John Culberson

Mr. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I'm the first one to be a strong advocate of the 10th Amendment. As a Jeffersonian, I really believe very strongly in the whole idea of individual liberty and letting local governments make local decisions and State governments make decisions at the State level. In some States, as in New Jersey and New York, certainly the labor union movement is very strong and PLAs may work in those States. It certainly may make sense in New York or New Jersey, but Texas is a right-to-work State, and proudly so. We don't have many labor unions-- in fact, very few at all. In the construction industry in particular, there really are no unionized construction firms. There are none. So if the President's executive order--which he issued almost as soon as he came in, President Obama signed an executive order that said the President of the United States--now, just imagine if you're the head of a local VA and you get an order from the President of the United States saying the President recommends that you, as the head of the VA, hire a construction firm that uses a project labor agreement, you're probably going to follow that advice. It is impossible to do that in the State of Texas. My friend from Arizona, Arizona is a right-to-work State. Many States across the country are right to work. We don't have labor unions. I believe Georgia is a right-to-work State. We don't have a State income tax in Texas. We don't have many labor unions. Trial lawyers have to really have a good lawsuit before they can go to the courthouse. Taxes are generally low. The streets are safe. We've got, in Texas, a thundering economy. If I recall right, Texas has created most of the jobs in this Nation over the last 10 years. And one of the reasons Texas' economy is so strong is we don't have many labor unions. But of course that's up to us in Texas. And people have been voting with their feet and moving to Texas. We've had tremendous influx of people from other parts of the country. The language that is in the bill, my good friend from New York, my friend from New Jersey, the language in the bill does not prohibit the use of project labor agreements; it really doesn't. The language was carefully written so that the government cannot discriminate against or give preference to a construction firm that uses PLAs. Nor can the government--and I'm going to read it here exactly--nor can the government require a contractor to enter into or adhere to a project labor agreement. A project labor agreement--I need to make sure folks understand what we're talking about--is essentially a requirement that if you want to do business with the Federal Government, you have to unionize your shop. That doesn't make any sense in Texas, it doesn't make any sense in Georgia, it doesn't make any sense in Arizona where we have no unionized contractors--or virtually none, to my knowledge. You can't build a house, you can't build a building in Houston, Texas, if you require the use of a unionized contractor. They don't exist.

Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. CULBERSON. If I could point out, the gentleman from Washington is correct; on this vote, they're not required to unionize, but they're required to adopt the higher prevailing wage. They're required to adopt all the other higher, more expensive standards that a union may require. That puts that contractor at an immediate competitive disadvantage with all of the other contractors out there. There are no unionized--or very few unionized contractors in Houston, Texas--throughout the whole State, and that's the problem. While perhaps in New York, while perhaps in New Jersey, while perhaps in Washington State PLAs may actually wind up saving you money--for reasons mysterious to me as a free market guy, but it may save you money. This language does not prohibit the use of a unionized contractor in New York. Let me repeat, in the brief time I've got left: none of the funds in this act can be used to discriminate against or give preference to a union shop, and the government cannot require a contractor to enter into an agreement. So, you see, the language, as written, we're all on the same page here, guys. This language does not require unionization. It doesn't force a non-union shop to adopt a prevailing wage, for example. And it enables everyone to bid without discrimination. Our concern is, with the President's executive order, which says that the President of the United States encourages the local VA to hire a contractor that follows union guidelines, they don't exist in Texas. That makes no sense. That's why the gentleman from Arizona wrote this amendment this way. And that's why it's important that the House defeat this amendment to save taxpayer dollars and to allow non-union contractors in right-to-work States to compete for these government construction projects. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and thank you for the extra time.

Mr. CULBERSON. I want Ohio to run Ohio.

Mr. CULBERSON. I do.

Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CULBERSON. Our point was that in right-to-work States where we have virtually no labor unions, we don't want contractors to be required to adopt prevailing wages or adopt union guidelines in order to bid on a contract. And in States like yours, Ohio, New York, New Jersey, you should be free to do so. And I think the way, truly, if I may, the way the amendment is written, we have obviously a difference of opinion, but it is written very clearly that the government cannot require or prohibit contractors from adopting these PLAs, so it leaves it really up to the local VA to decide whether they're going to bid it out to a nonunion shop or a union shop, depending on the State. In your State, fine. In Texas, you know, we're a nonunion State.

Mr. CULBERSON. I think we're headed in the same place, which is that you'd like to preserve the ability to hire union contractors in Ohio, New York, and New Jersey. We share that. I have no objection. Under the 10th Amendment, if that's what you guys want to do, God bless you. So what I would ask is that perhaps we could postpone the consideration of this amendment briefly. Would you guys come up with some language to amend Mr. Flake's language to make it even clearer in your mind; so let New Jersey run New Jersey and New York run New York and Ohio run New York, and let Texans run Texas?

Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing statutory law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law . . . '' In this case the amendment directly amends existing law. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. CULBERSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CULBERSON. I strongly support the gentleman's amendment and thank him for bringing it to the floor tonight, and urge its adoption.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CULBERSON. We accepted this amendment, and it passed the House last year. I am happy to yield to my friend from Texas for any further comments he would like to make.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CULBERSON. I want to say again, as I mentioned earlier--and I think much of this has been said, so I won't belabor it--the State of Texas is a right-to-work State. There are very few, if any, labor unions in the State of Texas. We have them in a few industries, but not many. We have to be good stewards of the taxpayers' precious dollars, and the gentleman from Arizona's amendment makes good sense. We should pay the free-market wage. We should not force taxpayers to pay an artificially high union wage when a free-market wage is available and you can get a job done well at a far better price. That just makes common sense. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, this is not an amendment to the bill. This is a procedural stunt, a motion to recommit that the public and the Members should not be confused about. This is a last-minute, a very sad, I think, and shallow and disappointing political stunt that the Members of the minority--this bill, more than any other--Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Speaker, our subcommittee, Sanford Bishop, your colleague from Georgia, our entire subcommittee has worked arm in arm since early this year, held numerous hearings, sought testimony from every organization, from the Veterans Administration--from any veterans organization. We have all worked arm in arm in producing a piece of legislation tonight that fully funds every need of every veteran and every active-duty military member of the United States anywhere in the world. We've funded every request. We've met every need. We've left no gap unfilled. In fact, not only during the committee process, but also tonight. We've been on the floor from 4:30 until 8 o'clock. Anyone could have come to the floor and offered an amendment. Frankly, you could have walked down and drafted it right here on a yellow notepad and given it to the Clerk and offered an amendment at any time. So this is not an amendment. This is a procedural stunt. It's disappointing and disheartening to see it offered at the last minute when we, on this subcommittee, more than any other subcommittee, have worked arm in arm in an absolutely bipartisan way in support of our troops. It is important for the Members to know that our committee has fully funded the request of the Veterans Administration. We've given them everything that they needed, that they asked for--$583 million for medical and prosthetic research. We've increased funding for the VA by $2.3 billion to make sure that the needs of our veterans are met. We have increased Veterans Administration research by almost $1.9 billion. And we have, throughout this entire appropriations season, been open to any Member at any time to bring us any good idea on any subject that would help our veterans. So this is not an amendment. This is a procedural motion that has nothing to do with the merits of the bill. In fact, I want to stress to my colleagues that during conference, if the Veterans Administration, if anyone can demonstrate to Mr. Bishop and me and to the subcommittee that there is a valid need, a demonstrable need that the VA comes to us and says, Yes, we need additional money for more research, of course we'll find room for it. There is no gap between any of us on this House floor when it comes to supporting the needs of our men and women in uniform. We on this committee, more than any other, have worked together in a bipartisan fashion. I urge the Members to reject this last-minute procedural motion to recommit. We will work together in conference if there is truly any additional need for funding, but Members, we have left no gap unfilled when it comes to our men and women in uniform, and I urge the Members to vote ``no.'' Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you, very much, Mr. Gohmert, my good friend from Texas. We share great passion for the 10th Amendment, for the restoration of individual liberty and putting our government back in their box; and I appreciate so much the time that you've spent on the floor, Congressman Gohmert, focusing the attention of the Congress and the country on the fact that this is a government of limited powers, and most powers are reserved to individuals or to State and local government, and we, as a constitutional conservative majority, are working every day to do all we can to do much more than just control spending. It's much more than balancing the budget. We are determined to restore the 10th Amendment and individual liberty and put the Federal Government back in its box, let Texans run Texas and get the government out of our lives, out of our pockets, out of our way, and off our backs. I support you in that effort, and I appreciate very much you yielding to me for a minute. I had a very brief housekeeping matter to take care of, as well as to be here to support your work in the restoration of the 10th Amendment, Mr. Gohmert. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) has been a leader in the effort to restore the 10th Amendment, and he has focused the attention of the country and the Congress on the uncontrolled spending that we have seen in recent years. The level of debt and deficit has reached a level unseen in our history. I deeply appreciate your commitment, Congressman Gohmert, to work to do all that we can from our perspective in the House, even though we're outnumbered--we've got a liberal Senate, a liberal President. We control only one-third of the government, but we have put the brakes on the spending by this President. We've put the brakes on the uncontrolled spending that we've seen since he took office, and we're going to continue to do that. But it is bigger than that. It's bigger than spending. It's bigger than a balanced budget, because the fundamental root of the problem is that the Federal Government has gone so far beyond its limited bounds that they have now intruded themselves into every aspect of our lives. We, as a constitutional conservative majority, are committed to restoring the checks and balances in the Constitution, the separation of powers, and to remind people every day until we are back in control of the Senate and we've got a Republican President. Once we've got a Republican House, Mr. Gohmert, I know we'll be working arm in arm to pass legislation to return power to the States, to restore individual liberty. As Thomas Jefferson said, if you apply the core principles of the Constitution to any problem, the knot will always untie itself. So I deeply appreciate your commitment, Congressman Gohmert, to focusing on the core principles of the Constitution, and know that we are, all of us, every day that we're here, working hard to restore the 10th Amendment and individual liberty. I thank you for your leadership in that effort, sir.