Norm Dicks

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Some in the minority continue to try to repeal Davis-Bacon, despite the House being on record supporting the protection of labor standards. Two weeks ago, the full committee voted to strip the anti-Davis-Bacon provision that was added by the chairman of the subcommittee. A similar amendment repealing Davis-Bacon was offered during the consideration of the FY 2012 Homeland Security appropriations bill. It failed on a vote of 183-234. I have been a longtime supporter of Davis-Bacon's prevailing wage requirements. It helps ensure that local projects provide local jobs with affordable middle class wages. The law protects the government from contractors trying to win Federal contracts 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 a real problem. That rests with the Department of Labor, and we need to make sure that they're doing their part of the equation. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. DICKS. I rise today in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is intended to ensure that any alternative fuel that is introduced to replace conventional petroleum-based fuels must have greenhouse gas emissions that are less than or equal to the fuel it is replacing. 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 DOD 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, Secretary of the Navy, for his energetic approach to trying to find alternative fuels. I think he, as Secretary, has done an outstanding job. He has put the Navy on a path towards energy independence and reducing the amount of petroleum products that we're using today. So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this very shortsighted amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. We are trying to vote on the Flores amendment. Could you have waited until we had voted on the amendment to make your 5-minute speech? This is totally irrelevant to this debate.

Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. DICKS. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. Veteran- owned companies are a great asset that we should be further encouraging. These businesses obviously play a positive role in the economy by providing not only jobs, goods, and services, but also are reducing unemployment amongst veterans who are already struggling with the unemployment rate greater than that of the general populace. Furthermore, the government has done poorly in reaching its 3 percent contracting goal for veterans. For example, agencies' contract awards were below 1 percent from 2003 to 2006. The most recent figures for 2009 show agencies awarded only 1.98 percent to service-disabled veterans. We must do more to ensure that our veterans are transitioning from soldiers to civilians and we are actively encouraging new opportunities for vets. I believe this amendment will help the Department of Defense and VA to do better. I support this amendment and urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I just want to mention a program called Pets for Patriots. I happened to have attended an event here just about a week ago where there is a national organization being created to get pets for our returning veterans and especially for some of those who have very serious injuries. So I think there is a real need for this, and I think it's been demonstrated. And I commend Mr. Fattah for his diligence and for your help in raising this issue.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. The debate in the House today concerning the extent of U.S. involvement in the military action in Libya, now led by NATO, is a necessary and important debate, and I appreciate the role that Dennis Kucinich has played in this. Both resolutions being considered today recognize the essential role of Congress in authorizing and in funding the use of U.S. Armed Forces consistent with the War Powers act and the Constitution. Both resolutions require the Members of the House to reflect on the appropriateness of the use of military force in this operation, as outlined by the President. And both resolutions initiate the entirely appropriate debate over the objectives of this operation as well as its duration. In my judgment, the President's initial commitment of U.S. airpower and naval forces to support the international effort was appropriate and certainly within his power as Commander in Chief. The U.S. effort was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, some of our closest friends, and it followed a resolution adopted in the United Nations Security Council authorizing all necessary measures to protect Libyan civilians attempting to overthrow the oppressive regime of Muammar al Qadhafi. The Qadhafi government's response to the uprising-- inspired by the Arab Spring movement--was to use force against civilians and opposition forces, and the brutal measures prompted the international outcry and the U.N. action. At the time, the President stated clearly that our leadership of the NATO effort would last a matter of days, not weeks. While the direct U.S. leadership of this effort lasted a brief time, U.S. forces remain engaged in the NATO operation; and at this point, it is clear that Members of Congress are not comfortable with the extent of information they have been given about the direction, the duration, or the cost of the operation. Under the War Powers act, the President has an obligation to report to Congress and to seek concurrence if our military involvement extends longer than 60 days, and clearly such consultation has not been effectively accomplished. We are encouraged by statements from the Obama administration that U.S. ground forces will not be used in Libya. And last week, 416 Members of Congress supported the Conyers amendment to the Defense authorization bill that would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to deploy ground forces in the country. At issue now is whether Congress should act through the Kucinich resolution to effectively terminate the U.S. involvement in the NATO effort within 2 weeks or whether Congress, through the Boehner resolution, should scold the President for not providing greater detail about specific actions, contributions of other nations to the effort, and the possible involvement of Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, and other organizations in and outside the region in providing support to the Libyan Government. I believe the Kucinich resolution is premature and that it could materially harm our relationship with NATO allies from which we will undoubtedly require support in the future.

Mr. DICKS. I believe the Boehner resolution is an attack on the President, something most of the Republican Caucus would vote against if its party was in control of the executive branch. I do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and the cost of U.S. military forces engaged in the Libya operation, both in the Defense and Foreign Affairs-related committees here as well as in the full House. I am neither prepared to end our involvement unilaterally, as in the Kucinich amendment, nor do I believe Congress should officially declare our involvement in this effort that has not been properly explained by the President. I think the President made a very strong statement to the American people about why we were going to use this for humanitarian reasons. I think the Qadhafi regime is a brutal regime that should be replaced, and I hope that we can accomplish that.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule and need to take a moment to explain why, because I know many Members, especially Members of the minority, appreciate the openness of the amendment process. My concerns lie elsewhere with this rule; namely, that this rule for the first time requires a separate vote in the House on title II instead of following the regular order process. Mr. Speaker, I believe this procedural change sets a very bad precedent for the Appropriations Committee and for the House as a whole. Our committee currently has 12 subcommittees which cover every agency and program we fund through discretionary appropriations. Over the years that I have served on this committee, those jurisdictions have been changed--broadened, narrowed, switched places. And we have even created new subcommittees to address a current need, such as the Homeland Security subcommittee following the terrible events of 9/11. There have also been realignments based on political dynamics, such as the abolition of the old VA-HUD subcommittee which had forced veterans, housing, and NASA programs to all compete within the same bill and same allocation for annual funding. We now fund Veterans Affairs with Military Construction. If the majority is unhappy with the current subcommittee makeup, or believes an agency should stand alone for individual approval, they have every tool available to them to change the jurisdictions. We need not change the way we consider these bills on the floor and complicate a fairly straightforward process Members are already familiar with. As ranking member of this committee, I must also focus on the impact this change would have on our entire process, especially our process of reconciling these bills with the other body. The theoretical defeat of a title compromises the position of the House in conference committee negotiations. Now I don't think that will happen on the MilCon-VA bill. However, in some instances, the House may reject a title. In that circumstance, how does the House proceed to conference with the Senate on that particular bill? We cannot just decline to fund an entire title and then go on to negotiate its terms with the Senate. Striking a title of an appropriations bill will limit the House's ability to negotiate anything in that title by limiting the scope of that conference to only measures approved by both Chambers. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the open amendment process this rule provides but do wish that we would stick to true regular order for consideration of this bill. I want to just also add that this is a good bill. It could be a little better, but I think this is a bill that should be passed overwhelmingly.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. Can the gentleman explain why all of a sudden the new majority has decided to have a separate vote on one Department and risk the possibility of going to conference, say, with Military Construction but not with the Veterans Affairs? What is the purpose for this, especially with an open rule when you can vote on any provision in the bill?

Mr. DICKS. Do you think it's a good idea?

Mr. DICKS. Well, you could have another subcommittee. You could have a subcommittee do Veterans Administration and one do Military Construction. Anybody thought about that?

Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. Regarding this cybersecurity vulnerability, I think our financial institutions make a major effort at trying to protect themselves. But I have been told that our corporate intellectual property, over the last few years, $1 trillion has been stolen through these cyber attacks from the free world to others. Some of these people are simply criminals. Some of them are acting under state authority. This is one of those issues that we are still vulnerable to. I just hope that these dramatic cuts in science and technology won't undermine our ability to come up with solutions on this cyber issue. I also believe the administration, the President, his people and the Department of Homeland Security have a responsibility to make certain that we have a plan and we have an approach and we work with the private sector in a way that will make sure that we are protecting our critical infrastructure. So I just urge you, Mr. Price, as the ranking member, and the chairman, Mr. Aderholt, to see if we can't make certain that, in conference, we keep some of this money in there for the cybersecurity programs that I know Dr. O'Toole is concerned about. And I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I too am concerned about this amendment, especially when these campaign contributions are given secretly. You know, our system has been improved by having public disclosure of political contributions. I think the more the public knows about where the money is coming from, the better off the citizenry is. So I just support the ranking member, Mr. Price, who gave a very complete description of why we're against this amendment, and I urge its defeat. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chair, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. DICKS. Oh, Homeland Security does. I get that.

Mr. DICKS

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Bishop, I want to congratulate you on being the new ranking member on MilCon-VA. I also congratulate Chairman Culberson, who has, I think, done an outstanding job, and of course my good friend and colleague, Hal Rogers, the chairman of our committee. I want to also congratulate the staff. The staff has done an amazing job considering we had to go through the 2011 episode and then come right back and get the 2012 bill out. The MilCon-VA Subcommittee has always had a strong reputation for common ground and bipartisanship as members traditionally work together to fund the construction of military facilities and strive to improve the quality of life and care afforded to our veterans and military families. Many years ago, during the Reagan administration, we got David Stockman to allow us and Cap Weinberger to do incremental funding on military hospitals, and I'm glad the committee has gone back to an incremental funding approach. I think it's the only way we can do these major projects. We all acknowledge the challenges facing the Nation today with respect to the debt and deficit, and I believe this bill has done a commendable job in addressing these fiscal challenges while ensuring that we are not impacting the level of care and benefits that our servicemembers have so rightfully earned. Military construction is funded at $14 billion, which is $2.6 billion below the FY11 enacted amount and $752 million below the President's request. The subcommittee achieved these cuts through the incremental funding of projects and by eliminating funding for several projects that were ahead of need. As Ranking Member Bishop noted, this bill makes a strong investment into Defense Department schools by investing $483 million for the construction and replacement of substandard facilities. I have been a strong advocate for the modernization of schools serving the children of our Nation's servicemembers, and I commend the chairman and ranking member on their commitment to this effort. The Department of Veterans Affairs would be funded at $58.3 billion in discretionary spending, which is $1.85 billion above the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $476 million below the President's request. Most of this funding is for veterans' medical services. The recommendation provides the full funding of $69.5 billion for the mandatory VA programs providing compensation and pensions, educational benefits, vocational rehabilitation, life insurance, and housing loan programs. I would like to commend the chairman and ranking member for their efforts to ensure that our Nation's veterans are well taken care of by maintaining adequate funding for veterans' health care and other benefits on which so many have come to count on. Again, I am pleased overall with the funding levels proposed in this bill today, and I am pleased that during the full committee markup we were able to remove a contentious and divisive restriction on the implementation of Davis-Bacon wage requirements; but unfortunately, there is one item that I believe will complicate the passage of this bill. I am troubled by the inclusion of a provision that prohibits the use of project labor agreements for any project in this bill. This divisive policy rider should not be included in an appropriations bill, and the decision to implement PLAs should remain at the discretion of the agency as to whether it is appropriate for an individual project. The inclusion of this provision unnecessarily complicates the support for a bill that would otherwise pass with wide bipartisan support. I expect an amendment to be offered that would remove this restriction on PLAs and would further improve the bill. I would like to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment.

Mr. DICKS. Regardless, I remain committed to working with my colleagues to respectfully work out any differences on the floor so that we may pass a bipartisan bill that adequately provides for our troops, veterans, and military families. Again, I intend to support this bill. I wish we could finish tonight, but I understand we can't. I look forward to seeing this bill done. I commend, again, the chairman and ranking member for their good work.