[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 80 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3309-H3346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2013
General Leave
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on H.R. 5854, and that I may include
tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 667 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5854.
The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) to
preside over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1632
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 5854) making appropriations for military construction, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, with Mrs.
Miller of Michigan in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) and the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I know that my colleagues feel the same way I do that one of the most
gratifying, most rewarding parts of this extraordinary job that we're
entrusted with in addition to being guardians of the Treasury, to being
good stewards of the public's business, is to do everything in our
power to help ensure that our men and women in uniform have all that
they need to do their job as they stand guard and over this Nation 24
hours a day, 7 days a week in every scary, dark corner of the world.
Today, Madam Chair, it's my privilege, with my good friend from
Georgia (Mr. Bishop), to lay before the House and ask for its approval
the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for
2013.
On our committee, we feel as though we are the peace of mind
committee for the United States military. We want to ensure in the work
that we do in the Military Construction and in Veterans Affairs that we
have done everything we can to ensure that our men and women in uniform
don't have any worries, that they don't have to worry about when they
are in uniform; they don't have to worry about the quality of their
barracks, their living conditions; they don't have to worry about the
condition of the military facilities that they are living and working
in.
We want to make sure that they have got everything that they need.
The United States Navy, when it comes to piers or sub pens, or the Air
Force for runways, or the Marine Corps or for the Army, we have done
everything in this bill that the Pentagon has asked us to do and fully
funded it in a way that's fiscally responsible, Madam Chair.
We have also taken care of our veterans, of our men and women in
uniform when they leave the Armed Forces and become veterans, because
they will spend most of their time out of the military, and we wanted
to be sure that our Veterans Affairs Administration was fully funded,
that they have got all the resources that they need in order to take
care of our men's and women's health care needs, psychological and
physical, and in a way that's fiscally responsible.
In this environment, Madam Chair, in this era of record debt and
deficit, our subcommittee, along with the full Appropriations
Committee, has done everything in our power to find ways to save money,
to be good stewards of the public's precious, hard-earned tax dollars.
And in our subcommittee, something we have done together in a
bipartisan way, arm-in-arm, we have made sure to ferret out every
unspent dollar from previous years that could be returned to taxpayers,
to avoid spending increases while making sure that our men and women in
uniform are taken care of while they are in uniform and also, as I say,
when they leave active duty and become veterans under the care of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
We have, because of decreases, Madam Chair, of the Air Force, the
Army, the Pentagon, our Armed Forces are reassessing their deployment
needs around the world. We've seen a reduction this year in the level
of spending requests for military construction around the world that
enabled us to increase spending for the Department of Veterans Affairs
while holding overall spending for this bill flat. That reflects not
only our finding cost savings in various parts of the bill, but, in
particular, the Air Force, among the branches of the service, asked for
significantly less money this year.
[[Page H3310]]
But we have also taken into account in our legislation the pay freeze
that is in place for the entire Federal Government. We have applied
that to Federal civilian contractors working in the military
construction field or for the VA.
We have also, Madam Chair, in our legislation, made sure that the VA
uses their construction funds within 5 years. In the past, they simply
could hold that money year after year after year; and we want to make
sure that that money is used for the purpose that Congress intended it,
and that is to build VA facilities.
We have been able to find savings in a variety of other areas, Madam
Chair, all of which have permitted us to fully fund the request of the
Pentagon in giving our Armed Forces around the world everything that
they need to do their job without a worry in the world. If they are out
there on watch, guarding the United States of America and protecting
our liberty, our committee has made sure to give them as much peace of
mind as possible.
Two other things I want to make sure to bring to the Members'
attention that is extremely important.
At the Veterans Administration, for years there's been an effort to
get a combined medical record. When you're in uniform, on active duty,
you have got one set of medical records with the Department of Defense.
Then when you enter the Veterans Administration, that medical record is
not compatible with the computer systems or their recordkeeping systems
at the Veterans Administration, which causes terrible inefficiencies
and threatens lives, endangers the health of our men and women in
uniform.
This committee has taken very seriously the task that Chairman Rogers
has charged us with to ensure that we move the Department of Defense
and the Veterans Administration as rapidly as possible to a unified
medical record. Then when our young men and women leave the active duty
service, that medical record stays with them in the VA.
{time} 1640
Finally, I want to also make sure to thank my good friend, Sanford
Bishop from Georgia. It's been a privilege to work with Mr. Bishop and
his staff. We are blessed with an extraordinarily capable staff on this
committee.
This bill, more than I think perhaps any other, Madam Chair,
illustrates how unified the Congress is in support of our men and women
in uniform. We have found common ground on every section of this bill,
on every issue. We've worked together arm-in-arm to make certain that
the men and women of the United States military can focus on their
mission of protecting this great Nation with complete peace of mind,
knowing that the Congress of the United States is behind them and will
support them in all they do.
I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H3311]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.001
[[Page H3312]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.002
[[Page H3313]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.003
[[Page H3314]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH31MY12.004
[[Page H3315]]
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, as you know, the allocation provides $71.7 billion
for the FY 2012 Milcon-VA bill, which is equal to the FY12 enacted
bill. In my opinion, the allocation is what we could have expected if
the Republicans would have stuck to the bipartisan agreement that
established $1.047 as the committee's allocation.
I've stated at every step of this process that I strongly disagree
with the path that the majority has chosen to take. I just want to
point out that the $1.028 trillion allocation puts House Republicans at
odds with House Democrats, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, and
the White House. In fact, the Statement of Administration Policy
recommends a veto of this bill because the overall 302(a) allocation
fails to stick to the framework established by the Budget Control Act.
I believe the lower allocation does nothing but slow down the
appropriations process, and if it stands, will stall economic growth
and impede job creation.
With that being said, I'm pleased to join Chairman Culberson as the
House takes up the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill for Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies. The Milcon-VA
bill is critically important to the strength and the well-being of our
military, our veterans, and the families who sacrifice so much to
defend our country. In fact, Madam Chairman, I find it quite fitting
that we're debating this bill after observing Memorial Day earlier in
the week.
Working with Chairman Culberson and the members of the subcommittee,
we've crafted a bill that will address the funding needs of military
construction and family housing for our troops and their families, as
well as other quality of life construction projects. In addition, it
will provide funding for many important VA programs as well as agencies
like the Veterans Court of Appeals and the American Battle Monuments
Commission.
The bill before us today touches every soldier, sailor, marine, and
airman. In addition, the bill will also impact military spouses, their
children, and every veteran that participates in our VA programs.
I want to commend the chairman for his work. Together, we sat through
numerous hearings, gaining valuable insight into the workings of all of
the agencies under our subcommittee's jurisdiction. I would also like
to thank all of our subcommittee members and recognize them for their
hard work on the bill. We had a lot of contributions and a lot of
input. I believe that the minority was treated fairly during this
process, and I want to thank the chairman for ensuring this bipartisan
result.
Chairman Culberson has already provided the funding highlights in the
bill, and I won't repeat them all, but I would like to point out a few
items that I think are very important.
DOD Schools. The bill before us today includes $546 billion for the
renovation and replacement of 10 Department of Defense schools. Madam
Chairman, I believe that providing the funds for DOD schools will help
our servicemembers' children get a quality education in a safe
facility, and it will give our servicemembers and their families some
peace of mind.
Medical Center Replacement. I was pleased that in the bill we were
able to include $127 million for the second increment for Medical
Center Replacement in Germany. As you know, a large proportion of
serious casualties from the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters are treated
there, and I'm pleased to see that we're making this important
investment in Landstuhl.
Veterans Affairs. For Veterans Affairs, I'm very pleased that the
bill meets the discretionary budget request in all areas of
administrative expenses, research, medical care, information
technology, and facilities. The bill contains $54.4 billion in advance
appropriations for medical services, medical support and compliance,
and medical facilities at the VA, which is $1.9 billion above the
amount included in FY12.
Madam Chairman, I strongly believe that advance funding provides
timely and predictable funding for the veterans' health care system,
and they don't have to worry about the exigencies of a budget not being
agreed to or appropriations bills not being passed for their medical
care.
Overall, the bill provides adequate funding for programs included in
the bill. However, I'm especially troubled by one of them.
Unfortunately, during the full committee markup an amendment was
adopted that essentially nullifies the decisionmaking ability of the
Department of Defense to use a project labor agreements business model.
The sponsor of this language believes that it doesn't limit the
Department from using PLAs. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I had
the minority subcommittee staff check with the Department regarding
this language. The Department confirmed that if this bill is enacted
with the current PLA language included, it would prohibit the
Department from soliciting bills for FY13-funded construction contracts
where, as a condition of award, the awardee must negotiate a project
labor agreement.
In addition, we do not know the effect this language could have on
other agencies included in this bill. Using the Milcon-VA bill to
address this issue is really the wrong place to do it. This language is
purely an ideological and political provision that goes well beyond the
scope of this bill. The Milcon-VA bill has always enjoyed broad
bipartisan support and avoided divisive issues like this one, no matter
which party held the gavel. I believe that including this language will
only cause unnecessary complications and does nothing to help our
servicemembers and our veterans.
Madam Chairman, please know that as we continue through the process I
will work to address this issue because an item like this has no place
in a bill that has always placed our troops, their families, and our
veterans above ideology.
Before I close, Madam Chairman, I would like to recognize the staff
for all of the hard work and the time that they have put into this
bill. From the minority committee staff I would like to thank Matt
Washington, Danny Cromer, as well as Michael Reed and Chris Chon from
my personal office. From the majority committee staff I would like to
thank Donna Shabazz, Sue Quantius, Sarah Young, and Tracey Russell.
I would also like to thank Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers, who serve as the
distinguished ranking member and chairman of this committee and who set
an extremely great example of how committees and ranking members and
chairmen should work together. There's a collegial atmosphere, although
we do have reasonable minds disagreeing on several of the issues. But
we work together collegially, and I thank the chairman and the ranking
member, Mr. Dicks and Mr. Rogers, for their example in doing so.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. It's my privilege at this time to yield 5 minutes to
the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of this bill. Earlier this week, we
celebrated Memorial Day--a day to commemorate those warfighters who
made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of our great Nation. I can
think of no better bill to take up this week in honor of those heroes.
{time} 1650
We know the risks our troops take to fight for our freedom, and it's
the duty of Congress to care for them accordingly.
This bipartisan legislation ensures that our troops and veterans have
the vital resources they need and deserve to fight successfully, have a
sufficient quality of life, and stay healthy. This bill is funded at
the same level as last year, $71.7 billion in discretionary funding for
construction efforts here and abroad, and for veterans health, job
training, and disability and education benefits programs.
Included in this total is $1.65 billion for military family housing,
ensuring quality housing for more than 1.2 million military families.
Also included is funding for the improvements of existing military
medical facilities and the continued construction of new ones to ensure
rapid and quality care for our wounded troops.
As a result of savings from the planned drawdowns in construction and
declining BRAC costs, as well as rescissions of excess prior-year funds
and
[[Page H3316]]
other efficiencies, we were able to increase spending on veterans
health discretionary funding by more than $2 billion while holding the
line on overall spending.
But these increases were not without stringent oversight. We know
there are areas where the VA can improve, so we've required them to
report on construction expenditures and savings, and restricted them
from taking certain spending actions without telling the Congress
first. This bill continues to implement our committee-wide--indeed,
House-wide--mission to smart, sustainable spending without negatively
impacting our warfighters or vets.
You'll see that this bill was written very deliberately to most
effectively provide for our troops and our veterans with the most
careful and streamlined use of taxpayer dollars.
I want to commend Chairman Culberson and the ranking member, Mr.
Bishop, for their dedication and mutual respect as they crafted this
legislation. There's not a subcommittee in our full committee that has
the kind of cooperative spirit that this subcommittee has. Their staff
and the members have worked hard and well to ensure that we bring a
great piece of bipartisan legislation before the body today.
Last but not least, I also want to thank one former member of the
subcommittee staff specifically for his tireless service, Tim Peterson,
as he embarks on his retirement after more than 30 years of Federal
service. Tim was most recently the clerk of this subcommittee, and as a
member of the appropriations staff, has worked on veterans issue, among
others, for almost 20 years. He also served on the Defense Subcommittee
for 6 years. Before joining the committee staff in 1989, Tim was a
budget analyst in the Office of the Navy Comptroller. Staff and members
of the committee alike all agree that he was one of our best--
knowledgeable, accurate, always professional.
He was a very calming presence. No matter what was thrown his way, he
always rose above the fray and the hardships in order to get things
done. His expertise and dedication will be greatly missed, and I thank
him for his years of service.
One thing I want to mention in closing, the chairman mentioned
language in the bill which I'm very grateful for dealing with the
sharing of medical records between the DOD and the Veterans Department.
A few years ago, 2 or 3 years ago, I learned of a young soldier in my
district who was hit by an IED in Iraq and was blinded in one eye and
had some vision in the other eye. And when he was discharged, went to
the veterans hospital because he was losing the vision of the other
eye. They were unable to help him because they didn't know what the
military hospital had done when they operated in his forehead around
his eyes, and they couldn't get the records out of DOD at the veterans
hospital to help him with his problem. The result was he lost his
remaining eyesight.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. He lost the vision of the second eye simply
because the veterans hospital could not get access to the military
hospital after he was injured, I assume, from the hospital in Germany.
That is unforgivable, that two Federal Agencies both dealing with
military and veterans, can't share records. And so the language in the
bill, which I am very grateful to the chairman and the ranking member
for including, hopefully will force these two Departments to mesh these
medical records so that we can save lives and save veterans and
soldiers from untold misery.
As we remember those who lost their lives in battle, Madam Chair, we
are reminded that we can provide our Nation's troops, our veterans, our
military families, with the programs and services they have earned as a
result of their service and sacrifice. So I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. At this time I'd like to yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the
distinguished ranking member of the full committee.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Fiscal Year 2013
Military Construction and Veterans Administration Appropriation bill.
This bill continues the strong tradition of bipartisanship and finding
common ground as members traditionally work together to fund
construction of military facilities and strive to improve the quality
of life and care afforded to our veterans and military families.
I want to associate myself with the remarks made by Chairman Rogers
about Tim Peterson. He was and has been one of our outstanding clerks
on the committee. I have had the pleasure of working with him
throughout his entire career, and we're going to miss him, but wish him
well in his future endeavors.
I also would say that this subcommittee has a very strong staff, and
it's great to see the way Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Sanford
Bishop have worked together.
And I want to say also that Chairman Rogers is absolutely correct, we
have to overcome this inability to get information between our military
and veterans hospitals, and the private sector as well. We've got to do
everything we can to improve the treatment of our troops.
I have previously stated my objection to the Majority's decision to
renege on the bipartisan agreement that was reached less than a year
ago in the Budget Control Act. I believe the reduced discretionary
allocation in the Ryan budget threatens to stall economic growth and
job creation, and in the near term it introduces uncertainty in our
appropriations process that imperils our ability to produce these bills
in a timely manner. Accordingly, it is my belief that we could save a
considerable amount of time in the appropriations process if we simply
returned to the agreement reached last August--the $1.047 trillion
allocation level for this year--a level which even the Republican
Senate leadership concedes is where we will eventually end up.
I am, however, encouraged that this bill fully funds the Department
of Veterans Affairs discretionary budget request of $60.7 billion. It
meets the overall budget request in all areas of administrative
expenses, research, information technology and facilities. The
recommendation contains $74.6 billion for the mandatory VA programs
providing compensation and pensions, educational benefits, vocational
rehabilitation, life insurance and housing loan programs.
I am particularly pleased that the Military Construction account
includes $546.9 million for construction and replacement of Department
of Defense Education Activity schools. A total of 10 schools will be
refurbished with this funding--six in the United States and nine
schools at overseas installations. Many of these schools are in
exceedingly poor condition and these improvements are long overdue. I
have been a strong advocate for the modernization of schools serving
the children of our nation's service members and I commend the Chairman
and Ranking Member on their commitment to this effort.
In addition, this bill continues to ensure that we are providing
high-quality, safe, and healthy living accommodations for our single
military members. Many of the older barracks in the military are at the
end of their 30 to 50-year design life cycle and do not meet current
design standards or current building codes. This bill includes $927
million for 21 barracks, dormitories, and bachelor enlisted quarters
that will address substandard living conditions and boost morale among
our troops. While this bill makes significant progress in addressing
current deficiencies, it does not address all the housing shortfalls
for our single service members. The quality of our installations is a
measure of the nation's commitment to the troops who defend it, and we
must continue to improve the substandard conditions of the military's
barracks, dormitories, and bachelor quarters in the future. I encourage
the Department of Defense to continue to replace these facilities in a
timely manner.
There is one provision in the bill that concerns me. During full
committee consideration, an amendment was passed that would restrict
the use of Project Labor Agreements on military construction projects.
Current policy gives the Defense Department the option to choose
whether a PLA is appropriate for a particular project--whether it will
save money or accelerate construction schedules at the government's
convenience. An amendment will be offered on the floor later today to
remove this harmful language and I encourage my colleagues to vote for
it.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Nunnelee).
Mr. NUNNELEE. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this legislation and
commend Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop on their work and
the subcommittee on this bill.
[[Page H3317]]
Earlier this week, we remembered Memorial Day and many of us around
the Nation gave words in recognition of those who paid the ultimate
sacrifice in defense of freedom. It is altogether fitting and proper
that we would do that, but our words need to be backed up with actions.
This bill provides the action that backs up our words.
In hearings before the subcommittee, we heard from Marine Corps
Sergeant Major Michael Barrett; and in his testimony, his phrase echoed
in my mind. He said keeping the faith goes both ways.
Well, our Constitution makes it clear that the obligation of our
Federal Government is to provide for the common defense. This bill
keeps the faith for those men and women who are providing for that
common defense. We make sure that our military has the resources and
the facilities needed to train, to house, to educate their families, to
equip our servicemembers. But it also makes sure that we have the
resources to provide health care and benefits to those veterans who
have served. And to make it quite clear, we're not giving those
veterans anything. They have earned every bit of it. They honored their
commitment. It's important that the Nation honor our commitment back to
them.
And while this bill keeps the faith with our military, it also keeps
the faith with the taxpayers. We're doing our part to curb spending by
funding those Departments at a more responsible and effective-use
level. It provides an increase in funding for veterans health care; but
by cutting military construction, we provide level funding, and that's
a responsible thing to do.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. At this time I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
{time} 1700
Ms. LEE of California. First let me thank you, Congressman Bishop,
for yielding time, and also for your very thoughtful and steady
leadership as our ranking member on this Appropriations Subcommittee.
We appreciate your leadership.
Also, I want to thank the chairman and, again, our ranking member for
your bipartisan efforts, and also for including language in this bill
which would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to report to
Congress detailed plans to eliminate the backlog and improve the
accuracy of the claims process within 6 months.
I introduced this language because, first, I just have to say, as the
daughter of a military veteran, I know firsthand the sacrifices and the
commitment involved with military service. But let me say this: It is
just totally unacceptable and shameful to force the very people who put
their lives on the line to wait months--and, in some cases, years--to
receive the benefits that they have earned.
Last week, I joined with my colleague, Congresswoman Jackie Speier,
and over 200 veterans at an event to address the backlog at the Oakland
Veterans Affairs regional office. We listened to the veterans as they
came up to speak one by one with a story and a struggle. The pain and
suffering of these veterans, it was overwhelming. I wish, Mr. Chairman
and Mr. Ranking Member, you could have been there to listen to this
testimony. Hopefully, we'll be able to share some of that with you and
with the subcommittee because this language that we put in really will
address many of the issues that were raised.
For example, I heard one of my constituents say that he waited 6
months just for the paperwork and spent another 2 years waiting for the
Oakland Veterans Affairs office to consider his request to upgrade his
disability rating for posttraumatic stress. This young man sacrificed a
great deal going overseas to fight for our country, and yet now he has
been asked to put his life on hold--really, just on hold--until his
claim is processed. There are thousands of other stories just like his
where veterans are waiting an average of 320 days to see some relief.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. LEE of California. I just want to conclude by saying, now the VA
is saying that they will reduce this backlog and improve accuracy by
2015, but waiting 3 more years is really quite unacceptable. Veterans
in my district and throughout the country cannot wait any longer, Madam
Chair. These veterans served our country when we needed them, and it's
our responsibility as a Nation to be there when they need us.
So I want to thank you again for inserting this language into the
bill, and hopefully this will be the beginning of some justice for
these veterans who deserve it.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I want to assure my colleague from
California and all the Members, and all the members of the military
tonight listening, if you have retired recently, our subcommittee is
going to really bore in on this and make sure that the claims backlog
is dealt with, that it's done expeditiously. Obviously, we want to make
sure that these men and women who, again, have earned everything that
this country can possibly give them, to make their life comfortable and
secure, to make sure that their health is taken care of, that that
claims backlog is dealt with.
I also want to reassure my colleagues--and I know that we've got a
rapt audience at the Veterans Administration here tonight as well--that
we are going to really bore in on this medical records problem. It is
utterly unacceptable for Federal bureaucracies to not work together on
something as vitally important as medical records.
The example that Chairman Rogers gave us of a young man who lost his
eyesight because of a bureaucratic inadequacy and just foolishness is
just not acceptable. We had another story of a young man who actually
lost his life in Bill Young's district, Chairman Young of Florida. So
we're going to make sure that those issues are dealt with, and again,
to make sure that our men and women in uniform don't ever have to look
over their shoulder to worry about what the United States Congress has
done to support them.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. At this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
Mr. CUELLAR. I certainly want to thank the ranking member for
yielding. I want to thank my good friend from Texas, Chairman
Culberson, thank both of them for this bipartisan approach.
Mr. Chairman, contract and other non-VA medical providers play a
vital part in the VA medical system, providing veterans medical
services throughout the State of Texas and the United States where the
VA doesn't currently operate VA-run and -staffed facilities.
Despite the critical role that they play throughout Texas, many of
these providers in my south Texas district are experiencing continuing
issues with receiving timely compensation for services rendered. Many
of the past-due claims are well over 60 days past due.
Non-VA medical providers are dedicated to providing the highest
quality medical care possible to the veterans, providing them choice;
however, they operate on a fee basis and rely on timely compensation
for services rendered to continue to operate. If these providers are
unable to receive timely payment from the VA, economic reality will
eventually force them to stop providing services to the veterans.
A factor that further complicates this situation is the VA's overall
lack of responsiveness to inquiries from medical providers and even
Members of Congress about past-due medical payments.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, Mr. Cuellar. Absolutely, we're going to bore in
on this.
MD Anderson, of course, is one of the Nation's greatest cancer
centers. We have had complaints and concerns expressed to my office
about the slow pay of the Veterans' Administration for MD Anderson's
treatment of VA patients. And absolutely, we're going to get to the
bottom of it. There's just no excuse for it.
If services have been rendered--and clearly, MD Anderson, again, if
you're lucky enough to be treated by MD Anderson, they're the greatest
in the world. We're going to make sure that they're paid promptly. I
understand that MD Anderson is currently owed over $1 million. It's
just unacceptable. We'll do everything we can to help.
[[Page H3318]]
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. CUELLAR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. I also want to be sure to thank my colleague from
Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and say how much I've enjoyed working with him over
the years in securing our border in Texas. We've got language in the
bill, which Mr. Cuellar suggested, to encourage the Army National Guard
to work with our Border Patrol and law enforcement authorities on the
border in a cooperative way to ensure that the laws are enforced
because, of course, we want that border to work securely and fairly so
we get that strong economic growth back and forth while keeping out the
criminals and gunrunners. Henry, you've been a leader in this effort to
secure the border, and it's a privilege to work with you on this
Mr. CUELLAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield 2
minutes to my good friend from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).
Mr. YODER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to join the chorus of those who appreciate the work done
on the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Committee. The work by
Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop is a true spirit of
bipartisanship, and it shows what we're capable of when we work
together towards a common goal.
It's hard to think of an issue more important than honoring our
Nation's veterans, those men and women who stood in the field of
battle, who assumed the call of duty, served admirably, protecting our
Nation and protecting freedom and liberty around the world. So this
committee and this appropriations bill is important to me.
As a freshman member of the committee, I can think of no better place
than to be in a position to help advocate for our men and women who
serve the country. After that service is concluded, it's our
responsibility as a Nation to honor that commitment by ensuring that
the benefits are high quality and are there, and that the access is
available to those whom it was promised to.
I commend the committee for working with the Veterans Affairs
Department and other areas of the government to find and ensure that
our constituents and folks across this country who served receive the
benefits they were promised, and they receive the access and quality
and all sorts of things, from physical to mental health care, to our
facilities, making sure they're quality facilities, renovated, and that
the men and women receive the care that was promised, because these
benefits are earned, not given. That's a topic I think that's very near
and dear to these veterans is that these services were earned in the
field of battle. They were earned through service, and it is our
responsibility and our duty to honor that commitment.
So I look forward to continuing to work with the committee, look
forward to working with Members of both parties as we continue to do
all that we can. And I join the efforts of the chairman to ensure that
resources are going to the proper spots, that it's being done quickly
and adequately, and that we don't have veterans waiting and waiting
forever to get the services they were promised. It's our duty and
responsibility to honor that commitment, and I am here to stand in
strong support of the budget that the committee has put together today.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. At this time, Madam Chairman, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, at this time I'd like to yield such
time as he might consume to the distinguished gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Madam Chairman, let me thank Chairman Culberson for his
excellent work on this important bill which funds our Nation's military
construction projects and provides support to the infrastructure that
serves our Nation's veterans.
{time} 1710
The Veterans Affairs campus located in Butler, Pennsylvania, provides
critical health care services to veterans across western Pennsylvania.
Two years ago I worked with my colleagues to provide $8.5 million to
make improvements to the campus to ensure the veterans in our community
receive the best care in the most up-to-date facilities.
Despite these improvements, the VA has plans to move forward with
construction of an offsite health care center. And while this is a
laudable initiative by the VA, many veterans in our community are
worried that the construction of this new center will lead to the
elimination of services that are currently available to them at the
Butler VA, which is a valuable asset to the community relied upon by
veterans throughout western Pennsylvania.
Valid questions about the rationale behind constructing a new
facility have been raised in the veterans' community, and their input
should be heard. Any new, offsite facility should complement, not
replace services currently provided at the Butler VA campus. My
colleagues and I will continue to monitor this issue to ensure the
highest quality services to veterans will continue to be provided at
that facility now and in the future.
I yield to the Representative of the Butler VA facility, my friend,
Congressman Mike Kelly.
Mr. KELLY. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for the hard work on
this vital appropriations bill.
I met with some veterans back in Butler on Tuesday morning, and their
concern is with the Butler campus and the building of a new health care
center. Now, here's where the questions come. Specifically, they want
to know why the VA would build a brand new, $16 million health care
center while the existing facility, Building Number 1, was recently
renovated, upgraded, and provides roughly 70,000 more square feet than
the new health care center.
The decision to build the new health care center was done with no
public hearing, which the VA readily admits. And according to local
veterans, the VA failed to provide a forum for their input.
Now, veterans in my district would like to be reassured that the
services they currently receive will be met and exceeded without any
disruption in continuity. Many would like to know why a new facility is
being built when the current facilities could have been
further upgraded, and the potential savings could have been used to
improve the quality of the service provided.
The VA should respond to the veteran community with reassurances that
the care and service at the Butler VA is being enhanced, not diminished
by the construction of a new health care center.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ALTMIRE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, my colleagues from Pennsylvania raise
a really important issue that absolutely the subcommittee will look
into. It's a constant source of concern for us to see Federal agencies
waste our constituents' precious tax dollars for, it appears to me from
the way you've described it, possible elimination of existing good
service, duplication of existing service, and unnecessary expenditure
of tax dollars.
We will work very closely with you and do all that we can to help
make sure that the veterans that you represent are being given the very
best possible health care at the best value for taxpayers.
Thank you very much.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to a friend and
colleague from Texas, Judge John Carter.
Mr. CARTER. Madam Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee,
on which I have the joy to serve, and I commend him on a great product,
and I commend Mr. Bishop on a great product.
Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 5854, the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. This bill is
very important because it takes care of our soldiers and our warriors,
wherever they may be, their families, and the Nation's veterans.
[[Page H3319]]
This bill ensures our warriors and their families will have quality
housing, schools, medical and dental facilities, training facilities
and much, much more. In fact, this bill provides a recommendation of
over $546 million for the construction or replacement of DOD education
activities and schools.
As a consequence, what we appropriate with this bill is a peace of
mind dividend to our warriors because they're like parents everywhere:
you've got to worry about your kids and their schools when you're away
doing your job. So this is an indication by us that our Nation cares
for our soldiers and our warriors, wherever they may be, and want to
provide the best.
Madam Chair, this bill is a good bill. And yet, it meets the
obligations we have to these warriors, and we stay within our projected
view that it's time for us to keep a close eye on and squeeze every
budget to make sure that we're saving the taxpayers' dollars.
Chairman Culberson has been a warrior on behalf of those savings and,
joined by Mr. Bishop, they have produced a good product, one that is
worthy of this Congress and worthy of this country. And I'm glad to
have had a small part in that.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, at this time I'd like to engage in a
colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the House Transportation
Committee, Mr. Mica of Florida. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman for
that purpose.
Mr. MICA. Thank you so much, Mr. Culberson, for yielding to me. I
appreciate the gentleman yielding for the purpose of this colloquy.
Madam Chairman, as you may know, the new Veterans' Administration
Medical Center under construction in central Florida has experienced
some serious delays and possible cost overruns that have raised
significant concerns for Florida veterans who have earned and deserve
this facility.
With Florida's growing veteran population and more veterans returning
to our State from current conflicts, this facility is, in fact, key to
keeping our pledge to aid those who served our Nation. It is important
to clearly state the intent and the serious commitment of Congress that
this new facility should be completed as soon as possible, and also
make certain that we do everything in our power to ensure that the
Federal resources necessary are available to complete that project.
Is this your intent?
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, absolutely, Chairman Mica. We're going to ensure
that there are enough Federal resources to complete that veterans
facility, but also to ensure that we're good stewards of the treasury
and that our tax dollars are spent wisely and carefully. And we're
going to make certain that the VA is not wasting money and not engaging
in cost overruns, sir.
Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. And I'm so appreciative of your commitment
and support. This is very important to our veterans, and we are most
appreciative of the commitment you've made to central Florida and those
that have served our Nation, not only on this, but all the projects.
Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, Chairman Mica. You've been a stalwart
leader on behalf of veterans for many years here in Congress. And thank
you for bringing this to our attention. The subcommittee is going to
give it our full attention and make sure that facility is built in a
way that's cost effective and takes care of your veterans.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chairman, we have no more speakers. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, as we wrap up the opening part of this
bill, I think it's important to point out to the Members of the House,
to the country, that this is the third appropriations bill that has
been brought to the House floor under the leadership of Chairman
Rogers, the third appropriations bill that we've brought up as a new
majority in the House. And this, to my knowledge, is the first time in
American history that there have been three successive spending bills
in a row.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I know the gentleman wouldn't want to mislead the House.
This is the second bill. We're going to get to the third bill, but this
is number 2.
Mr. CULBERSON. What I was remembering, my good friend, Mr. Dicks, is
when we first came in the spring, I think there was an omnibus bill
that had to be dealt with.
Mr. DICKS. That was last year. H.R. 1. We remember it. It was 800
amendments, 600 on your side, 200 on our side.
Mr. CULBERSON. What we've done, I know on this committee, is work
arm-in-arm to find ways to solve the Nation's problems.
Mr. DICKS. We're going to get the third one up tomorrow or maybe
tonight even.
Mr. CULBERSON. We are indeed. We're going to finish this bill
tonight, Mr. Dicks. But it's important to point out, I think, that
Chairman Rogers deserves a great deal of credit. This committee has
worked. We have searched every nook and cranny we can of the Federal
budget under our jurisdiction to save every possible dollar we can, and
this is the first time, certainly in my memory and my knowledge of
American history, that we've had multiple appropriations bills in a row
that have reduced Federal spending.
{time} 1720
Our constituents want us to do, obviously, far more. Yet when it
comes to the military, when it comes to Veterans Affairs, we have
worked arm in arm to save every possible dollar while at the same time
preserving the quality of care for our veterans in the VA health care
system. Then, in the armed services of the United States, when they're
in uniform, we have made certain that all of their needs are taken care
of when it comes to housing, when it comes to the education of their
kids, when it comes to the caliber of the facilities that they have to
live and work in. So it is our privilege to bring this bill to the
House tonight in a bipartisan fashion.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FARR. Madam Chair, this past weekend, we remembered the patriotic
sacrifice of those that have lost their lives in service to our
country, and, today we renew our commitment to keep our promise to the
nation's more than 2 million troops and reservists, their families,
22.2 million veterans, and 35.5 million family members of living
veterans or survivors of deceased veterans.
This committee has a strong history of working in a bipartisan way to
produce a bill that supports our active duty servicemembers, our
veterans and their families, and this bill is no exception.
I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for their hard work in
ensuring that this bill is another significant step in fulfilling the
promise our country made to leave no veteran behind.
For example, the Office of the Inspector General recently filed a
report that identified weaknesses in the VA's mental health care
system. With the mental health needs of our returning servicemembers
increasing, it is vital that the VA get this right.
The bill before us today provides resources to implement the
recommendations of the OIG to provide timely access to mental health
care services. We have an obligation to take care of our veterans'
physical AND mental health, and I am glad this bill recognizes that
critical fact.
Additionally, I am pleased to see that this bill again emphasizes the
needs of our veterans in rural areas. The National Cemetery
Administration has stated that 10% of all veterans will not have access
to a burial option in a national, State or tribal cemetery within 75
miles of their home.
While the strategy to extend services to some rural veterans outlined
in the 2013 budget request is a good first step, it fails to address a
long term strategy to fix this problem. This bill instructs the VA to
correct this oversight and, on behalf of Central Coast veterans, I look
forward to the Secretary's report on the VA's long term strategy to
address the burial needs to rural veterans.
I would note that while this bill is $13.2 billion above last year's
enact level, it is also $259 million less than the President's request.
While I am glad to see this bill has been protected from Ryan budget
cuts, I strongly believe this Congress needs to get back to the
balanced approach we agreed to in the bipartisan Budget Control Act.
Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
It seems Republicans are incapable of legislating without exacting a
toll from federal employees.
[[Page H3320]]
Earlier this year, in order to prevent a Social Security tax increase
on all Americans, House Republicans insisted that future federal
employees nearly quadruple the amount they contribute to their own
retirement.
Without a corresponding increase in benefits, the larger contribution
was simply a pay cut.
After the tax extenders bill, Republicans sought a toll from federal
employees on the Transportation Reauthorization bill.
That bill's price for federal employees was a 1.5 percent reduction
of agencies' contribution to their retirement benefit.
Federal employees would have been forced to make up the difference--
again, a pay cut.
The most egregious attack, unsurprisingly, came from the Budget
Resolution offered by Mr. Ryan.
Mr. Ryan's budget directed the House Oversight and Government Reform
committee to indentify nearly $80 billion in ``savings'' from federal
employee benefit programs over a ten year window.
The committee recommended increasing retirement contributions by 5
percent with no corresponding increase in benefits for all current
federal employees, immediately increasing retirement contributions to
5.8 percent for all new federal employees, and eliminating the Social
Security supplement for all federal employees who retire before
becoming eligible for their earned Social Security benefit.
And just today, it was revealed that the Republican Leadership has
proposed using federal compensation cuts to offset a student loan rate
reduction extension. What a shame.
This evening I rise to speak against the federal employee cuts
contained in the underlying bill.
The MILCON/VA bill would freeze the pay of some 305,000 civilian
employees of the Veterans Administration and some DoD employees for a
third consecutive year.
It is astounding that Members of this body would stand up this
evening and proclaim the solemn debt our country owes to our veterans
knowing this bill cuts the benefits of those who treat and care for our
retired servicemembers.
Today there are approximately 100,000 homeless veterans. VA employees
work every day to reduce that tragedy and as a reward this body will
freeze their pay.
According to the most recent reports, veteran unemployment has
actually dropped below the national average.
The VA counselors that assist veterans in their search for employment
undoubtedly deserve some recognition for this trend.
To thank them, this body will again try to freeze their pay.
Finally, an estimated one in five veterans from our conflicts in Iraq
and Afghanistan will return home with some type of post-traumatic
stress disorder.
Mental health providers and counselors in the VA and DoD will treat
these wounded warriors.
In fiscal year 2013, if this body gets its way, they will see no
increase in their pay.
The United States has unarguably the greatest civil service in the
world.
Republican attacks against civil servants are unwarranted,
unjustified, and extremely disappointing.
Every day, federal employees provide vital services that help keep
our nation healthy, safe and strong.
I strongly oppose the federal employee cuts contained in this bill.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment who has
caused it to be printed in the designated place in the Congressional
Record. Those amendments will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 5854
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2013, and
for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Military Construction, Army
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Army as
currently authorized by law, including personnel in the Army
Corps of Engineers and other personal services necessary for
the purposes of this appropriation, and for construction and
operation of facilities in support of the functions of the
Commander in Chief, $1,820,323,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2017: Provided, That of this amount, not to
exceed $80,173,000 shall be available for study, planning,
design, architect and engineer services, and host nation
support, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Army
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of the determination and the reasons
therefor.
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, naval installations,
facilities, and real property for the Navy and Marine Corps
as currently authorized by law, including personnel in the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command and other personal
services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation,
$1,551,217,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $102,619,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, and architect
and engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the
Secretary of Navy determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air Force
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, military
installations, facilities, and real property for the Air
Force as currently authorized by law, $388,200,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That of this
amount, not to exceed $18,635,000 shall be available for
study, planning, design, and architect and engineer services,
as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Air Force
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such
purposes and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress of the determination and the reasons
therefor.
Military Construction, Defense-Wide
(including transfer of funds)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment
of temporary or permanent public works, installations,
facilities, and real property for activities and agencies of
the Department of Defense (other than the military
departments), as currently authorized by law, $3,569,623,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That
such amounts of this appropriation as may be determined by
the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such
appropriations of the Department of Defense available for
military construction or family housing as the Secretary may
designate, to be merged with and to be available for the same
purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation
or fund to which transferred: Provided further, That of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $315,562,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary
of Defense determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further,
That, of the amount appropriated, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, $26,969,000 shall be available for payments
to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for the planning,
design, and construction of a new North Atlantic Treaty
Organization headquarters.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I have an amendment to offer.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 4, line 14, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)(increased by
$10,000,000)''.
Page 4, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I commend Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member
Bishop for their outstanding work and leadership on this appropriations
bill. It provides for our veterans, for our military families, and it
makes great strides for greater energy efficiency on military
installations.
But I think it might be able to go farther.
My amendment would strengthen military national security and save
taxpayers money by decreasing the Pentagon's energy consumption. The
amendment would simply align the House bill with the Senate mark for
the Energy Conservation Investment Program, ECIP, by providing an
additional $10 million for planning and design.
The Department of Defense is the largest manager of infrastructure in
the United States and the largest consumer of energy in the world,
using over 300,000 barrels of oil per day and almost 4 billion kilowatt
hours of electricity per year.
[[Page H3321]]
That's as much energy as the entire State of Oregon, which I call
home.
The Pentagon operates 500 installations with over a half million
buildings and structures worldwide. Given the size and scope of our
military's infrastructure, it's not surprising to find that the
Department of Defense accounts for more than 70 percent of all energy
consumed by the entire Federal Government.
I believe that the Pentagon and Congress have an obligation to
taxpayers, who foot the Pentagon's bill of $17 billion a year, which is
spent on gasoline and diesel fuel, to not only decrease the military's
overall level of energy consumption through efficiency efforts, but to
move towards greater energy independence from the petro-dictators.
It's a necessity for our continued national security, that of freeing
our military from the tethers of foreign oil as resources grow scarcer
and suppliers more unstable. It's also an obligation for anyone who is
serious about cutting our national debt. Every $10 increase in the
price of petroleum costs the Pentagon an extra $1.3 billion a year on
top of what we're already spending.
There are alternatives. There are solutions.
Congress needs to act by providing the resources and the authorities
the Pentagon needs because ``supporting our troops'' means securing
their energy future. In some cases, Congress simply needs to stand out
of the way so that the Pentagon can continue making progress. The $160
million in the Senate bill is only a drop in the giant gasoline can if
it is not accompanied by a significant investment in alternative energy
sources for use by the military. Leaders in the Pentagon and our
veterans returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan stand behind the idea
of making the military leaner and meaner by reducing its reliance on
fossil fuel.
Speaking in reference to this amendment, Mike Breen, a veteran and
vice president of the Truman National Security Project, said:
As an Operation Free veteran and former captain in Iraq and
Afghanistan, I saw firsthand that we have a 21st-century
military shackled to a 20th-century fuel. All of our civilian
leaders must match the military's commitment and stop putting
shortsighted politics ahead of good policy.
But some colleagues are tied to the past, and they've scuttled any
and all efforts to provide for greater efficiency and alternatives in
military vehicles.
The amendment I offer today must be accompanied by future investment
in sustainable fuels in the military, and I hope my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle will recognize that the only way to truly sustain a
strong military and achieve energy independence is to stand up for
these investments, not only today, but in future appropriations as
well.
I thank the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee for their
hard work. This appropriations bill puts us closer to where we need to
be, and I hope they will join me in making this last push. I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. I rise to accept the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to
increase by $10 million the Department of Defense's investment in
planning and design funds for the Energy Conservation Investment
Program, which is certainly a worthwhile program. I accept the
amendment, but I cannot stand idly by when I hear the gentleman refer
to energy independence.
There is no greater energy independence for America than a ``drill
here and drill now'' for American energy resources. I proudly represent
the west side of Houston. My neighbors, my friends, my colleagues are
geophysicists and engineers who have kids in school and who play at the
beach. I've grown up on the Galveston seawall while watching oil and
gas rigs right off the shore. We can produce American oil and gas
cleanly, safely, immediately, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs,
vast wealth for the Nation and making America energy independent in the
short run and in the medium run.
Clearly, we need to make investments in the future for alternative
sources of energy, and I certainly agree with the gentleman from Oregon
about the need to make investments looking out into the future. Rice
University, which I also proudly represent, is doing extraordinary work
in developing ways of using carbon nanostructures to transmit
electricity ballistically so that we can transmit, store, and transport
electricity in ways that were never possible before. That holds the
promise of making America energy independent, but that's way down the
road.
I do have to say that, while I support the gentleman's amendment, I
feel compelled to point out, if you would just unleash the
entrepreneurship, the good judgment and the extraordinary technological
capability, then the people of America, many of whom I proudly
represent in west Houston, would be able to produce vast amounts of
American oil and gas right here in the United States immediately. It
would be a tremendous boost to the Nation's economy, making America
energy independent in the short run. Clearly, because we've got enough
shale gas, we could, frankly, support ourselves on shale gas and oil
for who knows how long.
I do agree with the gentleman: for the long term, we do need to look
at energy alternatives. Certainly, with regard to the Department of
Defense, you've reduced one account by $10 million and plussed up this
account by $10 million so that the overall cost of the bill does not go
up. I do accept the gentleman's amendment, but I have a respectful
disagreement with the premise of his argument.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I agree with the gentleman
that the Department of Defense should be doing all that it can to
reduce energy costs and to help us be energy independent. The Energy
Conservation Investment Program is a fairly small, but key, component
of the Defense Department's energy strategy.
{time} 1730
The goals are to improve supply resiliency, implement energy security
plans, and alter energy consumption at individual installations.
Investing in this small program helps the Department to reduce its
energy costs and help meet its facility energy mandates.
The Department has been funding ECIP as far back as 2001, and the
committee has seen great progress on energy savings. For example, at
Fort Liggett, they are building a 1-megawatt solar grid which will help
that installation ease its energy consumption.
ECIP is a cost-saving program I think all Members should be happy to
support. Therefore, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this
amendment, and I'm delighted that the chairman has accepted it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Military Construction, Army National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by law, $613,799,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $26,622,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Director
of the Army National Guard determines that additional
obligations are necessary for such purposes and notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of
the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air National Guard
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air National Guard, and contributions
therefor, as authorized by law, $42,386,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Director
of the Air National Guard determines that additional
obligations are necessary for such purposes and notifies the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of
the determination and the reasons therefor.
[[Page H3322]]
Mr. HOLT. I move to strike the last word, Madam Chair.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, our Nation just marked another Memorial Day at
war and another year in which the epidemic of suicides of our country's
servicemembers and veterans continues. In April of this year, The New
York Times' columnist Nick Kristof noted that for every American lost
on the battlefield, about 25 servicemembers and veterans are dying by
their own hands. These are silent casualties of war. And if we're to
stop the epidemic, we must recognize it.
I want to thank the ranking member, Representative Bishop of Georgia,
and the subcommittee chair, Representative Culberson, for their
recognition that continued funding for suicide prevention and outreach
programs for our veterans must be a national priority. I'm pleased that
the committee looked favorably on my request and included an additional
$20 million for suicide prevention outreach programs, including social
media in this bill. This is the second year in a row that the House has
taken this step because the administration and the VA have yet to
create a dedicated programmatic funding stream for suicide prevention
and outreach.
Let me take this opportunity to urge the administration and our
President to direct the Office of Management and Budget to create such
a dedicated funding stream for such programs. Our suicide prevention
response must be coordinated and must be funded properly over the
lifetime of our veterans, because this is not a problem that will go
away once the guns fall silent.
I thank my colleagues on the committee for all they have done to
craft a bill that will help provide the services that our veterans need
and deserve.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Military Construction, Army Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Army Reserve as authorized by law,
$305,846,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017:
Provided, That of the amount appropriated, not to exceed
$15,951,000 shall be available for study, planning, design,
and architect and engineer services, as authorized by law,
unless the Chief of the Army Reserve determines that
additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and
notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Navy Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the reserve components of the Navy and
Marine Corps as authorized by law, $49,532,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2017: Provided, That of the
amount appropriated, not to exceed $2,118,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, and architect and
engineer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary
of the Navy determines that additional obligations are
necessary for such purposes and notifies the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the
determination and the reasons therefor.
Military Construction, Air Force Reserve
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation,
and conversion of facilities for the training and
administration of the Air Force Reserve as authorized by law,
$10,979,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017:
Provided, That of the amount appropriated, not to exceed
$2,879,000 shall be available for study, planning, design,
and architect and engineer services, as authorized by law,
unless the Chief of the Air Force Reserve determines that
additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and
notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress of the determination and the reasons therefor.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Security Investment Program
For the United States share of the cost of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for
the acquisition and construction of military facilities and
installations (including international military headquarters)
and for related expenses for the collective defense of the
North Atlantic Treaty Area as authorized by section 2806 of
title 10, United States Code, and Military Construction
Authorization Acts, $254,163,000, to remain available until
expended.
Family Housing Construction, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$4,641,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Army
For expenses of family housing for the Army for operation
and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor
construction, principal and interest charges, and insurance
premiums, as authorized by law, $530,051,000.
Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for construction, including acquisition, replacement,
addition, expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized
by law, $102,182,000, to remain available until September 30,
2017.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Navy and Marine Corps
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine
Corps for operation and maintenance, including debt payment,
leasing, minor construction, principal and interest charges,
and insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $378,230,000.
Family Housing Construction, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension, and alteration, as authorized by law,
$83,824,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for
operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing,
minor construction, principal and interest charges, and
insurance premiums, as authorized by law, $497,829,000.
Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
For expenses of family housing for the activities and
agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the
military departments) for operation and maintenance, leasing,
and minor construction, as authorized by law, $52,238,000.
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund
For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund, $1,786,000, to remain available until expended, for
family housing initiatives undertaken pursuant to section
2883 of title 10, United States Code, providing alternative
means of acquiring and improving military family housing and
supporting facilities.
Chemical Demilitarization Construction, Defense-Wide
For expenses of construction, not otherwise provided for,
necessary for the destruction of the United States stockpile
of lethal chemical agents and munitions in accordance with
section 1412 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act,
1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521), and for the destruction of other
chemical warfare materials that are not in the chemical
weapon stockpile, as currently authorized by law,
$151,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017,
which shall be only for the Assembled Chemical Weapons
Alternatives program.
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 1990
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990, established by section 2906(a)(1) of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C.
2687 note), $349,396,000, to remain available until expended.
Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 2005, established by section 2906A(a)(1) of the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C.
2687 note), $126,697,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the Department of Defense shall notify the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress 14
days prior to obligating an amount for a construction project
that exceeds or reduces the amount identified for that
project in the most recently submitted budget request for
this account by 20 percent or $2,000,000, whichever is less:
Provided further, That the previous proviso shall not apply
to projects costing less than $5,000,000, except for those
projects not previously identified in any budget submission
for this account and exceeding the minor construction
threshold under section 2805 of title 10, United States Code.
Administrative Provisions
Sec. 101. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be expended for payments under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee
contract for construction, where cost estimates exceed
$25,000, to be performed within the United States, except
Alaska, without the specific approval in writing of the
Secretary of Defense setting forth the reasons therefor.
Sec. 102. Funds made available in this title for
construction shall be available for hire of passenger motor
vehicles.
Sec. 103. Funds made available in this title for
construction may be used for advances to the Federal Highway
Administration, Department of Transportation, for the
construction of access roads as authorized by section 210 of
title 23, United States Code, when projects authorized
therein are certified as important to the national defense by
the Secretary of Defense.
Sec. 104. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to begin construction of new bases in the United
States for which specific appropriations have not been made.
[[Page H3323]]
Sec. 105. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used for purchase of land or land easements in
excess of 100 percent of the value as determined by the Army
Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, except: (1) where there is a determination of value
by a Federal court; (2) purchases negotiated by the Attorney
General or the designee of the Attorney General; (3) where
the estimated value is less than $25,000; or (4) as otherwise
determined by the Secretary of Defense to be in the public
interest.
Sec. 106. None of the funds made available in this title
shall be used to: (1) acquire land; (2) provide for site
preparation; or (3) install utilities for any family housing,
except housing for which funds have been made available in
annual Acts making appropriations for military construction.
Sec. 107. None of the funds made available in this title
for minor construction may be used to transfer or relocate
any activity from one base or installation to another,
without prior notification to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 108. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used for the procurement of steel for any construction
project or activity for which American steel producers,
fabricators, and manufacturers have been denied the
opportunity to compete for such steel procurement.
Sec. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense for military construction or family housing during
the current fiscal year may be used to pay real property
taxes in any foreign nation.
Sec. 110. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to initiate a new installation overseas without
prior notification to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress.
Sec. 111. None of the funds made available in this title
may be obligated for architect and engineer contracts
estimated by the Government to exceed $500,000 for projects
to be accomplished in Japan, in any North Atlantic Treaty
Organization member country, or in countries bordering the
Arabian Sea, unless such contracts are awarded to United
States firms or United States firms in joint venture with
host nation firms.
Sec. 112. None of the funds made available in this title
for military construction in the United States territories
and possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein Atoll, or in
countries within the United States Central Command Area of
Responsibility, may be used to award any contract estimated
by the Government to exceed $1,000,000 to a foreign
contractor: Provided, That this section shall not be
applicable to contract awards for which the lowest responsive
and responsible bid of a United States contractor exceeds the
lowest responsive and responsible bid of a foreign contractor
by greater than 20 percent: Provided further, That this
section shall not apply to contract awards for military
construction on Kwajalein Atoll for which the lowest
responsive and responsible bid is submitted by a Marshallese
contractor.
Sec. 113. The Secretary of Defense shall inform the
appropriate committees of both Houses of Congress, including
the Committees on Appropriations, of plans and scope of any
proposed military exercise involving United States personnel
30 days prior to its occurring, if amounts expended for
construction, either temporary or permanent, are anticipated
to exceed $100,000.
Sec. 114. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction in prior years shall be available for
construction authorized for each such military department by
the authorizations enacted into law during the current
session of Congress.
Sec. 115. For military construction or family housing
projects that are being completed with funds otherwise
expired or lapsed for obligation, expired or lapsed funds may
be used to pay the cost of associated supervision,
inspection, overhead, engineering and design on those
projects and on subsequent claims, if any.
Sec. 116. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds made available to a military department or defense
agency for the construction of military projects may be
obligated for a military construction project or contract, or
for any portion of such a project or contract, at any time
before the end of the fourth fiscal year after the fiscal
year for which funds for such project were made available, if
the funds obligated for such project: (1) are obligated from
funds available for military construction projects; and (2)
do not exceed the amount appropriated for such project, plus
any amount by which the cost of such project is increased
pursuant to law.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 117. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, proceeds deposited to
the Department of Defense Base Closure Account established by
section 207(a)(1) of the Defense Authorization Amendments and
Base Closure and Realignment Act (10 U.S.C. 2687 note)
pursuant to section 207(a)(2)(C) of such Act, may be
transferred to the account established by section 2906(a)(1)
of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (10
U.S.C. 2687 note), to be merged with, and to be available for
the same purposes and the same time period as that account.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 118. Subject to 30 days prior notification, or 14
days for a notification provided in an electronic medium
pursuant to sections 480 and 2883 of title 10, United States
Code, to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress, such additional amounts as may be determined by the
Secretary of Defense may be transferred to: (1) the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund from
amounts appropriated for construction in ``Family Housing''
accounts, to be merged with and to be available for the same
purposes and for the same period of time as amounts
appropriated directly to the Fund; or (2) the Department of
Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund from
amounts appropriated for construction of military
unaccompanied housing in ``Military Construction'' accounts,
to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes
and for the same period of time as amounts appropriated
directly to the Fund: Provided, That appropriations made
available to the Funds shall be available to cover the costs,
as defined in section 502(5) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, of direct loans or loan guarantees issued by the
Department of Defense pursuant to the provisions of
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
pertaining to alternative means of acquiring and improving
military family housing, military unaccompanied housing, and
supporting facilities.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 119. In addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Department of Defense, amounts may be
transferred from the accounts established by sections
2906(a)(1) and 2906A(a)(1) of the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note), to the fund
established by section 1013(d) of the Demonstration Cities
and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374) to
pay for expenses associated with the Homeowners Assistance
Program incurred under 42 U.S.C. 3374(a)(1)(A). Any amounts
transferred shall be merged with and be available for the
same purposes and for the same time period as the fund to
which transferred.
Sec. 120. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
funds made available in this title for operation and
maintenance of family housing shall be the exclusive source
of funds for repair and maintenance of all family housing
units, including general or flag officer quarters: Provided,
That not more than $35,000 per unit may be spent annually for
the maintenance and repair of any general or flag officer
quarters without 30 days prior notification, or 14 days for a
notification provided in an electronic medium pursuant to
sections 480 and 2883 of title 10, United States Code, to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress,
except that an after-the-fact notification shall be submitted
if the limitation is exceeded solely due to costs associated
with environmental remediation that could not be reasonably
anticipated at the time of the budget submission.
Sec. 121. Amounts contained in the Ford Island Improvement
Account established by subsection (h) of section 2814 of
title 10, United States Code, are appropriated and shall be
available until expended for the purposes specified in
subsection (i)(1) of such section or until transferred
pursuant to subsection (i)(3) of such section.
Sec. 122. None of the funds made available in this title,
or in any Act making appropriations for military construction
which remain available for obligation, may be obligated or
expended to carry out a military construction, land
acquisition, or family housing project at or for a military
installation approved for closure, or at a military
installation for the purposes of supporting a function that
has been approved for realignment to another installation, in
2005 under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of
1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101 510; 10 U.S.C.
2687 note), unless such a project at a military installation
approved for realignment will support a continuing mission or
function at that installation or a new mission or function
that is planned for that installation, or unless the
Secretary of Defense certifies that the cost to the United
States of carrying out such project would be less than the
cost to the United States of cancelling such project, or if
the project is at an active component base that shall be
established as an enclave or in the case of projects having
multi-agency use, that another Government agency has
indicated it will assume ownership of the completed project.
The Secretary of Defense may not transfer funds made
available as a result of this limitation from any military
construction project, land acquisition, or family housing
project to another account or use such funds for another
purpose or project without the prior approval of the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress. This
section shall not apply to military construction projects,
land acquisition, or family housing projects for which the
project is vital to the national security or the protection
of health, safety, or environmental quality: Provided, That
the Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional
defense committees within seven days of a decision to carry
out such a military construction project.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 123. During the 5-year period after appropriations
available in this Act to the Department of Defense for
military construction and family housing operation and
maintenance and construction have expired for obligation,
upon a determination that such appropriations will not be
necessary for the
[[Page H3324]]
liquidation of obligations or for making authorized
adjustments to such appropriations for obligations incurred
during the period of availability of such appropriations,
unobligated balances of such appropriations may be
transferred into the appropriation ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuations, Construction, Defense'', to be merged with and
to be available for the same time period and for the same
purposes as the appropriation to which transferred.
Sec. 124. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Defense to take beneficial
occupancy of more than 2,000 parking spaces (other than
handicap-reserved spaces) to be provided by the BRAC 133
project: Provided, That this limitation may be waived in part
if: (1) the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that
levels of service at existing intersections in the vicinity
of the project have not experienced failing levels of service
as defined by the Transportation Research Board Highway
Capacity Manual over a consecutive 90-day period; (2) the
Department of Defense and the Virginia Department of
Transportation agree on the number of additional parking
spaces that may be made available to employees of the
facility subject to continued 90-day traffic monitoring; and
(3) the Secretary of Defense notifies the congressional
defense committees in writing at least 14 days prior to
exercising this waiver of the number of additional parking
spaces to be made available.
Sec. 125. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for any action that relates to or promotes the
expansion of the boundaries or size of the Pinon Canyon
Maneuver Site, Colorado.
Sec. 126. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of
the funds made available in this Act may be used by the
Secretary of the Army to relocate a unit in the Army that--
(1) performs a testing mission or function that is not
performed by any other unit in the Army and is specifically
stipulated in title 10, United States Code; and
(2) is located at a military installation at which the
total number of civilian employees of the Department of the
Army and Army contractor personnel employed exceeds 10
percent of the total number of members of the regular and
reserve components of the Army assigned to the installation.
(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply if the
Secretary of the Army certifies to the congressional defense
committees that in proposing the relocation of the unit of
the Army, the Secretary complied with Army Regulation 5 10
relating to the policy, procedures, and responsibilities for
Army stationing actions.
(including rescission of funds)
Sec. 127. Of the unobligated balances available for
``Military Construction, Defense-Wide'', from prior
appropriations Acts, $20,000,000 are hereby cancelled:
Provided, That no amounts may be cancelled from amounts that
were designated by Congress as an emergency requirement or
for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
(including rescission of funds)
Sec. 128. Of the unobligated balances available for
``Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005'', from
prior appropriations Acts, $212,291,000 are herby cancelled:
Provided, That no amounts may be cancelled from amounts that
were designated by Congress as an emergency requirement or
for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
pursuant to the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget or the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as
amended.
Sec. 129. The total amount available in this Act for pay
for civilian personnel of the Department of Defense for
fiscal year 2013 shall be the amount otherwise appropriated
or made available by this Act for such pay reduced by
$2,334,000.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 130. Of the proceeds credited to the Department of
Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund pursuant to
subsection (c)(1)(C) of section 2883 of title 10, United
States Code, from a Department of Navy land conveyance, the
Secretary of Defense shall transfer $10,500,000 to the
Secretary of the Navy under paragraph (3) of subsection (d)
of such section for use by the Secretary of the Navy as
provided in paragraph (1) of such subsection until expended.
Mr. CULBERSON (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Benefits Administration
compensation and pensions
(including transfer of funds)
For the payment of compensation benefits to or on behalf of
veterans and a pilot program for disability examinations as
authorized by section 107 and chapters 11, 13, 18, 51, 53,
55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code; pension benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by chapters 15, 51,
53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States Code; and burial
benefits, the Reinstated Entitlement Program for Survivors,
emergency and other officers' retirement pay, adjusted-
service credits and certificates, payment of premiums due on
commercial life insurance policies guaranteed under the
provisions of title IV of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act
(50 U.S.C. App. 541 et seq.) and for other benefits as
authorized by sections 107, 1312, 1977, and 2106, and
chapters 23, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38, United States
Code, $61,741,232,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That not to exceed $9,204,000 of the amount
appropriated under this heading shall be reimbursed to
``General operating expenses, Veterans Benefits
Administration'', ``Medical support and compliance'', and
``Information technology systems'' for necessary expenses in
implementing the provisions of chapters 51, 53, and 55 of
title 38, United States Code, the funding source for which is
specifically provided as the ``Compensation and pensions''
appropriation: Provided further, That such sums as may be
earned on an actual qualifying patient basis, shall be
reimbursed to ``Medical care collections fund'' to augment
the funding of individual medical facilities for nursing home
care provided to pensioners as authorized.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Hayworth
Ms. HAYWORTH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 25, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)''.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. HAYWORTH. Madam Chair, the purpose of this amendment is to
equally increase and decease funding by $1 to address an issue for many
of our guardsmen, reservists, and their families. A number of these men
and women, these guardsmen and reservists, who dutifully serve our
country for many years are never called into active duty. Under current
law they are ineligible to receive a government memorial headstone or
marker for their grave site.
This issue came to my attention in our own home district in New York
when I heard from Mr. Charles Ricotta, who is a constituent of ours. He
lost his son Joe to a heart attack. It was Joe's 47th birthday, and he
had served in the Navy Reserve from 1997 to 2007. And despite his 10
years of service in the Reserves, he was not eligible to receive a
government headstone or marker honoring his service.
Mr. Charles Ricotta, Joe's father, isn't looking for a handout. He's
not looking for payments for any other burial services. He simply would
like to purchase, at his own expense, a foot marker from the VA for his
son's grave site to recognize Joe's service to our country.
So there is a piece of legislation that I've introduced, H.R. 2305,
the Memorialize Our Guardsmen and Reservists Act, and that would
correct this inequity by making available for purchase, through the
Department of Veterans Affairs, headstones or markers for members of
the Reserve components who did not serve on active duty.
A government memorial may cost less than other headstones. This
particular one would seem to be a modest monument, but it's more than a
simple appearance. It's a symbol of service and sacrifice for our
Nation. Our servicemen and -women, active and inactive, have
contributed or sacrificed their time and efforts for our Nation, and
they've been separated from their families, friends, and civilian
lives. Our Reserve components deserve the opportunity to be recognized
for the commitment they have made to serve and defend our country. They
share the same spirit of patriotism as the millions of soldiers who
came before them and served in hopes that no others would be needed to
serve in time of war.
Headstones or markers for our guardsmen or reservists would be paid
for by the individual or family member at no additional cost to
taxpayers. This has been endorsed by the National Guard Association of
the United States, Reserve Officers Association, and the Association of
the United States Navy.
This issue deserves our attention as we consider this legislation,
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to address it.
With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H3325]]
{time} 1740
The CHAIR. Does anyone seek time in opposition?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman
from New York (Ms. Hayworth).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
readjustment benefits
For the payment of readjustment and rehabilitation benefits
to or on behalf of veterans as authorized by chapters 21, 30,
31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 51, 53, 55, and 61 of title 38,
United States Code, and for the payment of benefits under the
Veterans Retraining Assistance Program, $12,607,476,000, to
remain available until expended: Provided, That expenses for
rehabilitation program services and assistance which the
Secretary is authorized to provide under subsection (a) of
section 3104 of title 38, United States Code, other than
under paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (11) of that subsection,
shall be charged to this account.
veterans insurance and indemnities
For military and naval insurance, national service life
insurance, servicemen's indemnities, service-disabled
veterans insurance, and veterans mortgage life insurance as
authorized by chapters 19 and 21, title 38, United States
Code, $104,600,000, to remain available until expended.
veterans housing benefit program fund
For the cost of direct and guaranteed loans, such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the program, as authorized by
subchapters I through III of chapter 37 of title 38, United
States Code: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of
modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 502 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That
during fiscal year 2013, within the resources available, not
to exceed $500,000 in gross obligations for direct loans are
authorized for specially adapted housing loans.
In addition, for administrative expenses to carry out the
direct and guaranteed loan programs, $157,814,000.
vocational rehabilitation loans program account
For the cost of direct loans, $19,000, as authorized by
chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code: Provided, That
such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans, shall
be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974: Provided further, That funds made available under
this heading are available to subsidize gross obligations for
the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed
$2,729,000.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the direct loan program, $346,000, which may be paid to
the appropriation for ``General operating expenses, Veterans
Benefits Administration''.
native american veteran housing loan program account
For administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan
program authorized by subchapter V of chapter 37 of title 38,
United States Code, $1,089,000.
Veterans Health Administration
medical services
For necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by
law, inpatient and outpatient care and treatment to
beneficiaries of the Department of Veterans Affairs and
veterans described in section 1705(a) of title 38, United
States Code, including care and treatment in facilities not
under the jurisdiction of the Department, and including
medical supplies and equipment, bioengineering services, food
services, and salaries and expenses of health care employees
hired under title 38, United States Code, aid to State homes
as authorized by section 1741 of title 38, United States
Code, assistance and support services for caregivers as
authorized by section 1720G of title 38, United States Code,
and loan repayments authorized by section 604 of the
Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010
(Public Law 111 163; 124 Stat. 1174; 38 U.S.C. 7681 note);
$43,557,000,000, plus reimbursements, shall become available
on October 1, 2013, and shall remain available until
September 30, 2014: Provided further, That notwithstanding
any other provision of law, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall establish a priority for the provision of medical
treatment for veterans who have service-connected
disabilities, lower income, or have special needs: Provided
further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall give priority funding for
the provision of basic medical benefits to veterans in
enrollment priority groups 1 through 6: Provided further,
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs may authorize the dispensing of
prescription drugs from Veterans Health Administration
facilities to enrolled veterans with privately written
prescriptions based on requirements established by the
Secretary: Provided further, That the implementation of the
program described in the previous proviso shall incur no
additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
medical support and compliance
For necessary expenses in the administration of the
medical, hospital, nursing home, domiciliary, construction,
supply, and research activities, as authorized by law;
administrative expenses in support of capital policy
activities; and administrative and legal expenses of the
Department for collecting and recovering amounts owed the
Department as authorized under chapter 17 of title 38, United
States Code, and the Federal Medical Care Recovery Act (42
U.S.C. 2651 et seq.); $6,033,000,000, plus reimbursements,
shall become available on October 1, 2013, and shall remain
available until September 30, 2014.
medical facilities
For necessary expenses for the maintenance and operation of
hospitals, nursing homes, domiciliary facilities, and other
necessary facilities of the Veterans Health Administration;
for administrative expenses in support of planning, design,
project management, real property acquisition and
disposition, construction, and renovation of any facility
under the jurisdiction or for the use of the Department; for
oversight, engineering, and architectural activities not
charged to project costs; for repairing, altering, improving,
or providing facilities in the several hospitals and homes
under the jurisdiction of the Department, not otherwise
provided for, either by contract or by the hire of temporary
employees and purchase of materials; for leases of
facilities; and for laundry services, $4,872,000,000, plus
reimbursements, shall become available on October 1, 2013,
and shall remain available until September 30, 2014.
medical and prosthetic research
For necessary expenses in carrying out programs of medical
and prosthetic research and development as authorized by
chapter 73 of title 38, United States Code, $582,674,000,
plus reimbursements, shall remain available until September
30, 2014.
National Cemetery Administration
For necessary expenses of the National Cemetery
Administration for operations and maintenance, not otherwise
provided for, including uniforms or allowances therefor;
cemeterial expenses as authorized by law; purchase of one
passenger motor vehicle for use in cemeterial operations;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; and repair, alteration or
improvement of facilities under the jurisdiction of the
National Cemetery Administration, $258,284,000, of which not
to exceed $25,828,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2014: Provided, That none of the funds under this heading
may be used to expand the Urban Initiative project beyond
those sites outlined in the fiscal year 2012 or previous
budget submissions or any other rural strategy, other than
the Rural Initiative included in the fiscal year 2013 budget
submission, until the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submits
to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress a strategy to serve the burial needs of veterans
residing in rural and highly rural areas and that strategy
has been approved by the Committees: Provided further, That
the strategy shall include: (1) A review of previous policies
of the National Cemetery Administration regarding
establishment of new national cemeteries, including whether
the guidelines of the Administration for establishing
national cemetery annexes remain valid; (2) Data identifying
the number of and geographic areas where rural veterans are
not currently served by national or existing State cemeteries
and identification of areas with the largest unserved
populations, broken down by veterans residing in urban versus
rural and highly rural; (3) Identification of the number of
veterans who reside within the 75-mile radius of a cemetery
that is limited to cremations or of a State cemetery which
has residency restrictions, as well as an examination of how
many communities that fall under a 75-mile radius have an
actual driving distance greater than 75 miles; (4)
Reassessment of the gaps in service, factoring in the above
conditions that limit rural and highly rural veteran burial
options; (5) An assessment of the adequacy of the policy of
the Administration on establishing new cemeteries proposed in
the fiscal year 2013 budget request; (6) Recommendations for
an appropriate policy on new national cemeteries to serve
rural or highly rural areas; (7) Development of a national
map showing the locations and number of all unserved
veterans; and (8) A time line for the implementation of such
strategy and cost estimates for using the strategy to
establish new burial sites in at least five rural or highly
rural locations: Provided further, That the Comptroller
General of the United States shall review the strategy to
ensure that it includes the elements listed above prior to
the submission of the report by the Secretary: Provided
further, That this strategy shall be submitted no later 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
Departmental Administration
general administration
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary operating expenses of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, not otherwise provided for, including
administrative expenses in support of Department-Wide capital
planning, management and policy activities, uniforms, or
allowances therefor; not to exceed $25,000 for official
reception and representation expenses; hire of passenger
motor vehicles; and reimbursement of the General Services
Administration for security guard services, $416,737,000, of
which not to exceed $20,837,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2014: Provided, That funds provided under this
heading may be transferred to ``General operating expenses,
Veterans Benefits Administration''.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch
Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page H3326]]
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 34, line 2, insert before the period at the end the
following:
: Provided further, That of the funds made available under
this heading, such sums as may be necessary shall be
available to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to comply with
the Department's energy management requirements under section
543(f)(7) of the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (42
U.S.C. 8253(f)(7))
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair, this amendment, offered by my colleague from
Colorado (Mr. Gardner) and I, does something straightforward. It
forces, really encourages, the VA to do something that it has been
required to do, and that's report on energy efficiency.
One of the goals I think all of us have, regardless of our point of
view about what is the best fuel source, is to do everything we can to
make sure that we use less, not more. One of the best places for us to
save on energy is in our Federal buildings. Anything we can do to
encourage them, to do the inventory, so that they know what steps can
be taken to use less energy means we are going to save taxpayers money
and help their bottom line budget.
In previous legislation this Congress authorized, actually directed,
that our agencies make these reports available. That's a step that
would then allow them to participate in energy saving contracts with
some of our energy saving companies. This legislation basically says
let's get that job done.
I yield to my colleague from Colorado (Mr. Gardner).
Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Welch, for allowing me to sponsor this
amendment with you.
Energy savings performance contracts present a great opportunity for
this government to do two of our highest priorities: number one, create
jobs and, number two, reduce spending. It's an opportunity that we can
all work together, something that has bipartisan support to make sure
that we're doing the right thing when it comes to making our government
buildings more efficient, and do it in a way that actually creates
private sector jobs.
By some estimates the Federal Government can save $20 million or more
by implementing energy savings measures in Federal buildings. Again,
this is a program that's been approved, it's in law, and it's something
that we have seen before used in a way that can create jobs, private
sector opportunity, but benefit all taxpayers by reducing spending.
I thank the gentleman from Vermont for the opportunity to work with
him and ask and urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WELCH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chair, we have no objection to the amendment and
will be happy to accept it.
Mr. WELCH. I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will read:
The Clerk read as follows:
general operating expenses, veterans benefits administration
For necessary operating expenses of the Veterans Benefits
Administration, not otherwise provided for, including hire of
passenger motor vehicles, reimbursement of the General
Services Administration for security guard services, and
reimbursement of the Department of Defense for the cost of
overseas employee mail, $2,164,074,000: Provided, That
expenses for services and assistance authorized under
paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (11) of section 3104(a) of
title 38, United States Code, that the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs determines are necessary to enable entitled veterans:
(1) to the maximum extent feasible, to become employable and
to obtain and maintain suitable employment; or (2) to achieve
maximum independence in daily living, shall be charged to
this account: Provided further, That of the funds made
available under this heading, not to exceed $113,000,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2014.
information technology systems
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for information technology systems
and telecommunications support, including developmental
information systems and operational information systems; for
pay and associated costs; and for the capital asset
acquisition of information technology systems, including
management and related contractual costs of said
acquisitions, including contractual costs associated with
operations authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United
States Code, $3,327,444,000, plus reimbursements: Provided,
That $1,021,000,000 shall be for pay and associated costs, of
which not to exceed three percent of this amount shall remain
available until September 30, 2014: Provided further, That
$1,812,045,000 shall be for operations and maintenance, of
which not to exceed seven percent of this amount shall remain
available until September 30, 2014: Provided further, That
$494,399,000 shall be for information technology systems
development, modernization, and enhancement, and shall remain
available until September 30, 2014: Provided further, That
amounts made available for information technology systems
development, modernization, and enhancement may not be
obligated or expended until the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
or the Chief Information Officer of the Department of
Veterans Affairs submits to the Committees on Appropriations
of both Houses of Congress a certification of the amounts, in
parts or in full, to be obligated and expended for each
development project: Provided further, That amounts made
available for salaries and expenses, operations and
maintenance, and information technology systems development,
modernization, and enhancement may be transferred among the
three subaccounts after the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
requests from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress the authority to make the transfer and an
approval is issued: Provided further, That amounts made
available for the ``Information technology systems'' account
for development, modernization, and enhancement may be
transferred between projects or to newly defined projects:
Provided further, That no project may be increased or
decreased by more than $1,000,000 of cost prior to submitting
a request to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress to make the transfer and an approval is issued,
or absent a response, a period of 30 days has elapsed:
Provided further, That the funds made available under this
heading for information technology systems development,
modernization, and enhancement, shall be for the projects,
and in the amounts, specified under this heading in the
report accompanying this Act: Provided further, That of the
funds provided to develop an integrated Department of Defense
Department of Veterans Affairs (DOD VA) integrated health
record, not more than twenty-five percent shall be available
for obligation until the DOD VA Interagency Program Office
submits to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress a completed fiscal year 2013 execution and spending
plan and a long-term roadmap for the life of the project that
includes, but is not limited to, the following: (a) annual
and total spending for each Department; (b) a quarterly
schedule of milestones for each Department over the life of
the project; (c) detailed cost-sharing business rules; and
(d) data standardization schedules between the Departments.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
to include information technology, in carrying out the
provisions of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C.
App.), $113,000,000, of which $6,000,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2014.
Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Terry
Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 37, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $1) (increased by $1)''.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, this is to request a dollar in and a dollar
out to be used in that process for the inspector general to look into
the VA Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction, which is a
subdivision of the Office of Construction and Facilities Management of
the VA. This is the organization that builds and remodels new clinics
and hospitals.
What I have discovered, because of experiences in Omaha, Nebraska,
regarding a proposed new facility to replace a very obsolete and
decayed facility, is that the Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and
Construction of the Office of Construction and Facilities Management
hires the engineering firms to do what turns out to be a skeleton
request for proposal or bids.
They go out and then they start adding a bunch of stuff on there,
because I don't know if it's because they're afraid to put all of the
stuff they want in a bid because then it will look really big and too
expensive. So what happens then, because they do that, there are
literally two pages of projects that are needed for veterans.
But because of their practices and procedures, I don't know if it's
purposeful or just competency issues, but the reality then is because
of the cost
[[Page H3327]]
overruns of these additions and the way that they're doing, it is
perhaps increasing the price of the project by 25 percent, 50 percent,
even accusations at the Orlando facility of doubling to almost a
billion dollar hospital. What that does is it takes money away from
future projects to complete the ones that they have miscalculated,
again, either purposefully or unintentionally, but it's occurring.
What happens is they start canceling future projects or pushing them
out even further. And by doing that what it means is that facilities
that are decaying, need replacement, are continuing to be used, and
really place the veterans' health in jeopardy. I will guarantee you
that if some of these facilities are not replaced in the near future,
there will be veterans who die because of the structural and
infrastructure problems within these buildings.
{time} 1750
So something has to change and an inspection and IG review has to be
done to get the VA on the right course to do these in an affordable way
without having to raid future funds from other projects.
So with that, Madam Chairman, I have one question, if I can ask the
chairman, my friend from Texas.
I understand you're willing to accept this amendment?
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TERRY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. We will accept the gentleman's amendment. He raised an
important point for the committee's consideration.
Mr. TERRY. I appreciate that very much.
With that assurance, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CULBERSON. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to consider
out of order amendment No. 1 by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) and an amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Schock).
The CHAIR. Is there objection to considering the amendments at this
point in the reading?
Without objection, that will be the order.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I offer an amendment.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 31, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $35,000,000) (increased by $35,000,000)''.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. This is such a
well-oiled machine, the subcommittee galloping ahead, and I apologize
that I turned my head. I think it is worthy to go back and deal with
this amendment offered on behalf of my colleague, Cathy McMorris
Rodgers, and myself.
Today, America stands on the precipice of discovery when it comes to
understanding how the human brain operates. These discoveries have huge
implications for taxpayers--who cumulatively spend over a half trillion
dollars a year on treatments for brain-related issues--and for some of
the most pressing medical challenges we face.
Scientific breakthroughs in neuroscience research have led to a
higher quality of life for the 50 million Americans who are affected by
neurological illnesses every year. Two of the most pressing examples of
how outside trauma and events can drastically alter the structure and
function of our brain are under the purview of this subcommittee:
posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury.
These injuries can often be hidden from the naked eye. Almost one in
five soldiers in the previous decade suffered a traumatic brain injury,
and 15 percent of veterans are diagnosed with posttraumatic stress
disorder. That represents hundreds of thousands of cases of cognitive
and physical impairment due to TBI and PTSD that impact the lives and
the loved ones of our servicemen and -women.
Today, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and I, as cochairs of the
Congressional Neuroscience Caucus, are offering an amendment to the
Military Construction and Veterans Appropriations Act to ensure that
the Veterans Administration continues to have the resources it needs to
find innovative new medicines and enhanced diagnostics for what can
truly be termed an epidemic. The amendment does not increase or
decrease any accounts in the appropriations bill. It simply requires
that no fewer than $35 million of the medical and prosthetic research
account go towards posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain
injury so that we can expedite a cure for active duty personnel and
veterans suffering the effects of brain and psychological trauma
incurred during their service.
We are keenly aware that translating research into effective
treatments and therapeutics is a long and difficult process. Every area
of research undertaken by the VA to help our veterans must be a
priority. But we believe that TBI and PTSD research must be further
prioritized in this bill because we are so close to the finish line in
our race to find the right treatments for these brain injuries that now
is the time to dig deep and make the final push.
Also, these items demand our special attention because their effects
can so easily harm a soldier's family and loved ones if not properly
diagnosed. Early detection and prevention preempts chaos, hardship and,
indeed, in some cases, further loss of life.
We must commit to better understand how the brain's 100 billion nerve
cells grow, interact, and are altered by our environment. It's hard to
think of a more fitting gesture from this body a few days after
Memorial Day than supporting this amendment to demonstrate our
commitment to finding effective treatments and therapies for these
neurological impacts which plague our military personnel who dutifully
serve our country. We must remember our duty to the wounded warriors
who face a long journey to recovery. These harms may not be as visible
as a missing limb but can be even more damaging to a veteran's future
and relationships.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, a commitment from
Congress to our servicemembers that we will continue to do all we can
to develop new medicines and technologies to improve the lives for
those in need.
Again, I appreciate the extraordinary courtesy of the subcommittee
and respectfully urge adoption of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. The gentleman brings to the attention of the Congress
and the country an extraordinarily important issue that the committee
is focused on. Post-traumatic stress disorder is so extraordinarily
important and difficult to diagnosis in many cases.
I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. We welcome it and will
continue to do everything we can to help make sure to alleviate the
suffering of a lot of our veterans and what they go through as they
return from serving this great Nation.
We accept the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Schock
Mr. SCHOCK. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 28, line 23, insert after the dollar amount the
following: ``(reduced by $16,000,000) (increased by
$16,000,000)''.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SCHOCK. First, let me say thank you to my good friend from the
great State of Washington for his cooperation in allowing me to offer
this amendment at this time.
This amendment specifically dedicates $16 million within the Office
of Rural Health to expand the current rural veterans' access to covered
health services through qualifying non-VA health providers to a new
area within each VISN they currently operate and new VISNs altogether.
This
[[Page H3328]]
came about in talking to veterans who live, in many cases, hours away
from the qualified VA facility. It expands a very popular program
within the VA that allows these veterans who are in need of health
services to visit an approved health care provider closer to them,
limiting their cost, the time and travel required to get their needed
benefits.
At this time, I yield to my friend from Illinois, Congressman
Schilling, who's been working tirelessly on this effort of expanding
health care for rural veterans.
Mr. SCHILLING. I believe in the concept of allowing our veterans to
receive medical care closer to home. I remember taking care of my dad
during the last few months of his life and driving him back and forth
from Iowa City hospitals several hours at a time for my dad to get the
care he needed.
While we appreciated the service and the care provided through the
VA, I believe that we must continue to make improvements to the care
our veterans receive. I talked to many constituents in the Illinois
17th District who feel the same way.
In 2008, a law was passed that created a pilot program called Access
Received Closer to Home, also known as Project ARCH. This program helps
veterans who are more than 60 minutes away from the nearest VA health
care facility to receive primary care for services at non-VA health
centers that contract with the VA. I believe this is a very promising
program for our veterans, and this amendment would allow Project ARCH
to serve more veterans, and here's how:
A 2011 audit of the Office of Rural Health found that, at the end of
fiscal year 2010, the Office of Rural Health had obligated $16 million
of its budget.
{time} 1800
The audit went on to find examples of lapsed funding that
``constituted missing opportunities for the Office of Rural Health to
improve access and quality of care for rural veterans.''
This amendment would help turn these missed opportunities into more
veterans served. This amendment by Representative Schock and myself
would take unused and unobligated funds from the Office of Rural Health
and devote this money to Project ARCH so that it can serve more of our
veterans. I support Project ARCH's goals of improving access for
veterans in cost-effective ways and provide an easing of travel
requirements for the care that our servicemembers receive.
I also support another program similar to Project ARCH. In 2006,
Congress directed the Veterans Health Administration to implement a
contracting pilot program to better manage the fee-basis care program
that the VA runs for veterans seeking care outside the VA system. That
pilot project is called Project HERO. The VA has stated that Project
HERO has resulted in annual savings of $16 million in the four VISNs it
operates in with less than 20 percent of the potential workload. This
means that the savings figure will be much higher if Project HERO is
utilized across all of the VISNs and at a higher workload level.
That is why I believe that we should support this program and provide
it funding so it can help more veterans who do not have easy access to
facilities across the United States of America.
Mr. SCHOCK. With that, I would just say I urge my colleagues to
support this amendment to increase funding for rural health care.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Woodall). Does any Member seek the time in
opposition?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Schock).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
construction, major projects
For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of
the facilities, including parking projects, under the
jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, or for any of the purposes set forth in sections
316, 2404, 2406, and chapter 81 of title 38, United States
Code, not otherwise provided for, including planning,
architectural and engineering services, construction
management services, maintenance or guarantee period services
costs associated with equipment guarantees provided under the
project, services of claims analysts, offsite utility and
storm drainage system construction costs, and site
acquisition, where the estimated cost of a project is more
than the amount set forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title
38, United States Code, or where funds for a project were
made available in a previous major project appropriation,
$532,470,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017,
of which $5,000,000 shall be to make reimbursements as
provided in section 7108 of title 41, United States Code, for
claims paid for contract disputes: Provided, That except for
advance planning activities, including needs assessments
which may or may not lead to capital investments, and other
capital asset management related activities, including
portfolio development and management activities, and
investment strategy studies funded through the advance
planning fund and the planning and design activities funded
through the design fund, including needs assessments which
may or may not lead to capital investments, and salaries and
associated costs of the resident engineers who oversee those
capital investments funded through this account, and funds
provided for the purchase of land for the National Cemetery
Administration through the land acquisition line item, none
of the funds made available under this heading shall be used
for any project which has not been approved by the Congress
in the budgetary process: Provided further, That funds made
available under this heading for fiscal year 2013, for each
approved project shall be obligated: (1) by the awarding of a
construction documents contract by September 30, 2013; and
(2) by the awarding of a construction contract by September
30, 2014: Provided further, That the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall promptly submit to the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a written report on
any approved major construction project for which obligations
are not incurred within the time limitations established
above.
construction, minor projects
For constructing, altering, extending, and improving any of
the facilities, including parking projects, under the
jurisdiction or for the use of the Department of Veterans
Affairs, including planning and assessments of needs which
may lead to capital investments, architectural and
engineering services, maintenance or guarantee period
services costs associated with equipment guarantees provided
under the project, services of claims analysts, offsite
utility and storm drainage system construction costs, and
site acquisition, or for any of the purposes set forth in
sections 316, 2404, 2406, and chapter 81 of title 38, United
States Code, not otherwise provided for, where the estimated
cost of a project is equal to or less than the amount set
forth in section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United States
Code, $607,530,000, to remain available until September 30,
2017, along with unobligated balances of previous
``Construction, minor projects'' appropriations which are
hereby made available for any project where the estimated
cost is equal to or less than the amount set forth in such
section: Provided, That funds made available under this
heading shall be for: (1) repairs to any of the nonmedical
facilities under the jurisdiction or for the use of the
Department which are necessary because of loss or damage
caused by any natural disaster or catastrophe; and (2)
temporary measures necessary to prevent or to minimize
further loss by such causes.
grants for construction of state extended care facilities
For grants to assist States to acquire or construct State
nursing home and domiciliary facilities and to remodel,
modify, or alter existing hospital, nursing home, and
domiciliary facilities in State homes, for furnishing care to
veterans as authorized by sections 8131 through 8137 of title
38, United States Code, $85,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
grants for construction of veterans cemeteries
For grants to assist States and tribal governments in
establishing, expanding, or improving veterans cemeteries as
authorized by section 2408 of title 38, United States Code,
$46,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Administrative Provisions
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 201. Any appropriation for fiscal year 2013 for
``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and
``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' may be transferred as
necessary to any other of the mentioned appropriations:
Provided, That before a transfer may take place, the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request from the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the
authority to make the transfer and such Committees issue an
approval, or absent a response, a period of 30 days has
elapsed.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 202. Amounts made available for the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2013, in this Act or any
other Act, under the ``Medical services'', ``Medical support
and compliance'', and ``Medical facilities'' accounts may be
transferred among the accounts: Provided, That any transfers
between the ``Medical services'' and ``Medical support and
compliance'' accounts of 1 percent or less of the total
amount appropriated to the account in this or any other Act
may take place subject to notification from the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to the Committees
[[Page H3329]]
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of the amount
and purpose of the transfer: Provided further, That any
transfers between the ``Medical services'' and ``Medical
support and compliance'' accounts in excess of 1 percent, or
exceeding the cumulative 1 percent for the fiscal year, may
take place only after the Secretary requests from the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress the
authority to make the transfer and an approval is issued:
Provided further, That any transfers to or from the ``Medical
facilities'' account may take place only after the Secretary
requests from the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress the authority to make the transfer and an
approval is issued.
Sec. 203. Appropriations available in this title for
salaries and expenses shall be available for services
authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; lease of a facility or land
or both; and uniforms or allowances therefore, as authorized
by sections 5901 through 5902 of title 5, United States Code.
Sec. 204. No appropriations in this title (except the
appropriations for ``Construction, major projects'', and
``Construction, minor projects'') shall be available for the
purchase of any site for or toward the construction of any
new hospital or home.
Sec. 205. No appropriations in this title shall be
available for hospitalization or examination of any persons
(except beneficiaries entitled to such hospitalization or
examination under the laws providing such benefits to
veterans, and persons receiving such treatment under sections
7901 through 7904 of title 5, United States Code, or the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.)), unless reimbursement of the
cost of such hospitalization or examination is made to the
``Medical services'' account at such rates as may be fixed by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 206. Appropriations available in this title for
``Compensation and pensions'', ``Readjustment benefits'', and
``Veterans insurance and indemnities'' shall be available for
payment of prior year accrued obligations required to be
recorded by law against the corresponding prior year accounts
within the last quarter of fiscal year 2012.
Sec. 207. Appropriations available in this title shall be
available to pay prior year obligations of corresponding
prior year appropriations accounts resulting from sections
3328(a), 3334, and 3712(a) of title 31, United States Code,
except that if such obligations are from trust fund accounts
they shall be payable only from ``Compensation and
pensions''.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 208. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
during fiscal year 2013, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall, from the National Service Life Insurance Fund under
section 1920 of title 38, United States Code, the Veterans'
Special Life Insurance Fund under section 1923 of title 38,
United States Code, and the United States Government Life
Insurance Fund under section 1955 of title 38, United States
Code, reimburse the ``General operating expenses, Veterans
Benefits Administration'' and ``Information technology
systems'' accounts for the cost of administration of the
insurance programs financed through those accounts: Provided,
That reimbursement shall be made only from the surplus
earnings accumulated in such an insurance program during
fiscal year 2013 that are available for dividends in that
program after claims have been paid and actuarially
determined reserves have been set aside: Provided further,
That if the cost of administration of such an insurance
program exceeds the amount of surplus earnings accumulated in
that program, reimbursement shall be made only to the extent
of such surplus earnings: Provided further, That the
Secretary shall determine the cost of administration for
fiscal year 2013 which is properly allocable to the provision
of each such insurance program and to the provision of any
total disability income insurance included in that insurance
program.
Sec. 209. Amounts deducted from enhanced-use lease
proceeds to reimburse an account for expenses incurred by
that account during a prior fiscal year for providing
enhanced-use lease services, may be obligated during the
fiscal year in which the proceeds are received.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 210. Funds available in this title or funds for
salaries and other administrative expenses shall also be
available to reimburse the Office of Resolution Management of
the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Office of
Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication under
section 319 of title 38, United States Code, for all services
provided at rates which will recover actual costs but not to
exceed $42,904,000 for the Office of Resolution Management
and $3,360,000 for the Office of Employment and
Discrimination Complaint Adjudication: Provided, That
payments may be made in advance for services to be furnished
based on estimated costs: Provided further, That amounts
received shall be credited to the ``General administration''
and ``Information technology systems'' accounts for use by
the office that provided the service.
Sec. 211. No appropriations in this title shall be
available to enter into any new lease of real property if the
estimated annual rental cost is more than $1,000,000, unless
the Secretary submits a report the Committees on
Appropriations of both Houses of Congress approve within 30
days following the date on which the report is received.
Sec. 212. No funds of the Department of Veterans Affairs
shall be available for hospital care, nursing home care, or
medical services provided to any person under chapter 17 of
title 38, United States Code, for a non-service-connected
disability described in section 1729(a)(2) of such title,
unless that person has disclosed to the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, in such form as the Secretary may require, current,
accurate third-party reimbursement information for purposes
of section 1729 of such title: Provided, That the Secretary
may recover, in the same manner as any other debt due the
United States, the reasonable charges for such care or
services from any person who does not make such disclosure as
required: Provided further, That any amounts so recovered for
care or services provided in a prior fiscal year may be
obligated by the Secretary during the fiscal year in which
amounts are received.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 213. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
proceeds or revenues derived from enhanced-use leasing
activities (including disposal) may be deposited into the
``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction, minor
projects'' accounts and be used for construction (including
site acquisition and disposition), alterations, and
improvements of any medical facility under the jurisdiction
or for the use of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Such
sums as realized are in addition to the amount provided for
in ``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction, minor
projects''.
Sec. 214. Amounts made available under ``Medical
services'' are available--
(1) for furnishing recreational facilities, supplies, and
equipment; and
(2) for funeral expenses, burial expenses, and other
expenses incidental to funerals and burials for beneficiaries
receiving care in the Department.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 215. Such sums as may be deposited to the Medical
Care Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38,
United States Code, may be transferred to ``Medical
services'', to remain available until expended for the
purposes of that account.
Sec. 216. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may enter into
agreements with Indian tribes and tribal organizations which
are party to the Alaska Native Health Compact with the Indian
Health Service, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations
serving rural Alaska which have entered into contracts with
the Indian Health Service under the Indian Self Determination
and Educational Assistance Act, to provide healthcare,
including behavioral health and dental care. The Secretary
shall require participating veterans and facilities to comply
with all appropriate rules and regulations, as established by
the Secretary. The term ``rural Alaska'' shall mean those
lands sited within the external boundaries of the Alaska
Native regions specified in sections 7(a)(1) (4) and (7) (12)
of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended (43
U.S.C. 1606), and those lands within the Alaska Native
regions specified in sections 7(a)(5) and 7(a)(6) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as amended (43 U.S.C.
1606), which are not within the boundaries of the
Municipality of Anchorage, the Fairbanks North Star Borough,
the Kenai Peninsula Borough or the Matanuska Susitna Borough.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 217. Such sums as may be deposited to the Department
of Veterans Affairs Capital Asset Fund pursuant to section
8118 of title 38, United States Code, may be transferred to
the ``Construction, major projects'' and ``Construction,
minor projects'' accounts, to remain available until expended
for the purposes of these accounts.
Sec. 218. None of the funds made available in this title
may be used to implement any policy prohibiting the Directors
of the Veterans Integrated Services Networks from conducting
outreach or marketing to enroll new veterans within their
respective Networks.
Sec. 219. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit
to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress a quarterly report on the financial status of the
Veterans Health Administration.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 220. Amounts made available under the ``Medical
services'', ``Medical support and compliance'', ``Medical
facilities'', ``General operating expenses, Veterans Benefits
Administration'', ``General administration'', and ``National
Cemetery Administration'' accounts for fiscal year 2013, may
be transferred to or from the ``Information technology
systems'' account: Provided, That before a transfer may take
place, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall request from
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress
the authority to make the transfer and an approval is issued.
Sec. 221. Of the amounts made available to the Department
of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2013, in this Act or any
other Act, under the ``Medical facilities'' account for
nonrecurring maintenance, not more than 20 percent of the
funds made available shall be obligated during the last 2
months of that fiscal year: Provided, That the Secretary may
waive this requirement after providing written notice to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 222. Of the amounts appropriated to the Department of
Veterans Affairs for fiscal
[[Page H3330]]
year 2013 for ``Medical services'', ``Medical support and
compliance'', ``Medical facilities'', ``Construction, minor
projects'', and ``Information technology systems'', up to
$247,356,000, plus reimbursements, may be transferred to the
Joint Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Facility Demonstration Fund, established by section
1704 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2010 (Public Law 111 84; 123 Stat. 3571) and may be used
for operation of the facilities designated as combined
Federal medical facilities as described by section 706 of the
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (Public Law 110 417; 122 Stat. 4500): Provided,
That additional funds may be transferred from accounts
designated in this section to the Joint Department of
Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Facility
Demonstration Fund upon written notification by the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to the Committees on Appropriations of
both Houses of Congress.
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 223. Such sums as may be deposited to the Medical
Care Collections Fund pursuant to section 1729A of title 38,
United States Code, for health care provided at facilities
designated as combined Federal medical facilities as
described by section 706 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law
110 417; 122 Stat. 4500) shall also be available: (1) for
transfer to the Joint Department of Defense-Department of
Veterans Affairs Medical Facility Demonstration Fund,
established by section 1704 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111 84;
123 Stat. 3571); and (2) for operations of the facilities
designated as combined Federal medical facilities as
described by section 706 of the Duncan Hunter National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law
110 417; 122 Stat. 4500).
(including transfer of funds)
Sec. 224. Of the amounts available in this title for
``Medical services'', ``Medical support and compliance'', and
``Medical facilities'', a minimum of $15,000,000, shall be
transferred to the DOD VA Health Care Sharing Incentive Fund,
as authorized by section 8111(d) of title 38, United States
Code, to remain available until expended, for any purpose
authorized by section 8111 of title 38, United States Code.
(including rescissions of funds)
Sec. 225. (a) Of the funds appropriated in title II of
division H of Public Law 112 74, the following amounts which
became available on October 1, 2012, are hereby rescinded
from the following accounts in the amounts specified:
(1) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical services'',
$1,800,000,000.
(2) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical support and
compliance'', $200,000,000.
(3) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical facilities'',
$400,000,000.
(b) In addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act,
an additional amount is appropriated to the following
accounts in the amounts specified to remain available until
September 30, 2014:
(1) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical services'',
$1,800,000,000.
(2) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical support and
compliance'', $200,000,000.
(3) ``Department of Veterans Affairs, Medical facilities'',
$400,000,000.
Sec. 226. The Secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of both
Houses of Congress of all bid savings in major construction
projects that total at least $5,000,000, or 5 percent of the
programmed amount of the project, whichever is less:
Provided, That such notification shall occur within 14 days
of a contract identifying the programmed amount: Provided
further, That the Secretary shall notify the committees 14
days prior to the obligation of such bid savings and shall
describe the anticipated use of such savings.
Sec. 227. The scope of work for a project included in
``Construction, major projects'' may not be increased above
the scope specified for that project in the original
justification data provided to the Congress as part of the
request for appropriations.
Sec. 228. The Secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs shall provide on a quarterly basis to the Committees
on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress notification of
any single national outreach and awareness marketing campaign
in which obligations exceed $2,000,000.
Sec. 229. The Secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs shall include in the sufficiency letter required by
section 117(d) of title 38, United States Code, that is due
to the Congress on July 31 of each year a description of any
changes exceeding $250,000,000 in funding requirements for
the Medical Services account resulting from the spring
recalculation of the Enrollee Healthcare Projection Model.
Any such revised data shall not be modified to align with the
pending budget request.
Sec. 230. The Secretary of the Department of Veterans
Affairs shall submit a reprogramming request to the
Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress
whenever a change of ten percent or more is proposed in
funding for the current year or advance year in the Medical
Services initiatives listed in the Congressional submission.
Such reprogramming may only go forward if the Committees have
approved the request or if a period of fourteen days has
elapsed.
(including rescissions of funds)
Sec. 231. Of the discretionary funds made available in
Public Law 112-74 to the Department of Veterans Affairs for
fiscal year 2013, $62,924,000 are rescinded from ``Medical
services'', $12,737,000 are rescinded from ``Medical support
and compliance'', and $5,593,000 are rescinded from ``Medical
facilities''. Amounts rescinded in this section shall be
derived from amounts that would otherwise have been available
for the increase in civilian pay for fiscal year 2013
proposed in the President's request.
Sec. 232. (a) The amounts otherwise made available by this
Act for the following accounts of the Department of Veterans
Affairs are hereby reduced by the following amounts:
(1) ``Veterans Health Administration--Medical and
prosthetic research'', $809,000.
(2) ``National Cemetery Administration'', $360,000.
(3) ``Departmental Administration--General
administration'', $1,575,000.
(4) ``Departmental Administration--General operating
expenses, Veterans Benefits Administration'', $6,100,000.
(5) ``Departmental Administration--Information technology
systems'', $3,250,000.
(6) ``Departmental Administration--Office of Inspector
General'', $450,000.
(b) Amounts reduced in subsection (a) shall be derived from
amounts that would otherwise have been available for the
increase in civilian pay for 2013 proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget request.
TITLE III
RELATED AGENCIES
American Battle Monuments Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, including the
acquisition of land or interest in land in foreign countries;
purchases and repair of uniforms for caretakers of national
cemeteries and monuments outside of the United States and its
territories and possessions; rent of office and garage space
in foreign countries; purchase (one-for-one replacement basis
only) and hire of passenger motor vehicles; not to exceed
$7,500 for official reception and representation expenses;
and insurance of official motor vehicles in foreign
countries, when required by law of such countries,
$59,290,000, to remain available until expended.
foreign currency fluctuations account
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, of the
American Battle Monuments Commission, such sums as may be
necessary, to remain available until expended, for purposes
authorized by section 2109 of title 36, United States Code.
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the operation of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims as authorized by
sections 7251 through 7298 of title 38, United States Code,
$31,187,000 Provided, That $2,726,000 shall be available for
the purpose of providing financial assistance as described,
and in accordance with the process and reporting procedures
set forth, under this heading in Public Law 102 229.
Department of Defense--Civil
Cemeterial Expenses, Army
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, for
maintenance, operation, and improvement of Arlington National
Cemetery and Soldiers' and Airmen's Home National Cemetery,
including the purchase or lease of passenger motor vehicles
for replacement on a one-for-one basis only, and not to
exceed $1,000 for official reception and representation
expenses, $173,733,000, to remain available until expended,
of which, not less than $84,000,000 shall be for the
Millennium Project. In addition, such sums as may be
necessary for parking maintenance, repairs and replacement,
to be derived from the ``Lease of Department of Defense Real
Property for Defense Agencies'' account. Funds appropriated
under this Act may be provided to Arlington County, Virginia,
for the relocation of the federally owned water main at
Arlington National Cemetery making additional land available
for ground burials.
Armed Forces Retirement Home
trust fund
For expenses necessary for the Armed Forces Retirement Home
to operate and maintain the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
Washington, District of Columbia, and the Armed Forces
Retirement Home--Gulfport, Mississippi, to be paid from funds
available in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund,
$67,590,000, of which $2,000,000 shall remain available until
expended for construction and renovation of the physical
plants at the Armed Forces Retirement Home--Washington,
District of Columbia, and the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
Gulfport, Mississippi.
TITLE IV
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS
Department of Defense
Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps
For an additional amount for ``Military Construction, Navy
and Marine Corps'', $150,768,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2013: Provided, That such amount
[[Page H3331]]
is designated by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
Administrative Provisions
(including rescission of funds)
Sec. 401. Of the unobligated balances in section 2005 in
title X, of Public Law 112-10 and division H in title IV of
Public Law 112 74, $150,768,000 are hereby rescinded:
Provided, That such amount is designated by the Congress for
Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism
pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
Sec. 402. Availability of funds.--Each amount designated
in this Act by the Congress for Overseas Contingency
Operations/Global War on Terrorism pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 shall be available (or rescinded, if
applicable) only if the President subsequently so designates
all such amounts and transmits such designations to the
Congress.
TITLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall remain available for obligation beyond the current
fiscal year unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 502. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for any program, project, or activity, when it is
made known to the Federal entity or official to which the
funds are made available that the program, project, or
activity is not in compliance with any Federal law relating
to risk assessment, the protection of private property
rights, or unfunded mandates.
Sec. 503. No part of any funds appropriated in this Act
shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, other
than for normal and recognized executive-legislative
relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for
the preparation, distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet,
booklet, publication, radio, television, or film presentation
designed to support or defeat legislation pending before
Congress, except in presentation to Congress itself.
Sec. 504. All departments and agencies funded under this
Act are encouraged, within the limits of the existing
statutory authorities and funding, to expand their use of
``E-Commerce'' technologies and procedures in the conduct of
their business practices and public service activities.
Sec. 505. Unless stated otherwise, all reports and
notifications required by this Act shall be submitted to the
Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs,
and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Subcommittee on Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies of
the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.
Sec. 506. Hereafter, none of the funds made available in
this Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States Government except
pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer authority
provided in, this or any other appropriations Act.
Sec. 507. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for a project or program named for an individual
serving as a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of
the United States House of Representatives.
Sec. 508. (a) Any agency receiving funds made available in
this Act, shall, subject to subsections (b) and (c), post on
the public website of that agency any report required to be
submitted by the Congress in this or any other Act, upon the
determination by the head of the agency that it shall serve
the national interest.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to a report if--
(1) the public posting of the report compromises national
security; or
(2) the report contains confidential or proprietary
information.
(c) The head of the agency posting such report shall do so
only after such report has been made available to the
requesting Committee or Committees of Congress for no less
than 45 days.
Sec. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to maintain or establish a computer network
unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and
exchanging of pornography.
(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit the use of funds
necessary for any Federal, State, tribal, or local law
enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal
investigations, prosecution, or adjudication activities.
Sec. 510. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be distributed to the Association of Community Organizations
for Reform Now (ACORN) or its subsidiaries or successors.
Sec. 511. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used by an agency of the
executive branch to exercise the power of eminent domain (to
take the private property for public use) without the payment
of just compensation.
Sec. 512. (a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated
or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense in
this Act may be used to construct, renovate, or expand any
facility in the United States, its territories, or
possessions to house any individual detained at United States
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for the purposes of
detention or imprisonment in the custody or under the control
of the Department of Defense.
(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to
any modification of facilities at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
(c) An individual described in this subsection is any
individual who, as of June 24, 2009, is located at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and who--
(1) is not a citizen of the United States or a member of
the Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is--
(A) in the custody or under the effective control of the
Department of Defense; or
(B) otherwise under detention at United States Naval
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Sec. 513. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used by an agency of the
executive branch to pay for first-class travel by an employee
of the agency in contravention of sections 301 10.122 through
301 10.124 of title 41, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 514. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used to execute a contract for goods or services, including
construction services, where the contractor has not complied
with Executive Order No. 12989.
Sec. 515. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to any corporation
that was convicted (or had an officer or agent of such
corporation acting on behalf of the corporation convcited) of
a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the
preceding 24 months, where the awarding agency is aware of
the conviction, unless the agency has considered suspension
or debarment of the corporation, or such officer or agent,
and made a determination that this further action is not
necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
Sec. 516. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, make a grant
to, or provide a loan or loan guarantee to, any corporation
that any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed,
for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been
exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a
timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority
responsible for collecting the tax liability, where the
awarding agency is aware of the unpaid tax liability, unless
the agency has considered suspension or debarment of the
corporation and made a determination that this further action
is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
Mr. CULBERSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 65, line 16, be
considered as read, printed in the Record, and open for amendment at
any point.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Are there any amendments to that portion of the
bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 517. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by any Government authority or agent thereof awarding
a construction contract on behalf of the Government, in any
solicitations, bid specifications, project agreements, or
other controlling documents, to require or prohibit bidders,
offerors, contractors, or subcontractors to enter into or
adhere to agreements with one or more labor organizations;
nor shall such funds be used to discriminate against or give
preference to such bidders, offerors, contractors, or
subcontractors based on their entering or refusing to enter
into such agreements. The previous sentence does not apply to
construction contracts awarded before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grimm
Mr. GRIMM. I offer my amendment to strike the anti-Project Labor
Agreement language in section 517.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 65, beginning on line 17, strike section 517.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chairman, construction is an inherently complex
endeavor. Any owner funding a construction project faces a variety of
challenges, such as time and cost constraints, maintaining quality
control, safety, and of course recruiting a skilled workforce. Public
and private project owners are always looking for effective ways to
meet demand and manage risks to the financial investors of those
projects, whether they're funded through private investors or by the
taxpayers, as is the case here with military construction projects.
[[Page H3332]]
Project labor agreements are a proven tool to accomplish these
objectives. The PLA is a pre-hire agreement and business model that
increases efficiency and quality while decreasing the overall cost of a
construction project since it is based on employing skilled craftsmen
and -women. Use of a PLA increases the chance that a project will be
done right the first time, on time, and on budget. This also helps to
ensure future building maintenance costs are reduced, providing long-
term benefits to the taxpayer.
However, section 517 in practical terms would deny the DOD and other
Agencies the option to use a PLA business model even if they determine
that using one would best serve the interest of taxpayers. At a time
when Federal Agencies are required to do more with less, it does not
make sense to remove this proven, cost-effective, and efficient option
that saves taxpayers money.
Also, enacting a strict prohibition on the use of PLAs represents a
regulatory barrier imposed by the Federal Government on free market
participation. Companies like Wal-Mart, Toyota, Boeing, just to name a
few, all currently use this type of business model because of these
very same advantages that I mentioned.
Recently, I toured the 75-story Beekman building in New York City
which, without the use of a PLA, would have been capped at 40 stories.
And since we're talking about public projects, according to an audit
commissioned by the New York City School Construction Authority, these
agreements saved taxpayers over $221 million--$221 million--from 2005
to 2009. In 2009, Mayor Bloomberg projected that PLAs would save New
York City over $300 million.
And as a veteran myself, I have to point out that this is one of the
only business models that guarantees the hiring of military veterans
and results in career job training. Taking this option away would
disadvantage the DOD, the VA, and, most importantly, our returning
servicemen and -women seeking jobs to support themselves and their
families.
Therefore, I urge you to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and to strike
the language from the bill that disadvantages the DOD, VA, American
taxpayers, and our military veterans.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I stand today with my colleague from New
York (Mr. Grimm) to support the working men and women of this great
Nation.
You might take a quick look at section 517 of this legislation, the
appropriations bill, and think it doesn't stop the Department of
Defense from using a project labor agreement. But you must know, in
reality, this confusing language is carefully hiding a back door, a
back door opening to do away with PLAs.
Specifically, while currently the Department of Defense can choose
whether they want to use a PLA, this language would prohibit even the
option of choice whether to use a PLA. That's unacceptable.
This amendment doesn't dictate using PLAs. It just gives the Defense
Department back the option to use them. Agencies like the Department of
Defense need the flexibility and choice to use PLAs because of the
variables they face in doing their job--from security issues, a very
critical part of every contract; onsite safety, just as critical; to
the skills needed to build unique facilities and structures.
Furthermore, the use of PLAs establishes a required skill level for
what the project and the government require or desire, ensuring that
these highly sensitive and complex projects are performed on time and
on budget.
Let's cut to the chase, Mr. Chairman. The jobs where PLAs are used
require higher skill sets.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from New York has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Grimm was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. GRIMM. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
{time} 1810
Mr. PASCRELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The jobs where PLAs are used require higher skills, higher wages for
engineers and laborers. Undercutting their ability to bid on contracts
will not only hurt the project and the Department of Defense's bottom
line, but it will also hurt the working men and women who are building
our future.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Grimm amendment.
Mr. GRIMM. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I'm the first one to be a strong
advocate of the 10th Amendment. As a Jeffersonian, I really believe
very strongly in the whole idea of individual liberty and letting local
governments make local decisions and State governments make decisions
at the State level.
In some States, as in New Jersey and New York, certainly the labor
union movement is very strong and PLAs may work in those States. It
certainly may make sense in New York or New Jersey, but Texas is a
right-to-work State, and proudly so. We don't have many labor unions--
in fact, very few at all. In the construction industry in particular,
there really are no unionized construction firms. There are none.
So if the President's executive order--which he issued almost as soon
as he came in, President Obama signed an executive order that said the
President of the United States--now, just imagine if you're the head of
a local VA and you get an order from the President of the United States
saying the President recommends that you, as the head of the VA, hire a
construction firm that uses a project labor agreement, you're probably
going to follow that advice. It is impossible to do that in the State
of Texas.
My friend from Arizona, Arizona is a right-to-work State. Many States
across the country are right to work. We don't have labor unions. I
believe Georgia is a right-to-work State. We don't have a State income
tax in Texas. We don't have many labor unions. Trial lawyers have to
really have a good lawsuit before they can go to the courthouse. Taxes
are generally low. The streets are safe. We've got, in Texas, a
thundering economy.
If I recall right, Texas has created most of the jobs in this Nation
over the last 10 years. And one of the reasons Texas' economy is so
strong is we don't have many labor unions. But of course that's up to
us in Texas. And people have been voting with their feet and moving to
Texas. We've had tremendous influx of people from other parts of the
country.
The language that is in the bill, my good friend from New York, my
friend from New Jersey, the language in the bill does not prohibit the
use of project labor agreements; it really doesn't. The language was
carefully written so that the government cannot discriminate against or
give preference to a construction firm that uses PLAs. Nor can the
government--and I'm going to read it here exactly--nor can the
government require a contractor to enter into or adhere to a project
labor agreement.
A project labor agreement--I need to make sure folks understand what
we're talking about--is essentially a requirement that if you want to
do business with the Federal Government, you have to unionize your
shop. That doesn't make any sense in Texas, it doesn't make any sense
in Georgia, it doesn't make any sense in Arizona where we have no
unionized contractors--or virtually none, to my knowledge. You can't
build a house, you can't build a building in Houston, Texas, if you
require the use of a unionized contractor. They don't exist.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. The distinguished chairman--who does a great job, and
we're trying to work together--if we understand this, a non-union shop
can be considered for work under a project labor agreement. You don't
have to be a union shop. So a non-union company can do it. All they
have to do is to agree to the terms that are part of the project labor
agreement; in other words, that they will use the wages and other
standards that the project labor agreement has. If they will abide by
that, then they can be considered for
[[Page H3333]]
work. So that doesn't mean that there aren't any.
Thank you for yielding.
Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, you're right. And that's the
problem, my friend, Mr. Dicks, from Washington State. Truly, you're
exactly right. The VA can and will require a nonunion contractor in
Texas to unionize before they can even----
Mr. DICKS. No, no, no, no. If the gentleman will yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. They don't have to unionize. They just have to agree to
the prevailing wage and other things that are part of the project labor
agreement, but they don't have to be unionized.
Mr. CULBERSON. Yes, sir. That's correct. I'm about to run out of
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Culberson was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. CULBERSON. If I could point out, the gentleman from Washington is
correct; on this vote, they're not required to unionize, but they're
required to adopt the higher prevailing wage. They're required to adopt
all the other higher, more expensive standards that a union may
require. That puts that contractor at an immediate competitive
disadvantage with all of the other contractors out there.
There are no unionized--or very few unionized contractors in Houston,
Texas--throughout the whole State, and that's the problem. While
perhaps in New York, while perhaps in New Jersey, while perhaps in
Washington State PLAs may actually wind up saving you money--for
reasons mysterious to me as a free market guy, but it may save you
money.
This language does not prohibit the use of a unionized contractor in
New York. Let me repeat, in the brief time I've got left: none of the
funds in this act can be used to discriminate against or give
preference to a union shop, and the government cannot require a
contractor to enter into an agreement. So, you see, the language, as
written, we're all on the same page here, guys. This language does not
require unionization. It doesn't force a non-union shop to adopt a
prevailing wage, for example. And it enables everyone to bid without
discrimination.
Our concern is, with the President's executive order, which says that
the President of the United States encourages the local VA to hire a
contractor that follows union guidelines, they don't exist in Texas.
That makes no sense. That's why the gentleman from Arizona wrote this
amendment this way. And that's why it's important that the House defeat
this amendment to save taxpayer dollars and to allow non-union
contractors in right-to-work States to compete for these government
construction projects.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and thank you for
the extra time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment.
The language included in the bill says that none of the funds made
available by this act may be used by any government authority or agent
thereof awarding a construction contract on behalf of the government,
and any solicitations, bids, specifications, project agreements, or
other controlling documents, to require or prohibit bidders, offerers,
contractors, and subcontractors to enter into or adhere to agreements
with one or more labor organizations. Language currently included
essentially nullifies the decisionmaking ability of not only the
Department of Defense, but also the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
American Battle Monuments Commission, the Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims, and Arlington National Cemetery to use a PLA business model.
To put it another way, all of these agencies currently have two
choices: yes, we want to use a PLA, or no, we don't want to use a PLA.
Without this amendment, the agencies will no longer be able to make
that yes or no choice. If this language is maintained, then every
agency in this bill will literally not be able to make a decision on
the business model that they want to use for their construction
projects.
The language is a backdoor way to ensure that the project labor
agreement business model is not available as an option for the Federal
Government to even consider using on any of the construction projects
in the bill.
Keeping this language would be a mistake since PLAs ensure that
construction projects are built correctly the first time, on time, and
as a result, on budget for the end-user. Furthermore, PLAs prevent
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.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, we don't know the effect this language
could have on VA projects. And I don't believe that this Congress
should include any language that could further delay vital Veterans
Affairs projects.
I find this language to be unclear and believe it will only add
uncertainty and confusion to the construction process. I don't
understand why we would take this option off the table. If a project
labor agreement is good for Toyota, or Boeing, or Wal-Mart, why isn't
it good enough for the Federal Government?
{time} 1820
I urge all the Members to vote ``yes'' on the Grimm amendment. It's
sound, and it will help us to get our construction done on time and on
budget and safely.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed hearing this, and I would
say, if the gentleman from New York, if what he were saying were
correct, he would be right and I think all of us would vote for this
amendment. But he's not. He's not right.
The amendment, the language he seeks to strike does not forbid or
prohibit the use of PLAs. You don't have to take my word for it. I was
the author of the amendment, and we expressly did it so as not to
prohibit or allow or anything. It would simply be neutral.
And this is what CRS said. So you can say all you want about motives
or anything else, but this is what CRS said. They wrote back to us and
said:
Based on the plain language of the amendment's text, PLAs
for military construction projects would not be forbidden.
Again, ``would not be forbidden.'' It is expressly--let me read that
again so I'll be clear.
Based on the plain language of the amendment's text, PLAs
for military construction projects would not be forbidden, as
it expressly provides that ``[n]one of the funds made
available by this act may be used by any government authority
. . . to require or prohibit . . . bidders . . . to enter
into . . . agreements with one or more labor organizations.''
Here we have it. It's neutral. That's what we're intending to do. The
problem is what we sought to correct with the amendment in committee
was when the President issued this executive order. The executive
order, in itself, does not expressly prohibit nonunion organizations or
shops from getting a contract. But what Federal agencies have
interpreted it as meaning is that they should favor PLAs. And so
certain Federal agencies have written guidance, based on the
President's executive order, that actually favor PLAs. And that's
wrong.
And so all the amendment seeks to do is put it back on neutral
ground, to keep the thumb of the President or this body or Republicans
or Democrats or anybody off the scale in this regard. That's what this
language that the gentleman is seeking to strike does. It brings
neutrality that has been missing after the President's executive order.
Again, when the President issued his executive order, some Federal
agencies took that to mean that they would have to or could require the
use of PLAs, and that means that the thumb is placed on the scale in
favor of PLAs. So this language was drafted to make it neutral again.
That's what it does.
If this amendment here is adopted, it will put a thumb back on the
scale, and we can't have that. So you can say all you want about
motives, what they really want to do, or this is a back door or
whatever. But if you look at the amendment, again, from CRS, not from
[[Page H3334]]
me, says that it doesn't require or prohibit, so it's neutral.
Mr. GRIMM. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I will yield first to the gentleman from Washington, but
only briefly.
Mr. DICKS. It will be very brief.
The Office of General Counsel of the Department of Defense says about
the gentleman's amendment:
If enacted, the attached provision would prohibit the
Department from soliciting bids for FY13-funded construction
contracts where, as a mandatory condition of award, the
awardee must negotiate a project labor agreement with one or
more labor organizations for the term of the resulting
construction contract.
Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. DICKS. That means they can't do it.
Mr. FLAKE. No. There's an important word there, ``mandatory.'' It
wouldn't allow the mandatory use. It's back to neutrality.
Mr. DICKS. That's not what they think. They think that if your
language does what I think you----
Mr. FLAKE. That's what you just read.
Mr. DICKS. Well, that's not how they interpret it.
Mr. FLAKE. I'm not sure if they know what they're interpreting then.
But CRS, which looks at this, says it's neutral, so make no mistake----
Mr. GRIMM. Will the gentleman yield for a question on CRS?
Mr. DICKS. If it's neutral, what does it do then?
Mr. GRIMM. Did CRS actually speak to these agencies?
Mr. FLAKE. If they spoke to the agency----
Mr. GRIMM. Does the gentleman know if they spoke to the agencies? Did
the gentleman speak to these agencies to see how they would interpret
it?
Mr. FLAKE. We don't have to because the agencies have issued guidance
that we can look at where they have interpreted the President's
executive order as to require the use of PLAs. That's why we offered
the amendment.
Mr. GRIMM. Exactly. And the amendment that you have in is going to be
interpreted to preclude them from using PLAs.
Mr. FLAKE. No, it doesn't.
Mr. DICKS. Well, what does it do then?
Mr. FLAKE. It simply takes the thumb off the scale that's there right
now because these agencies have issued guidance. Now, you can say that
the agencies may take this as a thumb on the other side of the scale.
Mr. GRIMM. That's exactly what I'm saying.
Mr. FLAKE. Nobody can control what they're doing. But this language
simply makes it neutral, and that's what I'm trying to correct here.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, I hadn't planned on speaking on this
amendment--there are plenty of other voices to do it--but I argued
against this amendment in committee. I repeatedly argue against this
amendment. I really don't know why we have to repeat this exercise,
other than it won by one vote the other time, and we're going to
correct that mistake tonight, I will tell you.
But the author of the amendment--the amendment is a wolf in sheep's
clothing in that the gentleman offering the amendment isn't in favor of
project labor agreements. As a matter of fact, all the people who have
spoken----
Are you in favor of project labor agreements? I don't want to slight
you if you are.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FLAKE. Wherever they make sense, that's fine. I just don't want a
finger on the scale either way.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I hear you. And if that was true, the wording of your
amendment would be----
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield just briefly on that point?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Just briefly, the President doesn't require that they use
a project labor agreement. He just suggests that they might be able to
use it. That's pretty neutral.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Reclaiming my time, well, let me say this. You know,
I do agree with the gentleman from Arizona, which I very rarely do,
that, in fact, under this administration, there's sort of a feeling
that we should have PLAs, which I happen to think is a good thing into
my part of the world. However, this language is almost identical to the
Bartlett amendment that was in the defense authorization.
To my belief, this was written by the Associated Builders and
Contractors, and the Associated Builders and Contractors are not in
favor of project labor agreements. Neither are most of the people,
including Mr. Culberson. He's very proud of the fact that they don't
have any unions in Texas. Well, we've got them in Ohio.
And I'll tell you, here's the difficulty with this and why this is a
wolf in sheep's clothing. What the problem is is, if an agency
determines that they want to proceed with a project labor agreement,
this language prohibits them from doing it because it prohibits any
contractor or subcontractor who may bid a piece of that job to be
required to enter into a union contract. And that's the difficulty,
because if the agency, independent, without any thumbs on the scale,
says, You know what--well, I've got to tell you, CRS is wrong. CRS is
flat-out wrong. They're a great organization. They're flat-out wrong.
But what this does is say that if the agency, and let's just take one
that's in the news here in Washington, D.C. So the Metropolitan Airport
Authority that controls the three airports in this area decides they
want to do a project labor agreement, the board votes that way to do a
project labor agreement on the silver line which is going out to Dulles
Airport and it's covered by this bill, they cannot do a project labor
agreement because this language isn't neutrality. This language says
you can't have a project labor agreement because nobody, subcontractors
can't be required to the terms and conditions that would be in a
project labor agreement.
So make no mistake about it, CRS notwithstanding, this is to kill
project labor agreements. And if you have that position, that's a great
position. You can have that position. Mr. Culberson, I believe, has
that position.
Mr. CULBERSON. I do.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. He does. I know he does, and we've talked about this.
And you know what? He can have that position.
But what you can't do is bring an amendment to the floor that
pretends to do one thing and, in fact, does another.
If you don't want project labor agreements to even be considered,
vote against Mr. Grimm's amendment. If you think that they should be in
the mix, you need to vote for it.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I am happy to yield to my friend from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. Our point was that in right-to-work States where we
have virtually no labor unions, we don't want contractors to be
required to adopt prevailing wages or adopt union guidelines in order
to bid on a contract. And in States like yours, Ohio, New York, New
Jersey, you should be free to do so.
And I think the way, truly, if I may, the way the amendment is
written, we have obviously a difference of opinion, but it is written
very clearly that the government cannot require or prohibit contractors
from adopting these PLAs, so it leaves it really up to the local VA to
decide whether they're going to bid it out to a nonunion shop or a
union shop, depending on the State. In your State, fine. In Texas, you
know, we're a nonunion State.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Let me take back my time and say that I think it's
unfortunate that Texas doesn't feel they have to pay living wages for
construction jobs. But beyond that, let me say that, if the language
said that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the language
doesn't say that.
{time} 1830
So let's say the VA down in Texas makes a determination that they
want to do a project in Texas under a project labor agreement. They
can't do it. They can't do it under this language. They are deprived of
doing it because, to have a project labor agreement, they would be
forced to require the contractors and subcontractors to abide by the
[[Page H3335]]
terms and conditions of that agreement. I'm telling you that that's
what it says, John, honest to gosh. There is a better way to write
this. This wasn't written by friends of PLAs, and it needs to be
passed.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. LaTourette was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. LaTOURETTE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
Mr. CULBERSON. I think we're headed in the same place, which is that
you'd like to preserve the ability to hire union contractors in Ohio,
New York, and New Jersey. We share that. I have no objection. Under the
10th Amendment, if that's what you guys want to do, God bless you.
So what I would ask is that perhaps we could postpone the
consideration of this amendment briefly. Would you guys come up with
some language to amend Mr. Flake's language to make it even clearer in
your mind; so let New Jersey run New Jersey and New York run New York
and Ohio run New York, and let Texans run Texas?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. We don't want Ohio to run New York. I think the
gentleman misspoke.
Mr. CULBERSON. I want Ohio to run Ohio.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. We've got enough stuff going on in Ohio.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will you offer an amendment, because you're a very
capable legislator, and may we postpone the consideration of this
amendment briefly so that you could amend his language to let Texans
run Texas and Arizona run Arizona and Ohio run Ohio?
Mr. LaTOURETTE. And you're a gifted orator.
A couple of things. One, I appreciate the gentleman's invitation, but
I don't want to postpone the consideration of the amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. We've got other work.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. There is going to be a rolled vote, I assume. You're
not going to take extra real time.
Mr. CULBERSON. No, but we could fix this, though. Let's fix this.
Mr. LaTOURETTE. There is going to be a rolled vote, and I will be
happy to work with the gentleman; but we're going to stand on the Grimm
amendment in case we can't come to some accomodation, which I hope we
can, not written by the ABC.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. LYNCH. In my own experience before coming to Congress, I was
actually an ironworker for about 18 years. I have actually run work on
projects with PLAs. I've been a general foreman on a large, complex
construction project such as the ones that are covered by this bill.
These large projects are $25 million and over, so it's not somebody
who's throwing up a house here or there. I also worked in Louisiana,
and we had a PLA where half the job was union and half the job was
nonunion. There are situations in which PLAs are extremely important
and extremely helpful. This bill would prohibit that from happening.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) is absolutely correct in his
interpretation of the language of the bill. For instance, if the VA,
which is right now considering building a spinal cord injury hospital
in Brockton, Massachusetts, would like to put an agreement on that
project that says they want 30 percent of the workers or 50 percent of
the workers on this job to be United States veterans, they would not be
able to put that language into effect because they would not be able to
require a contractor to sign an agreement to hire veterans on a VA
project. That's exactly what's wrong with the bill.
Mr. Grimm has a very good amendment. It is on point. He is absolutely
right. I know this from my own work on PLA projects. This amendment
seeks to strike a provision from the underlying bill which would
prevent any Federal agency from requiring contractors to sign a project
labor agreement.
Now, PLAs have been highly efficient in coordinating many, many
contractors on these complex construction projects. Despite the
arguments of some, PLAs are not a guarantee of union employment. Under
a PLA agreement, construction contractors can hire people regardless of
union or nonunion status. What it does do is requires that contractors
abide by the law. There is also great scrutiny on these projects. They
are required to properly classify their workers, as the gentleman from
Texas pointed out, on some jobs where there otherwise might be illegal
immigrant workers on those projects. That doesn't happen on a PLA
project because they've all got to be citizens.
We have a Helmets to Hardhats program that's run by the building
trades. They actually make sure that especially our returning veterans
from Iraq and Afghanistan get the first crack at those jobs--Helmets to
Hardhats, from the military right into those apprenticeship programs--
so that we train our young men and women coming back from Afghanistan
and Iraq a skilled trade. The PLAs are most commonly used on large,
multiyear projects that are complex and that present considerable
difficulty for contractors to bid those jobs.
The key here is that under current law Federal agencies--the VA at
the spinal cord injury hospital or the DOD if they're building a
defense complex--can use a PLA when appropriate. They can put an
agreement together that makes sure, if you've got a plumber on the job,
he's properly licensed, or if you've got an electrician on the job,
he's properly licensed; and they abide by a drug-free workplace
program. They can put in a lot of good things that make sure that that
project comes in on budget and ahead of schedule. What this would do
would be to prevent the VA or the DOD from requiring that on a job.
It's the worst contractors who are afraid of this agreement because
they would be required to comply with the law. They would be required
to have workers' comp. They would be required to meet with the OSHA and
safety regulations. The construction industry--I worked in it for 18
years--is a very dangerous industry, and sometimes it costs more to run
a safe job.
Look, PLAs are a good idea. We should continue, when appropriate, to
allow these Federal agencies to use them on these construction
projects. They're a good idea, and up to now they've been evenly
administered. This bill would change that dynamic. It would basically
ban the VA from requiring that veterans be used on those projects or
ban the DOD from saying, Look, we want to have veterans on this
project; 50 percent of the workers on this project we want to be
veterans. It's entirely appropriate for the VA or the DOD to do that.
They would be prohibited from doing that under the language in this
bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WALBERG. Before I let a train of thought go, I yield 30 seconds
to my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just want to say first that the gentleman mentioned that he thought
that this bill had been written by the Associated Builders and
Contractors. That's not the case. This issue was first brought to my
attention after a meeting my office had with the Army Corps of
Engineers. So a government agency brought it to our attention.
Second, we are trying to bring back the same neutrality that existed
during the Bush administration, which was before this President put the
finger on the scale. During the Bush administration, during that 8
years in which we had the neutrality like this amendment of mine
returns to, there were contracts awarded with project labor agreements
and there were contracts awarded without them. That's what neutrality
does. Where it makes sense to use a PLA, it's used. When it doesn't
make sense, it isn't. It's neutrality. That's what this bill returns
to. That's why this amendment should be rejected.
Mr. WALBERG. I thank the gentleman from Arizona, and I thank him for
his amendment. I support it, but I respectfully do not support the
Grimm amendment.
[[Page H3336]]
I'm from Michigan. Michigan takes no backseat in this country to
union labor. It is the returning auto capital of the world. It's a
proud union State, and there is a proud, solid union workforce in
Michigan. Just this past summer, the State legislature, in majority
with the Governor's concurring and signing, signed into law a
prohibition against the mandatory requirement of PLAs in government
contracts. The State of Michigan, with its 10th Amendment
responsibilities, did that.
Now, unlike what took place under the past Bush administration, as
the gentleman from Arizona correctly pointed out, the Federal appellate
court ruled in favor of doing away with the mandate and leaving
neutrality there. That's all the provision of this section 517 does. It
simply restores the neutrality. That's all we're asking: that when PLAs
make sense and ultimately bring about a better project and an outcome,
fine; but when they don't, for whatever reason that is, there should be
no mandate, and there ought to be the opportunity within these
contracts and within a State like Michigan to make a decision not to go
with a PLA if that's the best outcome or result.
{time} 1840
Again, this provision in the bill does not prohibit PLAs. It is
neutrality. Studies have found that PLA mandates increase the cost of
construction between 12 percent and 18 percent compared to non-PLA
projects subject to prevailing wage laws. That's a decisionmaking
process. That's a point that ought to be considered. It doesn't do away
with PLAs, but it says it ought to be considered in the cost. Shouldn't
taxpayers have that consideration? Shouldn't quality have that
consideration?
PLA mandates typically restrict jobs to construction workers referred
from union hiring halls, effectively shutting out in Michigan and other
places 86 percent of the Nation's construction workforce. I don't think
that's right. However, if it's necessary to have the union workforce
with a PLA agreement and it will work better and be more efficient--
contrary to these studies--if that's the case, then this provision in
the act does not do anything except allow neutrality.
Mr. Chairman, that's what we're asking for, to continue what this
Congress put in place by a vote last week in saying we believe that
PLAs are good sometimes, may not be as good other times, and there
ought to be neutrality and an opportunity for decisionmaking on the
local level, at the State level, at the contract-construction level
that meets the best of abilities. Federal agencies should not mandate
that contractors enter into project labor agreements as a condition of
winning Federal contracts.
Again, we're looking at nearly $16 trillion in debt. And when our
construction industry still suffers--and I can tell you that's the case
in Michigan in my district--from a 14\1/2\ percent unemployment rate,
we in Congress should not be tying the hands of taxpayers and
construction workers by making requirements--with the thumb of the
President of the United States on the scale--that really disregard the
will and the opportunity of States like Michigan to make their own
decisions here.
I thank the Chair for this opportunity, and I yield back.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. First, I want to thank Mr. Grimm for offering this
bipartisan amendment.
Last year, we saw the same effort to attack project labor agreements
in the military construction appropriations bill. This House on a
bipartisan basis made the right choice, and we voted to support
negotiated contract labor agreements. Why? It's the American way. It's
the American way to respect the dignity of the individual. Yes, we
respect their lives, their liberty, and indeed their pursuit of
happiness. In northern Ohio, we've seen how important project labor
agreements are. We use them to save lives as skilled laborers perform
extremely dangerous work that I would dare say almost no one in this
House is capable of performing.
These agreements are absolutely essential for workplace safety, for
ensuring quality construction, and protecting the lives and rights of
those men and women who perform extremely difficult, sophisticated, and
superhuman work on a regular basis. I'm reminded in Toledo, Ohio, not
so long ago we were replacing a major interstate lift bridge--the
largest transportation project in Ohio history--over $400 million over
several years.
We knew we needed a project labor agreement to complete the job with
as few accidents as possible because we were replacing a lift bridge
along one of the region's most important interstate highway systems
adjoining three States. We insisted, and I worked so hard, to achieve a
project labor agreement for the construction of this complex skyway
bridge over the Maumee River, the largest river that flows into the
Great Lakes. I didn't want it to be like Mackinaw Bridge, with the
names listed for posterity of all the dead workers who were responsible
for building that bridge, and whose names are left to history.
We hoped and worked so hard to try to limit the danger to the men and
women who would build our bridge. We knew we needed a project labor
agreement to write the rules of the road for that construction project.
People were literally placing their lives at great risk every single
day. If you don't believe me, you should have seen those talented
individuals lofted at hundreds of feet in the air and then in bitterly
freezing weather trying to put the pieces together above the river to
construct the giant spires, physically creating the modern
architectural wonder of the Glass City Skyway, which was dedicated to
all the veterans of our country. But despite all our noble efforts and
the safety precautions, our community still lost precious lives in two
separate tragedies that were avoidable.
In the middle of February in 2004, one of the cranes collapsed,
killing four workers and injuring four others. Why did they collapse?
Because the company decided to cut corners and created a contest
between which parts of the roadbed would be built faster by separate
teams of workers. All the inspectors missed what was happening. Four
workers were killed. I went to every single funeral. I never want to
have to do that again. I never want to have to try to comfort the
families of the tragedy that happened. Three years later, another man
died when the platform he was working on collapsed. I know we would
have lost more lives, were it not for the project labor agreement, but
we shouldn't have even lost those lives. Yet, we would have lost more
lives if there had not been a project labor agreement in place.
I don't believe in neutrality. Some of my colleagues have talked
about neutrality. No, there should be no neutrality when it comes to
workers lives. These workers were helping to build our country's future
for the benefit of us all. They deserve a safe work environment. They
deserve to have their lives represented in a contract agreement. The
value of a completed project is worth more than the concrete, it's
worth more than the spires, and it's worth more than the metal. It
should be measured in the dignity of life. But workers were crushed to
death. Thank God we had an agreement in place. It wasn't neutral. It
defended those workers who lived. It defended the workers whose lives
were saved because we knew we were a Nation of laws and that their
lives were worth everything to us. That's the American way.
When we as a Nation invest in our physical infrastructure, those that
are actually building up our country deserve to have their lives
protected through contracts. Values derives not just from the cost of
the concrete, but the value of their lives. Support project labor
agreements, support this amendment.
I ask my colleagues to vote for the Grimm amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, this discussion is not about safety, and
it's not about making projects safe or making them more efficient. This
is about politics. This is about an Executive order the President put
in place that takes
[[Page H3337]]
jobs out of the First Congressional District of Maryland and other
districts where there may not be union workforces.
Mr. Chairman, the unemployment rate is high enough in the First
Congressional District.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARRIS. No, I will not yield.
The unemployment rate in the First Congressional District of
Maryland--lower shore of Maryland--is higher than the national average,
and we don't have union workers. So if some bureaucrat in Washington,
because of a Presidential Executive order, says we have to have a
project labor agreement on a project under this bill, under this
appropriation, unemployed workers in my district aren't going to work
on that project, and the hardworking taxpayers in my district, as the
gentleman from Michigan has said, will be paying 12 percent to 18
percent more of their hard-earned tax dollars to pay for a project
labor agreement in a district that they don't want that some bureaucrat
in Washington decided they needed.
Mr. Chairman, we can't afford that. This country can't afford it. We
have a $1.3 trillion deficit. We have a debt that approaches $50,000
per person in this United States. And we're debating tonight about
whether just to be neutral about language regarding project labor
agreements.
{time} 1850
The gentleman from Arizona is absolutely right. This is plain English
reading. It just says that the bureaucrat, for curing that contract,
can't require a project labor agreement. If someone wants to know bid
on it, they can bid union labor. They can bid all the union labor they
want. It just says you can't require it as a condition of the contract.
Mr. Chairman, we got sent here to do the right thing for our
hardworking taxpayers back at home, those who want to have a job, who
want to be involved in some of these Federal contracts. Without this
provision, if this amendment passes, and this provision is struck from
the underlying appropriations bill, people in the First Congressional
District, those unemployed workers are not going to have the
opportunity to work on those projects for the simple reason that they
don't belong to a labor union.
That's what will disqualify them. Not that they're unemployed, not
that they don't want to work, not that they don't know all the safety
rules, not that they can't do the job, not that they don't have a
plumbing license or an electrician's license, because they all have to
have that license to hold a job. And the proponents of this amendment
know that full well.
It's only because they don't belong to a labor union. That's what
this fight is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to rise to oppose the amendment of the
gentleman from New York, but in the First Congressional District of
Maryland this hurts our unemployment situation. This hurts our
hardworking taxpayers. I rise to oppose the amendment because in
districts around America, just like the First Congressional District of
Maryland, this amendment doesn't do justice to those unemployed
workers.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Let's get back to some facts here. Under the CRS report
that was referenced earlier, the National Labor Relations Act, as we
know, gives most private sector workers the right to join or form a
labor union and to bargain collectively.
A project labor agreement is a collective bargaining agreement that
applies to a specific construction project and lasts only for the
duration of that project. In February 2009, President Barack Obama
signed an executive order that encourages Federal Agencies to consider
requiring the use of project labor agreements on large-scale
construction projects.
The EO describes a large-scale project as one where the total cost to
the Federal Government is $25 million or more. The order States that
Agencies are not required to use project labor agreements. Regulations
implementing the executive order went into effect in May 2010.
Now, if that isn't neutrality, what is neutrality? I think this is a
big to-do about nothing.
I mean, this amendment is not necessary. The President didn't mandate
anybody to do anything. The Agencies decide if it is in the interests
of the government to do this in a particular case. This administration
has hardly done any project labor agreements as far as my understanding
is, at least with the Department of Defense.
Again, I don't quite understand all of this concern, especially when
nonunion contractors can be part of the agreement. They can bid, they
can be part of the agreement as long as they will abide by the law, but
with the prevailing wage agreements or things of that nature.
Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The reason it's needed, as I mentioned, is because some of the
Federal Agencies have taken the President's language in the executive
order to mean that they can require or should require PLAs.
Mr. DICKS. There is no evidence of that.
Mr. FLAKE. Yes, there is.
Mr. DICKS. Tell me who's done project labor agreements?
Mr. FLAKE. There is. In fact, there was a project in St. Louis, I
will mention one specifically, under the stimulus funds, frankly, and
that was a shovel-ready project. But then--and a nonunion shop actually
offered the low bid, but was refused the contract because the language
that the President issued, or the executive order, was taken to mean
that they had to look for a PLA, that they should be encouraged to use
PLA.
Mr. DICKS. That's not what it says. That's not what the President's
statement says.
Mr. FLAKE. But that's how it has been interpreted. That's why we're
saying let's make it clear that we can neither forbid nor deny.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, I would just point out that the
Department of Defense thinks the gentleman from Arizona's language is
prohibitive, that it doesn't give them any leeway, that they must not
do a project labor agreement.
May I ask the Chair how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm), the
author of the amendment, if he would like to make any further comments
here.
Mr. GRIMM. Actually, I would, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I think the point is we're both making each other's point that you
feel the language of the President is somehow restricting nonunion
shops from bidding. I firmly feel and strongly feel that the language
in your amendment absolutely prohibits the use of PLAs.
I think what we are both looking for is neutrality; but if language
on either side is not working, we need to come up with a way to make
this neutral so that everyone can bid and no one is prohibited. I think
we're saying the same thing, and I think we're working towards that.
I'm going to work with the chairman.
For now, my amendment is going to stand, and we're going to work as
quickly with haste to see if we can come up with something that we can
all agree with.
Mr. DICKS. The best and safest thing to do is to defeat the Flake
amendment. That's kind of a standard. That's the surest way of
protecting the executive order.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to first say thank you to the gentleman from New
York for his efforts on this amendment and also that he has done this
in a bipartisan way. I also want to thank President Obama for his
executive order in doing this to encourage project labor agreements,
not require
[[Page H3338]]
them. I think they speak for themselves.
My friends on both sides of the aisle have a responsibility to the
American people to get both low cost and high quality in job-creating
military construction projects. Project labor agreements have a proven
track record to ensure that. We should come together to support the
Grimm amendment. We can help create fewer cost overruns, faster project
completion and a fair day's wage for an honest day's work for American
workers.
I support the Grimm amendment that strikes the anti-PLA measures in
the Military Construction appropriations bill.
PLAs are simply rules of the road for workers and management on
construction projects. We know they cut taxpayer spending. They save
time; they save headaches. They create good, local jobs and better
quality and value. Why would we not want that?
Very simply, unions prefer PLAs because they treat workers like human
beings instead of investment capital. Some people here think unions are
unacceptable. I think those people are wrong. History shows unions have
largely helped create America's middle class and workers' rights
enjoyed by all Americans, whether they are members of a union or not.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you want to help
cut spending and improve efficiency, stand with American taxpayers and
with American workers. Vote for the Grimm amendment. Remove the anti-
PLA language to fix this bill. Let's get it right.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. The longer I listen to this debate, the more
confusing it becomes.
{time} 1900
I remember a wise man telling me once, You can't get blood out of a
turnip, but you can slice it, you can dice it, whip it, and do
everything, but it still ends up being turnip juice.
I rise in strong support of Mr. Grimm's amendment, and I do so
because there seems to be a tremendous lack of clarity. It's amazing
how we can all read the same words but arrive at a different meaning.
And we can read them over and over and over again. So it would seem to
me that the best way to have clarity is to make absolutely certain that
these agencies understand that yes, they do in fact have the authority
to say yea or nay, yes or no, to entering into project labor
agreements.
I'm a strong supporter of organized labor. It doesn't mean that I
think labor unions are perfect. Oftentimes, many of the people in the
community where I live feel that they cannot access labor unions; that
they can't get in, that they can't get membership. Yet and still, I
think that project labor agreements are the best way to get the quality
and the assurance that we're getting the best bang for the buck.
So, again, I reiterate my support for the Grimm amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the bipartisan
Grimm Amendment on Project Labor Agreements, or PLAs.
In construction, contractors often do not have a permanent workforce.
This makes it hard to predict the length and cost of a project.
On large projects with many employers, a labor dispute with just one
can delay the entire project.
PLAs are short-term agreements for the length of a project that can
reduce a project's length and cost.
PLAs lead to higher-quality work by spelling out the work
requirements, pay, benefits, and dispute resolution in advance.
PLAs prevent worker strikes and reduce turnover.
In 2009, President Obama issued an Executive Order on PLAs.
The Executive Order encouraged Federal agencies to consider requiring
PLAs for large Federal construction projects of $25 million or more.
In Hawaii, last week Governor Neil Abercrombie announced a PLA plan
for five large state construction projects.
This can help save taxpayer money and create Hawaii jobs, while
minimizing project uncertainty.
While PLAs are regarded as cost efficient, sadly, this Majority in
Congress has tried again and again to undermine the use of Project
Labor Agreements.
Today's FY 2013 MilCon-VA bill forbids military construction
contracts from requiring PLAs.
The bipartisan Grimm Amendment would remove this prohibition to allow
Federal contractors a choice on PLAs.
Today's amendment vote feels like deja vu.
Congress has had vote after vote on this issue.
Last year at this time we debated the FY 2012 MilCon-VA bill.
I supported at that time a similar bipartisan amendment to preserve
PLAs.
That amendment by Mr. LaTourette, Republican of Ohio, passed 204 to
203, with over two dozen Republican votes.
This issue shouldn't be about Democrats and Republicans. It's about
supporting flexibility, common sense, and job creation.
We need to put our differences aside and do the right thing.
In Hawaii we call this laulima--cooperation.
I'm proud to stand with Republican Congressman Michael Grimm and
Republican Congressman Steve LaTourette on this issue.
I urge all my colleagues to support the Grimm Amendment today as
well.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Grimm Amendment to
H.R. 5854, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
Appropriations Act. This amendment strikes a provision in the
underlying bill that would prevent Federal Government agencies,
including the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs, from
requiring the use of project labor agreements.
A project labor agreement (PLA) is a pre-hire agreement that
establishes the terms and conditions of employment during a
construction project. Any contractor--union or non-union--can work on
projects under a PLA, as long as they abide by the wages, benefits and
other terms of employment negotiated in the agreement. They have been
used in all 50 states and the District of Columbia on both private and
public projects.
In February 2009, President Obama signed an Executive Order that
encourages Federal agencies to consider requiring the use of PLAs on
large-scale construction projects of $25 million or more. The order
states that agencies are not required to use PLAs.
In its current form, H.R. 5854 would strike these regulations, and
instead discourage commonsense labor agreements on large-scale
construction projects. The Grimm Amendment would allow agencies to
require project labor agreements when they determine that it is in
their interest to do so, which would follow the path of private
businesses.
Successful corporations use PLAs to ensure high-quality, on-time work
through good jobs with meaningful training programs for local workers.
Boeing, Disney, Harvard University, and Toyota are among the large
number of private entities that use PLAs. If the agreements make sense
for these successful organizations, why would we compromise Federal
agencies' ability to use them, especially when we are looking to reduce
government spending?
Mr. Chair, the priority of Congress should not only be to create
jobs, but to raise the living standards of the middle class and working
families across America. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Grimm
Amendment.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chair, the amendment before us would correct a
fundamental misunderstanding that has been allowed to slip into H.R.
5854, the FY 2013 Military Construction/VA Appropriations bill.
The Grimm Amendment would not have the effect of mandating that
public contracting entities adopt Project Labor Agreements, as its
opponents claim. In fact, as has been amply pointed out by my
colleagues, Section 517 of the bill would prevent the Department of
Defense, Veterans Affairs, and related agencies from requiring the use
of project labor agreements (PLA).
Similar efforts to bar PLAs have been tried in other venues,
including a recent attempt in Michigan which was declared
unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge. The court correctly ruled
that federal law explicitly allows for PLAs in the construction
industry, when the government entity determines that it is in the best
interest--in terms of efficiency, quality, safety or any number of
other factors--of the local community.
But it isn't only constitutional; it is also smart. There is ample
evidence demonstrating that PLAs can serve as an important tool to
manage large construction projects and maximize efficiency by creating
collective bargaining benefitting both contractors and workers.
Washington Nationals Park, Disney World, and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
all benefited from the use of PLAs.
In Northern Virginia, taxpayer interests were best served by
employing a PLA in the first phase of the massive construction project
on the rail extension to Dulles Airport. Facilitating better access to
Dulles Airport is important to
[[Page H3339]]
my constituents in Northern Virginia, and it is important to me that
the project makes the most of public money it receives. The PLA
utilized has helped to accomplish this goal.
Academic research confirms that PLAs can contribute to the quality of
large, complex infrastructure projects. The Cornell School of
Industrial Labor Relations released a study stating that PLAs ``make
sense for public works projects'' and their use increases the
efficiency of planning while reducing labor costs. The Federal
Government does not mandate PLAs. Executive Order 13502 specifies that
federal agencies may require them to be used on construction projects
that are valued at more than $25 million. This is smart policy. It
provides flexibility for local norms. At this time of concern over
budgets as well as employment, we should retain that flexibility to
make use of PLAs.
PLAs can contribute to efficiencies, quality and cost savings. We
should not be forcing Federal, State or local governments to rule them
out for large construction projects, based on misguided, ideological
grounds, which assume that everything that benefits workers must be bad
for everyone else.
I support the Grimm Amendment because it will ensure that government
contracting authorities are not barred in a disingenuous effort to tie
their hands with regard to the use of PLAs where they might be
appropriate.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support for Project Labor
Agreements (PLAs).
Today the Republican majority is again playing politics. They have
brought to the House floor a bill to support our Nation's veterans and
provide them with the care they earned. This bill should be approved by
a unanimous vote; we all support our veterans and want to fully fund
the various programs that care for them after they cared for us.
But in a cynical and politically motivated attack on working women
and men across the country the Majority has tucked into this bill a ban
on the use of PLAs. They are attempting to ban PLAs based on their
ideology not based on any evidence. This is one more part of their
anti-worker agenda.
I have always supported PLAs. PLAs are important, they have been used
for many years and they work. PLAs ensure high skilled workers complete
high quality work and provides fair local wages and benefits for all
workers. I will be voting to support working women and men by repealing
this anti-PLA provision.
On February 6, 2009 President Obama signed Executive Order 13502
encouraging federal agencies to consider requiring the use of PLAs for
large-scale construction projects. In the Executive Order, President
Obama noted correctly that by setting the terms and conditions of
employment and coordinating the various employers, PLAs provide
stability and help contribute to the efficient completion of Federal
construction projects.
Last year, I joined a majority of my colleagues in the House to beat
back this same anti-worker attack on PLAs and I am hopeful that we will
be successful again today. President Obama has already indicated that
he will veto this bill if the attack on PLAs reaches his desk.
While Republicans play politics today, I will be standing up for and
voting for working women and men across the country and opposing this
continued attack on them.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to speak on the
Grimm Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2013 Military Construction/Veteran
Affairs Appropriations bill.
I also want to thank Chairman Culberson and Ranking Member Bishop for
their efforts in bringing this bill forward.
Last year, I worked with Congressman LaTourette on defeating anti-
Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) language in the MilCon/VA
Appropriations bill.
This year, I rise in support of the Grimm Amendment. This amendment
simply saves taxpayers money!
The Grimm Amendment ensures that funds for large-scale construction
projects utilize the most cost-effective and efficient process for the
awarding of Federal contracts.
Section 517 of H.R. 5854 prohibits agencies from being able to use
all available methods to ensure that federal contracts are cost-
efficient.
Section 517 raises the risk of project cost overruns and delays.
Section 517 of this legislation fails to protect our workers.
Mr. Chair, however one feels about Project Labor Agreements, the
MilCon/VA bill is not the appropriate vehicle to have this debate.
The MilCon/VA bill is intended to reflect our commitment to our
veterans and our service members in uniform and should be limited to
that purpose.
I would like to inform my colleagues about the benefits of Project
Labor Agreements.
There is no credible evidence that Project Labor Agreements decrease
the number of bidders on a project, or increase the costs of
construction projects.
In fact, Project Labor Agreements promote cost-effectiveness and
efficiency in construction projects.
Project Labor Agreements prevent labor disputes and project delays by
having an agreement negotiated prior to starting a construction
project.
Project Labor Agreements establish working conditions and safety
standards for workers.
Project Labor Agreements are used by both union and non-union
contractors.
Project Labor Agreements promote providing employment to workers in
our local communities and help address the employment situation in many
of our economically distressed communities.
Mr. Chair, the Grimm Amendment simply allows Federal agencies to use
all tools at their disposal in awarding large-scale contracts that
ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently and that projects are
completed on time and on budget.
All of us in Congress are looking at ways to rein in our deficit.
This amendment protects workers and taxpayer funds.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the Grimm Amendment.
Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Chair, the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs Appropriations before us will fund a number of vital
infrastructure projects, including a facility at Fort Belvoir in my
district. Unfortunately, the bill also inextricably contains language
that would actually make it more difficult to deliver this and other
projects in a safe, cost-efficient manner.
In today's cost-constrained environment, we ought to be placing a
premium on completing infrastructure projects on time and on budget. We
ought to place a premium on creating safe working conditions and good
relations between management and labor to achieve those results.
Since they were first employed by the Federal Government to help
defeat the Germans during World War I, Project Labor Agreements have
been used by both the public and private sectors to reduce costs on
major infrastructure projects.
Iconic American projects like the Hoover Dam, the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline and Walt Disney World were completed under Project Labor
Agreements. Wal-Mart and Toyota have touted the benefits of PLAs, and
findings from the GAO and Cornell University show PLAs maximize
productivity and minimize risk to yield savings. Right here in the
National Capital Region, a PLA for the drawbridge on Woodrow Wilson
Bridge helped complete that portion of the project 6 months ahead of
schedule. Construction on the Dulles Rail project, which will link our
Nation's capital with the premier international airport, also is being
performed under a PLA.
I urge my colleagues to support the Grimm amendment and strike this
restrictive language in the bill so we can make use of this valuable
tool to control project costs, promote worker safety and realize
savings for taxpayers.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Grimm).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, while I strongly support some of the
programs supported by this funding bill, it contains a number proposals
that I believe are detrimental.
Firstly, H.R. 5854 includes language that will amount to an
unwarranted extension of the pay freeze that's currently in effect for
Federal employees. Specifically, sections 129, 231, and 232 would
freeze the pay for Federal civilian employees across the Departments of
Defense and Veterans Affairs through FY 2013 even though these
employees, like all Federal employees governmentwide, have already
sacrificed their fair share when it comes to reducing the Federal
budget deficit. In this Congress alone, Federal employees have given up
over $75 billion towards deficit reduction efforts and to offset the
costs of unemployment benefits for millions of other workers.
Let us remember that our Federal employees are in the second year of
a 2-year Federal pay freeze that will save the Federal Government $5
billion by the end of fiscal year 2012 and an estimated $60 billion
over the next 10 years. For the average middle-income
[[Page H3340]]
Federal employee, this will amount to a loss of approximately $47,000
in income over a 20-year period that could go toward a child's
education or a family's retirement security.
Our Federal employees have already done more than their part to
achieve government cost savings, and in recognition of their dedication
President Obama recently proposed a modest pay raise of 0.5 percent--a
half a percent--in 2013 for Federal workers. This bill, however,
rejects the President's funding request for 0.5 percent for civilian
employees at DOD and the VA and freezes their salaries for a third
consecutive year, even though a 0.5 percent raise will still not
adequately protect Federal pay from being eroded by an inflation rate
that is currently over 3 percent. So they're still going to get a pay
cut, but it would have been a 2\1/2\ percent pay cut instead of 3
percent. And we can't live with that.
Mr. Chairman, this is yet another in a series of legislative attacks
that have targeted middle class workers in this Congress. It will
further erode employee morale and diminish the Federal Government's
ability to attract the best and brightest to carry out its work.
I don't know if you read Politico today. They did a survey of job
satisfaction among Federal employees in the VA. The docs are doing
great work. The nurses are doing fantastic work. The therapists over
there are. We all say we're really protective about our veterans. Well,
these are the people that take care of our veterans every single day.
They clean the bedpans. They do their therapy. They do their surgery.
They watch out for them. And we were going to give them a 0.5 percent
raise this year. Instead, what this bill does is cuts their pay. It
cuts out that 0.5 percent that they would have gotten.
These are the people that are taking care of our veterans. God bless
them. A lot of them are veterans themselves. And these are DOD
employees. We all say we're pro-military. These are people that are
supporting our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan on a
daily basis in a direct way. We were going to give them a 0.5 percent
raise. But no, we're going to cut their pay in order to have them help
us balance the budget some more. They're already in a 2-year pay
freeze.
Our dedicated civil servants play a vital role in many critical
areas, especially in the work they do every day to support our military
and our veterans. They should not continue to bear a disproportionate
burden when it comes to addressing our Nation's budget problems.
I also want to express my strong opposition to section 517, which,
again, prohibits the use of project labor agreements, as we said
before.
There's a lot of disappointments in this bill. I cannot believe that
we're going after VA workers in this bill and against Defense
Department workers in this bill. I think they do a lot for this
country. They do a lot for the most vulnerable, especially at the VA.
They do heroic work there. I have three VA hospitals in my district.
I'm blessed with the Brockton Hospital. They're doing tremendous work
there with a lot of our World War II veterans, who, for the first time
in their lives, have to rely on the VA.
And these are the people that are doing that job, Mr. Chairman.
They're doing a tremendous job. They're already working at less wages
than they could get at a private hospital. But because they love our
veterans and believe in it, they stay there at the VA out of the
goodness of their heart. And now we've got them in a 2-year pay freeze.
The President was trying to give them a 0.5 percent increase in cost of
living, and they're being denied even that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Speier
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 66, after line 4, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Section 107 of title 38, United States Code,
is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``not'' after ``Army of the United States,
shall''; and
(B) by striking ``, except benefits under--'' and all that
follows in that subsection and inserting a period;
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``not'' after ``Armed Forces Voluntary
Recruitment Act of 1945 shall''; and
(B) by striking ``except--'' and all that follows in that
subsection and inserting a period;
(3) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Determination of Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--In determining the eligibility of the
service of an individual under this section, the Secretary
shall take into account any alternative documentation
regarding such service, including documentation other than
the Missouri List, that the Secretary determines relevant.
``(2) Report.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs
of the Senate and House of Representatives a report that
includes--
``(A) the number of individuals applying for benefits
pursuant to this section during the previous year; and
``(B) the number of such individuals that the Secretary
approved for benefits.''; and
(4) by amending subsection (d) to read as follows:
``(d) Relation to Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation
Fund.--Section 1002(h) of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (title X of division A of Public Law
111 5; 123 Stat. 200; 38 U.S.C. 107 note) shall not apply to
an individual described in subsection (a) or (b) of this
section.''.
(b)(1) The heading of such section is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 107. Certain service deemed to be active service:
service in organized military forces of the Philippines and
in the Philippine Scouts''.
(2) The item relating to such section in the table of
sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of such title is
amended to read as follows:
``107. Certain service deemed to be active service: service in
organized military forces of the Philippines and in the
Philippine Scouts.''.
(c)(1) The amendments made by this section shall take
effect on the date that is 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(2) No benefits shall accrue to any person for any period
before the effective date of this section by reason of the
amendments made by this section
Mr. CULBERSON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask that the
reading be dispensed with.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the reading is dispensed with.
There was no objection.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The point of order is reserved.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. SPEIER. Our Nation is great because in times of trial when we do
the wrong thing, we will come back and do the right thing.
What this amendment does is attempt to address a wrong that we did
many years ago, and right that wrong by restoring a promise that we
made to Filipinos that fought side-by-side with us in World War II. We
promised them in no uncertain terms that they would enjoy the same
veterans benefits that others received for putting their lives at risk.
More than 200,000 Filipinos fought in defense of the United States in
the Pacific theater against the Japanese in World War II, and more than
half of them were killed. As citizens of a commonwealth of the United
States before and during the war, Filipinos were legally American
nationals, and they were promised the same benefits afforded to those
serving in the United States Armed Forces.
{time} 1910
But in 1946, Congress passed the Rescission Act, a law that stripped
Filipinos of the benefits that had been promised them by Franklin
Delano Roosevelt. The Rescission Act created a wrong that will not be
righted unless our Nation restores the veteran status it promised to
Filipino soldiers more than 65 years ago.
Now the irony here, Mr. Chairman, is that there were other countries
that provided us with men and women who served during World War II, and
they were also promised veterans benefits. In fact, there are 65
countries that provided servicemembers to fight alongside us. Every one
of those other soldiers were provided veterans benefits from other
countries. And yet the Filipinos, who were part of a commonwealth at
the time, who were nationals of this country, who were promised
veterans benefits, were denied them by the Rescission Act that was
passed in 1946.
What this amendment does is make all Filipino veterans fully eligible
for
[[Page H3341]]
veterans benefits, similar to those received by U.S. veterans.
Specifically, the amendment eliminates the distinction between regular
or old Filipino scouts and the other three groups of veterans--
Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, Recognized Guerilla Forces, and
New Filipino Scouts. Veterans that have received lump sum payments
would be eligible for these benefits.
Now, we tried to sort of cover this all up by giving them a $15,000
stipend. Frankly, that's not good enough. And there are about 15,000
living Filipino veterans of World War II right now. They're 85 years
old. They're not going to live much longer, but they certainly deserve
the benefits that we promised them but we then rescinded with the
Rescission Act of 1946.
For these veterans and their families, I believe the time has come to
right this horrific wrong, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to
change existing statutory law and constitutes legislation in an
appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general
appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law . .
. ''
In this case the amendment directly amends existing law.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that the amendment proposes directly to change
existing law, to wit: section 107 of title 38. As such, it constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2(c) of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
spending reduction account
Sec. 518. The amount by which the applicable allocation of
new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 exceeds the amount of
proposed new budget authority is $0.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Fitzpatrick
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract using procedures that do not
give to small business concerns owned and controlled by
veterans (as that term is defined in section 3(q)(3) of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632(q)(3)) that are included in
the database under section 8127(f) of title 38, United States
Code, any preference available with respect to such contract,
except for a preference given to small business concerns
owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans (as that
term is defined in section 3(q)(2) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 632(q)(2)).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening to offer an
amendment that levels the playing field and promotes fairness for
veterans when it comes to contracting with the Federal Government.
According to the most recent census, there are almost 22 million
veterans living in the United States and over 2.4 million of them now
manage their own company. Providing opportunities for veteran-owned
small businesses I believe utilizes the talents and training of our
Nation's heroes and can help end epidemic levels of veteran
unemployment.
Unfortunately, not all of our servicemen and -women have found
opportunities upon their return home. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
has reported that the unemployment rate among veterans, including those
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, was at a staggering 21.9 percent.
These numbers are unacceptable. These brave men and women who have
served our country deserve every effort from this body to give them the
tools they need to provide for themselves and their families. It should
be the explicit policy of this Congress and all government agencies to
support our veterans and our veteran entrepreneurs.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am again offering to the
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act would
give veteran-owned small businesses the preference for contracts equal
to that of any group eligible for a preferred consideration except for
service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses.
The practice of the Federal Government providing preferences to
encourage government to do business with certain groups is very well
established. This amendment does not look to restrict or change the
current preference process. It merely serves to level the playing field
for our veterans. This amendment would also preserve the current policy
of giving greater preference to service-disabled veteran-owned small
businesses.
This exact same amendment was unanimously passed in last year's
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs act. It was signed into law
as part of last year's budget process.
As our Nation continues to emerge from this Great Recession, we need
to create an economic climate that encourages innovation and also
rewards hard work. By serving this great Nation nobly, often in far-off
and dangerous locations, our Nation's veterans have displayed
exceptional determination and leadership skills. Character traits like
these are paramount for long-term economic prosperity and for private
sector success. I and many of my colleagues have made a commitment to
our constituents, and to the American people, to do everything possible
to create jobs and to do everything possible to help returning
veterans. The self-discipline and innovation of our veterans could lead
our economic recovery.
Ultimately, this amendment would give our veterans a level playing
field to help spur economic growth and help spur job creation. With
many servicemen and -women returning home from their combat missions in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and nearly a quarter of veterans saying they are
interested in starting or buying their own small businesses, we need to
preserve accountability of these contract programs. In order to do so,
we define small businesses by using the current definition outlined by
the Small Business Administration, and eligible businesses must be
registered with the Department of Veteran Affairs where the VA Center
for Veteran Enterprises maintains a database of certified and
registered veteran-owned businesses.
In addition, this amendment would apply to all Federal contracts
authorized by this act and would be applied to any portion of State or
local projects receiving Federal funds. In many cases, this law will
simply be reinforcing existing practices and ensuring that this will
continue to be the policy.
Let this Congress once again bring fairness to the government
contracting system and ensure that our veterans, who put their lives on
the line and their lives on hold to defend our freedoms, make sure that
they are receiving the same preferential contracting status that this
Congress has given to others.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, veteran-owned companies do two
really important things: First, they create jobs and provide positive
impact on our economy. And most importantly, veteran-owned small
businesses provide a great venue for unemployed veterans to find work.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the government has done poorly in
reaching the 3 percent contracting goal for veterans. For example,
agency contractor awards are below 1 percent from 2003 to 2006. The
most recent figures for 2009 show agencies awarded only 1.98 percent to
service-disabled veterans. Agencies need to do better, and I believe
this amendment will help the Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs
do a better job.
{time} 1920
I support this amendment, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
[[Page H3342]]
Mr. DICKS. I want to join in supporting this amendment and commend
the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his hard work on this effort. I
hope we can adopt this amendment unanimously. I appreciate the
gentleman yielding.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. We're pleased to accept the gentleman's amendment. We
accepted it last year, and we're proud to accept it this year to help
encourage the VA to look to better-known businesses.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to hire a director of a national cemetery who is not
a veteran.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, during the hot days of last summer,
the Veterans of Foreign Wars went to battle with the Veterans
Administration in Houston, Texas. The VFW claimed the Veterans
Administration was censoring free speech and preventing the free
exercise of religion at the National Cemetery in Houston.
I appreciate the chairman, Mr. Culberson's, work on this project
after the Veterans of Foreign Wars notified not only me, but notified
him as well. The result is this:
This cemetery, Mr. Chairman, is the second largest in the Nation;
it's a place where four Medal of Honor recipients are buried. The VA
said that the chapel at the cemetery would be closed, and it was
closed. The Bible, the cross, and the Star of David were removed by the
Veterans Administration and the chapel became a storage shed. The VFW
members also said that the director of the cemetery censored the
prayers and prohibited the religious ceremony during the burial of
America's veterans.
The VFW had to sue the Veterans Administration, and the Veterans
Administration naturally denied the whole thing. But, recently, a
Federal judge in Texas approved and agreed to an order requiring the
chapel to be reopened, the Bible, the cross and the Star of David to be
returned to their proper places, and said that the Veterans
Administration must not interfere with free speech or the free exercise
of religion at burials of America's war veterans.
Mr. Chairman, it's ironic that Americans have gone to war all over
the world, fought for the principles of the U.S. Constitution, then
when they come home, they face government hostility and the denial of
First Amendment rights to the citizens when these veterans are buried
in VA cemeteries.
Now the veterans have won a battle against a government that wanted
to deny them the American freedoms they fought for in lands far, far
away.
Mr. Chairman, a fundamental problem in the Houston case was the
director of the cemetery was not a veteran. She did not understand the
needs of veterans because she was not a veteran herself. And according
to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, she disrespected the veterans and
their most fundamental rights. She censored prayers and speeches.
The amendment is simple. It says that any new hires of cemetery
directors must be veterans. Eighty percent of current cemetery
directors are veterans--on the application, when they apply to be a
director, they must state whether they're a veteran or not--so clearly
the Veterans Administration agrees that cemetery directors should be
veterans themselves. This amendment would not force the remaining 20
percent that are not veterans to be fired. It would say that if the
Veterans Administration is going to hire new directors, they will be
veterans.
Our veterans need to know the directors of cemeteries understand what
veterans and their families go through. They are the ones who best
understand the needs of veterans in their time of grief, so they need
to be veterans.
And that's just the way it is.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. DICKS. Which amendment is before the House?
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the Clerk will reread the
amendment.
The Clerk reread the amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. I agree to the amendment and accept it. I think it's
important. Had the cemetery director in Houston been a veteran, this
problem never would have arisen.
I also thank the gentleman for bringing both of these amendments to
the floor tonight. I have personally witnessed the cemetery director
interfering with the funeral services of veterans. It is outrageous,
just absolutely unacceptable. I thank the gentleman for his amendments
and speaking on this amendment first. I have no objection and will
accept this amendment.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
and to speak in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have great empathy for the
concerns that the gentleman from Texas has raised in his discussions
about the amendment on hiring a national cemetery administration
director, but I just want to address some of them because I don't think
it's good policy, and I don't think it will make for the best
management and operation of our national cemeteries.
Employees of the National Cemetery Administration are proud to serve
veterans and to serve veterans' families in their time of need, and
they do it with dignity and compassion. While the National Cemetery
Administration has one of the highest percentages of veteran employees
of any Federal agency--79 percent of the employees and 80 percent of
its cemetery directors are veterans--the desire and the passion to
serve our Nation's veterans is not limited to just veterans.
VA national cemeteries are nationally recognized for their commitment
to excellence and top-rated customer satisfaction. Since 2001, the
National Cemetery Administration has earned the American Customer
Satisfaction Index's rating as a top-performing public or private
organization in the country. This continues to be achieved by dedicated
National Cemetery Administration employees, both veterans and
nonveterans.
Who says a nonveteran cannot be patriotic and support the United
States of America? If such an amendment passes, who would it impact?
Most of our nonveteran cemetery directors have family ties with
veterans. For example, one of our long-serving national cemetery
directors had a father who served in the U.S. Army during World War II
and saw combat in the Philippines, a brother who served as an Army
infantryman in Vietnam, a husband who served in the Marine Corps during
the Vietnam War, and most recently a son-in-law in the Marines who
served two tours overseas during Operation Desert Storm.
This bill will result in a child, a sibling, or a spouse of a veteran
losing his or her job or being denied the opportunity for a promotion.
These individuals supported their family members as they put their
lives on the line for our Nation, and now they wish to continue to
honor and care for the graves of veterans in their final resting place.
VA follows all Federal laws and OPM regulations requiring hiring
preference for eligible veterans. This legislation would make VA
vulnerable to litigation by the displaced cemetery directors through
the Merit Systems Protection Board.
The NCA requires all new national cemetery directors to have
completed a 1-year intensive internship program that provides
comprehensive training in all aspects of cemetery operations and
management. Even if qualified veterans could be hired within 180 days
to
[[Page H3343]]
fill these critical positions, they would be coming in without the
specific knowledge and skills to effectively run a cemetery to meet the
needs of our veterans and their grieving families.
I think this amendment is well-intentioned, but I don't think that it
would accomplish what is desired, and I think ultimately it will end up
with chaos in our personnel system regarding our national cemeteries. I
urge that this amendment be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1930
Mr. RUNYAN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUNYAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just want to clarify one comment the ranking member made. This
amendment would not require the firing of anybody. It's future hires of
the veterans cemetery directors. So I just wanted to make that clear.
That wouldn't put anybody out of work.
This specific problem at the Houston cemetery was all centered around
the director's insensitivity to veterans. And one of the problems that
came out during all of the litigation was she had no relationship to
veterans, didn't understand veterans, she wasn't a veteran, and
therefore, that's why this legislation is important. But it would not
require the firing of anybody. It's about future directors.
Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The Poe amendment states none of the funds made available
by this act may be used for a director of a national cemetery who,
after the date that is 180 days, whatever date, however he rephrased
it.
According to the VA, compliance with this provision would be
extremely disruptive to the NCA operations by requiring 20 percent of
VA national cemetery directors to lose their current jobs for no other
reason than that they are not a veteran. That is unfair.
The gentleman may have a grievance about one funeral director, but
you can't take this out on the rest of these people who are doing a
good job. So I would hope that we would defeat this ill-considered
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to amend the
amendment to insert the word ``new'' before the word ``director.''
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will need to submit the modification
to the desk.
Mr. DICKS. As I understand it--will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Is it none of the funds made available by this act may be
used to hire a new director of a national cemetery who is not a
veteran?
Mr. POE of Texas. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. DICKS. Thank you for clarifying that.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification offered by Mr. Poe of Texas:
Insert ``new'' between ``a'' and ``director.''
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object,
is it not true that if we adopt this amendment for new hires, that it
still restricts the option of getting the best possible manager for the
cemetery?
Mr. POE of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. POE of Texas. It would require that the person be a veteran for
all new hires of the director of a cemetery. You are correct.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. That's what I thought. Thank you.
I withdraw my reservation.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the modification?
Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to hire a new director of a national cemetery who is
not a veteran.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to prohibit a veterans service organization that is
participating in the funeral or memorial service of a veteran
from reciting any words as part of such service or memorial.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Once again I thank Chairman Culberson for his work
on this situation that occurred at the veterans cemetery in Houston
last year. That has been resolved in one specific case.
This amendment does something very simple. It ensures that the First
Amendment rights of veterans and their families will not be violated by
anyone at burial services at our national cemeteries. It's a free
speech issue, and it would not allow what has occurred in the past, the
speech police of the Veterans Administration to control the words of
those that attend burials of our veterans. It would not allow
censorship of religion.
So I urge support of this amendment, which will ensure the
constitutional rights that are in the First Amendment to those that
will be buried in the future at all of our national cemeteries.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. We have no objection.
Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CULBERSON. I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and thank
him for bringing it to the floor tonight, and urge its adoption.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan
Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Page 66, after line 10, insert the following new section:
Sec. 519. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to modify, maintain, or manage a structure, building,
or barracks for a person, unit, or mission of the Armed
Forces or Department of Defense outside of the normal tour or
duty restationing or authorized base closure and realignment
process.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I will be really brief.
My amendment states that none of the funds made available by this Act
could be used to do an informal base realignment and closure.
As you may be aware, the Senate version of the National Defense
Authorization Act calls for an independent commission that would help
determine the Air Force's force structure. I know that many Members of
this Chamber also want Congress to have our say on this issue. And my
amendment will help ensure that we do.
I thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for working
with me on this important amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).
[[Page H3344]]
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. 519. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be available to enforce section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110 140; 42
U.S.C. 17142).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which
addresses another misguided and restrictive Federal regulation.
Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act prevents
Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the procurement of a
fuel unless its lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than or
equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from
conventional petroleum sources. In summary, my amendment would stop the
government from enforcing this ban on all Federal agencies funded by
the Milcon-VA bill.
The initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the Defense
Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet
fuel. This restriction was based on the opinion of some
environmentalists that coal-based jet fuel might produce more
greenhouse gas emissions than traditional petroleum.
{time} 1940
We must ensure that our military has adequate fuel resources and that
it can rely on domestic and more stable sources of fuel. Unfortunately,
section 526's ban on fuel choice now affects all Federal agencies, not
just the Defense Department. This is why I am offering this amendment
again today to the MilCon-VA appropriations bill. Federal agencies
should not be burdened with wasting their time studying fuel
restrictions when there is a simple fix, and that is to not restrict
our fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, policies, and
misguided regulations like those in section 526.
With increasing competition for energy and fuel resources and with
the continued volatility and instability in the Middle East, it is now
more important than ever for our country to become more energy
independent and to further develop and produce our domestic energy
resources. Placing limits on Federal agencies' fuel choices is an
unacceptable precedent to set in regard to America's energy policy,
independence, and our national security. Mr. Chair, section 526 makes
our Nation more dependent on Middle East oil. Stopping the impact of
section 526 will help us to promote American energy, improve the
American economy and create American jobs.
Let's remember the following facts about section 526: It increases
our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. It hurts our military readiness,
our national security, and our energy security. It also prevents the
potential increased use of some sources of safe, clean, and efficient
American oil and gas. It increases the cost of American food and
energy. It hurts American jobs and the American economy. Last but
certainly not least, it costs our taxpayers more of their hard-earned
dollars.
In some circles, there is a misconception that my amendment somehow
prevents the Federal Government and the military from being able to
produce and use alternative fuels. Mr. Chairman, this viewpoint is
categorically false. All my amendment does is to allow the purchasers
of these fuels to acquire the fuels that best and most efficiently meet
their needs. I offered a similar amendment to the CJS appropriations
bill, and it passed with strong bipartisan support. My friend Mr.
Conaway also had language added to the Defense authorization bill to
exempt the Defense Department from this burdensome regulation.
I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this commonsense
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is
intended to ensure that the environmental costs from the use of
alternative fuels are at least no worse than the fuels in use today. It
requires that the Federal Government do no more harm when it comes to
global climate change than it does today through the use of
unconventional fuels.
Section 526 precludes the use of fuels, such as coal-to-liquids, as
well as unconventional petroleum fuels, such as tar sands and oil
shale, unless advanced technologies, such as carbon sequestration, are
used to mitigate the greenhouse gas emissions. The corollary is that
domestic production could be achieved with carbon sequestration.
Further, the EIA predicts that these alternative fuels may well take
decades to develop and that the additional fuel production capacity of
these alternatives is unlikely to exceed 10 percent of the fuel supply
by 2030.
A number of the reports have concluded that the potential adverse
national security impacts of climate change, such as political unrest
due to famines and droughts, may very well be severe. These
consequences can outweigh the security benefits of the domestic
production of these fuels.
The Department of Defense alone is the largest single energy consumer
in the world. It consumes approximately as much energy as the nation of
Nigeria. Its leadership in this area is critical to any credible
approach to dealing with energy security issues in a way that will not
result in dangerous global climate change. This prohibition provides an
opportunity for the DOD to play a substantial role in spurring
innovation to produce alternative fuels which will not worsen global
climate change.
I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. We accepted this amendment, and it passed the House
last year.
I am happy to yield to my friend from Texas for any further comments
he would like to make.
Mr. FLORES. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Let's restate what this amendment does.
It prevents section 526 from restricting the fuel choices available
to our military and to our Federal agencies. It doesn't say that they
cannot go ahead and develop alternative fuel sources. We can debate
whether or not that's appropriate. The Navy recently made a purchase of
biofuel for $27 a gallon, which was five to six times more expensive
than traditional fuels. Now, we can debate if that's the appropriate
use of taxpayer money. I think it's wrong. This amendment would not
affect that whatsoever. All it says is that the Navy or the other
branches of the military or any Federal agency affected by MilCon-VA
can buy whatever fuel it deems most appropriate for its needs.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Webster
Mr. WEBSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the salary or compensation of a Director of
Construction and Facilities Management of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (or an individual acting as such Director)
who does not meet the qualifications for such position
required under section 312A(b) of title 38, United States
Code.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WEBSTER. My amendment is simple. It requires the Department of
Veterans Affairs to follow existing law and to insist on having an
experienced Director of Construction and Facilities Management. All it
requires is that the holder of this position have a degree in
[[Page H3345]]
architecture or engineering and have professional experience in
construction project management.
Not many people have heard of this position, but it carries enormous
responsibility, not only for the stewardship of our tax dollars, but
also for ensuring that our veterans have the facilities necessary for
the health care and medical treatment we promised them and they earned.
The VA manages over 5,000 buildings nationwide. According to the GAO,
it has nearly 70 ongoing major construction projects around the
country, 33 of which are major medical facilities. Of these 33, many
have experienced considerable cost overruns and schedule delays.
Four of the largest projects under construction are full service
hospitals designed to provide health care to the hundreds of thousands
of American veterans. The VA will spend an estimated $3 billion on
these four facilities. One of these sites is in Orlando. The
construction of the Orlando VAMC has been a classic example of
government waste and inefficiency. The VA broke ground on the site in
2008 with a scheduled completion date of 2010. The estimated completion
date now has been pushed back well into 2013.
Several GAO reports and House Veterans Affairs' Committee hearings
have sought to determine the root cause of these problems. However, it
is increasingly clear that the lack of expertise on the part of the
Department of Construction and Facilities Management within the VA
bears responsibility. The VA has violated public law by ignoring the
required qualifications to occupy a position that oversees these
projects. The result is a cost to the taxpayers of an additional $1.1
billion on the four largest projects alone and multiple-year delays in
health care services to our veterans.
The qualifications are shockingly simple for a position that oversees
the construction of veterans' health care facilities that cost billions
of dollars. An individual who holds the position of Director of
Construction and Facilities Management, under current law, must meet
two qualifications: (1) hold an undergraduate or a master's degree in
architectural design or engineering; (2) have professional experience
in the area of construction and project management.
My amendment simply requires that the funds used to hire this person
meet that criteria. The Director of Construction and Facilities
Management will potentially oversee as much as $15 billion in
construction and repairs over the next 5 years. We owe it to our
Nation's heroes to have qualified, experienced people behind these
critical projects.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this Webster amendment to
ensure that not only valuable taxpayer dollars are appropriately
managed but that our veterans have access to the high-quality health
care facilities that they deserve.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1950
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 66, after line 10, add the following new section:
Sec. 519. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the prevailing
wage requirements in subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40,
United States Code (commonly referred to as the Davis-Bacon
Act).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
amendment to H.R. 5854, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2013. I also want to thank
my colleagues--Mr. Gosar, Mr. Steve King, and Mr. Amash--for joining me
in cosponsoring this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would ensure that no funds made available
by H.R. 5854 could be used to implement, administer, or enforce the
Davis-Bacon Act requirements for government contracts.
Mr. Chairman, the Davis-Bacon Act is an anachronistic law that was
enacted during the Great Depression to prevent wayfaring contractors
from lowballing local construction bids. The sponsors of this act
originally intended for it to discriminate against nonunionized black
workers in favor of white workers belonging to white-only unions. This
vestigial remnant of the Jim Crow era has no place in our military
construction contracts and should be abandoned.
Furthermore, the Davis-Bacon Act results in billions of wasted
taxpayer dollars every year. The act requires Federal construction
contractors to pay their workers higher government-mandated wages,
which would be as much as 1\1/2\ times greater than their basic pay
rate. This results in artificially high costs of construction, Mr.
Chairman, which are ultimately shouldered by American taxpayers.
Contractors wishing to offer a lower bid would still be required by law
to pay their employees the higher government-mandated wage and file a
weekly report of the wages paid to each worker. This has a particularly
negative effect on small businesses as they are often unable to compete
due to the Davis-Bacon wage and benefits requirements, which reduces
competition and further inflates contract rates.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, Davis-Bacon was enacted before the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the National Labor Relations Act; and, according to
GAO, these acts have rendered Davis-Bacon obsolete and unnecessary.
There are a number of laws passed by this body that protect
construction workers without the discriminatory intent and effect of
Davis-Bacon.
During this time of fiscal austerity and responsibility, Congress
must do all it can to lower Federal contract costs and decrease the
burden on American taxpayers. This amendment is an attempt to stop the
hemorrhage of wasteful spending and rein in our debt.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would ensure no
funds are made available by H.R. 5854 that could be used to implement,
administer, or enforce the wasteful Davis-Bacon Act, and I yield back
the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is a very ill-conceived
amendment, and I must stand in opposition to it.
The Davis-Bacon Act requires that workers on federally funded
construction projects be paid no less than the wages paid in the
community for similar work. It requires that every contract for
construction of which the Federal Government is a party in excess of
$2,000 contain a provision defining the minimum wages paid to various
classes of laborers and mechanics. This is a pretty simple concept, and
it is a fair one. What the Davis-Bacon Act does is protect the
government, as well as the workers, in carrying out the policy of
paying decent wages on government contracts.
I would like to just mention quickly that Davis-Bacon has no effect
on the total cost of construction. Study after study reveals
productivity makes up for any additional labor costs, essentially
eliminating any cost savings if the law were repealed. But this
amendment seeks to prevent Federal agencies from administering these
requirements in statute. Let me give you a few examples of how this
poorly thought-out proposal could actually play out in the real world
if it's enacted into law.
The amendment, as is written, could prevent Federal agencies that use
funds through this legislation from monitoring, investigating,
transmitting conformances, and providing compliance assistance to
existing Davis-Bacon covered contracts that were awarded prior to this
funding legislation. Contractors requesting H2B visas could conceivably
request non-U.S. workers receive permits for employment at wage rates
not in concert with the Davis-Bacon wage rates of that locality.
Procurement agencies may not be able to proceed with the award of
contracts that were solicited in the prior fiscal period but awarded
under this funding legislation. During the period covered by this
funding, bidders could use wages as a method of undercutting the
locally established wage
[[Page H3346]]
rates of that community that might promote the use of workers from
different geographic areas. The amendment could prevent Federal
agencies that use money from this appropriation from advising State,
local, and other grant recipients of DBA application to federally
assisted programs that would otherwise be subject to the DBA
provisions.
This is not responsible legislation, and it's not responsible
governing. I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. I want to say again, as I mentioned earlier--and I
think much of this has been said, so I won't belabor it--the State of
Texas is a right-to-work State. There are very few, if any, labor
unions in the State of Texas. We have them in a few industries, but not
many.
We have to be good stewards of the taxpayers' precious dollars, and
the gentleman from Arizona's amendment makes good sense. We should pay
the free-market wage. We should not force taxpayers to pay an
artificially high union wage when a free-market wage is available and
you can get a job done well at a far better price. That just makes
common sense.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, let me just clear up a couple of things,
especially what the gentleman from Texas just had to say.
This may be something that will be hard for him to believe, but this
is, as I understand it, from the Labor Department. A Davis-Bacon wage
usually is not a union wage. The Davis-Bacon prevailing wage is based
upon surveys of wages and benefits actually paid to various job
classifications of construction workers--an example is iron workers--in
the community without regard to union membership.
According to the Department of Labor, a whopping 72 percent of the
prevailing wage rates issued in 2000 were based upon nonunion wage
rates. A union wage prevails only if the DOL survey determines that the
local wages are paid to more than 50 percent of the workers in the job
classification. So 72 percent of these prevailing wages are nonunion.
I'm sure the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Arizona are
thrilled to hear that. Sometimes the facts are revealing.
Again, we've defeated this amendment over and over and over again.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to defeat the Franks amendment this
evening, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a
performance award under section 5384 of title 5, United
States Code.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
{time} 2000
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take the full 5 minutes.
My amendment is pretty simple. It will prohibit funds from being paid
as bonuses to employees that are classified in the Senior Executive
Service.
What we found when we looked at this, the Veterans' Affairs Committee
held a hearing on this, on the budget, in February of this year. The
Secretary of the VA testified that their budget request was held
accountable for the program results. Of course, one of the issues that
came up, Mr. Chairman, was the enormous bonuses and awards that were
given out to VA employees.
I think, like many of us here in the House, we are concerned about
bonuses when we have so many problems in this economy, high employment,
and also we have an unmanageable backlog of cases, an extremely long
wait for our veterans to see mental health professionals.
Of course, the VA has a history of poor contracting process and
oversight. For example, at the Miami VA Health Center, veterans may
have been exposed to HIV/AIDS due to poor sterilization procedures down
there. Despite these poor records, they are giving out huge bonuses for
simple things like suggestions, foreign language award, travel, savings
incentives, referral bonuses.
In fact, on recruitment and relocation retention alone, almost 60,000
recipients received over 450,000 in cash bonuses. My simple amendment
is saying enough is enough. What we want to do is say all of government
should make a sacrifice, particularly the VA. If they're giving out
these huge bonuses, why don't they cut back on their senior, senior
employees.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. Could we work out an agreement here that we could take the
savings from the gentleman's amendment and use that to pay the workers,
the half of 1 percent raise that is denied in this? Is there a way we
could work this out?
Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman for his suggestions. I am just
going to go with my amendment at this point. Having an opportunity to
look this over, I think we have talked to the veterans committee, and
we think it is a viable amendment. I think certainly as we move into
conference, we can look at what you're suggesting, but right now I
would just like to press this.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. STEARNS. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bass of New Hampshire) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 5854) making appropriations for military construction, the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2013, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________