Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
. THIS VOTE IS NOT ABOUT
DEMOCRACY AND THE RAUL OF LAW
IN LIBYA.
THIS VOTE IS ABOUT DEMOCRACY
AND THE RULE OF LAW IN THE
UNITED STATES.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE --
I MOVE TO STRIKE
THE LAST WORD.
I RISE KNOPP SIGS TO THE
AMENDMENT.
IT'S NOTTER IS MAIN TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
IT'S BETTER ADDRESSED WITHIN
THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION OR DEFENSE
APPROPRIATION BILL.
I YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORDS.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
I WANT TO JOIN
CHAIRMAN ADERHOLT IN THIS.
MEMBERS WOULD NOT WANT TO VOTE
TO CONTRAVENE THE LAW IN
ANYTHING WE TO.
BUT WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS
IS NOTTIER MAIN TO THIS BILL
AND THE RHETORIC THAT HAS
ATTENDED THE INTRODUCTION OF
THIS AMENDMENT CONTAINS, JUST
TO PUT IT MILDLY, INSINUATIONS
AND CHARGES.
THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO EBB
GAUGE IN A FULL DEBATE SO I'LL
RESTRICT MYSELF TO SAYING THAT
I DO THINK THAT THIS IS
INAPPROPRIATE FOR THIS BILL.
I SUPPORT THE GENTLEMAN'S
POSITION AND RISE IN
OPPOSITION.
I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN AND YIELD BACK MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NO HAVES IT.
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OFFERED BY
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
WILL BE POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA RISE?
MADAM CHAIRWOMAN I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE TABLE.
THE CLERK WILL
REPORT THE AMENDMENT.
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN PLEASE
STATE THE TITLE OF THE
AMENDMENT.
THE CLERK WILL READ.
AN AMENDMENT OFFERED
BY MR. GOSAR OF ARIZONA.
AT THE THOACHED BILL INSERT THE
FOLLOWING.
NO PART OF THIS ACT MAY BE USED
UNDER THE CODE KNOWN AS THE
DAVIS-BACON ACT.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I RISE IN SUPPORT
OF MY AMENDMENT THAT WOULD
EXEMPT ALL CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS FROM THE INFLATIONARY
AND UNWISE DAVIS-BACON ACT.
AS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, WE ARE
STEWARDS OF PUBLIC TREASURY.
WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SPEND
TAXPAYER MONEY WISELY.
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT EARN
MONEY, THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT
GENERATE WEALTH.
THE GOVERNMENT TAKES MONEY FROM
THOSE WHO WORK HARD FOR A
LIVING.
IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THAT ACT,
WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION AT A
MINIMUM TO SPEND THIS MONEY
WISELY.
THE DAVIS-BACON ACT ADDS
UNNECESSARY COSTS.
RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THE
DAVIS-BACON ACT IMPOSES COSTS
22% ABOVE MARKET WAGES.
EVERY DOLLAR WASTED IS A DOLLAR
WE CAN'T USE ON OTHER PROJECTS.
IN MOST CITY THE DAVIS-BACON
ACT PROPOSES WAGES THAT BEAR NO
RESEMBLANCE TO MARKET WAGES.
I ASK FOR EVERYONE'S SUPPORT ON
THIS MEASURE AND I YIELD BACK
MY TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM -- FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
RISE?
I RISE IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS AMENDMENT AND MOVE TO
STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
THIS WILL PRECLUDE
THE HOMELAND SECURITY OR ANY
ENTITY THAT RECEIVES MONEY FROM
INSISTING OR FAIR LABOR
STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION --
FOR STANDARDS KNOWN AS THE
DAVIS-BACON STANDARDS.
IT'S A SIMPLE CONCEPT AND A
FAIR ONE.
IT REQUIRES THAT WORKERS ON
FEDERALLY FUNDED CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS BE PAID NO LESS THAN
ACCORDING TO THE ECONOMIC
POLICY INSTITUTE, THE
DIFFERENCES IN LABOR COSTS THAT
THIS MAKES ARE INSIGNIFICANT,
AVERAGE LABOR COSTS INCLUDING
BENEFITS AND PAYROLL TAXES ARE
ROUGHLY ONE 1/4 OF CONSTRUCTION
COSTS.
THUS, IF THERE'S AN INCREASE IN
OVERALL CONSTRUCT COST DUE TO
HIGHER WAGES IT LIKELY WOULD BE
MODEST, TO THE POINT IN MANY
CASES OF BEING VIRTUALLY
UNDETECTABLE.
AND IN FACT DAVIS-BACON IN
ASSURING THAT FAIR WAGES
ATTRACT SKILLED WORKERS, THIS
MIGHT ACTUALLY MEAN THAT THE
WORK IS COMPLETED AT A HIGHER
QUALITY AND IN LESS TIME.
THIS AMENDMENT FLOUTS THE BASIC
CONCEPT OF WAGE FAIRNESS.
AT THE EXACT TIME WE'RE TRYING
TO GET PEOPLE BACK TO WORK
ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IS THIS
HOUSE GOING TO VOTE TO DRIVE
DOWN THE WAGES OF WORKERS WHO
DO BUSINESS WITH THE GOVERNMENT
ON THE THEORY THAT IT MIGHT
COST A LITTLE LESS MONEY ON
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS?
AND ARE WE GOING TO STRONG ARM
THE STATES AND SAY THEY CAN'T
UPHOLD THE LABOR STANDARDS
THEY'VE ADOPTED IN THEIR OWN
RIGHT?
I STRONGLY RECOMMEND A NO VOTE.
THE HOUSE HAS SPOKEN REPEATEDLY
ON THIS ISSUE THIS YEAR.
WE'VE TAKEN TWO VOTES ON THIS.
DURING H.R. 1 AND DURING THE
F.A.A. RE-AUTHORIZATION AND
BOTH TIMES AMENDMENTS TO STRIKE
DAVIS-BACON STANDARDS FAILED.
WE DON'T NEED TO REVISIT THIS
AGAIN HERE TONIGHT.
AND I YIELD BACK.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
I RISE IN STRONG SUPPORT
AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT.
DAVIS AND BACON WERE TWO
REPUBLICANS, SO THEY KNEW WHAT
THEY WERE DOING.
I THANK THE RANKING
MEMBER AND YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM IOWA RISE?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE
GOSAR AMENDMENT.
I DON'T KNOW ANOTHER MEMBER OF
CONGRESS THAT'S LIVED UNDER
DAVIS-BACON.
I HAVE.
I'VE LIVED UNDERNEATH
IT FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS.
I RECEIVED DAVIS-BACON WAGES
WHEN I WAS WORKING FOR OTHER
CONTRACTORS AND PAID A LOT OF
DAVIS-BACON WAGES AS AN
OWNER-OPERATOR OF A
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY I OPERATED
OVER 28 YEARS.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT INTERFERING WITH A
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN AN EMPLOYER AND
EMPLOYEE IS THE WRONG THING TO
DO.
IT DOES DRIVE UP THE COST.
THE GENTLEMAN'S OPENING REMARKS
WERE SPOT-ON.
MY OWN CONSTRUCTION RECORDS
SHOW THE COSTS GO UP BETWEEN 8%
AND 35%, HARDLY INSIGNIFICANT.
AND IT SCRAMBLES THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYERS
AND EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ALWAYS
JOCKEYING FOR THE HIGHEST PAID
FEDERALLY DESIGNATED SCALE.
I'VE SEEN WAGES CHANGE FROM
DOUBLE TO JUST GOING ACROSS THE
ROAD BECAUSE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS DESIGNATED A
DIFFERENT WAGE SCALE FOR ONE
DIVISION RATHER THAN ANOTHER.
WE KNOW THIS IS UNION SCALE.
NOBODY SAID THAT.
THIS IS GOVERNMENT IMPOSED
UNION SCALE.
AND I'M NOT GOING TO STAND HERE
TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THOSE
REPUBLICANS.
THEY DID IT TO PROTECT THE
UNIONS IN NEW YORK.
AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE THE
LABOR FROM ALABAMA WAS GOING TO
NEW YORK IN 1931 TO
CONSTRUCTION A FEDERAL BUILDING
AND THEY WANTED TO LOCK THE
BLACK CONSTRUCTION WORKERS THAT
WERE COMING FROM ALABAMA OUT OF
THE TRADE UNIONS IN NEW YORK.
THAT WAS THE MOTIVE AND NOW
TODAY THE MOTIVE IS TO PROTECT
UNION SCALE.
IF WE WANT TO BUILD FOUR MILES
OF ROAD OR FIVE, WE GO WITHOUT
DAVIS-BACON AND WE BUILD FIVE.
IF WE STAY WITH DAVIS-BACON,
WE'LL BUILD FOUR.
IF WE WANT TO BUILD FIVE
SCHOOLS, WE CAN DO SO WITH
MERIT SHOP IF WE ONLY WANT TO
BUILD FOUR WE STICK WITH
DAVIS-BACON.
IF YOU WANT TO DO AS MANY
DEMOCRATS HAVE SAID ON THIS
FLOOR, AND THAT IS THAT ANY
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO
CONSENTING ADULTS, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULDN'T BE
INVOLVED IN, WELL, THIS IS A
RELATIONSHIP THE GOVERNMENT
FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN.
TELL ME THAT I CAN'T SAY TO MY
OWN SON, I'D LIKE TO CLIMB IN
THE SEAT OF YOUR EXCAVATOR AND
SIT THERE FOR $10 AN HOUR,
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYS I
CAN'T, HE'S GOT TO PAY ME SOME
$28 RATE OR WHATEVER THAT IS,
THE GOVERNMENT HAS NO BUSINESS
INTERFERING AND NO BUSINESS
DRIVING UP THESE COSTS.
AND WE MUST GO THROUGH THIS
PERIOD OF AUSTERITY.
THAT REQUIRES THAT WE NOT
IMPOSE FEDERAL UNION SCALE ON
FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
THIS AMENDMENT THAT BLOCKS THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THAT FUNDING,
IT SAVES THE TAXPAYERS MONEY.
AND BY THE WAY, WE'VE DONE A
LOT OF QUALITY WORK OVER THE
DECADES THAT I'VE BEEN IN THE
BUSINESS, AND I WOULD MATCH THE
WORK OF OUR MERIT SHOP
EMPLOYEES UP AGAINST ANY UNION
WORKERS OUT THERE WHO DO GOOD
WORK, TOO, AND I'VE WORKED WITH
THEM AND ALONGSIDE THEM ON
PROJECTS, BUT THE QUALITY OF
MERIT SHOP WORK CANNOT BE
CHALLENGED.
WE DO IT ACCORDING TO THE
SPECIFICATION, ACCORDING TO THE
PLANS, ACCORDING TO THE
ARCHITECTURE AND ACCORDING TO
THE ENGINEER.
AND IF WE DIDN'T MEET THOSE
SPECIFICATIONS WE'D REJECT THE
WORK AND PAY THE PENALTY.
MY COMPANY DOESN'T TAKE
PENALTIES BUT WE DO QUALITY
WORK AND THE PEOPLE I ASSOCIATE
AND BID WITH.
I GET WORN DOWN ON THE QUALITY
OF WORKMANSHIP AND AM PROUD OF
THE MERIT SHOP.
I THINK FREE MARKET SHOULD SET
THE WAGES.
LABOR IS A COMMODITY LIKE CORN
OR BEANS OR OIL OR GOLD AND THE
VALUE THAT NEEDS TO BE
DETERMINED BY THE COMPETITION
SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN THE
WORKPLACE.
I URGE THE ADOPTION OF THE
GOSAR AMENDMENT AND I'LL
CERTAINLY SUPPORT IT AND BE
HAPPY TO CARRY THIS ON ALL
THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE
APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS AND I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO YIELD.
I WANT TO KNOW IF I
CAN GET THE ADDRESS, YOU DIDN'T
MENTION THAT, OF WHERE IT'S
LOCATED, YOUR COMPANY.
IT'S IN CHIRON, IOWA,
BEEN THERE SINCE 1975 AND WE'RE
A SECOND-GENERATION COMPANY.
THANKS.
I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
IOWA YIELDS BACK.
DOES ANYONE ELSE SEEK
RECOGNITION?
THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
I ASK FOR A RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA WILL BE
POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA
RISE?
DESK.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
THE CLERK WILL READ.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. ALTMIRE OF PENNSYLVANIA.
AT THE END OF THE BILL BEFORE
THE SHORT TITLE, INSERT THE
FOLLOWING NEW SECTION, USE OF
AMERICAN IRON STEEL AND
MANUFACTURED GOODS, SECTION,
MOM OF THE FUNDS APPROPRIATED
-- NONE OF THE FUND
APPROPRIATED OR MADE AVAILABLE
FOR THIS ACT MAY BE USED FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION, MODIFICATION,
MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR OF
VEHICLE OR PEDESTRIAN FENCING
ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER
UNLESS ALL THE IRON, STEEL AND
MANUFACTURED GOODS USED IN THE
CONSTRUCTION MODIFICATION
MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR ARE
PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA
RISE?
I RESERVE A POINT
OF ORDER TO THE GENTLEMAN'S
AMENDMENT.
THE POINT OF ORDER
IS RESERVED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM PENNSYLVANIA
IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I THANK THE CHAIR.
AND I RISE IN SUPPORT OF
AMERICAN STEEL IN MAINTAINING
SECURITY ALONG OUR SOUTHERN
BORDER.
SIMPLE.
THIS AMENDMENT IS ACTUALLY VERY
I'M OFFERING IT BECAUSE IT
REQUIRES THAT ANY REPAIRS,
MODIFICATIONS, MAINTENANCE OR
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PORTIONS OF
THE FENCE ALONG OUR SOUTHERN
BORDER BE MADE WITH AMERICAN
STEEL, AMERICAN IRON AND
AMERICAN MANUFACTURED STEEL
GOODS.
NOW, AS I'M SURE MY COLLEAGUES
ARE AWARE THE BUY AMERICAN ACT
WHICH WAS ENACTED IN 1933
ALREADY REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT
TO PURCHASE DOMESTIC GOODS FOR
DIRECT FEDERAL PROCUREMENT AND
FOR SOME PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT
AREAS CRITICAL TO OUR NATIONAL
SECURITY SUCH AS NEARLY ALL
DEFENSE PROJECTS AND SPENDING,
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OUR
GOVERNMENT TO BUY AMERICAN
GOODS ARE EVEN STRONGER.
I BELIEVE THAT THE STEEL USED
IN THE FENCE ALONG OUR SOUTHERN
BORDER SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN
THAT CATEGORY AND THAT IS
DOES.
SIMPLY WHAT THIS AMENDMENT
I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THERE
WOULD BE OPPOSITION IN THIS
CHAMBER TO THE USE OF AMERICAN
-MADE STEEL IN THE CONSTRUCTION
OF OUR BORDER FENCE ALONG OUR
SOUTHERN BORDER.
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES, I'M
SURE, REMEMBER IN 2007 WHEN IT
CAME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT WE
WERE IN SOME CASES USING
CHINESE-MADE STEEL IN
CONSTRUCTION OF THE MEXICAN
BORDER FENCE.
THAT.
WE WERE ALL EQUALLY OUTRAGED BY
WE WERE ABLE TO ENCOURAGE AND
FINALLY THROUGH HARD WORK AND
BIPARTISANSHIP ENCOURAGE
SUCCESSFULLY THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY TO USE
AMERICAN-MADE STEEL.
THIS AMENDMENT GIVES THAT A
FORCE OF LAW, AS I SAID, UNDER
THE BUY AMERICAN ACT, WHICH
ALREADY APPLIES TO MANY
AMERICAN-MADE GOODS IN THE
DEFENSE INDUSTRY.
SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS
AMENDMENT.
AND I WOULD YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA RISE?
I INSIST ON MY
POINT OF ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN WILL
STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER.
I MAKE A POINT OF
ORDER AGAINST THE AMENDMENT
BECAUSE IT PROPOSES TO CHANGE
EXISTING LAW AND CONSTITUTES
LEGISLATION IN AN
APPROPRIATIONS BILL AND
THEREFORE VIOLATES CLAUSE 2 OF
RULE 21.
THE RULE STATES IN PERTINENT
PART, AN AMENDMENT TO A GENERAL
APPROPRIATIONS BILL SHALL NOT
BE IN ORDER IF CHANGING
EXISTING LAW REQUIRES NEW
DETERMINATION.
I WOULD ASK FOR A RULING FROM
THE CHAIR.
DOES ANY MEMBER WISH
TO BE HEARD ON THE POINT OF
ORDER?
THE CHAIR IS READY TO MAKE IT
SO.
IN RULING THE CHAIR FIND THIS
AMENDMENT INCLUDES LANGUAGE
REQUIRING A NEW DETERMINATION
PRODUCED.
WHERE CERTAIN ITEMS ARE
THE AMENDMENT THEREFORE
CONSTITUTES LEGISLATION IN
21.
VIOLATION OF CLAUSE 2 OF RULE
THE POINT OF ORDER IS SUSTAINED
AND THE AMENDMENT IS NOT IN
ORDER.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA RISE?
TO PRESENT AN AMENDMENT.
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
I WANT TO RESERVE A POINT OF
ORDER ON THIS AMENDMENT.
POINT OF ORDER IS
RESEBBED.
24E CLERK WILL REPORT THE
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. SCALISE OF LOUISIANA.
INSERT THE FOLLOWING, NONE OF
THE FUNDS MAY BE USED TO
IMPLEMENT EXECUTIVE ORDER 15032
SUPPORTING RULE 2009-005 OR ANY
AGENCY MEMORANDUM, BULLETIN
THAT DERIVES ITS AUTHORITY FROM
THIS RULE OR 2009-2005.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I BRING THE
AMENDMENT BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO DO IS PREVENT THE
DEPARTMENT FROM IMPLEMENTING OR
USING TAXPAYER MONEY TO
IMPLEMENT EXECUTIVE ORDER
NUMBER 13502 AND PART OF THAT
ORDER IS TO MANDATE LABOR
AGREEMENTS ON PROJECTS WORTH
$25 MILLION OR MORE.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE
IS A REQUIREMENT THAT IS
INCREETSING THE COST DRA MATLY
OF PROJECTS, SIMILAR TO THE
DEBATE WE HAD EARLIER.
IF YOU LOOK AT, THERE HAVE BEEN
A NUMB OF STUDIES DONE, THERE
WAS A 2009 BEACON HILL STUDY,
IF YOU LOOK -- IF THIS
EXECUTIVE ORDER WAS BEING
IMPLEMENTED IN 2008, ALL THE
PROJECTS DONE THAT HAD A VALUE
OF $25 MILLION OR MORE WOULD
HAVE INCREASED THE COST TO THE
FEDERAL TAXPAYER BY BETWEEN
$1.6 MILLION AND $2.6 BILLION
DOLLAR, BILLIONS MORE THAT
WOULD BE SPENT TO CARRY OUT A
PROJECT RATHER THAN HAVING JUST
PURE OPEN COMPETITION.
WE SHOULD BE ALLOWING FREE AND
OPEN COMPETITION ON PROJECTS
AND NOT ARTIFICIALLY INCREASING
THE COST TO TAXPAYERS TO CARRY
OUT PROJECTS.
IF YOU LOOK AT "THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL," THEY SPECIFICALLY
ADDRESS THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PREVENT
FUNDS FROM BEING SPENT TO CARRY
OUT.
"THE WALL STREET JOURNAL"
CRITICIZED THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
AND CALLED THESE HANDOUTS A,
QUOTE, RAW DISPLAY OF POLITICAL
FAVORITISM AT THE EXPENSE OF AN
INDUSTRY EXPERIENCING 27%
UNEMPLOYMENT AND THEY ALSO
CALLED THIS A, QUOTE, ROTTEN
DEAL FOR TAXPAYERS.
WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO SAVE
EVERY DOLLAR WE CAN.
WE SHOULD BE TRYING TO PROMOTE
FAIR AN OPEN COMPETITION.
WE GO FURTHER ON, THERE WAS AN
INVESTIGATION DONE BY THE
WASHINGTON EXAMINER REGARDING A
FEDERAL BUILDING HERE IN
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT ON A
WASHINGTON, D.C., THAT ONE
PROJECT, ONE PROJECT, BECAUSE
OF THE P.L.A. REQUIREMENT, THE
TAXPAYERS ENDED UP HAVING TO
PUT AN ADDITION $3.3 MILLION
FOR THAT ONE PROJECT BUILDING
HERE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
JUST WANT TO GO ON A LITTLE BIT
MORE REGARDING STUDIES DONE
REGARDING P.L.A.'S THAW THEY
SHOWED AN INCREASE OF
CONSTRUCTION COSTS BY 12% TO
18%.
ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS
IF A P.L.A. WINS THE DAY, WINS
THE BID, THAT'S THEIR
PREROGATIVE.
YOU SHOULDN'T BE MANDATING
THESE COSTS, SHOULDN'T BE
SHUTTING OUT OPEN SHOP
COMPANIES.
THE OPEN SHOP COMPANIES
REPRESENT ABOUT 87% OF THE U.S.
CONSTRUCTION WORK FORCE.
SO WHY WOULD WE BE SHUTTING OUT
87% OF THE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO
WANT TO COMPETE FOR THESE JOBS,
FOR THESE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
AND WHY SHOULD WE BE ADDING
OVER $1 BILLION TO $2 BILLION
IN INCREASED COSTS TO THE
AMERICAN TAXPAYER.
WE CAN STOP IT, WE CAN SAVE THE
TAXPAYER MONEY AND DO A MUCH
BETTER JOB OF STEWARDING THE
MONEY AND DO IT IN A FAIR AND
OPEN WAY.
I YIELD BACK MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON.
I RISE IN --
I RISE IN OPPOSITION
TO THE GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT.
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
CONTINUE HIS POINT OF ORDER?
I WITHDRAW MY POINT
OF ORDER.
I RISE IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO
THIS AMENDMENT, EXECUTIVE ORDER
13502 GIVES FEDERAL OFFICIALS
THE OPTION TO DETERMINE IF IT
IS RIGHT FOR A PARTICULAR
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
THERE IS NO MANDATE.
IF THE GENTLEMAN HAS READ THE
LEGISLATION, HE'LL RECOGNIZE
THERE'S NO MANDATE.
WOULD THE
GENTLEMAN YIELD?
THE REASON I WRUSED THE TERM
MANDATE IS BECAUSE THE
PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF
THIS, WHEN YOU LOOK -- THEY'RE
REQUIRING P.L.A.
I THINK IT'S CLEAR
THAT THE GENTLEMAN KNOWS THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER IS ONLY TO
PROMOTE EFFICIENCY IN FEDERAL
PROCUREMENT.
A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT IS A
PREHIRE AGREEMENT THATTEST
TABLIES THE MATERIALS AND
CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT FAR
SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
THERE IS, AND THE GENTLEMAN IS
PART OF THIS, A P.L.A. MANDATE
MYTH THAT HAS BEEN FLOATING
AROUND SINCE THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER WAS ISSUED THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MANDAYS
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS.
ACTUAL LANGUAGE FROM THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER SAYS, AND I
QUOTE, THIS ORDER DOES NOT
REQUIRE AN EXECUTIVE AGENCY TO
USE A PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT
ON ANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
LET ME SAY WHAT IT DOES DO.
IT REQUIRES THEM TO SUPPORT
INFORMATION AND WHETHER OR NOT
A P.L.A. WAS USED ON THE
CONTRACT, IT ALLOWS ALL
CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS
TO COMPETE FOR CONTRACTS AND
SUBCONTRACTS.
IT CONTAINS GUARANTEES AGAINST
JOB LOCKOUTS AND COMBINES
PROCEDURES FOR SOLVING LABOR
DISPUTES THAT MAY ARISE IN THE
LABOR DISPUTE.
IT PROVIDES MECHANISM ON
MATTERS OF MUTUAL BREAST AN
CONCERN SUCH A PRODUCTIVITY,
QUALITY OF WORK, SAFETY AND
HEALTH AND INCLUDES ANY
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT AN
AGENCY DEEMS NECESSARY.
INCLUDING THIS LANGUAGE WOULD
BE A MISTAKE, SINCE THIS
EXECUTIVE ORDER ENSURES
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ARE BUILT
CORRECTLY THE FIRST TIME, ON
TIME AND ON BUDGET TO THE END
USER.
THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER PREVENTS
COSTLY DELAYS THAT USUALLY
RESULT FROM A WORK FORCE'S LACK
OF KNOWLEDGE REGARDING THE USE
OF BUILDING MATERIALS OF TOOLS
AS WELL AS JOB SITE SAFETY
MEASURES.
I URGE ALL MEMBERS TO VOTE NO
ON THIS AMENDMENT AND AGAIN IF
THE GENTLEMAN, IF DII WILL
YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN IF WE HE
WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT.
I MENTIONED HIM DIRECTLY.
AS I SAID EARLIER,
THE LANGUAGE, AS YOU'RE CORRECT
IN READING THE LANGUAGE OF THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE PROBLEM
WE'VE HAD IS THAT THE WHITE
HOUSE POLITICAL APPOINTEES ARE
REQUIRING THIS.
I HAD AN EXAMPLE IN
MY HONE ATE -- MY OWN STATE, A
SIGNIFICANT PROMPT, I URGED A
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT AND
THEY TURNED ME DOWN.
THEY SAID THIS IS NOT THE KIND
OF PROJECT WE DO PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENTS ON.
I WAS IMPRESSED THEY MADE A
DECISION, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T
LIKE THE ANSWER, BUT THEY SAID,
WE HAVE DISCRETION TO EITHER DO
THIS OR NOT DO THIS.
WHICH IS WHAT I THINK WE WANT
THEM TO DO.
BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME
SITUATIONS WHERE THESE
AGREEMENTS DO ADD STABILITY
BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND LABOR IF
YOU HAVE THINGS LIKE, I THINK
THE CLEANUP SITE AT HANNIFORD
IN DOC HASTINGS' DISTRICT HAS A
PROJECT LAY POR AGREEMENT.
THERE'S NO STRIKE SO WE COULD
MOVE FORWARD AND DO THIS WASTE
CLEANUP WORK THAT'S SO
IMPORTANT.
I JUST SAY TO THE GENTLEMAN, I
HOPE THAT IN THE FUTURE, HE'LL
RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS NO
LEGAL REQUIREMENT AND THEY'RE
NOT REQUIRING PEOPLE TO DO IT.
AGENCIES ARE SAYING NO WHEN
THEY THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE.
SO I DON'T THINK THE
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT IS
NECESSARY AND I HOPE THAT IT'LL
BE DEFEATED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM ARIZONA
RISE?
MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
ENGE --
BOTH GENTLEMAN ARE
RIGHT.
THIS REQUIREMENT, THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER DOES NOT MANDATE THE USE
OF P.L.A.'S, HOWEVER, SOME
AGENCIES HAVE TAKEN AND
INTERPRETED IT AS SUCH, THAT WE
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
SHOULD MANDATE IT.
ON OCTOBER 15, 2010, JUST A FEW
MONTHS AGO, THIS IS THE ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS ISSUED
P.R.L.-211-1 TO ALL ARMY CORPS
CONTRACTING OFFICES
IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE FOR
P.L.A.'S ON ARMY CORPS
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS, THE
FOLLOWING ARE MAJOR ELEMENTS,
REQUIRES THE PROJECT DELIVERY
TEAM, P.D.T. TO CONSIDER THE
USE OF A P.L.A. ON A PROJECT BY
PROJECT BY SIS BY CONDUCTING A
LABOR MARKET SURVEY DURING
ACQUISITION PLANNING.
WHAT THIS DOES --
DID I HEAR
CONSIDER?
YES BUT THEN IT GOES
FURTHER.
THERE WAS A COMPLAINT BECAUSE
SOME PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT THAT IN
THERE.
THE COMPLAINT CAME BACK AN THE
ARMY CORPS CAME BACK AND SAID
THAT THEY SHOULD RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATION IF
THEY DO USE A P.L.A.
THEN IT SHOULD BE STRICTLY
FORBIDDEN.
THERE IS A PROBLEM HERE.
WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE
AGENCIES INTERPRETING THIS IN A
WAY THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE USE
OF THE P.L.A. OR GIVE ADDED
WEIGHT TO THE USE OF A P.L.A.
WHEN THE GENTLEMAN SAYS THIS
AMENDMENT IS NOT REQUIRED
BECAUSE IT'S NOT PRESCRIPTIVE,
THE CURRENT LAW WITHOUT THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER IS THE SAME
THING.
THEY CAN CONSIDER THE USE OF A
PERFORM L.A.
NOTHING PROHIBITS THAT NOW.
SO THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, ALL
IT'S DOING IS GIVING SOME
AGENCIES REASON TO MAYBE
MANDATE THE USE OF A P.L.A.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO
STRIKE THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.
THE SCENARIO THAT THE GENTLEMAN
DESCRIBES, THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON, DESCRIBES, WHERE
NOBODY IS REQUIRING OR
MANDATING ANYTHING THAT EXISTS
WITHOUT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, SO
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
HERE, REMOVE THAT EXECUTIVE
ORDER THAT GIVES ADDED WEIGHT
TO P.L.A.'S.
NOW IN ARIZONA, FOR EXAMPLE,
SOME 9 -- 90-SOMETHING PERCENT
OF WORKERS THERE ARE NOT CRUNE
WORKERS.
THEY DON'T WANT A P.L.A.
IF YOU HAVE A PROJECT THAT
GIVES ADDED WEIGHT TO P.L.A.'S,
THAT DISENFRANCHISES A LOT OF
PEOPLE IN ARIZONA, MORE THAN
90% OF THE POPULATION SYSTEM OF
WE JUST CAN'T DO THAT WE
SHOULDN'T DO THAT.
SO THE GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT
SHOULD BE ACCEPTED.
WE DID A SIMILAR ONE THAT WAS
ACCEPTED IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE WITH REGARD TO THE
MILCON BUDGET, THE MILCON
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
SO THAT WILL COME TO THE FLOOR
IT.
WITH ITS AMENDMENT ALREADY IN
I WOULD SUGGEST TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON AND
OTHERS WHO OPPOSE THIS, THAT
WE'RE SIMPLY TRYING TO GET BACK
TO A TIME WHEN WHERE P.L.A.'S
CAN BE CONSIDERED BUT AREN'T
CONSTRUED AS BEING NECESSARY OR
MANDATED BY THE AGENCY.
THE EXECUTIVE ORDER
REQUIRES ALL CONTRACTORS AND
SUBCONTRACTORS TO COMPETE FOR
CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS AND
THEY ALSO -- THE QUID PRO QUO
HERE FOR THE GOVERNMENT IS THEY
GET A GUARANTEE AGAINST
STRIKES, LOCKOUTS AND SIMILAR
JOB DISRUPTIONS AND PROVIDE
BINDING PROCEDURES FOR
RESOLVING LABOR DISPUTES THAT
MAY ARISE DURING THE TERM OF
THE P.L.A.
AS LONG AS THEY -- AS LONG AS
THERE'S NO MANDATORY
REQUIREMENT, SOMETIMES A
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT IS A
POSITIVE THING.
IT MIGHT BE.
WITHOUT THE EXECUTIVE ORDER,
PROHIBITS THAT.
THEY CAN CONSIDER THAT NOTHING
BUT THE PROBLEM IS, THE
EXECUTIVE ORDER HAS LED TO A
SITUATION WHERE SOME AGENCIES
INTERPRET THAT AS REQUIRING A
P.L.A.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET
AWAY FROM.
THE AMENDMENT IS A GOOD ONE.
I WOULD URGE ITS ADOPTION.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
BRINGING IT FORWARD.
THIS WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH
ANOTHER APPROPRIATION BILL
THAT'S COMING TO THE FLOOR WITH
THIS ALREADY IN, ALREADY HAVING
BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
NO ONE REQUESTS TIME ON THIS
AMENDMENT?
THE QUESTION THEN IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR THE
AYES HAVE IT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
EASK FOR A RECORDED
VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA WILL
BE POSTPONED.
WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE AN
AMENDMENT AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
REPORT THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. ENGEL OF NEW YORK.
AT THE END OF THE BILL BEFORE
THE SHORT TITLE INSERT THE
FOLLOWING SECTION, NONE OF THE
FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE BY THIS
ACT MAY BE USED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
TO LEASE OR PURCHASE NEW LIGHT
DUTY VEHICLES FOR ANY EXECUTIVE
FLEET OR FOR ANY AGENCY'S FLEET
INVENTORY EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
UNDER FEDERAL FLEET PERFORMANCE
DATED MAYE 31, 2011.
THE GENTLEMAN --
I RESERVE A POINT
OF ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES A POINT OF ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN RESERVE -- IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
LAST WEEK, PRESIDENT
OBAMA ISSUED A PRESIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM ON FEDERAL FLEET
PERFORMANCE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE
ALL NEW LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES IN
THE FEDERAL FLEET TO BE
ALTERNATE FUEL VEHICLES SUCH AS
HYBRID, ELECTRIC, NATURAL GAS
OR BIOFUEL BY DECEMBER 31,
2015.
MY AMENDMENT ECHOS THE
PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM ON
FEDERAL FLEET PERFORMANCE BY
PROHIBITING FUNDS IN THE D.H.S.
APPROPRIATIONS BILL FROM BEING
USED TO LEASE OR PURCHASE NEW
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLES EXCEPT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S
MAY 24 MEMORANDUM.
OUR TRANSPORTATION SECTOR IS BY
FAR THE BIGGEST REASON WE SEND
$600 BILLION PER YEAR TO
HOSTILE NATIONS SUCH AS
VENEZUELA AND OTHERS TO PAY FOR
OIL AT EVER INCREASING COSTS.
BUT AMERICA DOES NOT NEED TO BE
DEPENDENT ON FOREIGN SOURCES OF
OIL FOR TRANSPORTATION FUEL.
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES EXIST
TODAY THAT WHEN IMPLEMENTED
BROADLY WILL ALLOW ANY
ALTERNATIVE FUEL TO BE USED IN
AMERICA'S AUTOMOTIVE FLEET.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OPERATES
THE LARGEST FLEET OF LIGHT DUTY
VEHICLES IN AMERICA.
ACCORDING TO THE G.S.A., THERE
ARE 662,154 VEHICLES IN THE
FEDERAL FLEET WITH 54,972
BELONGING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY.
BY SUPPORTING A DIVERSE ARRAY
OF VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES IN OUR
FEDERAL FLEET, WE'LL ENCOURAGE
DEVELOPMENT OF DOMESTIC ENERGY
RESOURCES INCLUDING BIOMASS,
NATURAL GAS, COAL, AGRICULTURAL
WASTE, HYDROGEN AND RENEWABLE
ELECTRICITY.
EXPANDING THE ROLE THESE
RESOURCES PLAY IN OUR
TRANSPORTATION ECONOMY WILL
HELP BREAK THE LEVERAGE OVER
AMERICANS HELD BY FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED OIL
COMPANIES, INCREASING OUR
DOMESTIC SECURITY AND
PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM PRICE
SPIKES AND SHORTAGES IN THE
WORLD OIL MARKETS.
I HAVE BEEN PUSHING TO USE AND
HAVE IN AMERICA ALTERNATIVE
FUELS, TOMORROW I'M HOLDING A
PRESS CONFERENCE WITH MR.
SHIMKUS AN MR. BARTLETT, THE
THREE OF US ARE SUPPORTING A
BILL, AND THIS GOES IN LINE
WITH THAT.
SO I URGE MY COLLEAGUES ON BOTH
SIDES OF THE AISLE TO SUPPORT
AND ACCEPT MY AMENDMENT AND I
YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
I WITHDRAW MY
POINT OF ORDER AND ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN
WITHDRAWS HIS POINT OF ORDER.
AN ACCEPTS THE AMENDMENT.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA.
YES, WE ACCEPT
THE AMENDMENT.
IS THERE FURTHER
DISCUSSION?
I MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NORTH CAROLINA IS RECOGNIZED.
WE TOO WOULD LIKE TO
ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT AND
COMMEND THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW
YORK FOR OFFERING THE
AMENDMENT.
HE'S BRINGING FEDERAL PRACTICE
INTO LINE WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM OF A FEW DAYS AGO
AND THIS WILL PROMOTE THE USE
OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES,
RYE HIE BRIDS, ELECTRICS,
NATURAL GAS, BIOFUELS, BY 2015.
IT'LL BE A POSITIVE STEP TO
REDUCE OUR DEPENDENCE ON
FOREIGN OIL TO DEVELOP
ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND
TO MAKE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT AND ITS FLEET AN
EXAMPLE THAT THE REST OF THE
COUNTRY CAN LOOK TO.
WE URGE ADOPTION AN YIELD BACK
THE PLANS OF MY TIME.
SEEING NO OTHER
SPEAKERS ON THIS ISSUE, THE
QUESTION SON THE AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW YORK.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS AGREED TO.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM IOWA RISE?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
DESK.
IT WOULD BE THE SECURE FENCE
AMENDMENT.
THE CLERK WILL
REPORT THE AMENDMENT.
212 IS THE NUMERICAL.
WE GOT IT.
CLERK WILL REPORT IT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. KING OF IOWA.
AT THE END OF THE BILL BEFORE
THE SHORT TITLE INSERT THE
FOLLOWING, SECTION OF THE FUNDS
MADE AVAILABLE UNDER THE
HEADING BORDER SECURITY
FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE AND
TECHNOLOGY, $50 MILLION SHOULD
BE FOR CARRYING OUT SECTION 202
OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT
RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF 1996, 8
UNITED STATES CODE 1103 NOTE.
MR. CHAIRMAN?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM?
MR. ADERHOLT: I RISE ON A
POINT OF ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN
RESERVES THE POINT OF ORDER.
MR. CHAIRMAN?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA RISE?
WE HAVE NOT SEEN
THIS AMENDMENT.
A COPY WILL BE
DISTRIBUTED.
WHILE THAT'S HAPPENING THE
GENTLEMAN FROM IOWA WILL BE
RECOGNIZED FOR ALMOST FIVE
MINUTES.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON RISE?
I RESERVE A POINT OF
ORDER.
YOUR POINT OF ORDER
IS RESERVED AS WELL.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM IOWA HAS
FIVE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
THE AMENDMENT I OFFER IS AN
AMENDMENT THAT DIRECTS OF THE
FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE IN THE
BILL, THERE'S $150 MILLION
CATEGORY, ROUGHLY 1/3 OF IT OR
SPECIFICALLY $50 MILLION SHALL
BE USED TO CARRY OUT SECTION
102 OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
RESPONSIBILITY ACT WHICH IS THE
GOMPING STATUTE THAT DIRECTS
THAT A FENCE BE BUILT ON OUR
SOUTHERN BORDER.
WE'VE WATCHED AS THE CONGRESS
HAS DIRECTED THAT THERE BE
SECURE FENCE ACT BE PASSED,
THAT THE FENCE BE BUILT AND
WE'VE WATCHED THE
ADMINISTRATIONS OF THE LAST TWO
ADMINISTRATIONS BE LESS THAN
CONSTRUCTION.
ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT THEIR
WE HEARD PRESIDENT OBAMA
STANDING WITHIN P ABOUT LET'S
SAY 220 YARDS OF THE RIO GRANDE
RIVER IN EL PASO A MONTH OR
MORE AGO SAYING HE BELIEVED THE
FENCE WAS BASICALLY COMPLETE,
TO QUOTE THE PRESIDENT.
WELL, BASICALLY COMPLETE BY HIS
DEFINITION WOULD MEAN THIS,
THAT WE HAVE 14.3 MILES ONLY OF
700 MILES DIRECTED BY THIS
CONGRESS, 14.3 MILES ONLY OF
TERTIARY FENCING WHICH IS THREE
FENCES WHICH SO FAR I KNOW IS
THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY AND ONLY
3.3 MILES OF DOUBLE FENCING AND
IF YOU WANT TO STRETCH IT OUT
AND GIVE THEM A LOT OF CREDIT
FOR BUILDING SOMETHING, THEY
HAVE ABOUT 350 MILES OF PRIMARY
FENCING, THAT'S LESS THAN HALF
OF THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF
SECURITY FENCE WHICH TAKES, I
BELIEVE, DOUBLE FENCING,
VEHICLE FENCES, 299 MILES.
THEY HAVEN'T DONE WHAT WAS
DIRECTED BY CONGRESS.
THIS AMENDMENT GOES OUT AND
SETS ASIDE $50 MILLION WHICH IS
ONLY GOING TO BUILD ABOUT 25
MORE MILES OF GOOD FENCING BUT
SENDS THE RIGHT MESSAGE AND
KEEPS THEM FROM GOING OFF AND
SPENDING THE MONEY, ALL OF IT,
ON THE OTHER CATEGORIES MADE
AVAILABLE WITHIN THIS BILL.
THE BILL IS FINE WITH THE MONEY
THAT'S THERE.
BUT THE DEFINITION IS TOO BROAD
AND IT ALLOWS THE
ADMINISTRATION TO SLIDE AWAY.
MY AMENDMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN,
DIRECTS THAT THE $50 MILLION BE
SPENT ON THE FENCE.
AND I THINK IT'S IRONIC THE
PRESIDENT HIMSELF AS STANDING
DOWN IN EL PASO FIVE OR SO
WEEKS AGO WHEN HE GAVE THE
SPEECH THAT SAID THE FENCE IS
BASICALLY COMPLETE AND SAID
SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT A
MOTOR, SOME WANT A MOTOR WITH
-- MOAT WITH ALLIGATORS IN IT.
THE IRONY IS 220 YARDS AWAY IS
THE RIO GRANDE RIVER AND THE
CANAL AND IF YOU COUNTED FENCES
AT EL PASO WHERE THEY'VE GIVEN
US THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
SECURE FENCE THAT IS BUILT
THERE, THERE'S A FENCE, A RIO
GRANDE RIVER, ANOTHER FENCE, A
PATROL ROAD FULL OF BORDER
PATROL, ANOTHER FENCE, A
FAST-MOVING CANAL WITH CONCRETE
BOTTOMS AND SIDES AND ANOTHER
FENCE.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE
UNITED STATES IN EL PASO, YOU
HAVE TO GET OVER FOUR FENCES
AND SWIM TWO MOATS TO GET THERE
AND THE PRESIDENT WAS MAKING
FUN OF IT 220 YARDS AWAY.
I THINK THE STAFF SHOULD HAVE
FLOWN AIR FORCE I OVER THAT.
WE KNOW FENCES WORK AND MUST BE
MAINTAINED AND YES WE NEED THE
TECHNOLOGY ON THEM.
THIS DIRECTS THE RESOURCES BE
USED AT LEAST FOR THE $50
MILLION OF THE MONEY MADE
AVAILABLE TO BUILD ACTUAL FENCE
AND IT REFERENCES SECTION 102
WHICH THE GOVERNING SECTION.
AND BY THE WAY, BEFORE WE ARGUE
THIS PARLIAMENTARY, WHICH I DO
HAVE ANOTHER LANGUAGE I WOULD
BE HAPPY TO OFFER IF WERE
UNSUCCESSFUL IN THE
PARLIAMENTARY ARGUMENT THAT'S
BOUND TO ENSUE.
I URGE ADOPTION OF THIS
AMENDMENT AND YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
ALABAMA.
YES, MR.
CHAIRMAN, I INSIST ON MAKING A
POINT OF ORDER.
WILL THE GENTLEMAN
STATE THE POINT OF ORDER?
I WOULD LIKE A
POINT OF ORDER BECAUSE IT
PROVIDES AN AUTHORIZED PROGRAM
AND VIOLATES CLAUSE 2 OF RULE
21.
CLAUSE 2 STATES AN
APPROPRIATION MAY NOT BE IN
ORDER AS AN AMENDMENT FOR AN
EXPENDITURE NOT PREVIOUSLY
AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THE AMENDMENT
PROPOSES TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS
AUTHORIZED.
FOR A PROGRAM THAT IS NOT
THE AMENDMENT THEREFORE
VIOLATES CLAUSE 2, RULE 21, AND
SKI FOR A RULING FROM THE
CHAIR.
DOES ANYONE WISH TO
BE HEARD TON THE POINT OF
ORDER?
MR. CHAIRMAN?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
IOWA.
I WOULD POINT OUT I
REFERENCE SPECIFICALLY THE
AUTHORIZED BYLAW PROGRAM AND
THAT'S SECTION 102 OF THE
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND
IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY ACT OF
1996 AND ACCORDING TO THE
ALLEGED COUNCIL, SECTION 102
GOVERNS EVERYTHING RELATED TO
THE BORDER FENCE.
SO I TOOK CARE TO DRAFT THIS
AMENDMENT TO DIRECTLY ADDRESS
THE OBJECTION THAT WAS RAISED
BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM ALABAMA
WHOM I GREATLY RESPECT, THIS
REINFORCED FENCING ACT IS,
AGAIN, IT GOES DIRECTLY TO
SECTION 102 AND IS AN
AUTHORIZED SECTION AND
GOVERNING, GOVERNING IN THE
CODE, AND THAT'S OF THE ALLEGED
COUNCIL.
SO I WOULD CONCLUDE MY ARGUMENT
THAT THIS IS DRAFTED
SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THE
OBJECTION I JUST HEARD, AND I'M
HOPEFUL I WILL RECEIVE A
POSITIVE RESULT FROM THE CHAIR.
THANK YOU.
AND I YIELD BACK.
DOES ANYONE ELSE
WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE POINT
OF ORDER?
IT PROPOSES TO
EARMARKS IN THE BILL AND SUCH
AN EARMARK MUST BE SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED BY LAW, THE BURDEN
OF ESTABLISHING THE
AUTHORIZATION IN THE LAW RESTS
WITH THE PROPONENT OF THE
AMENDMENT, FINDING THAT THIS
BURDEN HAS NOT BEEN CARRIED,
THE POINT OF ORDER IS SUSTAINED
AND THE AMENDMENT IS NOT IN
ORDER.
WHO SEEKS RECOGNITION?
DAY.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
IOWA.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK, NUMBER 203.
THE CLERK WILL
REPORT THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. KING OF IOWA AT THE END OF
THE BILL BEFORE THE SHORT
TITLE, INSERT THE FOLLOWING.
SECTION, NONE OF THE FUNDS MADE
AVAILABLE BY THIS ACT MAY BE
USED TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC LAW 111-14
8, PUBLIC LAW 111-152 OR ANY
AMENDMENT MADE BY EITHER OF
SUCH LAWS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
WASHINGTON.
I RESERVE A POINT
OF ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
IOWA IS RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
THIS AMENDMENT IS AN AMENDMENT
CLARIFIES NONE OF THE FUNDS
MADE AVAILABLE IN THIS BILL
SHALL BE USED TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF WHAT'S COMMONLY
REFERRED TO AS OBAMACARE,
THAT'S THE TWO SECTIONS OF
PUBLIC LAW THAT'S REFERENCED IN
THE AMENDMENT WE HEARD THE
CLERK JUST READ.
THE ARGUMENT WILL BE MADE THAT
THIS IS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE THE
BILL DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY GO TO
APPROPRIATIONS TO THE HEALTH
CARE ACT THAT CARRIES THE
PRESIDENT'S NAME.
I WOULD ARGUE WE DON'T KNOW.
2,600 PLUS PAGES AND NO ONE
UNDERSTANDS IT AND WE'RE
FINDING NEW REGULATIONS ON A
REGULAR BASIS.
A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT MIGHT
BE UNDER THE APPROPRIATIONS
THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE,
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT D.H.S. COULD
BE PARTICIPATING IN EXCHANGES
FOR IMMIGRANT HEALTH CARE, OR
PERHAPS THEY COULD BE AUDITING
COMPANIES AND HELPING TO
ENFORCE THE COMPLIANCE WITH
OBAMACARE.
THAT'S A COUPLE THINGS THAT
COME TO MIND FOR ME.
I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.
THIS CONGRESS HAS A NUMBER OF
TIMES VOTED TO REPEAL AND TO
UNFUND OBAMACARE AND FOR US TO
INADVERTENTLY ALLOW THE
APPROPRIATIONS THAT COULD BE
UTILIZED TO CARRY OUT THE
PROVISIONS OF IT I THINK WOULD
BE AN OMISSION, UNFORGIVABLE
OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE
CONGRESS.
I URGE THE ADOPTION OF THIS
AMENDMENT AND YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
I INSIST ON MY POINT
OF ORDER.
THE GENTLEMAN WILL
STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE
A POINT OF ORDER AGAINST THE
AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT VIOLATES
CLAUSE 5-A-2 OF RULE 21.
THE AMENDMENT PROHIBITS THE USE
OF FUNDS FOR IMPLEMENTING THE
PATIENT PROTECTION AND
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND THUS IS
PROPOSING A LIMITATION ON FUNDS
IN A GENERAL APPROPRIATION BILL
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
ATTACKS OR TARIFF -- A TAX OR
TARIFF IN VIOLATION OF THE
RULE.
ANY MEMBER WISH TO
BE HEARD ON THIS POINT OF
ORDER?
CHAIRMAN.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
IOWA.
THE RULE REFERENCED
BY THE GENTLEMAN, WE HAVE MANY
LIMITATIONS ON FUNDS IN OUR
APPROPRIATIONS BILLS, AND IF
THE DECISION COMES DOWN TO
WHETHER THERE IS A
PARLIAMENTARY OBJECTION OR NOT,
I THINK I CAN GO BACK THROUGH
MANY OF THESE APPROPRIATIONS
BILLS AND FIND LIMITATION AFTER
LIMITATION.
THE PRACTICE OF THE CONGRESS
HAS BEEN TO DO SO AND THERE
WILL BE OTHER AMENDMENT WHICH
IS HAVE NOT BEEN OBJECTED TO
THAT LIMIT THE UTILIZATION OF
THIS FUND AND MANY OTHERS.
I SIMPLY MAKE THAT ARGUMENT TO
THE CHAIR AND YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
DOES ANYONE ELSE
OF ORDER?
WISH TO BE HEARD ON THE POINT
IF NOT, THE CHAIR IS READY TO
RULE.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON
MAKES A POINT OF ORDER AGAINST
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM IOWA.
ON THE GROUND THAT IT CARRIES A
TAX MEASURE ON A BILL REPORTED
BY A COMMITTEE.
IN THIS CASE THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS.
NOT HAVING JURTS ADDICTION TO
REPORT TAX -- NOT HAVING
JURISDICTION TO REPORT TAX OF
RULE 21.
THE PHRASE TAX OR TARIFF
MEASURE EXPRESSLY INCLUDES A
AMENDMENT PROPOSING A
LIMITATION ON FUNDS IN A
GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL FOR
TARIFF.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF A TAX OR
THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM IOWA IS IN THE
FORM OF A LIMITATION ON THE
FUNDS IN THE PENDING GENERAL
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
THAT IS, IT PROPOSES A NEGATIVE
RESTRICTION ON THOSE FUNDS FOR
A SPECIFIED PURPOSE.
THE PURPOSE SPECIFIED IN THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM IOWA IS THE
EXECUTION OF THE LAW COMPRISING
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
THE CHAIR TAKES NOTICE THAT THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT INVOLVES
SUNDRY PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL
TAX LAW.
THE AMENDMENT, THEREFORE,
PROPOSES TO LIMIT FUNDS FOR THE
ADMINISTRATION OF A TAX AND AS
SUCH CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF
CLAUSE 5-A OF RULE 21.
THE POINT OF ORDER IS
SUSTAINED, THE AMENDMENT IS NOT
IN ORDER.
MR. CHAIRMAN?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
IOWA.
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK AND WOULD
DESIGNATED AS THE LAST KING
AMENDMENT.
THE CLERK WILL
REPORT THE LAST KING AMENDMENT.
DO YOU HAVE A NUMBER ON THE
LAST KING AMENDMENT?
205.
THE CLERK WILL
REPORT AMENDMENT 205.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. KING OF IOWA.
AT THE END OF THE BILL BEFORE
THE SHORT TITLE, INSERT THE
FOLLOWING, SECTION, NONE OF THE
FUNDS MADE AVAILABLE BY THIS
ACT SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO
THE ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY
ORGANIZATIONS FOR REFORM NOW,
ACORN BENEFICIAL SOPINGS, INC.,
ARKANSAS BROADCAST FORMATION,
ARKANSAS COMMUNITY HOUSING
CORPORATION.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THE AMENDMENT BE
CONSIDERED AS READ.
MR. CHAIRMAN?
UNANIMOUS CONSENT
BEEN REQUESTED IT BE READ.
IS THERE AN OBJECTION?
I OBJECT.
WE DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THE
AMENDMENT.
POINT OF ORDER.
POINT OF ORDER.
WE CANNOT FUNCTION
IF THE MAJORITY IS NOT GOING TO
GIVE THE MINORITY A COPY OF
THESE AMENDMENTS.
AND I THINK THE PROCESS HERE
SHOULD STOP UNTIL WE HAVE A
COPY OF THE AMENDMENT.
THE CLERK IS READING
THE AMENDMENT AFTER WHICH IT
WILL BE DISTRIBUTED.
WE DON'T HAVE A COPY
OF IT.
AFTER WHICH IT IS
DISTRIBUTED.
CLERK WILL CONTINUE.
ACORN BENEFICIAL
ASSOCIATION, ARKANSAS HOUSING
CORPORATION, ACORN COMMUNITY
LAND ASSOCIATION, INC."
ACORN LAND ASSOCIATION OF
ILLINOIS, ACORN LAND
AASSOCIATION OF LOUISIANA,
ACORN COMMUNITY LAND
ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA,
ACORN COMMUNITY LABOR
ORGANIZING CENTER, ACORN
BEVERLY, LLC, ACORN, CANADA,
ACORN CENTER FOR HOUSING, ACORN
HOUSING ORDER FASTBALL LOANS
ACORN HOUSING ASSOCIATES L.
PMPT, ACORN HOUSING 3
ASSOCIATES L.P., ACORN HOUSING
4 ASSOCIATES L.P., ACORN
INTERNATIONAL, ACORN VOTES,
ACORN 2004 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
FUND CORPORATION, ACRMW, ACSI,
DAY EARN -- ACORN INDUSTRIAL
TRUST INCORPORATED, AMERICAN
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROJECT,
INC."
ACORN FUND, I INC.ACORN FOSTER
PARENTS, INC.AGAP BROADCAST,
INC, ARKANSAS ACORN HOUSING
CORPORATION, ACORN HOUSING
CORPORATION OF ARIZONA, ACORN
HOUSING CORPORATION
OF ILLINOIS, ACORN HOUSING OF
NEW JERSEY, ACORN HOUSING
CORPORATION INC., A.H.C. --
AHCMY, TEXAS ACORN HOUSING
CORPORATION INC., AMERICAN
INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE.
THE CLERK WILL
SUSPEND.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT THE AMENDMENT BE
CONSIDERED AS READ.
I OBJECT.
THE CLERK WILL
CONTINUE.
ACORN LAW FOR
EDUCATION AND TRAINING, ACORN
LAW REFORM PACK, AFFILIATED
MEDIA FOUNDATION MOVEMENT,
ALBUQUERQUE MINIMUM WAGE
COMMUNITY, ACORN NETWORK,
ARKANSAS ACORN POLITICAL ACTION
COMMITTEE, ASSOCIATION FOR THE
RIGHTS OF CITIZEN, ACORN
SERVICES INC., ACORN TELEVISION
AND ACTION FOR COMMUNITIES,
ACORN TENANTS' UNION INC.,
ACORNS TENANTS' UNION PROJECT,
BALTIMORE ORGANIZING SUPPORT
CENTER INC., BATON ROUGE
ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES.
BROAD STREET CORPORATION,
CALIFORNIA ACORN POLITICAL
ACTION COMMITTEE, CITIZENS
ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT,
COUNCIL BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION,
CITIZENS' CAMPAIGN FOR FAIR
WORK, LIVING WAGE, ETC.,
CITIZENS CON SULETTING --
CONSULTING INC., CALIFORNIA
ACORN NETWORK, CLEAN GOTH
P.A.C., CHICAGO ORGANIZING AND
SUPPORT CENTER INC., COUNCIL
HEALTH PLAN, CITIZENS SERVICE
TO SOCIETY, CAMPAIGN FOR
JUSTICE AT AVONDALE, COMMUNITY
AND LABOR FOR BALTIMORE, CHIEF
ORGANIZER FUND, COLORADO
ORGANIZING SUPPORT CENTER,
COMMUNITY REAL ESTATE
PROCESSING INC., CAMPAIGN TO
REWARD WORK, CITIZENS SERVICES
INCORPORATED, ELISION FIELDS
CORPORATION, FRANKLY ACORN
HOUSING CORPORATION, FLAGSTAFF
BROADCAST FOUNDATION,
FLORIDIANS FOR ALL P.A.C.,
GREEN BRO SPRINGS CORPORATIONS,
GENEVIEVE STEWART CAMPAIGN
FUND, HOUSTON ORGANIZING
SUPPORT SYSTEM, HOSPITALITY
HOTEL AND RESTAURANT COUNCIL,
IOWA ACORN BROADCASTING CORP.,
ILLINOIS HOME, ILLINOIS
POLITICAL COMMITTEE, INSTITUTE
FOR WORKER EDUCATION INC.,
JEFFERSON ASSOCIATION FOR
PARISH EMPLOYEES, JEFFERSON
ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL
EMPLOYEES, JOHNNY PUGH KEMP
CAMPAIGN FUND, NEW YORK
COMMUNITIES FOR CHANGE,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING CENTERS OF
AMERICA, ACTION NOW,
PENNSYLVANIA COMMUNITIES
ARKANSAS COMMUNITY
ORGANIZING FOR CHANGE.
ORGANIZATIONS.
THE ALLIANCE FOR -- OF
CALIFORNIANS FOR COMMUNITY
EMPOWERMENT, NEW ENGLAND UNITED
FOR JUSTICE, TEXAS ORGANIZING
PROJECT, MINNESOTA,
NEIGHBORHOODS ORGANIZING FOR
CHANGE, ORGANIZATIONS UNITED
FOR REFORM, MISSOURIANS YINED
FOR REFORM AND EMPOWERMENT,
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS
INTERNATIONAL, APPLIED RESEARCH
CENTER OR THE WORKING FAMILIES
PARTY.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
IOWA IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE
MINS.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
THIS IS THE AMENDMENT THAT
PROHIBITS ANY OF THE FUNDS MADE
AVAILABLE IN THIS ACT TO GO TO
THESE ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE IN
THE LIST OF THIS AMENDMENT.
WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE BEEN ABLE
TO SIMPLY DEFINE ACORN AND
THEIR AFFILIATES BUT BECAUSE
THE DEFINITION OF AFFILIATES
CREATED SOME PROBLEMS, WE HAD
TO GO WITH THE ACTUAL LIST OF
THE AFFILIATES THAT HAS BEEN
COMPILED IN LARGE PART BY THE
GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
AND IN ANOTHER PART BY THE
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE ASTUTE
MEDIA THAT'S DONE SOME RESEARCH
ON THIS.
THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE
LANGUAGE, OR EXCUSE ME, SIMILAR
TO THE EFFECT OF THE LANGUAGE
PASSED IN PREVIOUS CONGRESSES
UNDER THE DEMOCRAT MAJORITY.
WE'VE SEEN WHAT ACORN HAS DONE
AND ATTEMPTED TO DO TO
UNDERMINE A LEGITIMATE ELECTION
PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES.
THE THINGS THAT WE SAW WITH THE
RADIO AND THE FILM GOING ON
INSIDE THE OFFICES OF ACORN, I
BELIEVE, AND THERE'S UNDER OATH
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE CONGRESS,
OF AT LEAST ONE ACORN, FORMER
ACORN EMPLOYEE, WHO TESTIFIED
THAT SHE BELIEVED WHAT WE SAW
IN THE FILM THAT WAS ON EWETUBE
AND POSTED IN OTHER MEDIA
OUTLETS REFLECKED THE CULTURE
OF THE ACORN OFFICES AND AROUND
THE COUNTRY.
WE SAW THAT IN FIVE OR SIX
OFFICES AROUND THE COUNTRY.
THEY SAY IT WOULD BE THE WRONG
THING TO DO.
THIS AMENDMENT SHUTS OFF THE
FUNDING TO THE ORGANIZATIONS
THAT HAVE A RECORD OF DOING SO.
ACORN AND THEIR AFFILIATES,
IT'S A LIST OF OVER 300, OVER
300 SPROUTS FROM ONE LARGE OAK
TREE GREW.
THESE RETHIS ASSOCIATES, THE
SUCCESSORS AND AFFILIATES OF
THE LARGER AND NOW DISBANDED
ORGANIZATION KNOWN AS ACORN.
I URGE ADOPTION OF MY AMENDMENT
AND YIELD BACK THE PLANS OF MY
TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM NORTH
CAROLINA RISE?
I RISE IN OPPOSITION
TO THIS AMENDMENT AND MOVE TO
STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
THIS IS AN
EXTRAORDINARY AMENDMENT.
A LISTING OF OVER THREE PAGES
OF ORGANIZATIONS BY NAME,
SINGLED OUT ON THE FLOOR OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR
THIS KIND OF NEGATIVE
TREATMENT, KIND OF LEGISLATION
THAT WOULD SIMPLY RENDER THEM
INELIGIBLE FOR ANY KIND OF
ACTIVITY UNDER THIS
LEGISLATION, URN THIS
APPROPRIATIONS BILL.
NOW, I SERIOUSLY DOUBT THAT
THERE'S MONEY IN THE HOMELAND
SECURITY BILL THAT WOULD GO TO
ANY OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS BUT
STILL THE PRINCIPLE IS VERY
TROUBLING.
I WANT TO ASK THE THE
GENTLEMAN, THE AUTHOR OF THE
AMENDMENT, ABOUT A FEW OF THESE
ORGANIZATIONS AND ASK HIM TO
DOCUMENT WHATEVER INFORMATION
HE HAS ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC
ORGANIZATION THAT WOULD JUSTIFY
THEIR BEING INCLUDED ON THIS
KIND OF LIST.
BEING SINGLED OUT IN THIS WAY.
WHAT DOES THE GENTLEMAN, WHAT
KIND OF INFORMATION DOES THE
GENTLEMAN HAVE ON THE ARKANSAS
COMMUNITY HOUSING CORPORATION?
IF THE GENTLEMAN WILL
YIELD IN
I WILL BE GLAND TO
YIELD.
I'LL TELL YOU, AS I
SAID THIS LIST HAS BEEN IN
LARGE PART COMPILED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE?
DOES THE GENTLEMAN
HAVE EVIDENCE OF WHAT KIND OF
THINGS HE'S ALLEGING.
I'M CONFIDENT I CAN
PRODUCE IT.
I REFERENCE THE GOVERNMENT
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR MY
SOURCE.
CAN YOU GET THAT
INFORMATION BEFORE WE VOTE ON
IT.
--
WHAT ABOUT THIS ONE,
THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
YOU'RE ASKING YOUR COLLEAGUES
BEFORE THE NATION, YOU HAVE
INFORMATION YOU'RE CLAIMING
ABOUT THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT
WOULD WARRANT THIS KIND OF
TREATMENT THIS KIND OF PLAQUE
BALLING OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS
WITH RESPECT TO -- OF BLACK
BALLING OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS
WITH RESPECT TO THEIR ABILITY
TO COMPETE FOR GOVERNMENTAL
FUNDS.
DON'T YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE
BROUGHT WITH YOU TO THE FLOOR
DOCUMENTATION OF THE PROBLEMS
WITH THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT
WOULD WARRANT THIS KIND OF
TREATMENT?
LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT --
IF THE GENTLEMAN
WOULD YIELD.
WHAT ABOUT THE AGAPE
FOUNDATION?
IF THE GENTLEMAN WILL
YIELD, I WON'T SPEAK DIRECTLY
TO THAT FOUNDATION --
BUT YOU ARE SINGLING
OUT THAT FOUNDATION.
I WOULD SAY THAT I
DON'T RECALL THIS OBJECTION
WHEN A LARGE MAJORITY OF THIS
HOUSE URN THE DEMOCRAT MAJORITY
VOTED TO CUT OFF FUNDS TO ACORN
AND THEIR AFFILIATES SO THAT
PRINCIPLE APPLIES YET TODAY IN
MY VIEW.
HOW ABOUT THE
AFFILIATED MEDIA FOUNDATION
MOVEMENT?
DOES THE GENTLEMAN HAVE
DOCUMENTATION OF WHY THAT
ORGANIZATION SHOULD BE INCLUDED
HERE TONIGHT?
IF THE GENTLEMAN
WOULD YIELD, I SUBMIT THAT WE
COULD REITERATE THE SAME
QUESTION OVER 300 TIMES IN THIS
AMENDMENT, I'LL TELL YOU THE
SOURCE OF THIS INFORMATION IS
PRIMARILY THE GOVERNMENT
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE.
THE MINUTES OF THAT COMMITTEE
AND THEIR RAILROAD IS THERE,
IT'S AVAILABLE, THERE WILL BE
RESOURCES THAT GO BELOW AND TO
THE DEPTH OF THE COMMITTEE
REPORT.
SOME OF THIS ALSO COMES FROM
MEDIA REPORTS.
RECLAIMING MY TIME,
THIS WOULD APPEAR TO BE SOME
KIND OF GUILT BY ASSOCIATION
BUT I'M NOT SURE IT RISES TO
THAT LEVEL.
DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE SORKS OF
THESE ORGANIZATIONS THAT WOULD
WARRANT THERE BEING TARRED BY
THIS TREATMENT HERE TONIGHT?
WOULDN'T THE GENTLEMAN HAVE THE
RESPECT FOR HIS COLLEAGUES TO
BRING TO THE FLOOR, TO BRING TO
THE FLOOR THE DOCUMENTATION
THAT LEADS HIM TO SMEAR THESE
ON THIS EXTRAORDINARY
ORGANIZATIONS AND INCLUDE THEM
AMENDMENT?
THIS.
YOU'RE EXPECTING US TO VOTE ON
WHAT ABOUT THE FAILUATED MEDIA
FOUNDATION MOVEMENT?
DOES THE GENTLEMAN HAVE
INFORMATION ABOUT THAT
ORGANIZATION?
AS I SAID TO THE
GENTLEMAN, WE CAN GO THROUGH
THIS 300 TIMES AND YOU COULD
ASK THE SAME QUESTION 300 TIMES
AND IT'S UH SUBSTANTIALLY THE
SAME ANSWER, THE PRIMARY
COMPONENT OF THIS LIST CAME
FROM THE GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE.
WE CAN GO GET THE RECORDS FROM
THE COMMITTEE AND PRODUCE THOSE
BUT I DON'T THINK THE CONGRESS
IS INTERESTED IN HOLDING UP
THIS PROCESS WHILE I GO AND
CONTACT THE CHAIRMAN AND THE
STAFF TO PULL THAT INFORMATION.
THE GENTLEMAN HAS
BEEN PLANNING TO OFFER THIS
AMENDMENT, WHY DIDN'T YOU HAVE
THE BASIC RESPECT FOR THIS BODY
TO GATHER THIS DOCUMENTUATION,
KNOWING THAT THESE QUESTIONS
WOULD BE RAISED BY ANYONE WHO
WANTS CONSCIENTIOUSLY TO VOTE
ON THIS AMENDMENT.
DOESN'T THE CONVERSE
ALSO APPLY THAT THERE'S AN
IMPLICATION OF DISRESPECT FOR
THE GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE AND THEIR FINDINGS?
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM WASHINGTON.
I RISE IN OPPOSITION
TO THE AMENDMENT AND STRIKE THE
REQUISITE NUMBER OF WORDS.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
I JUST THINK THAT
THIS IS -- I HOPE THAT THE
CHAIRMAN WILL OBJECT TO THIS
AMENDMENT AND ASK THE GENTLEMAN
TO WITHDRAW IT.
I THINK THIS IS AN
EXTRAORDINARY ATTACK ON ALL OF
THESE GROUPS, BUT WE HAVE NO
EVIDENCE, WE HAVE NO
INFORMATION WHATSOEVER TO BASE
A DECISION ON HERE.
YOU CAN SAY THAT THE -- THE
GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT DIDN'T
WRITE YOU A LETTER AND ASK YOU
TO OFFER THIS AMENDMENT.
DID THEY?
YOU HAVE NO OFFICIAL
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE,
DO YOU?
I'M NOT ON THE
COMMITTEE IF THAT'S THE
GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION.
MR. DICKS SPOCK SO WHO PUT THIS
LIST TOGETHER?
MR. KING SPB THE OVERSIGHT
COMMITTEE.
I WOULD ASK TOVERP
SPEAK TO THE CHAIR.
IF THE GENTLEMAN WILL
I YIELD.
YIELD.
THE GOVERNMENT