created new subcommittees to address a current need, such as the Homeland Security subcommittee following the terrible events of 9/11.

There have also been realignments based on political dynamics, such as the abolition of the old VA-HUD subcommittee which had forced veterans, housing, and NASA programs to all compete within the same bill and same allocation for annual funding. We now fund Veterans Affairs with Military Construction.

If the majority is unhappy with the current subcommittee makeup, or believes an agency should stand alone for individual approval, they have every tool available to them to change the jurisdictions. We need not change the way we consider these bills on the floor and complicate a fairly straightforward process Members are already familiar with.

As ranking member of this committee, I must also focus on the impact this change would have on our entire process, especially our process of reconciling these bills with the other body. The theoretical defeat of a title compromises the position of the House in conference committee negotiations. Now I don't think that will happen on the MilCon-VA bill.

However, in some instances, the House may reject a title. In that circumstance, how does the House proceed to conference with the Senate on that particular bill? We cannot just decline to fund an entire title and then go on to negotiate its terms with the Senate. Striking a title of an appropriations bill will limit the House's ability to negotiate anything in that title by limiting the scope of that conference to only measures approved by both Chambers.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the open amendment process this rule provides but do wish that we would stick to true regular order for consideration of this bill.

I want to just also add that this is a good bill. It could be a little better, but

I think this is a bill that should be passed overwhelmingly.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Can the gentleman explain why all of a sudden the new majority has decided to have a separate vote on one Department and risk the possibility of going to conference, say, with Military Construction but not with the Veterans Affairs? What is the purpose for this, especially with an open rule when you can vote on any provision in the bill?

Do you think it's a good idea?

Well, you could have another subcommittee. You could have a subcommittee do Veterans Administration and one do Military Construction. Anybody thought about that?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I move to strike the last word.

I too am concerned about this amendment, especially when these campaign contributions are given secretly. You know, our system has been improved by having public disclosure of political contributions. I think the more the public knows about where the money is coming from, the better off the citizenry is.

So I just support the ranking member, Mr. Price, who gave a very complete description of why we're against this amendment, and I urge its defeat.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

If I could ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), the sponsor of the amendment, a question.

Why just the District of Columbia? You know, there are Federal buildings in Virginia and Maryland, surrounding the whole area. Why just the District of Columbia?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I am not interested in that. I just want to make that clear. But I was interested why just the District of Columbia when this whole area here has many different government buildings, both in Maryland and in Virginia, which are proximate to the District of Columbia?

Let me also ask the gentleman on the point that Mr. Price made about leases: Do you see that a situation would occur that if a lease is expired once this amendment was enacted and signed into law--I doubt that it will be--but that an agency couldn't redo a lease? And what would you do in that situation if you couldn't build office space or you couldn't lease office space? You would have to leave the District of Columbia.

Reclaiming my time, I feel that Mr. Price has the better argument here, and I urge defeat of this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chair, I withdraw my point of order.

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

Again, this amendment comes to us late. The gentleman from Florida happens to be the chairman of the Transportation Committee. He could write a bill to change this. All of these things that he has bemoaned here on the floor, he could fix. He could bring the bill to the floor, and we could have a debate and a discussion. But instead, he comes here with a meat ax approach, 10 percent reduction in screeners.

Also, I think the gentleman's figure of 3,700 people, I think, are not screeners here in the Nation's capital.

So again, I just wish the gentleman would use his jurisdiction and his committee, hold the hearings, bring TSA up here and do the job that the chairman of the Transportation Committee should do and get this thing fixed. If it's so good, why don't you fix it?

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I understand that the gentleman from Florida's amendment wouldn't do anything about those managers because it is aimed at the screeners themselves. And, also, the bill already reduces screeners to 46,000.

Will the gentleman yield?

Again, the gentleman is the chairman of the Transportation Committee. You are the one who helped create this bureaucracy. Why don't you fix it and bring a bill to the floor so we can have a chance to vote on it? If it is so good, why do you come here at the last moment and cut screeners?

Oh, Homeland Security does. I get that.

Will the gentleman yield?

One of the things that worries me about this bill is the role that the Department of Homeland Security plays in cybersecurity, and the fact that we have cut the S&T budget worries me because there were a number of projects, science and technology projects, underway to help us deal with this great threat to our country.

I serve on the Defense Subcommittee. I have served on the Intelligence Committee. Cybersecurity gives an asymmetrical advantage to others--China, Russia, and Iran--penetrating the networks of our major defense companies. We've had stories just this week about Lockheed. They say this has been going on since the nineties, and this issue worries me. And I am concerned. You have bioterrorism, you have the threat of nuclear weapons, and you have the threat of cyber attacks. And this last one is where we're most vulnerable.

And we have critical infrastructure in this country where homeland security is supposed to be taking care of it. The Defense Department has a Cyber Command. NSA has signed an agreement between the Defense Department and Homeland Security about sharing people so we get some of the expertise from the NSA over in Homeland Security.

My concern is that we still don't have a real plan for our utilities and our critical infrastructure in this country. This is something that Homeland Security has to be involved in. And, as I said, they support the rest of the government.

Regarding this cybersecurity vulnerability, I think our financial institutions make a major effort at trying to protect themselves. But I have been told that our corporate intellectual property, over the last few years, $1 trillion has been stolen through these cyber attacks from the free world to others. Some of these people are simply criminals. Some of them are acting under state authority. This is one of those issues that we are still vulnerable to. I just hope that these dramatic cuts in science and technology won't undermine our ability to come up with solutions on this cyber issue.

I also believe the administration, the President, his people and the Department of Homeland Security have a responsibility to make certain that we have a plan and we have an approach and we work with the private sector in a way that will make sure that we are protecting our critical infrastructure.

So I just urge you, Mr. Price, as the ranking member, and the chairman, Mr. Aderholt, to see if we can't make certain that, in conference, we keep some of this money in there for the cybersecurity programs that I know Dr. O'Toole is concerned about.

And I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to commend the gentleman. I hope other Members who are watching this tonight will look at this amendment that the gentleman from Iowa offered last evening. There are over 300 organizations. And what the gentleman has said here is why the gentleman from North Carolina and I so vehemently opposed this amendment.

This is guilt by association; there is no question about it. These various groups, some of which were just mentioned in the media, the author of this amendment said repeatedly when asked about some of these groups by Mr. Price:

I have no facts; I have no information. The Government Oversight Committee put together this list and we added some more names that we found in the media.

And he couldn't describe one of these groups that had had a problem.

So I hope that the Members will carefully look at this list.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Again, this is a very serious amendment. I hope it will be defeated. I appreciate the gentleman rising to tell us about this group in Minnesota, and I am sure that there are other groups here that are doing good work, helping people, and that would hurt them, I think, in other areas. I think people would say, You're banned from being able to get a contract at Homeland Security even if you're doing good work helping people. That, I think, is a serious mistake.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Bishop, I want to congratulate you on being the new ranking member on MilCon-VA. I also congratulate Chairman Culberson, who has, I think, done an outstanding job, and of course my good friend and colleague, Hal Rogers, the chairman of our committee. I want to also congratulate the staff. The staff has done an amazing job considering we had to go through the 2011 episode and then come right back and get the 2012 bill out.

The MilCon-VA Subcommittee has always had a strong reputation for common ground and bipartisanship as members traditionally work together to fund the construction of military facilities and strive to improve the quality of life and care afforded to our veterans and military families.

Many years ago, during the Reagan administration, we got David Stockman to allow us and Cap Weinberger to do incremental funding on military hospitals, and I'm glad the committee has gone back to an incremental funding approach. I think it's the only way we can do these major projects.

We all acknowledge the challenges facing the Nation today with respect to the debt and deficit, and I believe this bill has done a commendable job in addressing these fiscal challenges while ensuring that we are not impacting the level of care and benefits that our servicemembers have so rightfully earned.

Military construction is funded at $14 billion, which is $2.6 billion below the FY11 enacted amount and $752 million below the President's request. The subcommittee achieved these cuts through the incremental funding of projects and by eliminating funding for several projects that were ahead of need. As Ranking Member Bishop noted, this bill makes a strong investment into Defense Department schools by investing $483 million for the construction and replacement of substandard facilities. I have been a strong advocate for the modernization of schools serving the children of our Nation's servicemembers, and I commend the chairman and ranking member on their commitment to this effort.

The Department of Veterans Affairs would be funded at $58.3 billion in discretionary spending, which is $1.85 billion above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $476 million below the President's request. Most of this funding is for veterans' medical services. The recommendation provides the full funding of $69.5 billion for the mandatory VA programs providing compensation and pensions, educational benefits, vocational rehabilitation, life insurance, and housing loan programs.

I would like to commend the chairman and ranking member for their efforts to ensure that our Nation's veterans are well taken care of by maintaining adequate funding for veterans' health care and other benefits on which so many have come to count on.

Again, I am pleased overall with the funding levels proposed in this bill today, and I am pleased that during the full committee markup we were able to remove a contentious and divisive restriction on the implementation of Davis-Bacon wage requirements; but unfortunately, there is one item that I believe will complicate the passage of this bill.

I am troubled by the inclusion of a provision that prohibits the use of project labor agreements for any project in this bill. This divisive policy rider should not be included in an appropriations bill, and the decision to implement PLAs should remain at the discretion of the agency as to whether it is appropriate for an individual project. The inclusion of this provision unnecessarily complicates the support for a bill that would otherwise pass with wide bipartisan support. I expect an amendment to be offered that would remove this restriction on PLAs and would further improve the bill. I would like to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment.

Regardless, I remain committed to working with my colleagues to respectfully work out any differences on the floor so that we may pass a bipartisan bill that adequately provides for our troops, veterans, and military families.

Again, I intend to support this bill. I wish we could finish tonight, but I understand we can't. I look forward to seeing this bill done. I commend, again, the chairman and ranking member for their good work.

I thank my friend, Ranking Member Price, for yielding.

I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman Rogers, Chairman Aderholt and Ranking Member Price for their work on this bill, and to the committee staff that has worked long days and many late nights to produce the bill for our consideration today. I would also like to commend the majority's effort to accommodate many of the concerns of Members on the Democratic side. And I would also like to thank Chairmen Rogers and Aderholt for bringing this bill to the floor through the regular order and working with us to bring it to the floor with a rule that allows Members to offer their amendments.

At the outset, let me state for the record that I believe the allocation for this bill is too low. The bill is about $1.1 billion below the FY11 enacted level and $2.9 billion below the President's request, and it would represent the second straight year of a declining Homeland Security budget.

Some parts of this bill are very good, and I commend the chairman for providing adequate funding for the frontline employees of the Department of Homeland Security to continue to conduct critical operations along our borders, protect our airports and seaports, and to respond to the series of natural disasters we have experienced this spring. However, some serious gaps remain. My colleague, Mr. Price, has already described in great detail the dangerous reductions in our support for the Nation's first responders.

Also slashed in this bill is the budget for research and development activities at the Department. The bill approved by the full committee provides less than $400 million for the Science and Technology Directorate's Research, Development, Acquisition and Operations account, a cut of more than 40 percent. At this level for 2012, S&T has informed us that many critical research efforts already under way on cybersecurity, disaster resiliency, and detection of chemical and biological threats would be halted. America's technological edge is one of our great assets, and in the fight against terrorism I believe that it would be a mistake to retreat from the aggressive pursuit of new solutions.

I also want to bring my colleagues' attention to another disturbing precedent-setting provision of this bill. It would require the President to submit a budget amendment for additional disaster relief funding 3 months before the balance of available funds reaches $800 million, and it would require these additional funds to be fully offset from discretionary budget accounts. Certainly, Democrats as well as Republicans would like to see less reliance on supplemental appropriations to fund known disaster relief needs. But when disasters strike, victims need help and they need help quickly. We should not risk delaying disaster relief because of partisan battles over proposed offsets; nor should we create a mechanism that would tie up the relief process because a disaster did not do us the courtesy of providing 3 months' notice.

During our consideration of the bill, we will have the opportunity to address these and other serious flaws, and I am hopeful that we will be able to do so.

I object.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina for his work during the years when he was chairman of this committee, and also this year on this bill and this provision. I have been down to the border and have seen these very large fences that we have created there which do have an adverse effect on some of the species in that area which in the past would go back and forth from Texas or Arizona into Mexico.

The Department of the Interior could have raised objections to this project and required detailed environmental assessments, and possibly could have brought actions under the Endangered Species Act. But because this was worked out between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of the Interior, that was avoided so that we could go ahead and build the fences in a very timely way.

So I think that taking this amendment out is a mistake. It is not considerate of the environment, which we

should be trying to protect. And there are many problems down on the border because of these fences.

I urge that we defeat the Lummis amendment and go along with what the committee has artfully worked out. It's a good compromise, and should remain in the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

I got you an additional minute.

Here is what I think we should do. Why not do both: Stop all the illegal immigrants coming across, which would make a big improvement in the environment of the area, but also do the mitigation to protect the species in that part of the country.

We can do them both. We don't have to be limited to one or the other. The gentleman raises a false choice.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, and move to strike the requisite number of words.

I again want to compliment the ranking member for his lucid description of the Department of Homeland Security's work on climate change.

We have had a weather season that has been extraordinary. Whether this climate change that we're experiencing is caused by humans or if it's just happening, either way, the Department of Homeland Security should be engaged in the interagency efforts to find out what we can do to minimize and adapt to the climate change. This affects weather. We've seen the storms that have been mentioned. It also affects the northern latitudes where we are seeing the polar ice melting, so the Coast Guard is going to have more responsibility to go into those areas because other countries are trying to exploit this.

I would just say to the gentleman, if there is only one person working part time on this, I don't see a reason to prohibit it, and I would urge the gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Certainly, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Then why bar it?

Because it would bar the department from even discussing it with anybody. I think it is so shortsighted. This is a national security issue.

The Navy is now looking at the coastal areas. As the seas rise, it's going to affect Navy installations all over this country. I brought in the Park Service when I was chairman of the Interior. I brought in the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service. They all see the effects. We have a longer fire season.

This is something you can't ignore. This is a national issue that is significant, so to have a Department of Homeland Security that isn't going to

look at the consequences of climate change after what we've seen this year is just ridiculous on the face of it.

Why can't Homeland Security, with the Coast Guard and FEMA and all of these organizations, be part of the interagency effort? They're not wasting money on this. This is important research.

Yes, I yield to the gentleman.

Again, FEMA responds to weather disasters, so they have got to be involved in the task force that is looking at climate change. I just can't believe that the gentleman really wants to do this.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Will the gentleman yield?

I rise in opposition to the Sherman amendment.

I rise in strong support of the gentleman's position and against this amendment. By the way, Davis and Bacon were two Republicans. So they knew what they were doing.

Will the gentleman yield? Can I get the address of merit- based construction?

I just want to know if I could get the address, you didn't mention that, where it's located, your company.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.

I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I withdraw my point of order.

I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Executive Order 13502 gives Federal officials the option to determine if it is right for a particular construction project. There is no mandate. And if the gentleman has read the legislation, he will recognize there is no mandate.

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Reclaiming my time, I think it's fairly clear that the gentleman knows that the executive order is only to promote efficiency in Federal procurement. A project labor agreement is a pre-hire agreement that establishes the terms and conditions of employment for a specific construction project.

There is, and the gentleman is part of this, a PLA mandate myth that has been floating around since the executive order was issued that the Federal Government mandates project labor agreements. Actual language from the executive order says, and I quote: ``This order does not require an executive agency to use a project labor agreement on any construction project.'' I am sure the gentleman will be pleased to hear that.

Let me explain what the executive order does do. It asks the Federal agencies to submit a quarterly report identifying all contracts awarded for large-scale construction projects and whether or not a PLA was used on the project; allows all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts; contains guarantees against strikes, lockouts in similar job disruptions and provides binding procedures for solving labor disputes that may arise during the terms of the project labor agreement; provides mechanism for labor and management cooperation on matters of mutual interest and concern such as productivity, quality of work, safety and

health; and includes any additional requirements that an agency deems necessary.

Including this language would be a mistake since this executive order ensures construction projects are built correctly first time, on time and, as a result, on a budget for the end user.

In addition, this executive order prevents costly delays that usually result from an unskilled workforce's lack of knowledge regarding the use of building materials or tools, as well as job site safety measures.

I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

I will yield to the gentleman if he wants to make a comment as I mentioned him directly.

Well, let me just say something to the gentleman. I had an example in my own State, a very significant project. I urged the project labor agreement, and they turned me down. This is not the kind of project that we do project labor agreements on it.

I was impressed that they made a decision, you know, and I didn't like the answer; but they said we have discretion to either do this or not do this, which is what I think we would want them to do because there are some situations where these agreements do add for stability between management and labor if you have things like, I think, the cleanup site down at Hanford in Doc Hastings' district has a project labor agreement. There was no strike so we could move forward and do this waste cleanup work that's so important.

So I just say to the gentleman, I will hope that in the future he will recognize that there is no legal requirement, and they are not requiring people to do it and agencies are saying ``no'' when they think it's inappropriate.

I don't think the gentleman's amendment is necessary and I hope that it will be defeated.

Did I hear ``consider''?

Will the gentleman yield?

The Executive order requires all contractors and subcontractors to compete for contracts and subcontracts. And also, the quid pro quo here for the government is they get a guarantee against strikes, lockouts and similar job disruptions, and provides binding procedures for resolving labor disputes that may arise during the term of the PLA. So as long as there's no mandatory requirement, sometimes a project labor agreement is a positive thing.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to reserve a point of order, too.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it violates clause 5(a)(2) of rule XXI. The amendment prohibits the use of funds for implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It is, thus, proposing a limitation on funds in a general appropriation bill for the administration of a tax or tariff in violation of the rule.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

We cannot function if the majority is not going to give the minority a copy of these amendments. I would think the process here should stop until we have a copy of the amendment.

I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I hope that the chairman will object to this amendment and ask the gentleman to withdraw it.

I think this is an extraordinary attack on all of these groups. We have no evidence. We have no information whatsoever to base a decision on here. I mean, you can say that--the Government Oversight didn't write you a letter and ask you to offer this amendment, did they? You have no official relationship with the Government Oversight Committee, do you?

Well, so who went and put this list together?

Reclaiming my time, did you check the media reports to see if they were accurate? We've all heard of media reports that are inaccurate.

I mean, you're casting aspersions on groups here from all over the country, and none of us here have any indication of the basis. And you're saying some of these came from media attacks. Did you check and verify that these media attacks were accurate?

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Reclaiming my time, I remember a Senator from Wisconsin in the 1950s who did just about the same kind of thing and was rebuked by the other body for casting aspersions on innocent people. I'm just telling you, you are asking this House to vote on something and you haven't verified it. You don't know what these groups are all about. And it's a disgrace to even offer this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman.

I'm not going to get into that tonight. I will be glad to send you a list when you verify the media reports and can come up with a list and talk about these organizations in a meaningful way instead of just putting a list here together and expecting us to vote on this thing. It's ridiculous.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

If you would yield just for a brief second.

I just want to commend the chairman for the way the two staffs have worked together, and the leadership of Bill Inglee and David Pomerantz and all the staff members. They have really done a phenomenal job under very difficult circumstances, and we applaud all of them. And I appreciate the chairman mentioning this.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member of the Interior Subcommittee on Appropriations.

I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), ranking member of the Appropriations Labor- HHS Subcommittee.

I yield 3 minutes to Congressman Mike Ross, a distinguished leader here in the House from Arkansas.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Ohio,

Congresswoman Kaptur, who is a senior member of the Appropriations Committee and the senior woman in the House.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 15 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the ranking member on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a valued member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Well, it's another week here in Congress, and we're voting on this appropriations bill, H.R. 1473. I am pleased that at the 11th hour last week we were able to reach an agreement, an agreement that made it possible for military wives and husbands around the country to be sure that they would get their paycheck. This had to be done. We kept our parks open. We supported our men and women in uniform around the world. And at the same time, I think we minimized the damage of H.R. 1 in this bill.

The bill that is now before us contains current levels of Head Start enrollments, including the increased spots for newborns to 2-year-olds. It helps us protect the Pell Grant program.

It is a good bill on defense. My good friend Bill Young has done an amazing job, and I appreciate so much Mr. Rogers taking our bill from last year and putting it into this bill. The Community Services Block Grant program is restored. WIC is restored. Head Start is restored.

Yes, there are some things I don't like. No high-speed rail money, some other investment accounts. Literacy programs, some of them were taken away. Some of the cuts in homeland security were not the best.

But, as with any compromise, some Members will see a glass half full and some will see a glass half empty. Members will have to consider all the ramifications of this compromise and vote their conscience. We need to move on to the fiscal year 2012 appropriations bill.

The bottom line is this bill must pass today. Let's get it done so we can fight against the Road to Ruin Ryan Republican budget.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who has been a real leader in our House.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to thank the chairman. I look forward to FY12 and getting on to our appropriation bills and our commitment to the House that we're going to have open rules, we're going to have subcommittee markups, full committee markups, and give people a chance to be involved in the process as they've not been in the past.

I would be glad to yield to the chairman.

I'm with you. Let's get it over with.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I want to associate myself with the gentlelady's remarks, and I rise in strong opposition to this concurrent resolution.