Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
TAXPAYERS.
AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MY
COLLEAGUE ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO
IS OPPOSED TO THIS AMENDMENT, I
THINK THAT WHEN IT'S ALL SAID
AND DONE, THE BOTTOM LINE IS,
THESE PROJECTS, LABOR
AGREEMENTS, AND THIS EXECUTIVE
ORDER WHILE NOT REQUIRING THE
USE OF PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENTS, WILL GIVE AN ADDED
TOOL IN OUR ARSENAL TO GET THE
MOST *** FOR TAXPAYER BUCKS TO
ENHANCE WHAT WE DO FOR OUR
COUNTRY, FOR OUR CITIZENS, WE
PUT TO WORK, TO MAKE SURE THAT
CONDITIONS AND TERMS OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT AND WORK THEY DO ARE
STANDARDS.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MARYLAND RISE?
WORD.
RECOGNIZED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR.
I THANK MY COLLEAGUE FROM OHIO
FOR INTRODUCING THE AMENDMENT.
ONCE AGAIN ON AN IMPORTANT
ALTHOUGH I BRINGS UP THE FACT
THIS HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE
CHAMBER TWICE ALREADY ON OTHER
SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, IT'S NOT
REALLY THE SAME.
BECAUSE LAST FRIDAY, OF COURSE,
WE FOUND OUT THAT OUR
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS RISING IN
THE COUNTRY.
IT'S NOW 9.1% AGAIN.
WE ONLY CREATED 54,000 JOBS,
NOT THE 200,000 JOBS WE HOPED
WE WOULD CREATE.
AND CERTAINLY WAY LESS THAN THE
150,000 JOBS WE NEED TO CREATE
IN ORDER TO GET BACK TO FULL
EMPLOYMENT.
THAT'S HOW MANY WE NEED TO
CREATE EVERY MONTH.
WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES VERY
SIMPLY, IS IT MEANS THAT WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND 10% TO
20% MORE ON EVERY SINGLE
PROJECT THAT ENDS UP IN A
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT, AND
MORE PROJECTS WILL.
IF MORE PROJECTS WOULDN'T, THEN BASED PURELY
ON PRICE AND QUALITY AND VALUE
WHETHER OR NOT TO MAKE THAT
DEAL, NOT WHETHER SOMEONE IS A
MEMBER OF A UNION OR HIRES
UNION LABORERS.
THAT'S WHAT A PROJECT LABOR
AGREEMENT DOES.
SO LET'S TALK ABOUT JOBS A
WHAT IS OUR IMPORTANT ROLE HERE
IN CONGRESS?
OUR ROLE IN CONGRESS IS TO TRY
TO GET OUR EMPLOYMENT RATE UP.
IF WE SAVE 10% TO 20% ON EVERY
JOB, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO MORE
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
I JUST MET OVER LANCHE WITH
PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT WHO IS AN
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, AND HE'S
NOT UNIONIZED.
AND HE ASKED ME TO COME DOWN
HERE AND SAID, PLEASE, GO TO
THE FLOOR TODAY AND ASK SO THAT
THOSE 80%,P F 70% OF US WHO ARE
CONTRACTORS WHO ARE NOT
UNIONIZED CAN GET A PIECE OF
THAT PIE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO
FIRE OUR EMPLOYEES.
MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S
SIMPLE F WE CAN SAVE 10% TO 20%
ON EVERY PROJECT.
WE CAN HIRE MORE PEOPLE TO DO
MORE PROJECTS.
AND AGAIN, THE SAD FACT IS OUR
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS 9.1%.
IT'S GOING UP NOT DOWN.
THE NUMBER OF NEW JOBS CREATED
LAST MONTH, 54,000 GOING DOWN,
NOT UP.
WE HAVE GOT TO REVERSE THAT AND
WE HAVE TO DO IT BY BEING
EFFICIENT AND SMART WITH OUR
DOLLARS.
ONE WAY IS TO NOT REQUIRE
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS.
FINALLY, LET ME ADDRESS THE
ISSUE OF LOCAL CITIZENS.
I WANT THESE CONTRACTS TO GO
INTO THE FIRST CONGRESS A --
MARYLAND.
I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF UNION
CONTRACTORS IN MY DISTRICT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF DISTRICTS
THAT DON'T HAVE A LOT F WE WANT
LOCAL CONTRACTORS TO BE
EMPLOYED, IF WE WANT LOCAL
CITIZENS TO GET JOBS, LOCAL
UNEMPLOYMENT RATES TO GO DOWN,
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD SUGGEST
WE DEFEAT THIS AMENDMENT WHICH
WILL FREQUENTLY REQUIRE IN
ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR A CONTRACT
YOU HAVE TO HIRE OUT OF
YOU MAY HAVE TO GO TO ANOTHER
SAYS, IF THERE WAS EVIDENCE,
CONGRESS WOULD NOT APPROVE OF
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS.
I AGAIN RISE IN STRONG SUPPORT
OF THE LATOURETTE AMENDMENT AND
URGE IT TO BE ADOPTED.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK.
GENTLEMAN RISE?
I'M HERE IN OPPOSITION TO
THIS AMENDMENT AND I HEARD A
LOT OF THE COMPELLING ARGUMENTS
HERE TODAY AS TO WHY THIS
AMENDMENT SHOULD BE ADOPTED.
LET ME REMIND THE MEMBERS THAT
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
PASSED THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN
THIS BILL RIGHT NOW THAT
RESTRICTS FUNDING FROM GOING TO
PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE --
PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS.
THAT'S ALL THIS DOES.
I THINK WE SHOULD ALL BE FOR
FREE MARKETS.
WE SHOULD ALL BE FOR CAPITALISM
FOR THE BEST CONTRACTOR BEATING
THE BEST CONTRACTOR AND
COMPETING FOR THE PRICE.
THERE WERE REPORTS CITED IN
"THE WALL STREET JOURNAL."
"THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL" DID A STUDY THAT WAS
COMMISSIONED BY THE DEPARTMENT
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS THAT SAID
IN THE STUDY THE OBAMA PROJECT
LABOR AGREEMENTS WOULD LIKELY
RAISE THE V.A. COSTS BY 3% TO
5%.
THERE IS A STUDY FROM AN
INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION SAYING
THAT COSTS CAN GO UP.
CAN WE NOT ACCEPT THAT AS
EVIDENCE ENOUGH THAT WE DO NOT
NEED PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS
TO RECEIVE THE FUNDING FOR
PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THIS
WE LIVE IN A DAY AND TIME THAT
THE DEBT AND DEFICIT IS OUT OF
CONTROL.
THAT IS WHAT WE SEEM TO SPEND
OUR ARGUMENTS ABOUT, SPENDING.
THAT'S AN IMPORTANT TOPIC.
THE MOST IMPORTANT IS THE
ECONOMY AND THE JOB LOSS.
MR. HARE IS WAS SO ELOQUENT AS
HE WAS TALKING ABOUT
UNEMPLOYMENT.
9.1%.
WE ALL KNOW THAT.
WE WERE HERE ON THE CELEBRATION
OF THE ONE YEAR SINCE THE
SUMMER OF RECOVERY AND YET WE
DON'T SEE ANY RECOVERY.
THESE PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT
REQUIREMENTS BY THE EXECUTIVE
ORDER WERE PLACED IN EFFECT IN
2009.
AS MR. BISHOP REFERENCED, YOU
KNOW, THIS WAS GOOD FOR JOBS,
GOOD FOR CREATING LOCAL JOBS.
WHERE ARE THE JOBS?
THEY DO NOT EXIST.
IN ESSENCE WE HAD TWO YEARS OF
A FAILED EXPERIMENT, MR.
CHAIRMAN, AND I THINK IT'S TIME
TO SAY THE EXPERIMENT DIDN'T
WORK.
PUT IT UP ON THE SHELF AND
LET'S TRY SOMETHING NEW.
LET'S DO SOMETHING THAT DOES
WORK, EMPOWERING THE PRIVATE
SECTOR, EMPOWERING THE FREE
MARKET, ALLOW COSTS TO COME
DOWN AND THE QUALITY OF GOODS
TO GO UP.
I HAVE TO TELL YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN, WHEN I GO HOME IT
PAINS ME TO SEE THE NEW FORE
SALE -- NEW FOR SALE SIGNS THAT
ARE UP, THE NEW FOR RENT SIGNS
THAT ARE UP.
FOUR, FIVE YEARS AGO YOU MIGHT
SEE A VACANCY IN A SHOP BECAUSE
THEY HAD MOVED OUT BECAUSE THEY
HAD EXPANDED THEIR OPERATIONS
AND THEY WERE MOVING UP, BUT
NOW IT'S JUST THE OPPOSITE.
WE KNOW THAT BUSINESSES ARE NOT
MOVING OUT AND
THAT I'D ASK FOR THE YEAS AND
NAYS.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO WILL BE
POSTPONED.
THE CLERK WILL READ.
PAGE 60, LINE 22.
SPENDING REDUCTION ACCOUNT.
SECTION 416.
THE AMOUNT BY WHICH THE
APPLICABLE ALLOCATION OF NEW
BUDGET AUTHORITY MADE BY THE
COMMITTEE EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT OF
PROPOSED NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY
IS ZERO DOLLARS.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE
DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW
YORK SEEK RECOGNITION?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT AT THE
THE CLERK WILL
DESIGNATE THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1
PRINTED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD OFFERED BY MR. MEEKS OF
NEW YORK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW YORK IS RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE
MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE
AMENDMENT I HAVE REGARDING THE
SALE OF V.A. HOSPITALS IN NEW
YORK.
FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS CLEARLY A
BIPARTISAN BILL.
I HAVE THE SUPPORT OF MY GOOD
FRIENDS, PETER KING AND MICHAEL
GRIMM OF NEW YORK TO STOP THE
ENHANCED LEASE PROCESS FOR THE
V.A. IN MY DISTRICT.
AND THIS -- THERE'S REALLY A
TIME YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WHERE
EVERYBODY HAS COME TOGETHER,
AND CLEARLY HERE'S AN ISSUE
WHERE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY
AND THE VETERANS HAVE SPOKEN
WITH ONE VOICE, TO SAY THAT
WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED THERE IS
AGAINST THE BEST WISHES OF THE
VETERANS AND THE NEEDS OF THE
VETERANS AND AGAINST THE WISHES
OF THE COMMUNITY BASICALLY
CHANGING THE WHOLE COMPLEXITY
OF THE COMMUNITY SO THAT THE
PEOPLE THAT LIVES THERE WOULD
HAVE A TERRIBLE INJUSTICE AND
DISSERVICE.
NOW, I KNOW THAT THE PROCESS
WORKS IN CERTAIN AREAS BECAUSE
PART OF IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE
WHERE THE EEUL WORKS WITH THE
COMMUNITY AND VETERANS AND
TOGETHER.
THAT IS NOT THE CASE IN THIS
AND THIS SCENARIO, WE HAVE
VETERANS, YOU KNOW, FROM ALL
OVER.
IN FACT, WE HAVE THE KINGS
COUNTY COUNCIL OF V.F.W.'S, WE
HAVE THE VIETNAM VETS OF
AMERICA, WE HAVE THE QUEENS
COUNCIL OF -- DEPARTMENT OF NEW
YORK 1 V.F.W., UNITED COUNCIL
FOR V.A. RIGHTS, ALL WHO ARE
SUPPORTIVE OF THIS AMENDMENT
SAYING THAT THIS IS NOT IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF RIRNS.
VETERANS, YOU KNOW, THE V.A.
HAS COME UP WITH THE IDEA OF
PUTTING TOGETHER A FACILITY
THAT DOESN'T EVEN INCLUDE A
FULL SERVICE HOSPITAL, AND IT'S
NOT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF VETS
COMING BACK FROM AFGHANISTAN
AND IRAQ.
NOW, THEY'VE PUT EVERYTHING ON
THE LINE FOR THEM, AND HERE WE
HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE DO THE VERY BEST
THAT WE CAN FOR OUR VETERANS.
AND HERE'S THE WHOLE COMMUNITY
SAYING, WE WANT WHAT THE
VICIOUS WANT.
WE WANT TO STAND BEHIND THEM
100% LOCKSTEP.
IT SEEMS TO SOME AT THE V.A.
THERE'S A DEAF EAR IN REGARD TO
THAT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
FIGHT AND WHAT THIS BILL SAYS
IS WE'LL STOP THE E.U.L.
PROCESS IN NEW YORK AT THE
FACILITY BECAUSE IT IS NOT WHAT
IS NEEDED, IT IS NOT WHAT THE
VETS WANT.
IT IS ALSO, YOU KNOW, IT JUST
SEEMS TO ME THAT INSTEAD OF
WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY, THE
V.A. HAS CHOSEN TO GO OUT AND
DO A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
AREAS, RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS IN
THIS FACILITY.
IT IS NOT EVEN JUST FOR
VETERANS.
IT WILL HAVE A DEVASTATING
IMPACT ON THE LOCAL COMMUNITY.
AND SO WE ARE' SAYING, NO, THAT
SHOULDN'T -- AND SO WE'RE
SAYING NO, THAT SHOULDN'T
YOU CAN'T DESTROY THE VERY
FABRIC OF A COMMUNITY, AND YOU
CAN'T PRODUCE SOMETHING THAT
DOES NOT BENEFIT THE VERY VETS
THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HERE
TO HELP.
SO, MR. SPEAKER, SO I URGE
SUPPORT OF THIS AMENDMENT
REGARDING THE V.A. HOSPITAL, I
URGE WE SUPPORT OUR VETERANS
WHO ARE ABSOLUTELY UNITED ON
THIS MATTER AND I YIELD BACK
THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I
RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE
AMENDMENT AND WE WILL --
THE GENTLEMAN THEN
STRIKES THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
I MOVE TO STRIKE
THE LAST WORD, MR. CHAIRMAN,
AND RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE
AMENDMENT AND WE'LL ACCEPT MR.
MEEKS' AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT'S
VITALLY IMPORTANT THAT ALL
FEDERAL AGENCIES, THE V.A.
INCLUDED, UNDERSTAND THAT THE
MEMBER OF CONGRESS REPRESENTING
THAT DISTRICT, HE'S THEIR
VOICE.
I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO LOOK
AFTER THE ENTIRE NATION, BUT
FIRST AND FOREMOST I'M A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE OF
DISTRICT 7 IN HOUSTON, TEXAS,
AS MR. MEEKS IS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF HIS
CONSTITUENTS IN NEW YORK.
I THINK IT'S VITAL TO
UNDERSTAND THAT THEY NEED TO
WORK WITH AND EARN THE SUPPORT
OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT
DISTRICT BEFORE THEY MOVE
FORWARD WITH A MAJOR PROJECT OF
ANY KIND.
AS MR. MEEKS SAID, THE
COMMUNITY IS OPPOSED TO THE
TAKING.
I WOULD JOIN WITH MY FRIEND,
MR. BISHOP, WE STRONGLY SUPPORT
THE V.A. LOOKING TO THE PRIVATE
SECTOR TO PARTNER WITH THE
PRIVATE SECTOR TO FIND
INNOVATIVE, COST-EFFECTIVE WAYS
OF PROVIDING BETTER SERVICES TO
OUR VETERANS BY PARTNERING WITH
THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND
CERTAINLY THE COMMITTEE DOES
NOT WANT TO DISCOURAGE IN ANY
WAY THE V.A.'S EXPANSION OF
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TO GIVE
BETTER SERVICE TO VETERANS.
WE ENCOURAGE IT.
WE WANT THE V.A. TO LOOK FOR
WAYS TO SAVE MONEY, TO PROVIDE
BETTER SERVICE TO OUR VETERAN,
TO USE THE EXPERTISE OF THE
HOSPITALS LIKE THE TEXAS
MEDICAL CENTER WHICH I
REPRESENT, THE WORK MR. BISHOP
IS DOING WITH FORT BENNING AND
THE V. NAMPLET HIS DISTRICT
CREATED A MARVELOUS PARTNERSHIP
WITH PRIVATE PHYSICIANS TO GIVE
BETTER SERVICE.
WE WANT THEM TO CONTINUE THAT
BUT IT IS ESSENTIAL THE V.A.
UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE TO EARN
THE SUPPORT AND APPROVAL OF THE
COMMUNITY, THAT MEANS THEY HAVE
TO EARN THE SUPPORT AND
APPROVAL OF THE REPRESENTATIVE
OF THAT DISTRICT AND IN THIS
INSTANCE, I HOPE THE V.A. IS
TUNED IN AND LISTENING, THE
V.A. NEEDS TO EARN THE SUPPORT
AND APPROVAL OF CONGRESSMAN
MEEKS BEFORE THEY MOVE FORWARD
WITH THIS EFFORT AND SO FOR
THAT REASON, WE WILL ACCEPT THE
AMENDMENT AND I WANT TO KNOW
THAT THE V.A. IS NOT ONLY
RETURNING MR. MEEKS' PHONE CALL
BUS THEY ARE LISTENING TO,
RESPONDING TO, AND SATISFYING
THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE
NEEDS OF HIS CONSTITUENTS, THE
NEEDS OF THE VETERANS HE
REPRESENTS AND THAT THE V.A.
HAS -- ONCE THEY EARNED THE
SUPPORT OF THE COMMUNITY,
THEY'LL HAVE THE SUPPORT OF MR.
MEEKS.
WHEN MR. MEEKS COMES TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE AND SAYS THE V.A.
EARNED HIS SUPPORT, THE COMMENT
HAS EARNED HIS SUPPORT, THEN
THE -- THE COMMUNITY HAS EARNED
HIS SUPPORT, THEN WE'LL BE
READY TO MOVE FORWARD AND
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?
WORD.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR