[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 78 (Thursday, June 2, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3936-H3939]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2055, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND 
     VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 288 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 288

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2055) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During 
     consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair of the 
     Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on 
     the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has 
     caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional 
     Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. 
     Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. When the 
     committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a 
     recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) proceedings under section 2 of this resolution; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The proceedings referred to in the first section 
     of this resolution are as follows: (a) after disposition of 
     any amendments reported from the Committee of the Whole, the 
     Chair shall put the question on retaining the title beginning 
     on page 25, line 14 (Department of Veterans Affairs); and (b) 
     after disposition of the question under subsection (a), the 
     Chair shall put the question on engrossment and third reading 
     of the text comprising those portions of the bill (as 
     perfected) (1) retained by the House pursuant to subsection 
     (a) and (2) not subject to proceedings under subsection (a).
       Sec. 3.  In the engrossment of H.R. 2055, the Clerk shall 
     conform title and section numbers and make related 
     corrections to cross-references in the event a portion of the 
     bill is not retained pursuant to section 2 of this 
     resolution.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and 
the underlying bill. House Resolution 288 provides for an open rule for 
consideration of H.R. 2055, the Military Construction, Veterans 
Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2012. This rule 
provides for ample debate and opportunities for the Members of the 
minority and majority party to participate in that debate. The rule 
places no limitation on the number of amendments that may be considered 
as long as they comply with the House rules.
  Similar to the open rule that was passed yesterday on the Department 
of Homeland Security appropriations bill, the only differences are in 
section 2 of this rule: it does allow for a separate vote on a title 
addressing the Department of Veterans Affairs. In doing so, we are 
delivering on the Speaker's promise to reduce the so-called omnibus 
bill and give Members the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on 
Cabinet-level Departments contained in the bill.
  Part of the Speaker's and Rules Committee chairman's commitment is to 
have a more open and transparent process. In the end, that is what this 
does. This is an open rule that allows for debate and for amendments.

[[Page H3937]]

  I think every Member of the Congress was elected by a group of people 
in their district, citizens in their district, and they assumed that 
that Member would be able to come and debate and offer amendments to 
bills at will. Sometimes that is not the case, but it is the case this 
particular time. Every one of us who comes here, Republican or 
Democrat, liberal, moderate or conservative, comes with a desire of 
affecting public policy in a real way. The only way that can happen is 
when the process is more open and more honest and more transparent, and 
that is what this rule does for this particular bill. It has been a 
long time, yesterday being one of the first times, but a long time 
since we have considered an appropriation bill with an open rule.
  This bill has truly been, I would say, a bipartisan effort. It is one 
of the first times, and I am very delighted to present the underlying 
bill through this rule because it is such a bipartisan effort. Even the 
rule itself was adopted by unanimous consent by the Rules Committee, 
which is something I have not experienced in my first 5 months here. So 
that, too, is something very, very different.
  I think that is the way the process should work. I think we have got 
to work together. We have problems in this country, and they are deep 
problems. If we don't work together, we will never solve them. I think 
this may be a start of something that might be a little different than 
the way it has been.
  The Democrats on the Appropriations Committee said these things about 
this bill: the bill sufficiently funds critical military construction, 
family housing and quality-of-life improvements for our brave men and 
women in uniform and their families. The bill meets the needs of our 
military veteran communities for the coming year.
  That really states the purpose of this bill, and so to me, it has met 
the needs not only in the eyes of Democrats but also Republicans.

                              {time}  1400

  Further, the care for our veterans and service men and women is not a 
partisan issue. It's not. It's proven out in this particular rule and 
this bill.
  I would like to stress that there are many programs funded at 
previous levels or above previous levels that have kept the promise 
made to our men and women in uniform. It increases the Veterans Affairs 
budget for things like veterans' benefits and health programs by $8.7 
billion to $127.7 billion. It includes the full funding for VA 
compensation and benefits: education benefits, vocational 
rehabilitation, and housing programs. It contains $52 billion in 
advance funding for the VA. The same level passed in the House budget 
resolution for medical services, medical support, and compliance and 
medical facilities. This advance funding will ensure that our veterans 
have full access to their medical care needs regardless of where we 
stand in our annual appropriations process.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the 
underlying legislation. The Appropriations Committee has worked to 
provide us with a fiscally responsible appropriations bill that 
promises to meet the needs of our military construction and our 
promises to the American veterans. I encourage my colleagues to vote 
``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my good friend from Florida (Mr. Webster) for yielding the 
customary time.
  Mr. Speaker, as he has said, the Military Construction and Veterans 
Affairs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2012 provides $144 billion 
in appropriations for veterans' programs, military construction 
projects, and other agencies and programs.
  This bipartisan effort--and Mr. Webster underscored that, and I echo 
his sentiments in that regard--brought Democrats and Republicans 
together to craft legislation that provides the necessary funds for 
important military construction projects as well as improves the 
quality of life for veterans and military families.
  One of our colleagues who no longer serves here would be very proud 
of this measure. He and Mr. Dicks and others worked together for years. 
I know Ike Skelton spent the greater portion of his career working to 
improve the quality of life for veterans and military families, so I 
pay homage to him that I have the privilege of presenting this measure 
on the floor.
  This measure increases overall funding for veterans' health and 
benefits programs, ensuring that servicemen and -women who have 
dedicated themselves to our country will continue to receive the 
benefits they deserve.
  This legislation provides $14 billion in military construction for a 
wide range of new, upgraded and improved housing projects for members 
of the military and their families. This funding also includes 
important upgrades for military medical facilities and Defense 
Department education facilities located both here at home and on bases 
around the world.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs is provided a total of $128 
billion in budget authority, an increase of almost $9 billion over last 
year. This legislation ensures full funding for essential VA 
compensation and benefits programs in areas like education, vocational 
training and housing assistance. It also includes $52 billion in 
advance funding for the VA, ensuring that veterans will continue to 
have full access to their medical care needs regardless of where 
Congress stands in the annual appropriations process. This underlying 
legislation includes funding for important national programs and 
activities, such as Arlington National Cemetery, the American Battle 
Monuments Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, 
and the Armed Forces Retirement Home.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed to see that the 
majority included, unfortunately, a political and possibly divisive 
amendment regarding project labor agreements.
  In February 2009, President Obama issued an executive order to allow 
Federal agencies to consider requiring the use of project labor 
agreements in connection with large-scale construction projects. This 
executive order did not mandate the use of these agreements. In fact, 
the order explicitly states that Federal officials have the option to 
determine if these agreements are right for a project.
  Unfortunately, the committee adopted an amendment to the underlying 
legislation that prohibits funds from being used to implement this 
order, effectively blocking agencies from even considering such labor 
agreements. These labor agreements are useful to promote the economy 
and efficiency in Federal procurement practices. A project labor 
agreement is a pre-hire agreement that establishes the terms and 
conditions of employment for a specific construction project, and it 
can be a useful tool to ensure coordination on large-scale projects 
involving multiple employers.
  The executive order still allows for competition in contracts and 
subcontracts, contains guarantees against strikes and similar job 
disruptions and provides mechanisms for management and labor 
cooperation; but while the executive order does not mandate the use of 
project labor agreements, the language adopted by the committee rules 
out that possibility altogether. The executive order ensures that 
construction projects are built correctly the first time, on time and, 
as a result, on budget.
  Frankly, this is an inappropriate and unnecessary politicization of 
this appropriations bill, and I believe, in the end, it will simply add 
cost to the taxpayer through a less efficient procurement process.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I am also 
troubled by the provision regarding Guantanamo Bay detainees. This 
legislation--indeed, all of the appropriations bills--are going to 
include provisions to prohibit funds to renovate, expand or construct 
facilities in the United States in order to house Guantanamo Bay 
detainees. Let me say the same thing I said during last year's 
appropriations cycle when similar language was included:
  The language in this bill is not going to solve the problem of what 
to do with the indefinite detention of individuals at Guantanamo Bay. 
The debate over Guantanamo is missing the larger picture, and that is 
the need to reform our entire detainment policy.
  As I have maintained, the problem is the policy, not the place. 
Without a

[[Page H3938]]

system of justice to deal with suspected terrorists wherever they are 
held, we are left with a broken system that has been a significant 
recruiting tool for al Qaeda and other groups which threaten our 
security. We need to deny them that image of America. We need a 
judicial process that accomplishes three things: one, protects our 
national security by holding and prosecuting those who have committed 
crimes or who pose a threat to our country; two, upholds international 
standards of human rights; and three, strengthens our Nation's image as 
a country that upholds the rule of law and does not resort to arbitrary 
justice even while under threat.
  The underlying legislation is the second appropriations bill this 
cycle to contain provisions relating to Guantanamo. I expect that the 
remaining bills will also include this language. At some point soon, we 
are going to need to move beyond trying to legislate this matter into 
appropriations bills and, instead, deal with establishing new and 
appropriate policies and guidelines to bring our national security 
needs in line with our historic national values.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation contains essential funding 
for critical military construction programs and for our Nation's 
veterans. It is fitting that we consider this legislation so soon after 
Memorial Day when the sacrifices made by so many servicemen and -women 
are still on our minds. Veterans deserve our thanks and our admiration, 
and we owe them the necessary resources to meet their health care, 
education and housing needs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Nugent).
  Mr. NUGENT. I thank my friend, my fellow Floridian and Rules member, 
Mr. Webster, for the opportunity to speak in support of this rule and 
also in support of the underlying legislation, H.R. 2055, which 
appropriates funds for military construction and for our Nation's 
veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, Florida's Fifth Congressional District, which I 
represent, is home to over 116,000 veterans, one of the highest veteran 
populations of any district in America. The funds we're talking about 
here today have a direct effect on the lives of the men and women who 
have proudly served our Nation in uniform. This bill provides full 
funding for VA and health and educational benefits. It also funds 
vocational rehabilitation training for those troops who come home from 
war with service-connected disabilities.
  Thanks to programs like VetSuccess, these veterans can work with job 
counselors to develop the skills necessary to find meaningful civilian 
employment. These programs also help connect veterans who are unable to 
work and give them additional training to allow them to be independent 
living in America.
  Given the number of veterans living in my district, I'm lucky enough 
to have visited a large number of VA health and benefits facilities 
throughout my district. During these trips, I have had the opportunity 
to see and visit with a number of physicians, nurses, and staff which 
these funds help keep on the mission of protecting and taking care of 
our veterans on a daily basis. I've also had the opportunity to speak 
with the true American heroes, those who answered the call of duty and 
put their lives on the line to protect our country, our way of life, 
and our freedoms.
  Mr. Speaker, we as a Nation owe our veterans a debt that can never be 
repaid. However, as Members of Congress, we can ensure that we keep our 
promises to our troops. H.R. 2055 fully funds the benefits that give 
our veterans back a small measure of what they truly deserve.
  As a member of the Rules Committee, I am proud of this rule. We are 
continuing to make the 112th Congress the most open, transparent 
Congress the American people have seen in years. In fact, this may be 
the first rule that I've seen that was a voice vote unanimously 
approving the rule. I would like to thank the Appropriations Committee 
for their hard work on this underlying legislation that this rule will 
bring to the House floor.
  I spoke about visiting hospitals within my district. At Haley 
Hospital, the VA hospital in Tampa, I've had the opportunity to meet a 
number of those who have had serious traumatic brain injuries, 
amputees, those that have the ability to try to get their lives back on 
track after giving so much to this Nation.
  I had them point to the stars on my chest here that indicate that I 
have three sons serving, and they were more concerned about me as a dad 
than their own physical infirmities that they're fighting to try to 
overcome. As the father of three sons who are currently serving in the 
United States Army, we've been blessed as a family and as a Nation, and 
as my oldest son came back from 15 months in Afghanistan in combat, but 
for the grace of God he came back whole, not like so many others who 
have served this country and given so much.
  H.R. 2055 is a good bill, and this rule is a good rule. I encourage 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support them both.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that 
during the Rules Committee hearing, Mr. Sanford Bishop, the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, raised a concern about the consequence of 
requiring separate votes on various parts of the bill. We feel that 
this is a serious issue, and we intend to continue to monitor the 
process closely as we consider the remaining appropriations bills.
  I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to my good friend, 
the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking 
member of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. DICKS. 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

[[Page H3939]]

I think this is a bill that should be passed overwhelmingly.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, so soon after commemorating Memorial Day and honoring 
our Nation's veterans, we all can be pleased by the level of bipartisan 
support provided in this legislation for essential veterans programs. 
We all know that they deserve the very best support our Nation has to 
offer, and I am pleased to note that Democrats and Republicans came 
together to craft legislation that provides the necessary resources for 
veterans and their families.
  As I pointed out, I wish that the language relating to project labor 
agreements was not in this bill. I believe that President Obama's 
executive order gives, rightly, Federal officials flexibility in 
determining the most cost-efficient method of completing large-scale 
construction projects. The executive order simply provides options, and 
the language in the bill by the majority closes those options off. This 
is going to be, in my view, inefficient and costly and shouldn't be 
included in the underlying legislation.
  So, too, must this Congress deal reasonably with the issues that I 
spoke of regarding Guantanamo Bay. Congress has a responsibility to 
ensure that the United States upholds the rule of law, remains true to 
the great foundational ideals of our democracy, and has flexibility in 
its counterterrorism policies to ensure an effective national security 
strategy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Speaker, as you heard me say earlier, my Republican 
colleagues and I are committed to providing a more open, transparent 
and accountable process here. Today's bill is a monumental step towards 
that right direction, and it's an example of a big desire within our 
own Speaker's heart to change the way things work here in Washington.
  The underlying bill has bipartisan support. It went through the 
regular order; it provided an open rule to allow Republicans and 
Democrats alike to bring up their ideas and debate them; and even some 
that have been brought up by the minority here, those are brought up in 
a way that we will have an opportunity to amend at a later date.
  Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WEBSTER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. 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?
  Mr. WEBSTER. In doing so, we are delivering on the Speaker's promise 
to reduce so-called ``omnibus'' bills to a smaller, more understandable 
bill that gives Members the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on 
Cabinet-level Departments contained in the bill.
  I will tell you that I experienced the same thing. I used to be a 
leader of a group in Florida which was known as the House of 
Representatives. And as Speaker there, we did the same thing. It was 
the first time ever, and I always knew, a lot of people with questions, 
can you divide up the different appropriations and send them to a 
Senate who may have a smaller--yes, you can. And basically all we did 
was break up the conferences. The conferences stayed exactly the same. 
The Members were appointed, and two bills, let's say, instead of one 
were sent to a particular conference while the Senate added their one. 
And then they were combined at a later date and passed as a general 
appropriation act.
  So it can work, I promise you. I know it's new; I know it's 
different. You probably would question that there is something behind 
it----
  Mr. DICKS. Do you think it's a good idea?
  Mr. WEBSTER. I do believe it's a good idea. And the reason I believe 
it's a good idea is because I think there was some angst about looking 
at a large package at one time, and this is just an opportunity to 
break it up. I don't think it changes anything. I think it gives us an 
opportunity to actually scrutinize in a better way.
  Mr. DICKS. Well, you could have another subcommittee. You could have 
a subcommittee do Veterans Administration and one do Military 
Construction. Anybody thought about that?
  Mr. WEBSTER. I don't know.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. WEBSTER. Reclaiming my time, I will start where I left off.
  The vote on the rule, which provides an open and transparent process, 
which makes no limitations on amendments, where ideas and policies will 
rise and fall on their merits and their bases and debate and so forth, 
is an awesome opportunity for this House to speak its will, not just an 
up-or-down vote on one bill, but an up-or-down vote on amendment after 
amendment in order to perfect the bill.
  The clash of ideas is a good thing. And as we debate these ideas and 
we hear them on the floor of the House and then we have an opportunity 
to vote on them, it makes a good bill a better bill. This is what the 
American people expect from their elected officials. It is an 
expectation that is fulfilled by the rule and produced in the 
underlying bill. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting 
passage of this bill.
  For over two centuries, our U.S. military has protected America from 
both our enemies and the enemies of our friends. The valor and dignity 
and courage of our men and women in uniform remain strong. From Valley 
Forge to Desert Storm, from San Juan Hill to Operation Enduring 
Freedom, the fighting spirit of American soldiers shines throughout 
history.
  It is due to the lives selflessly lived and lost in defense of our 
country that we have the privilege to stand here today free and 
grateful. So thank you, veterans. And I, too, am glad that this 
happened just a few days after Memorial Day because it is a great way 
to remember the people that have given their lives for our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________