Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
ACCEPT THEIR WORK AT ST.
ALBANS.
FOR THAT REASON, WE SUPPORT THE
AMENDMENT AND WE LOOK FORWARD
TO THE DAY MR. MEEKS TELLS ME
THEY'VE EARNED THE SUPPORT OF
HIS OFFICE AND COMMUNITY.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
RISE?
I RISE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE
FIVE MINUTES.
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
I RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE
MEEKS AMENDMENT THAT AFFECTS
HIS DISTRICT AND SEVERAL
DISTRICTS AROUND HIS DISTRICT
IN SUPPORT OF VETERANS AND
FIGHTING MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE
RETURNED FROM WARS OVERSEAS,
SOME OF THEM SEVERELY INJURED
AND IN NEED OF OUR CARE.
FOR SEVERAL
YEARS, THE DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFAIRS HAS PURSUED A
STUBBORNLY WRONG HEADED PLAN
FOR THE ST.AL BANS COMMUNITY.
I'M -- ST. ALBANS COMMUNITY.
FOR 4 YEARS, PROPERTY HAS BEEN
DEAD CAILTED FOR VETERANS, WHAT
ARE VETERANS SUPPOSED TO DO
WITHOUT THIS FACILITY WHEN
THERE'S A RISING DEMAND AMONG
VETERANS FOR THIS SERVICE.
THE JUSTIFICATION STEMS FROM AN
ABSURD, OUTDATED REPORT THAT
RELIED ON DATA FROM 2003, EIGHT
YEARS AGO, WHEN WE'RE ONLY AT
THE BEGINNING OF THE WARS IN
IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN.
WE HAVE UNFORTUNATELY SEEN
TREMENDOUS INCREASES IN
VETERANS' HOMELESSNESS,
FORECLOSURES, PTSD'S, AND
SUICIDES.
YET THE V.A. REPORTS FROM ALL
THOSE YEARS AGO PROJECTED AT
THAT TIME, ALMOST A DECADE AGO
THAT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR
OUR VETERANS WAS GOING TO
DECREASE OVER THE NEXT 20
YEARS.
IT'S BEEN EIGHT YEARS SINCE
THAT REPORT AND WHAT ARE WE
SEEING IN THE EIGHT YEARS
ALONE?
AND THERE'S 2 MORE TO GO.
WE'RE SEEING INCREASES IN THESE
PROBLEMS AMONG OUR VETERANS YET
THEY CLING STUBBORNLY TO THE
DATA IN THAT REPORT THINKING
THESE THINGS WILL GO DOWN AMONG
OUR VETERANS AND EVERYONE KNOWS
THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO
BE THE CASE.
EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT
RETURNING VETERANS REQUIRE A
GREATER SIGNIFICANT INCREASE,
ESPECIALLY IN V.A. MENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES.
A RAND CENTER REPORT ALONE
FOUND THAT ALREADY 18.5% OF ALL
U.S. SERVICE MEMBERS WHO HAVE
RETURNED ALREADY FROM
AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ CURRENTLY
SUFFER FROM PTSD OR DEPRESSION
AND 19.5% SUFFER FROM TRAUMATIC
BRAIN INJURY.
WHERE IS THE VETERANS
ADMINISTRATION, WHERE IS THE
ADMINISTRATION'S COMMON SENSE
TO GIVE AWAY THIS PROPERTY
WHICH IS INTENDED AND SECURED
RIGHT NOW FOR OUR VETERANS IS A
HUGE MISTAKE BASED ON A REPORT
THAT IS ALREADY DISCREDITED BY
THE FACTS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T
ALLOW TO CONTINUE.
THESE ARE VETERANS WHO HAVE
SACRIFICED SO MUCH.
WE HAVE TO STAND HERE TODAY ON
THE FLOOR AND I WANT TO THANK
MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE, COLLEAGUES IN THE
MAJORITY ESPECIALLY FOR SEEING
THROUGH THE POLITICS OF THE AND
UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE ARE
OUR VETERANS WE ARE FIGHTING
FOR, THAT WE AS MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS UNDERSTAND OUR
CONSTITUENCIES AND THEIR NEEDS.
I WANT TO PERSONALLY THINK
REPRESENTATIVES GRIMM AND KING
WHO ARE AMONG OUR DELEGATION AS
WELL, AS THE REST OF THE
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF THE DELL
DWATION IN OUR REGION AND THANK
REPRESENTATIVE MEEKS FOR HIS
DYNAMIC AND GREAT LEADERSHIP IN
BRINGING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION
SO WE COULD STAND TOGETHER AND
FIGHT FOR THE NEEDS OF OUR
VETERANS.
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THANK YOU AND I YIELD BACK THE
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
DO ANY OTHER MEMBERS SEEK
RECOGNITION ON THE AMENDMENT?
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN RISE?
DESK.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
THE GENTLEMAN -- THE
CLERK WILL DESIGNATE.
THE GENTLEMAN'S
AMENDMENTS ARE FOUR AND FIVE IN
THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, WHICH
DOES HE WISH TO TAKE UP?
NUMBER FOUR.
AMENDMENT NUMBER
FOUR OFFERED BY MR. WALZ OF
MICHIGAN.
TO THE
EVEN AS THEY BARGAIN
FOR A WAGE BELOW THE SET RATE.
WE BLOCK MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS
APPROPRIATION BILL.
THERE ARE TWO MAIN REASONS THE
HOUSE SHOULD BLOCK DAVIS-BACON.
FIRST IT WASTES TAXPAYER
DOLLARS.
A RECENT STUDY SHOWED THAT ON
AVERAGE NATIONWIDE THE
GOVERNMENT'S SET RATE IS 22%
HIGHER THAN THE TRUE MARKET
RATE.
FOR EXAMPLE, SHEET METAL
WORKERS IN LONG ISLAND, NEW
YORK, ARE PAID $28.79 PER HOUR
WHILE THE GOVERNMENT SET RATE
FOR THAT AREA IS $45.40.
FACTORS IN -- FACTORING IN
COSTS OF MATERIALS AND
SUPPLIES, IT IS ESTIMATED THEY
OVERPAID BY 10% TO 15%.
DAVIS-BACON GIVES AN UNFAIR
ADVANTAGE TO UNION EMPLOYEES.
SMALL BUSINESSESMARK OF WHICH
ARE NONUNION, LOWER THEIR
PRICES COMPETING AGAINST LARGER
UNION FIRMS.
THE TRADEOFF FOR NONUNION
EMPLOYEES IS A LOWER WAGE RATE
BUT MORE WORK WHICH SHOULD NOT
DISADVANTAGE THOSE WHO ARE
FOR LESS MONEY.
WILLING TO PERFORM MORE WORK
BY ELIMINATING GOVERNMENT
MANDATED WAGES, WE CAN BETTER
ALLOCATE RESOURCES AND PUT MORE
AMERICANS BACK ON THE JOB.
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS IN THE
PROIPPINGSES BILL INCLUDE V.A.
FACILITIES, FAMILY HOUSING,
SCHOOLS, INFRASTRUCTURE FOR OUR
NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS STATIONED
ON THE BORDER.
WE OWE IT TO OUR CONSTITUENTS
TO SPEND WISELY.
BLOCKING MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
WILL HONOR OUR COMMITMENT TO
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND OUR
VETERANS.
LET'S LET COMPETITION DETERMINE
WAGES, NOT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
PLEASE SUPPORT DAVIS-BACON.
I YIELD AS MUCH TIME HEAS MAY
CONSUME TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS HE
HAS TWO AND A HALF MINUTES
REMAINING ON HIS TIME.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
IMPORTANT AMENDMENT.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS
AMENDMENT AND URGE THE HOUSE TO
ADOPT THE GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT
BECAUSE IT WILL SAVE OUR
CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY.
WE'RE IN AN AREA OF AUSTERITY
UNLIKE ANYTHING AMERICA HAS
EVER EXPERIENCED.
WE ARE LIVING ON
BORROWED MONEY.
EVERY DOLLAR THEY BRING IN,
SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE,
MEDICAID, VETERANS' BENEFITS
CONSUME 104% THEREFORE ALL THE
MONEY WE APPROPRIATE FOR THE
ENTIRE YEAR FOR MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION, V.A., FOR
TRANSPORTATION, HOMELAND
SECURITY, FOR THE DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT, ALL OF IT IS
BORROWED.
THEREFORE WE NEED TO GIVE HIM
EVERYTHING WE CAN TO SAVE
MONEY, FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE
AND TO AVOID SPENDING MORE
MONEY THAN WE SHOULD.
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT WOULD
HERE, VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, THE
SAVE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY.
IT DEPENDS ON WHAT STUDY YOU'RE
LOOKING AT BUT MY CAPABLE STAFF
HAS LOOKED AT THIS, ANALYZED A
VARIETY OF STUDIES THAT
INDICATE THERE'S A WHOLE RANGE
OF WAGES, FOR EXAMPLE IN A FREE
MARKET ENVIRONMENT LIKE TEXAS,
WE DON'T PAY PREVAILING WAGE.
WE ON A HIGHWAY PROJECT PAY THE
COMPETITIVE FREE MARKET WAGE.
WHY WOULD WE DISCOURAGE
COMPETITION?
WHY WOULD IN THIS TERRIBLE
ECONOMY WOULD WE PREVENT
CONTRACTORS, BUSINESSES, FROM
COMING IN AND COMPETING FOR A
JOB.
AS OUR LAST AMENDMENT MR.
LATOURETTE'S AMENDMENT WHICH I
HOPE THE HOUSE THE FEETS, WE
NEED TO DEFEAT IT SO WE CAN
ENCOURAGE COMPANIES TO COMPETE
FOR FEDERAL CONTRACTS.
THIS AMENDMENT NEEDS TO BE
ADOPTED TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO
COMPETE FOR FEDERAL CONTRACTS.
THIS WOULD EXPAND THE UNIVERSE
OF THOSE WHO CAN COMPETE AND
APPLY FOR WORK, AS IN TEXAS,
FOR EXAMPLE, ON A HIGHWAY
PROJECT, WE PAY THE COMPETITIVE
BEST PRICE FOR BIDS AND IN THE
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE'S OPINION
IF WE ELIMINATE THE DAVIS-BACON
PREVAILING WAGE, IT WOULD SAVE
15% ON AVERAGE ON PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION.
THE CATO INSTITUTE A 10%
SAVINGS.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN RISE?
I STRIKE THE
LAST WORD.
IF I COULD
POINT OUT THAT THE HARRIS
FOUNDATION ESTIMATES THERE WILL
BE 22% SAVINGS TO TAXPAYERS BY
ELIMINATING THE DAVIS-BACON
REQUIREMENT, THE BEACON HILL
INSTITUTE ESTIMATES A 0%
SAVINGS, THE -- A 10% SAVINGS
THIS WHOLE VARIETY OF SAVINGS
IF YOU LINE THEM UP, WE'LL SAY
FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT
THERE WAS ABOUT A 10% SAVINGS
IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
WE AS A NATION, LIVING ON
BORROWED MONEY SHOULD NOT
VOLUNTARILY, WILLINGLY PAY 10%
MORE.
SO THE AMENDMENT IS
EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT.
IT WILL SAVE TAXPAYERS
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY ON
EVERY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON
AVERAGE, SAVING ANT 10%.
10% GOES A LONG WAY ON THESE
MASSIVE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TEAMENT IS
VITALLY IMPORTANT, THE ADOPTION
OF THE AMENDMENT WILL INCREETS
THE NUMBER OF JOBS AVAILABLE,
THE GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT WILL
CREES AJOBS, SAVE MONEY FOR
TAXPAYERS IN AN ERA DEFICIT AND
RECORD BURDEN WE SIMPLY CANNOT
PASS ON TO OUR KIDS, IT'S
VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE
HOUSE APPROVE THE GENTLEMAN'S
AMENDMENT AND I URGE ITS
ADOPTION.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
CLAIM TIME IN OPPOSITION?
OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
AMENDMENT.
THE DAVIS-BACON ACT IS A SIMPLE
CONCEPT AND IT'S A FAIR
CONCEPT.
WHAT IT DOES IS PROTECT THE
GOVERNMENT AS WELL AS THE
WORKERS IN CARRYING OUT THE
POLICY OF PAYING DECENT WAGES
FOR GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
I NOTICED THAT THE PREVIOUS
SPEAKER WAS REALLY CONCERNED
ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT
DAVIS-BACON WOULD RAISE THE
COST OF THE PERFORMANCE OF
THESE CONTRACTORS, BUT IT ONLY
REQUIRES THAT PREVAILING WAGES
IN THE AREA WHERE THE CONTRACT
IS GOING TO BE PERFORMED IS
MAINTAINED.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF IN SOME OF OUR
URBAN AREAS WHERE LABOR COSTS
ARE VERY, VERY HIGH AND THE
PREVAILING WAGES ARE THERE, THE
STANDARD OF LIVING AND THE WAGE
PAYMENT FOR THAT AREA WOULD BE
CONSISTENT.
IF IT WAS IN A LOWER WAGE AREA,
THEN DAVIS-BACON WAGES WOULD BE
THE WAGES THAT WERE PAID IN
THAT MARKET.
SO BASICALLY JUST ALLOWS THE
WORKERS TO BE PAID AT A RATE
CONSISTENT WITH WHERE THE
PROJECT IS BEING CONDUCTED.
THE ACT REQUIRES THAT EVERY
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATES
IN WITH IN EXCESS OF $2,000 HAS
TO HAVE THIS PROVISION DEFINING
THE MINIMUM WAGE.
NOW, IT WAS TAKEN UP BY THIS
HOUSE JUST A FEW DAYS AGO, AND,
OF COURSE, THREE TIMES THIS
HOUSE HAS DEFEATED ATTEMPTS TO
REPEAL THIS DAVIS-BACON
REQUIREMENT.
IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME THAT THIS
HOUSE HAS EXERCISED GREAT
WISDOM THREE TIMES IN THIS
SESSION IN PRESERVING THE RIGHT
OF WORKERS TO EARN THE WAGES
THAT ARE PAID IN THE AREA WHERE
THE PROJECT IS BEING
CONSTRUCTED.
THAT JUST MAKES SENSE.
WE WANT OUR WORKERS TO BE PAID
FAIRLY.
WE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO
OVERPAY, SO WE WON'T PAY HIGHER
WAGES IN AN AREA WHERE
PREVAILING WAGES ARE LOWER.
WE WON'T PAY LOWER WAGES IN AN
AREA WHERE THE PREVAILING WAGES
ARE HIGHER, THE COST OF DOING
BUSINESS WOULD BE HIGHER, THE
COST OF DOING THE CONSTRUCTION
WOULD BE HIGHER.
WE WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO GET
THE BEST *** FOR THE BUCK.
AND THESE AMENDMENTS ARE
PROBABLY VERY WELL-INTENTIONED.
WE WANT TO SAVE THE TAXPAYERS
DOLLARS, BUT WE CANNOT AND WE
SHOULD NOT BE PENNY WISE AND
POUND FOOLISH.
THE REPEAL OF DAVIS-BACON I
THINK AND I THINK THIS HOUSE
HAS STATED ON AT LEAST THREE
OCCASIONS ON THIS FLOOR DURING
BE POUND FOOLISH.
THIS SESSION OF CONGRESS WOULD
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
I ASSOCIATE MYSELF
WITH HIS REMARKS.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS AT A
DIFFERENT POSITION FROM A
PRIVATE COMPANY HAVING
CONSTRUCTION DONE FOR TWO
REASONS.
FIRST, ONE OF THE THINGS WE
FACE IS ERODING WAGES OF
MIDDLE-CLASS FAMILIES.
WE SEE THAT EVEN IN TIMES WHEN
THERE ARE SUFFICIENT JOBS THE
AVERAGE AMERICAN DOESN'T MAKE
ANY MORE ON AN INFLATED
ADJUSTED BAY BASIS.
WE SHOULDN'T PUSH PEOPLE OUT OF
THE MIDDLE CLASS.
WE HAVE A ASSOCIATE
RESPONSIBILITY TO RETURN TO THE
NORM AND THAT IS THAT EACH
GENERATION DOES BETTER THAN THE
LAST.
THE SECOND, EVEN FROM A PROPIE
TEAR -- PROPRIETARY POSITION,
IT IS IN A DIFFERENT POSITION
FROM A PRIVATE OWNER.
I REMEMBER THE LAST TIME I WAS
ATTEMPTED TO FIX MY HOME, MAYBE
I SHOULD GO WITH THE SLIP SHOD
CHEAPSKATE COMPANY.
AFTER ALL, I AM ONLY GOING TO
LIVE THERE A FEW MORE YEARS.
ARE ONLY GOING TO OWN THE
EVEN THE PRIVATE OWNERS, THEY
BUILDING A FEW YEARS.
SO MANY IN OUR DAILY LIVES USE
GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTED PROJECT
FROM THE 1930'S.
WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BUILDS
SOMETHING IT'S GOING TO BE
OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE
GOVERNMENT AND USED BY OUR
CITIZENS FOR MANY, MANY
DECADES.
WHY DO WE WANT SLIP SHOD
CONSTRUCTION?
WHY DO WE WANT THOSE WHO ARE
NOT LOOKING TO HAVE SKILLED
CRAFTSMEN AND CRAFTSWOMEN BUT
RATHER PUT IT UP THERE IN A
CHEAP POSSIBLE WAY?
THOSE BUILDINGS NEED TO BE
BUILT WITH THOSE OF PROPER
CONSTRUCTION SKILLS.
IT'S NOT JUST HIRING AS MANY
HANDS AS CHEAPLY AS POSSIBLE.
I SUPPORT THE GENTLEMAN FROM
GEORGIA IN HIS COMMENTS, AND I
URGE THE DEFEAT OF THIS
AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION
TO THE AMENDMENT AND STRIKE THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF WORDS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I RISE
IN OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT.
SOME IN THE MINORITY TRY TO
REPEAL DAVIS-BACON.
TWO WEEKS AGO THE FULL
COMMITTEE VOTED TO STRIP THE
ANTI--DAVIS-BACON PROVISION
THAT WAS ADDED BY THE CHAIRMAN
-- ANTI-DAVIS-BACON PROVISION
THAT WAS ADDED BY THE CHAIRMAN
OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
THE F.Y. 2012 HOMELAND SECURITY
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, IT FAILED
ON A VOTE OF 183-234.
I HAVE BEEN A LONGTIME
SUPPORTER OF DAVIS-BACON,
PREVAGE WAGE REQUIREMENTS.
IT HELPS ENSURE LOCAL PROJECT
THAT PROVIDE LOCAL JOBS WITH
AFFORDABLE MIDDLE-CLASS WAGES.
THE LAW PROHIBITS PEOPLE BY
BIDDING TOO LOW TO ATTRACT
COMPETENT WORKERS.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS
AMENDMENT.
I POINT OUT IF THERE IS A
PROBLEM HERE IT'S BECAUSE WE DO
NOT DO THE WAGE SURVEYS ON A
CONTINUING AND CONSISTENT
BASIS.
THAT IS REAL PROBLEM AND THAT
RESTS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE
THEY'RE DOING THEIR PART OF THE
EQUATION.
AND I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
FIVE MINUTES.
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
LET ME SAY THE DAVIS-BACON
ACT PREVENTS COMPETITION FOR
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS FROM
ARTIFICIALLY DEPRESSING LOCAL
LABOR STANDARDS.
THE DAVIS-BACON ACT
WILL PREVENT SUBVERTING THE
PREVAILING WAGE LAWS WHICH WILL
LEAD TO SHODDY CONSTRUCTION AND
SUBSTANTIAL COST OVERRUNS.
UNDER THE PREVAILING WAGE LAWS
PEOPLE ARE FORCED TO COMPETE ON
WHO CAN BEST TRAIN, BEST EQUIP
AND BEST MANAGE A CONSTRUCTION
CREW.
NOT ON THE BASIS OF WHO CAN
ASSEMBLE THE CHEAPEST, THE MOST
EXPLOITABLE WORK FORCE, EITHER
LOCKLY OR IMPORTING LABOR FROM
OUTSIDE.
THE DAVIS-BACON ACT IS -- DOES
NOT REQUIRE A UNION WAGE.
IT REQUIRES PREVAILING WAGE
BASED UPON SURVEYS OF WAGES AND
BENEFITS THAT ARE ACTUALLY PAID
TO VARIOUS JOB CLASSIFICATIONS
OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS SUCH AS
WORKERS IN THE COMMUNITY
WITHOUT REGARD THEY BELONG TO A
UNION OR NOT.
ACCORDING TO A SURVEY, A
WHOOPING 72% OF THE PREVAILING
WAGE RATES THAT WAS ISSUED IN
2000 WERE BASED ON NONUNION
WAGE RATES.
A UNION WAGE PREVAILS ONLY IF
THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR SURVEY
DETERMINES IF THE LOCAL UNION
WAGE IS PAID TO MORE THAN 50%
OF THE WORKER IN THAT JOB
CLASSIFICATION.
NOW, HIGHER WAGES AND SKILLS
RESULT IN GREATER PRODUCK TIFT
AND LOWER COSTS.
IT'S SO MUCH GREATER AMONG HIGH
WAGE SKILLED WORKERS THAN THOSE
WHO USE THE LOW-WAGE, LOW-SKILL
WORKERS DUE TO REPAIRS,
REVISIONS AND DELAYS.
THE OPPONENTS WHO CLAIM THAT
THE GOVERNMENT CAN SAVE
BILLIONS BY ELIMINATING THE
DAVIS-BACON PROTECTIONS, THEY
IGNORE THE PRODUCK TIFT
EQUALITY, SAFETY, COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER ECONOMIC
BENEFITS WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO
THE REAL COST EFFICIENTIVENESS
OF DAVIS-BACON.
A STUDY OF NEARLY 10 STATES,
THE HIGHWAY BRIDGEWORK DONE IN
THE UNITED STATES SHOWS WHEN
HIGHWAY WORKERS ARE DOUBLED THE
PAY OF LOW-WAGE WORKERS THEY
BUILT 70.4 MILES OF ROADBED AND
32 MILES OF BRIDGES FOR $557
MILLION LESS.
DRIVING WAGES DOWN WON'T HELP
BALANCE THE BUDGET, AND THE
DAVIS-BACON ACT WILL IMPROVE
OUR LOCAL ECONOMIES AND IT WILL
RESULT IN INCREASED PRODUCK
TIFT.
I AM CONVINCED THAT, AGAIN, WE
HAVE PEOPLE WITH GOOD
INTENTIONS THAT WANT TO SAVE US
MONEY, BUT IF YOU PAY CHEAPER
WAGES, YOU WILL HAVE TO EMPLOY
LESS SKILLED WORKERS.
IF YOU HIRE LESS SKILLED
WORKERS, THEY WILL IN ALL
LIKELIHOOD HAVE TO HAVE WORK
REDONE, THERE WILL HAVE TO BE
REPAIRS, IT WILL EXTEND THE
COSTS, IT WILL EXTEND THE TIME
AND ULTIMATELY IT WILL COST OUR
TAXPAYERS MORE MONEY AND WE
WILL NOT GET THE EFFICIENCIES
THAT EACH AND EVERY TAX DOLLAR
SHOULD HAVE BECAUSE THEY'RE
HARD-EARNED TAX DOLLARS AND OUR
TAXPAYERS DON'T GIVE THEM UP
LIGHTLY.
BUT WHEN WE DO PAY OUR TAXES,
EVERYBODY IN THIS BODY AND
ACROSS THIS COUNTRY WANTS TO
MAKE SURE WE GET THE BEST ***
FOR THE BUCK.
DAVIS-BACON WOULD GIVE US THAT
RESULT.
IT HAS PROVEN THAT.
THE STUDIES SHOW THAT.
AND I WILL SUBMIT THAT THIS
AMENDMENT IS ILL-ADVISED AND IT
SHOULD BE DEFEATED.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
IS THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS
SEEKING RECOGNITION ON THIS
AMENDMENT?
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN.
THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT
SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE NOES APPEAR TO HAVE IT.
MR. SPEAKER, ON THAT I WOULD
ASK FOR A RECORDED VOTE.
THE GENTLEMAN HAS
ASKED FOR A RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE
18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MICHIGAN WOULD
BE POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 2
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD OFFERED BY MR. SHERMAN
OF CALIFORNIA.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
WILL THE CLERK
READ THE AMENDMENT?
WITHOUT OBJECTION,
THE AMENDMENT WILL BE READ.
AT THE END OF THE
BILL BEFORE THE SHORT TITLE
INSERT THE FOLLOWING --
NONE OF THE FUNDS MADE
SECTION.
AVAILABLE BY THIS ACT MAY BE
USED IN CONTROVENTION OF THE
WAR POWERS RESOLUTION, 50
U.S.C. 1541.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
I HAD THE CLERK
A SIMPLE ONE-SENTENCE
READ THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT'S
AMENDMENT.
IN THIS ACT CAN BE USED
IT SAYS THAT NONE OF THE MONEY
DELIBERATELY BY THE PRESIDENT
TO VIOLATE THE LAW.
IN PARTICULAR, THE WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION, OFFERED REFERRED TO
BY THE WAR POWERS ACT, WHICH IS
FOUND IN TITLE 50 OF THE UNITED
STATES CODE.
THIS IS THE SAME AMENDMENT I
OFFERED TO THE HOMELAND
SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
SOME 208 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
VOTED FOR THAT AMENDMENT.
THE ONLY ARGUMENT AGAINST THE
AMENDMENT AT THAT TIME WAS THAT
IT WASN'T EXACTLY APPROPRIATE
OR RELEVANT TO THE HOMELAND
SECURITY'S BILL.
AFTER ALL, I WAS PREVENTING THE
FUNDING OF VIOLATION OF THE WAR
POWERS ACT WITH THE FUNDS
PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY.
NOW THAT I OFFER THIS AMENDMENT
TO THE MILCON BILL, IT IS
RELEVANT.
THIS IS A BILL THAT PROVIDES
TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT.
AND IT IS NECESSARY AND
APPROPRIATE IF WE ARE GOING TO
ADOPT A POLICY THAT SAYS THAT
MONEY IS NOT GOING TO BE
APPROPRIATED FOR DELIBERATE
VIOLATION OF OUR LAW THAT WE
APPLY THIS AMENDMENT NOT ONLY
TO THE DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
BILL BUT TO THIS SECOND BILL
THAT FUNDS THE PENTAGON.
WHY IS THIS AMENDMENT
NECESSARY?
BECAUSE SO MANY ADMINISTRATIONS
HAVE EMBRACED THE IDEA OF AN
IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY.
THE IDEA THAT A PRESIDENT CAN
SEND OUR FORCES INTO BATTLE FOR
UNLIMITED DURATION FOR ANY
PURPOSE, UNLIMITED IN SCOPE.
THIS IS NOT WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW
PROVIDES.
THE WAR POWERS ACT IS THE LAW
OF THE LAND AND IT SAYS THE
PRESIDENT MAY INDEED COMMIT OUR
FORCES, BUT THE PRESIDENT MUST
SEEK CONGRESSIONAL
AUTHORIZATION AND MUST WITHDRAW
WITHIN 60 DAYS IF THAT
AUTHORIZATION IS NOT PROVIDED
BY THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE BY BOTH
HOUSES OF CONGRESS.
IN LIBYA WE FACE NOT AN ATTACK
ON THE UNITED STATES, NOT AN
ATTACK ON OUR ALLIES, BUT EVEN
IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THIS
PRESIDENT, LIKE OTHERS, CLAIMS
THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW
THE LAW.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS IMPLIED
THAT THERE ARE SUBSTITUTES FOR
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.
THEY'VE IMPLIED THAT
RESOLUTIONS BY THE UNITED
NATIONS, THE ARAB LEAGUE OR
NATO, CAN BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR
CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.
AND THEY IMPLIED THAT
CONSULTING CONGRESSIONAL
LEADERS, A LUNCH WITH
LEADERSHIP IS A SUBSTITUTE FOR
THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF BOTH
HOUSES OF CONGRESS.
IT IS TIME FOR US TO STAND UP
AND SAY, NO, MR. PRESIDENT, YOU
ACTUALLY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE
LAW.
OBVIOUSLY THIS AMENDMENT IS
MORE APROPOS TO THE DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
BUT WE WILL BE DEALING WITH
THAT WEEKS FROM NOW.
THE PRESIDENT HAVE BEEN
FOR MANY WEEKS.
VIOLATING THE WAR POWERS ACT
IT IS TIME TO ACT TODAY.
MOREOVER IF WE PUT THIS
AMENDMENT ONLY ON THE DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL AND DON'T
PUT IT ON THIS BILL, THEN WE
INVITE THE ADMINISTRATION TO
TRY TO FIGURE OUT CLEVER
ACCOUNTING WAYS TO USE THE
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS PROVIDED TO
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT IN THIS
BILL TO CARRY OUT OPERATIONS IN
LIBYA.
WE SHOULD NOT INVITE A LOOPHOLE
HUNT.
WE SHOULD PUT THE SAME
RESTRICTION ON BOTH OF THE
BILLS THAT FUND THE DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT.
NOW IF WE CAN PASS THIS
AMENDMENT, THE PRESIDENT WILL,
I HOPE, REQUEST AN
AUTHORIZATION FROM CONGRESS TO
TAKE ACTION IN LIBYA.
AND HE'LL HAVE TO ACCEPT AN
AUTHORIZATION THAT WILL, I
SUSPECT, BE LIMITED IN TIME AND
SCOPE.
PERHAPS IT WILL SAY THAT ONLY
AIR FORCES AND NOT GROUND
FORCES CAN BE COMMITTED.
PERHAPS IT WILL REQUIRE RENEWAL
EVERY THREE OR SIX MONTHS.
THERE MAY BE CONDITIONS ON WHAT
FUNDING SOURCES.
FOR EXAMPLE, PERHAPS WE COULD
USE SOME OF THE $33 BILLION
THAT GADDAFI WAS STUPID ENOUGH
TO LEAVE INVESTED IN THE UNITED
STATES IN WAYS WE CAN FIND AND
WE HAVE FROZEN, RATHER THAN USE
TAXPAYER -- TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
CONGRESS MAY ASK TOUGH
QUESTIONS AND WE MAY PUT SOME
TOUGH CONDITIONS REQUIRING
ACTION BY THE TRANSITIONAL
GOVERNMENT.
WE WILL ASK WHY THE
TRANSITIONAL GOVERNMENT HAS
REFUSED TO DISASSOCIATE ITSELF
FROM THE AL QAEDA FIGHTERS AND
LIBYAN ISLAMIC GROUP FIGHTING
MEN IN THEIR MIDST AND WHY THEY
WILL NOT REMOVE FROM THAT
TRANSITIONAL GOVERNMENT THOSE
WHO HAVE AMERICAN BLOOD ON
THEIR HANDS FROM IRAQ AND AFTER
FAN STAN.
THIS IS NOT -- AND AFGHANISTAN.
THIS IS NOT JUST AN ISSUE OF AN
AGGRANDIZING PRESIDENT, IT'S
ALSO THE ISSUE OF A DERELICT
CONGRESS.
CONTINUING MILITARY ACTION IN
LIBYA SHOULD BE CONDUCTED ONLY
IN ACCORDANCE WITH AMERICAN
IF CONGRESS HABITUALLY
LAW.
APPROPRIATES FUNDS KNOWING THEY
WILL BE USED AGAINST THE LAW OF
THE LAND, WE ARE COMPLICIT IN
UNDERMINING THE RULE OF LAW IN
THE QUESTION IS NOT DEMOCRACY
THE UNITED STATES.
AND THE RULE OF LAW IN LIBYA.
THE QUESTION IS DEMOCRACY AND
THE RULE OF LAW IN THE UNITED
STATES.
WHO
SEEKS TIME KNOPP SIGS?
I DON'T CLAIM
TIME IN OPPOSITION.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I RISE IN
SUPPORT OF THE GENTLEMAN'S
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT IS EVIDENT
THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS IN
DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE WAR
POWERS ACT WHICH REQUIRES THE
PRESIDENT TO EITHER CERTIFY TO
THE CONGRESS THAT THE UNITED
STATES HAS BEEN ATTACKED OR
THERE'S A SECURITY INTEREST OF
THE UNITED STATES AT STAKE AND
IF NOT WE NEED TO BE NOTIFIED.
I THINK THE -- STILL WAITING
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION TO TALK
TO US, TO JUSTIFY TO EXPLAIN
THE INVOLVEMENT OF U.S. FORCES
IN LIBYA AND NOW WE READ OVER
THE WEEKEND THAT THE
ADMINISTRATION MAY SEND U.S.
FORCES, OUR YOUNG MEN AND
WOMEN, INTO HARM'S WAY IN
YEMEN, WHAT ARE WE DOING TO --
GOING TO DO, SYRIA NEXT?
THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO
ASSURE THE MEN AND WOMEN IN
UNIFORM AND PEOPLE OF THIS
NATION THAT WE ARE ENFORCING
THE WAR POWERS ACT AND WE ARE
DIRECTLY INVOLVED AS A PARTNER
IN THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED
STATES.
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS
CONSISTENTLY REFUSED TO INVOLVE
THE CONGRESS IN THE DECISION TO
SEND OUR TROOPS INTO LIBYA.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO SPEND ANY
MONEY IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SPEND ANY
MONEY IN RILINGS OF --
VIOLATION OF THE WAR POWERS
RESOLUTION.
THE DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMAN OF
THE WHOLE COMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE IS
UNABLE TO SPEAK BUT MR.
MCCLINTOCK'S EDITORIAL, THE
POSITION THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA HAS TAKEN, THERE
COULD NOT BE A MORE CLEAR
VIOLATION OF THE WAR POWERS ACT
THAN THE PRESIDENT'S
INVOLVEMENT OF AMERICAN ARMED
FORCES IN LIB DWHREASM CONGRESS
HAS NEVER BEEN NOTIFIED.
THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY,
OBVIOUSLY, NO ATTACK ON THE
UNITED STATES, NO STRATEGIC
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
AT STAKE IN LIBYA OR IN YEMEN.
WHERE ELSE IS HE GOING TO SEND
OUR TROOPS WITHOUT NOTIFYING
THE CONGRESS AND THE PEOPLE OF
THE UNITED STATES AS REQUIRED
BY THE WAR POWERS ACT.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO RISE IN
SUPPORT OF THE GENTLEMAN'S
AMENDMENT.
I WANT TO RISE IN SUPPORT OF
THE CHAIRMAN, MR. MCCLINTOCK OF
CALIFORNIA'S, ELOQUENT DEFENSE
OF THE WAR POWERS ACT AND URGE
THE HOUSE TO ADOPT MR.
SHERMAN'S AMENDMENT AND I URGE
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
DOES ANY MEMBER SEEK
TIME IN OPPOSITION TO THE
AMENDMENT?
DOES ANY MEMBER SEEK DISCUSSION
IN RELATION TO THE AMENDMENT?
THE QUESTION SON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, THOSE IN FAVOR SAY
AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE GENTLEMAN --
I REQUEST A RECORDED
VOTE.
THE GENTLEMAN
REQUESTS A RECORDED VOTE.
FURTHER PROCEED THONINGS
QUESTION -- ON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA WILL BE POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN RISE?
DESK.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER
FIVE PRINTED IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OFFERED BY
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
MR. AMASH OF MICHIGAN.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS
RISE?
I RESERVE A POINT OF ORDER
ON THE GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES A POINT OF ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES ON HIS AMENDMENT.
AT THE START OF THIS
CONGRESS, THE HOUSE MADE
IMPORTANT CHANGES TO THE WAY
THE HOUSE OPERATES.
WE BEGAN BY ENDING EARMARKS.
AMERICANS UNDERSTOOD THEY
FAVORED REPRESENTATIVES' PET
PROJECTS AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE HAD TO PAY FOR THEM.
AMERICANS STARTED TO LOSE
CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT
WHEN THEY SAW REPRESENTATIVES
USING PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PERSONAL
GAIN.
HOUSE MEMBERS NAMED FEDERAL
PROGRAMS AND BUILDING AFTER
THEMSELVES, AMERICANS CAN'T BE
SURE IF THE PROGRAMS ARE FUNDED
BECAUSE THEY'RE WORTHWHILE OR
BECAUSE THEY BENEFIT A HOUSE
MEMBER PERSONALLY.
IT HAS A PROHIBITION.
MY AMENDMENT EXTENDS THAT SAME
PROHIBITION TO CURRENT SENATORS
AND THE PRESIDENT.
ENDING, QUOTE, MONUMENTS TO ME,
IS AN IMPORTANT STEP TO
PREVENTING THE WASTE OF
TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND TO ENSURE
APPROPRIATIONS ARE IN THE BEST
INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC.
I ASK YOU TO SUPPORT MY
AMENDMENT AND I YIELD BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS
RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
I AGREE WITH THE
GENTLEMAN'S SENTIMENT, IT'S
IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T SPEND
ANY MONEY TO NAME THINGS AFTER
I WOULD THINK -- IT'S
OURSELVES.
INAPPROPRIATE, IT JUST OUGHT
NOT BE DONE.
I KNOW THAT MY COLLEAGUE FROM
TEXAS -- OF THIS RULE IS IN
PLACE FOR THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND OUGHT TO BE
IN PLACE FOR THE SENATE AND
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT IMPOSES A
DUTY ON FEDERAL AGENCIES IN
VIOLATION OF CLAUSE 206 RULE
21.
SO I REGRET, RELUCTANTLY, HAVE
TO RAISE A POINT OF ORDER
AGAINST THE GENTLEMAN'S
AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO CHANGE
EXISTING LAW AND THEREFORE
CONSTITUTES LEGISLATION IN OUR
APPROPRIATIONS BILL IN
VIOLATION OF CLAUSE 206 RULE 21
AND IN THAT THE AMENDMENT SEEKS
TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON
A FEDERAL AGENCY.
I ASK FAR RULING FROM THE
CHAIR.
DOES ANY OTHER
MEMBER WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE
POINT OF ORDER.
IF NOT, THE CHAIR WILL RULE.
THE CHAIR FINDS THAT THIS
AMENDMENT INCLUDES LANGUAGE
REQUIRING DETERMINATION BY THE
RELEVANT BRANCH OFFICIAL OF THE
CURRENT MEMBERSHIP OF A BODY IN
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, IT
THEREFORE CONSTITUTES
LEGISLATION IN VIOLATION OF
CLAUSE 2 OF RULE 21.
THE POINT OF ORDER IS
SUSTAINED, THE AMENDMENT IS NOT
IN ORDER.
ARE THERE FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO
THIS BILL?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
CLERK WILL REPORT
THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. FLORES OF TEXAS, AT THE END
OF THE BILL, BEFORE THE SHORT
TITLE, ADD THE FOLLOWING
SECTION, NONE OF THE FUNDS
AVAILABLE IN THIS ACT SHALL BE
RABLE TO ENFORCE SECTION 526 OF
THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND
SECURITY ACT OF 2007, PUBLIC
LAW 110-140, 171-42.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
MY AMENDMENT IS
QUITE SIMPLE.
DURING THE 110TH CONGRESS THERE
WAS A SECTION ADDED TO THE
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND
SECURITY ACT THAT BANS FEDERAL
AGENCIES FROM ENTERING INTO
CONTRACTS UNLESS THE LIFE CYCLE
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ARE
LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO SUCH
EMOTION MISSIONS FROM A
CONVENTIONAL FUEL PRODUCED FROM
CONVENTIONAL SOURCES THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD SIMPLY PROHIBIT
THE GOVERNMENT FROM ENFORCING
THIS BAN ON THE FEDERAL
AGENCIES FUNDED BY THE
UNDERLYING BILL.
I WAS NOT YET IN CONGRESS WHEN
THE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND
SECURITY ACT WAS CONSIDERED.
IT RAISES CONCERNS OVER
NATIONAL SECURITY, ECONOMIC
SECURITY AND IT CREATES
BUREAUCRATIC UNCERTAINTY.
SECTION 526 WAS ADDED TO THIS
BILL TO STIFLE THE DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT'S PLANS TO BUY AND
DEVELOP COAL-BASED OR
COAL-TO-LIQUIDS YET FUEL.
ENVIRONMENTALISTS ALLEGE THAT
THIS COAL-BASED FUEL WILL
ULTIMATELY PRODUCE MORE
GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS THAN
TRADITIONAL PETROLEUM RESOURCES
THIS ALLEGATION IS UNCERTAIN AT
BEST AND DOES NOT CAPTURE
CARBON TECHNOLOGIES IN
ASSOCIATION WITH C.T.L.
TECHNOLOGY.
MY AMENDMENT PROHIBITS FUNDS IN
THE BILL FROM BEING USED TO
ENFORCE SECTION 526.
SECTION 526 MAKES IT MORE
DIFFICULT FOR OUR DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT TO BECOME ENERGY
INDEPENDENT, TO RELY ON MORE
DOMESTIC AND MORE STABLE
SOURCES OF FUEL INSTEAD OF
SOURCES LOCATED IN MORE
UNSTABLE, VOLATILE PARTS OF THE
WORLD.
THIS CREATES UNCERTAINTY ABOUT
WHAT FUELS D.O.D. CAN SECURE.
IT CREATES RELIABLE FUEL
SUPPLIES FOR THE ARMED FORCES.
IT OPENS D.O.D. UP TO
ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES FOR
EVERY FUEL PURCHASE IT MAKES.
PER A LETTER TO SENATOR INHOFE,
SUCH A DECISION CAN CAUSE
SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE
READINESS BECAUSE THESE MAY BE
WIDELY USED IN CERTAIN
GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS.
NOT ONLY CERTAIN AREAS, IT
HURTS AMERICAN FAMILIES AND
AMERICAN BUSINESSES BUT THEY
ARE POTENTIALLY CAUSES HARM TO
THE READINESS OF THE ARMED
FORCES.
THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT SHOULD
NOT BE WASTED TIME ON FUEL
EMISSIONS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE
TO BE STIFLED BY A SMALL
SECTION OF AN ENERGY LAW.
THIS IS AN UNACCEPTABLE BURDEN
TO PLACE ON OUR NATION'S
MILITARY AND IT IS AN
UNACCEPTABLE PRECEDENT IN
REGARD TO AMERICA'S ENERGY
POLICY.
I YIELD BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS
RISE?
MR. CULL BEHRSON --
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD AND RIDES IN SUPPORT OF
THE AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
WE'VE BEEN
BLESSED BY THE GOOD LORD WITH
EXTRAORDINARY RESOURCES, WE
HAVE THE APPARENTLY WORLD'S
LARGEST SUPPLY OF SHALE GAS,
SHALE OIL, YET THE
ADMINISTRATION IS DOING
EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO
PREVENT US FROM EVEN FINDING OR
LOCATING ADDITIONAL SHALE OIL
OR GAS AND IT PREVENTS US
DRILLING IN THE GULF OF MEXICO,
WHICH WE'VE DONE CLEANLY AND
SAFELY FOR DECADES.
WE COULD CREATE HUNDREDS AND
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
HIGH-PAYING JOBS IN THE UNITED
STATES IF THE ADMINISTRATION
WOULD GET OUT OF THE WAY AND
LET TEXANS RUN TEXAS, AND LET
THE GULF STATES TO DO WHAT THEY
DO BEST, PRODUCE DOMESTIC OIL
AND GAS CLEANLY AND SAFELY.
THE JOBS THAT ARE PRODUCED IN
THE GUT OF OF MEXICO AND THE
ENERGY INDUSTRY ACROSS THE
UNITED STATES ARE SAFE,
HIGH-PAYING, HIGH-QUALITY JOBS
THAT THE ECONOMY, THE PEOPLE OF
AMERICA, DESPERATELY NEED.
MR. FLORES HAS BROUGHT AN
IMPORTANT AMENDMENT TO THE
FLOOR WHICH WOULD EXPAND THE
USE OF PETROLEUM DERIVED FROM
COAL, THE UNITED STATES IS
BLESSED WITH ABUNDANT
AMENDMENTS OF OLE -- ABUNDANT
AMOUNTS OF COAL AND THIS
SECTION OF LAW DISCOURAGES THE
PRODUCTION OF LICK FIED GAS OR
-- OF LIQUEFIED GAS OR FUEL AND
THAT'S A VITAL PART OF OUR
ENERGY FUTURE.
WE UNDERSTAND AS CONSTITUTIONAL
CONSERVATIVES, AS THE NEW
MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE THAT THE
UNITED STATES NEEDS TO CONTINUE
TO INVEST IN ALTERNATIVE
TECHLING INS FOR THE FUTURE.
-- TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE FUTURE.
WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF FINDING
NEW WAYS TO GENERATE
ELECTRICITY, TO MOVE THE UNITED
STATES INTO THE NEXT ERA OF
ENERGY BEYOND PETROLEUM BUT IN
THE MEANTIME, IN THE
SHORT-TERM, WE NEED TO DRILL
HERE AND DRILL NOW.
WE NEED TO USE EVERY AVAILABLE
RESOURCE THAT THE GOOD LORD HAS
BLESSED THIS NATION WITH IN A
WAY THAT'S OBVIOUSLY CLEAN,
SAFE, ECOLOGICALLY FRIENDLY AND
WE CAN DO SO.
WE HAVE DONE SO IN TEXAS FOR
YEARS, MR. FLORES HAS EXTENSIVE
EXPERIENCE IN THE ENERGY
INDUSTRY, HOUSTON IS TO THE
ENERGY INDUSTRY WHAT CALIFORNIA
AND SILICON VALLEY IS TO THE
COMPUTER INDUSTRY.
WE HAVE PROVEN TIME AND AGAIN
WE CAN PRODUCE OIL AND GAS
SAFELY AND CLEANLY, WE NEED TO
OPEN UP DRILLING IN THE GULF
THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS
DELIBERATELY AND SYSTEMATICALLY
SHUT DOWN DRILLING IN THE GULF
OF MEXICO, WHICH INCREASES OUR
DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL WHILE
THE ADMINISTRATION USED OUR
TAXPAYERS AND ITS INFLUENCE TO
ATTEMPT TO PROP UP AND SUPPORT
BRAZILIAN EXPLORATION FOR OIL
AND GAS.
DISCOURAGING AMERICAN
DEVELOPMENT OF OIL AND GAS.
IT'S A POLICY THAT CONTINUES TO
DRIVE DOWN -- DRIVE UP THE
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE AND DRIVE
DOWN THE PROCUX OF AMERICAN OIL
AND GAS -- PRODUCTION OF
AMERICAN OIL AND GAS.
MR. FLORES' AMENDMENT WILL
EXPLORE THE ONE VITAL RESOURCE
WE HAVE IN ABUNDANCE AND THAT'S
COAL.
I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT AND URGE
ADOPTION BY THE HOUSE AND YIELD
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
BACK THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
WASHINGTON, MR. DICKS.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION
TO THE AMENDMENT AND I MOVE TO
STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
SECTION 526 OF THE ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT
OF 2007 IS INTENDED TO ENSURE
THAT ANY ALTERNATIVE FUEL THAT
IS INTRODUCED TO REPLACE FUEL
MUST HAVE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS.
THAT IS A COMMONSENSE APPROACH.
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ALONE
IS THE SINGLE LARGEST ENERGY
CONSUMER IN THE WORLD.
ITS LEADERSHIP IN THIS AREA IS
CRITICAL TO ANY CREDIBLE
APPROACH TO DEALING WITH ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE ISSUES.
SECTION 526 PROVIDES AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR D.O.D. TO PLAY
A SUBSTANTIAL ROLE IN SPURRING
THE INNOVATION NEEDED TO
PRODUCE ALTERNATIVE FUELS WHICH
WILL NOT FURTHER EXACERBATE
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.
I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE
SECRETARY MABUS, THE SECRETARY
OF THE NAVY, FOR HIS ENERGETIC
APPROACH TO FINDING ALTERNATIVE
FUELS.
I THINK HE AS SECRETARY HAS
DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB.
HE'S PUT THE NAVY ON A PATH
TOWARDS ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND
TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
PETROLEUM PRODUCT THAT WE'RE
USING TODAY.
SO I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE
NO ON THIS VERY SHORT-SIDED
AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
I YIELD BACK.
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO
SEEK RECOGNITION FOR THIS
AMENDMENT?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TENNESSEE RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE
LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THE AMENDMENT I
OFFERED LAST WEEK WOULD SIMPLY
REDUCE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
ACCOUNT IN THE V.A. BY $70
MILLION AND INCREASE THE SAME
ACCOUNT BY $70 MILLION.
MY INTENTION IS TO MAKE IT
CLEAR TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
PROGRESS ON EFFORTS TO
VETERANS AFFAIRS WE MUST SEEK
INTEGRATE THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE AND THE V.A. ELECTRONIC
MEDICAL RECORD.
IT'S UNTHINKABLE AS WE MAKE A
TRANSITION FROM THE MILITARY
BACK TO THE HOMELAND AS
SEAMLESS AS POSSIBLE WE HAVE A
SYSTEM THAT'S BEFUDDLING AS THE
ONE WE HAVE WHERE A SERVICE
MEMBER LITERALLY NEEDS A PIECE
OF PAPER OR COPY OF HIS RECORD
OR HER MEDICAL RECORD TO ENSURE
INFORMATION ISN'T LOST
TRANSITIONING BETWEEN THE TWO
SYSTEMS.
WHEN THE SEVERELY INJURED
PATIENT IS RELEASED AND
TRANSFERRED FROM WALTER REED TO
THE V.A. IN JOHNSON CITY,
TENNESSEE, ALL THE INFORMATION
REGARDING THEIR INJURY CAN BE
TERRIBLY DIFFICULT TO ACCESS.
THAT SHOULDN'T BE THE CASE.
THIS IS WHY I SUPPORT CHAIRMAN
CULBERSON'S REPORT LANGUAGE
WHICH RECOMMENDS THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
SET ASIDE $70 OF THE OVERALL
$3.25 BILLION IN THE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACCOUNT
FOR THE VIRTUAL LIFETIME
ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD.
I WOULD IN FACT LIKE TO
STRENGTHEN THIS LANGUAGE BY
PUTTING IN THE BILL TO ENSURE
THIS MONEY GETS SPENT ON
INTEGRATION.
THE V.A. AND D.O.D. MAINTAIN
THE TWO LARGEST HEALTH CARE
SYSTEMS IN THE NATION,
PROVIDING HEALTH CARE TO SIX
MILLION VETERANS AND OVER 1 1/2
MILLION ACTIVE DUTY SERVICE
MEMBERS RESPECTFULLY.
WITHIN THE V.A. ALONE THERE ARE
1,500 SFAILTS THAT PROVIDE CARE
TO VETERANS.
TO PROVIDE THIS CARE, THE
D.O.D. AND V.A. BOTH RELY ON
ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD
SYSTEMS TO CREATE, MAINTAIN AND
MANAGE PATIENT HEALTH
INFORMATION.
BUT THE TWO AGENCIES FOR YEARS
CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER.
OPERATED DIFFERENT SYSTEMS THAT
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
$10 BILLION HAS BEEN SPENT, A
SOLDIER LEAVES THE MILITARY,
HIS RECORD CAN'T BE TRANSFERRED
ELECTRONICALLY TO THE V.A.
I JUST HAD SOMEONE IN MY OFFICE
JUST BEFORE I WALKED OVER HERE
ON THE HOUSE FLOOR THAT SHOWED
WHERE A ELECTRONIC MEDICAL
SYSTEM RECORD WOULD HAVE
DELAYED TREMENT OF THE VETERAN.
THIS HAS OCCURRED FOR YEARS AT
OF DOLLARS.
THE COLLECTIVE COST OF BILLIONS
I FIRST BECAME AWARE OF THIS
PROBLEM WHEN I ARRIVED IN
CONGRESS AND DIDN'T REALIZE IT
HAD BEEN WORKED ON FOR YEARS.
I APPLAUD THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE FOR HIGHLIGHTING THE
NEED FOR THE VAER IN ITS
COMMITTEE AND I THINK THIS
LANGUAGE SHOULD BE PUT IN THE
BILL TO MAKE SURE THE V.A.
SPENDS THE MONEY ON THIS
PURPOSE.
THE LIFETIME ELECTRONIC HEALTH
RECORD SYSTEM WOULD IMPROVE THE
DELIVERY OF CARE FOR SERVICE
MEMBERS TRANSFERRING FROM THE
MILITARY TO CIVILIAN LIFE.
I KNOW THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING
AN ORGANIZED AND EFFICIENT
ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD
SYSTEM.
IN FACT, I PUT ONE IN MY OFFICE
FOR OVER 70 PROVIDERS AND TENS
I DO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY
OF THOUPS OF PATIENTS.
AND I KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO BE
DONE, BUT I KNOW THE IMPORTANCE
OF IT.
I HOPE THE COMMITTEE WILL ADOPT
THIS COMMITTEE AND WORK ON
STRENGTHENING IT IN THE FINAL
BILL TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS
INTEGRATION MUST BE A PRIORITY.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
YEAH.
WE'RE TRYING TO VOTE
ON THE FLORES AMENDMENT.
COULD YOU HAVE WAITED TO --
MAKE YOUR FIVE-MINUTE SPEECH?
THIS IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO
THIS DEBATE.
I APOLOGIZE TO THE
GENTLEMAN.
I YIELD BACK.
NO PROBLEM.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
DOES ANY MEMBER SEEK TO TALK ON
THE AMENDMENT?
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OF THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THE AYES APPEAR TO HAVE IT.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
AND THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER
AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN
THE CLERK WILL
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. COUGH MON OF COLORADO.
AT THE END OF THE BILL BEFORE
THE SHORT TITLE INSERT THE
FOLLOWING -- SECTION, NONE OF
THE FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE IN
THIS ACT MAY BE USED BY THE
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
TO PROVIDE DISABILITY
COMPENSATION UNDER CHAPTER 11
OF TITLE 38, UNITED STATES
CODE, TO ANY VETERAN PRO--
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
AS REQUIRED INSERVICE OR STRESS
CLAIMED BY THE VETERAN IS
RELATED TO THE VETERAN'S FEAR
OF HOSTILE, TERRORIST ACTIVITY
THAT THE VETERAN SERVICE DID
NOT INCLUDE A COMBAT ZONE.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS
RISE?
MR. SPEAKER, I
RESERVE A POINT OF ORDER ON THE
THE GENTLEMAN
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT.
RESERVES A POINT OF ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
I STAND WITH THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE IN WANTING TO MAKE SURE
THAT OUR RETURNING SULL SERVICE
MEMBERS FROM IRAQ AND
AFGHANISTAN ARE -- RETURNING
SERVICE MEMBERS FROM IRAQ AND
AFGHANISTAN IS TAKEN CARE OF.
SINCE 2008 OVER 100,000 --
ALMOST 100,000 CLAIMS FOR
DISABILITY BASED ON
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
HAVE BEEN AWARDED.
AT A TREMENDOUS COST.
BUT THE CONCERN IS, AGAIN, THAT
THESE VETERANS ARE TAKEN CARE
OF.
IN JULY OF LAST YEAR, NEW RULES
WERE PROMULGATED AS TO THE
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PROAST
TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER AND
WHAT THEY IS IT --
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
AND WHAT THEY DID IS IT NO
LONGER REQUIRED THE SERVICE
MEMBERS TO RELATE A SPECIFIC
COMBAT OCCURRENCE OR
OCCURRENCES TO THEIR
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER.
AND SO IT IS MY BELIEF THAT
THESE RULES ARE TOO LOOSELY
WRITTEN AND THAT WHAT WE OUGHT
TO HAVE IS MORE DEFINITION TO
SAY THAT SOMEONE WHO'S NEVER
SERVED IN A COMBAT ZONE SHOULD
NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
DISABILITY BENEFITS, NOT
TREATMENT.
SERUM THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE
FOR TREATMENT, BUT I UNDERSTAND
THAT THIS -- CERTAINLY THEY
WOULD ELIGIBLE FOR TREATMENT,
BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS
REQUIRES THE VETERANS AMFERINGS
TO CREATE A DEFINITION AND --
ADMINISTRATION TO CREATE A
DEFINITION AND --
WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?
SERVICE IN A
COMBAT ZONE.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
YIELDING, AND I CERTAINLY CAN
APPRECIATE THE CONCERNS THAT
THE GENTLEMAN RISES THAT HAVE
CAUSED HIM TO OFFER THE
AMENDMENT.
I WANTED TO REMIND
THE GENTLEMAN THAT THE AWFUL
INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT FORT
HOOD IN TEXAS, THERE WERE A LOT
OF OUR SERVICE MEMBERS WHO WERE
PRESENT AND WHO EXPERIENCED
THAT AWFUL, AWFUL SITUATION.
UNDER THIS AMENDMENT IT WOULD
PREVENT THE VETERANS -- ONCE
THOSE PEOPLE ARE DISCHARGED AND
SERVICE MEMBERS FROM BEING ABLE
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
BENEFITS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS BECAUSE THEY
WERE AT FORT HOOD AS OPPOSED TO
AT -- IN AFGHANISTAN OR IRAQ OR
SOME OTHER PLACE OF HOSTILITY.
AND ALSO I WOULD REMIND THE
GENTLEMAN THAT THE SERVICE
MEMBERS WHO OPERATE OUR
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES SUCH
AS THE PREDATOR, WHICH HAS
GREAT CAPABILITIES FOR CAUSING
DESTRUCTION IN WAR, IS ONE OF
OUR GREAT WEAPONS, BUT THEY
ACTUALLY CAN SEE IT ON VIDEO IN
REAL TIME THE DEATH AND THE
DESTRUCTION AND THE
DISMEMBERMENT THAT IS CAUSED BY
THE UTILIZATION OF IT IN
NEVADA.
AND WHEN THE WEAPON IS HAVING
ITS IMPACT IN AFGHANISTAN.
AND, OF COURSE, BECAUSE OF THAT
THEY WOULD BE DISQUALIFIED.
AND UNDER THIS AMENDMENT I
THINK THE GENTLEMAN'S POINT IS
WELL TAKEN AND WANTING TO MAKE
SURE THAT ONLY THOSE PEOPLE WHO
WERE ENTITLED TO VETERANS'
BENEFITS IN FACT GETS THEM BUT
I THINK THAT PERHAPS SOME
PROBLEMS IN THE ARTFUL DRAFTING
OF THE AMENDMENT THAT PERHAPS
SHOULD BE CLARIFIED AND BECAUSE
OF THAT I'M RELUCTANT TO
SUPPORT IT AND I MUST OPPOSE
IT.
RECLAIMING MY
TIME.
THE CHAIRMAN HAS RAISED A
SIMILAR ISSUE, AND I CERTAINLY
AGREE WITH HIM ABOUT THE ISSUE
OF EXPANDING THE DEFINITION IN
THIS AMENDMENT TO REFLECT
TERRORIST ACTIVITY THAT WOULD
AGAIN, CERTAINLY TREATMENT
BE BEYOND A COMBAT ZONE.
WOULD BE AVAILABLE.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.
WE ARE MERELY TALKING ABOUT
DISABILITY COMPENSATION.
I PROBABLY DISAGREE WITH YOU ON
A COMBAT VETERAN MYSELF ON THE
GROUND SIDE UNDER THE EXAMPLE.
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO
WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT.
I REALIZE THAT IT IS OUT OF
ORDER BECAUSE THE FACT THAT IT
REALLY IMPEDS ON AUTHORIZING
VERSUS APPROPRIATING.
IT IS MY INTENT, CERTAINLY, AND
I'D BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE
GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA AS WELL
AS THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS IN
TERMS OF COMING UP WITH A
DEFINITION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
TAKE CARE OF THOSE VETERANS WHO
ARE MOST IN NEED.
WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I
YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN BEGS
LEAVE TO WITHDRAW HIS
AMENDMENT.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION?
HEARING NONE, THE AMENDMENT IS
WITHDRAWN.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA
SEEK RECOGNITION?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN
THE CLERK WILL
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
REPORT THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. FITZPATRICK OF
PENNSYLVANIA.
AT THE END OF THE BILL, BEFORE
THE SHORT TITLE, INSERT THE
FOLLOWING -- SECTION.
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, UNITED
STATES CODE, 63 HQ-3, THAT ARE
INCLUDED IN THE DATABASE UNDER
TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE.
ANY PREFERENCE AVAILABLE WITH
RESPECT TO SUCH CONTRACT,
EXCEPT FOR PREFERENCE GIVEN TO
SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS OWNED
AND CONTROLLED BY
SERVICE-DISABLED VETERANS AS
THAT TERM DEFINED IN SECTION
3-Q-2 OF THE SMALL BUSINESS
ACT, 15, UNITED STATES CODE,
632-Q-2.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
PENNSYLVANIA IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES.
I RISE TODAY
TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO
PROTECT VETERANS CONTRACTING
WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
AFTER PUTTING THEIR LIVE THOPES
LINE AND THEIR FAMILIES AND
CAREERS ON HOLD FOR OUR
NATION'S DEFENSE, OUR VETERAN
DECEMBER SERVE EVERY CHANCE WE
CAN GIVE THEM TO ADJUST TO LIFE
ONCE THEY RETURN.
VETERAN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES
ARE PART OF THE AMERICAN FABRIC
AND WE MUST DO ALL WE CAN TO
ENCOURAGE THAT.
HERE ARE A FEW FACTS.
ACCORDING TO THE MOST RECENT
CENSUS, OVER 3.24 MILLION OF
OUR NATION'S VETERANS ARE SMALL
BUSINESS OWNERS.
THEIR BUSINESSES MAKE UP 3.2%
OF ALL SMALL BUSINESS FIRMS.
FINALLY, NEARLY A QUARTER OF
VETERANS SAY THEY'RE INTERESTED
IN STARTING OR IN BUYING A
SMALL BUSINESS.
DESPITE THESE ENCOURAGING
NUMBERS, THE TRUTH OF THE
MATTER IS VETERANS ARE
UNEMPLOYED AT A HIGHER LEVEL
THAN ANY OF US FIND ACCEPTABLE.
FOR INSTANCE, THE UNEMPLOYMENT
RATE FOR YOUNG VETERANS
RETURNING FROM AFGHANISTAN AND
IRAQ REACHED A STAGGERING 22%
LAST YEAR.
MR. CHAIRMAN THIS NUMBER IS
SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE.
WE MUST WORK TO REDUCE THIS
NUMBER AND IT SHOULD BE THE
EXPLICIT STATED POLICY OF ALL
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO ASSIST
VETERAN ENTREPRENEURS.
AS OUR NATION STRUGGLES TO
ACHIEVE AN ECONOMIC RECOVERY,
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING TO ACHIEVE
THE TALL I WANT, EXPERTISE AND
SKILLS OF OUR NATION'S
VETERANS.
THEY VOLUNTEERED TO SELFLESSLY
SERVE OUR CUPRY AND IN ORDER TO
SKED MUST DISPLAY
SELF-DISCIPLINE AND LEADERSHIP.
IT IS CHARACTERISTIC AND
CHARACTER TRAITS LIKE THESE
THAT SHOULD BE NURTURED AND
FOSTERED TO HELP OUR ECONOMY
GROW AGAIN AND PUT PEOPLE BACK
TO WORK.
VETERANS HAVE SERVED OUR NATION
NOBODYABLY ACROSS THE WORLD.
NOW THEIR INNOVATION AND
EXPERTISE CAN HELP LEAD OUR
AMERICAN RECOVERY.
ULTIMATELY, WE MUST ALL BE
FOCUSED ON PUTTING OUR
CONSTITUENTS BACK TO WORK AND I
BELIEVE, MR. CHAIRMAN THAT THIS
AMENDMENT WILL HELP TO DO THAT.
THIS AMENDMENT WILL GIVE
VETERAN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES
PREFERENCES FOR CONTRACTS EQUAL
TO ANY GROUP ELIGIBLE FOR
PREFERRED CONSIDERATION EXCEPT
FOR SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS.
THE PRACTICE OF ENCOURAGING
GOVERNMENT TO DO BUSINESS WITH
CERTAIN GROUPS IS WELL
ESTABLISHED THIS AMENDMENT DOES
NOT DIMINISH PREFERENCE TO ANY
OTHER GROUPS, IT SIMPLY EXTENDS
TO VETERAN-OWNED SMALL
BUSINESSES ANY THE SAME
CONSIDERATION.
IT WOULD APPLY TO ALL FEDERAL
CONTRACTS AUTHORIZED BY ALL
VETERANS AFFAIRS ACT AND WOULD
APPLY TO ALL PROJECTS FUNDED
WITH FEDERAL DAUGHTERS.
SMALL BUSINESSES ARE CONSIDERED
THOSE DEFINED BY THE SMALL
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION AND
ELIGIBLE BUSINESSES MUST BE
REGISTERED, VETERAN-OWNED