John Culberson

Mr. CULBERSON

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. CULBERSON. Thank you very much. If I could, Mr. Chairman, point out that the Heritage Foundation estimates that there will be a 22 percent savings to taxpayers by eliminating the Davis-Bacon requirement. The Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston estimates a 10 percent savings. This whole variety of savings, if you line them up, for example, we'll just say, for the sake of argument, that there is about a 10 percent savings in construction costs, we as a Nation living on borrowed money should not voluntarily, willingly pay 10 percent more. It makes no sense. The gentleman's amendment is extraordinarily important. It will save taxpayers a significant amount of money on every construction project. On average, you're going to wind up saving, under the gentleman's amendment, about 10 percent. Ten percent goes a long way on a lot of these massive construction projects. The gentleman's amendment is vitally important in this economy. The adoption of the gentleman's amendment will increase the number of jobs available for people to work on Federal projects. The gentleman's amendment will create jobs and save money for taxpayers. In an era of record debt, record deficit, and record burden that we simply cannot pass on to our kids, it is vitally important that the House approve the gentleman's amendment, and I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I will happily accept it, 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 is a national security interest of the United States at stake, and, if not, then we need to be notified. I think we are still waiting for the administration to talk to us, to justify, to explain the involvement of U.S. forces in Libya. 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 going to do, Syria next? The Congress of the United States has an obligation to make sure that, in the stewardship of our precious tax dollars and the responsibility we have to ensure the protection of our men and women in uniform and the people of this Nation, that we are enforcing the War Powers Act, that we are directly involved as a partner in the defense of the United States. The administration has persistently and consistently refused to involve the Congress in these decisions to send our men and women into Libya and whether or not we are going to go into Yemen. Mr. Sherman's amendment is very reasonable and points out that, simply, we are not going to spend any money in violation of the law, we are not going to spend any money in violation of the War Powers Resolution. The distinguished Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House is unable to speak, but I have to say that Mr. McClintock's editorial, the positions that the gentleman from California has taken, I agree with completely. The action in Libya, as Mr. McClintock has said, there could not be a more clear violation of the War Powers Act than the President's involvement of American Armed Forces in Libya. The Congress has never been notified. There has been obviously no attack on the United States. There is 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? So, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I want to rise in support of Mr. Tom McClintock of California's eloquent defense of the War Powers Act, and I urge the House to adopt Mr. Sherman's amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order. I certainly agree with the gentleman's sentiment. It is important that we as Members of Congress don't spend any money to name anything after ourselves. It is inappropriate. It just ought not be done. I know that my colleague from Texas (Mr. McCaul) has also been working on this to prevent the use of taxpayer funds from being spent on monuments built at taxpayer expense to Members of Congress that are still living. This rule is in place for the House of Representatives. It ought to be in place for the Senate and the President of the United States. Point of Order Unfortunately, the gentleman's amendment imposes a duty on Federal agencies in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, so I regret reluctantly I have to raise a point of order against the gentleman's amendment in that it proposes to change existing law, Mr. Chairman, and therefore constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI, and that the amendment seeks to impose additional duties on a Federal agency or entity. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

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

Mr. CULBERSON. I want to express the committee's strong support for the gentleman's amendment. We are all in agreement that the Nation needs to look first to attempt to hire our veterans who have served this Nation, to attempt to encourage the businesses that are developed and built by veterans to thrive and to prosper; and the gentleman's amendment is a great way to encourage veteran-owned businesses to thrive. We should, in the work the Federal Government contracts out, do everything we can to encourage the development of, and hiring of, small businesses owned and operated by veterans; and we strongly support the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Will the ranking member yield?

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Bishop, the gentleman from Pennsylvania has raised a very important matter that we need to look into in the subcommittee as we move into conference. And I want to reassure the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the subcommittee and I will work diligently with him to look further into this issue to find ways that we can help make sure that the veterans who need guide dogs and service dogs get them.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, again, we accept the amendment and move its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CULBERSON. I certainly agree with the gentleman from Florida, our distinguished chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, that we need to do everything we can to support our National Guard. I look forward to working with the gentleman in conference. We will accept the amendment, again, as an expression of our support for making sure that our National Guard and Reserve components have all the support they need. But we'll work with the chairman in conference to see if we can find the best source of funding for this addition plus-up on the National Guard. We, of course, want to make sure that they're not only taken care of in the State of Florida but around the Nation. I know the chairman shares my concern with border security. The National Guard plays a vital role in helping our Border Patrol agents and in helping all of our law enforcement and Homeland Security folks in securing the border. So we want to make sure those elements of the National Guard's role in securing our Nation's borders are fully funded as well. So we will accept the amendment at this time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CULBERSON. This is a straightforward vote to the House about whether or not we will, on behalf of American taxpayers, vote to impose union collective bargaining requirements on any private company doing business with the Federal Government. The Executive order that our bill does not fund and the amendment attempts to strike, language in our bill which does not fund this Executive order, the Executive order says that ``in awarding any contract in connection with a large-scale construction project, the administration may require the use of a project labor agreement.'' A project labor agreement, under the Executive order's own definition, means a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement with one or more labor organizations. So the Obama administration through this Executive order is attempting to unionize any private company in America that wants to do business with the Federal Government. That's just an outrage. Again, in looking at a Wall Street Journal editorial from April 14 of 2010, it reiterates data that is widely available and that has been repeatedly verified: that only about 15 percent of the Nation's construction workers are unionized. So from now on, under this Executive order, the other 85 percent of America's construction workers will have to give up the opportunity to work on a Federal project, or not be unionized. This is just a blatant attempt by the Obama administration to impose union collective bargaining on any private company in America that wants to do business with the Federal Government. If indeed the idea were to reduce the costs, that's fine. We are in an era of austerity unlike anything this Nation has ever experienced. We confront record debt, record deficit, record public debt held by foreign nations. This is unlike anything we have ever seen before. As I showed when we debated this bill earlier, just before the break, every single dollar of Federal revenue that comes in the door is already spent on existing social welfare programs. In fact, 104 percent of Federal income is obligated to pay for the existing social safety net. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, and interest on the national debt consume 104 percent of our Nation's income. Therefore, America is living on borrowed money, and it is our obligation as stewards of the Treasury to ensure that we do not waste any of these precious dollars and that we cut spending everywhere we possibly can so that we do everything within our power to limit the atrocious debt burden that we are passing on to our children and grandchildren. This is an unacceptable direction the Nation is taking because of uncontrolled spending by previous Congresses. Why would we voluntarily, knowingly, allow our kids and grandkids to pay, as The Wall Street Journal points out and as the Veterans Administration discovered, and why would we voluntarily pay 12 to 14 percent more for construction contracts? In a study they did, the VA discovered, when they looked at the construction costs for hospitals in three of five markets, the cost of construction would jump by as much as 9 percent. The Beacon Hill Institute at Boston Suffolk University in 2006 said, when you impose these project labor agreements, it will increase school construction costs by 12 to 14 percent. Why would we voluntarily do that? This amendment must be defeated. This amendment is an effort to prevent Congress from saving precious tax dollars. If this amendment passes, the Obama administration will be able to impose collective bargaining on any private company that wants to do business with the Federal Government. I strongly urge Members to oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Kentucky, Congressman Hal Rogers.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this time to yield such time as he may consume to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).

Mr. CULBERSON. This is an amendment which we've worked hard again to come up with arm in arm in a cooperative, bipartisan way to increase, for example--we're making sure we've got $20 million set aside for suicide prevention outreach. A terrible, terrible problem among veterans and a high priority for us to do everything we can to help prevent suicide, that amendment offered by Congressmen Holt and Runyan. Also, this is another amendment we are submitting to attempt to reduce wait times for mental health services, also to increase research funding by $22 million offset by a reduction in general administration. And also, Mr. Chairman, to set aside $100,000 for the purpose of a study of Veterans Affairs, VA historic properties. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 10 minutes, to be equally divided and controlled by myself and the ranking member.

Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.