restriction. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the clerk will read. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. vargas: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of the efforts to address the increasing backlog of veterans' disability claims in the f.y. 2014 military construction and veterans appropriations bill. we must do everything in our power to ensure that the men and women who have served honorably in the armed services receive the full benefits they have earned for protecting our freedoms abroad. it's a shame that our veterans have to wait an average of 321 days to receive a response from the department of veterans affairs after filing a claim. my district, i have the privilege of representing the southern portion of san diego county and all of imperial county in california. they are home to the third largest veteran population in

the nation. currently processing times have tripled in the area since 2009 with over 28,500 pending disability claims being processed and an average wait time of 334 days. as we continue to wind down our operations in iraq and afghanistan, more and more men and women will be seeking the benefits they are owed. we must continue to find workable solutions for these heroes and their families. this bill presented today provides more than $290 million to help the v.a. meet its goal of ending its disability claim backlog by 2015. in order to meet this deadline, funds will be provided for the digital scanning of health and benefit files and for the development of a paperless process claims system. additionally, $334 million will be appropriated to the department of defense and veterans affairs to implement a single integrated health record system used by both departments. both of these measures are needed to speed up the processing and to modernize our

record keeping system. we must also hold the v.a. accountable for its results, and i am glad to see that the monthly reporting requirements on the process of the expedited claims initiative for veterans is included in this bill. during the throes of the civil war, president lincoln affirmed the government's obligation to care for those injured during the war and to provide for the families of those who perish on the battlefield. with the commitment, quote, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his quote.and widow, end let us continue to work in this tradition by reducing the backlog and the wait times of disability claims to the veterans and their families across our nation. thank you, mr. speaker and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill page 59 line 18 be considered as read,

printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. are there any amendments to hat portion of the bill? if not -- the gentleman. >> mr. chairman, i do have an amendment at the desk. the chair: we are not to that point in the reading of the bill. >> -- mr. moran: sorry, mr. chairman. i have been instructed otherwise. could i ask of the chair a clarification? the chair: yes, you may. mr. moran: and i do ask for a clarification of the chair

whether the amendment that i have at the desk is now in order. the chair: the reading will resume at section 406. mr. moran: mr. chairman, i have gotten that clarification and we will wait until we are -- the chair: and the clerk will read. the clerk: page 58, line 19, section 406, none of the funds made available may be transferred except pursuant to transfer authority provided in any appropriations act. section 407, none of the funds may be used for a project named for an individual serving as a member, delegate or resident commissioner. section 408, any agency receiving funds in this act shall post on the public website any report required. section 409, none of the funds may be used to maintain a computer network unless such

network blocks the viewing, downloading and exchanging of pornography. section 410, none of the funds may be distributed to the association of community organizations acorn or its subsidiaries or successors. section 411, none of the funds may be used by an agency to exercise the power of eminent domain. section 412, none of the funds may be used by an agency of the executive branch to pay for first-class travel. section 413, none of the funds appropriated may be used to construct, renovate or expand any facility in the united states, its territories or possessions to have any individual obtained at united states naval air station, guantanamo bay, cuba. the chair: the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: now i know i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: --

the chair: the clerk will report the amendment after the gentleman sends his amendment to the desk. mr. moran: i understand there is an amendment at the desk. well, i guess now there is. the chair: there is an amendment at the desk and the clerk will report it. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. moran of virginia. strike section 413. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. i'll try not to take the full five minutes because i know we want to finish this up as soon as possible. i already said how much i like the chairman and ranking member , but, mr. chairman, section 413 prohibits any funds, no matter how small they might be, to renovate or expand any facility in the u.s. for the purposes of housing guantanamo

detainees. the fact is that the department of justice does have six facilities where guantanamo bay detainees could be held in the united states, and those facilities are currently perating at only 48% capacity. i believe that if we were to look deeply into this issue of detention at guantanamo bay we would conclude, number one, that they don't meet the standards of justice that our american injuries prudence system de-- jurisprudence system demands. number two, the people at guantanamo bay, the vast majority should have been released. in fact, a vast majority of the 779 people that were put there should never have been detained . number three, the best place

for them to be housed and then tried is in the united states. number four, the continuance of the guantanamo bay facility represents an immediate security threat to the united states because it is a rally cry and recruitment tool for our enemy. right now there are more than 100 detainees that are protesting what appears to be an indefinite attention the only way they can through hunger strikes. being tube fed through their nose. they're held for two hours to make sure this liquid stuff is digested. guantanamo has become an immediate humanitarian crisis.

it needs to be addressed urgently because the rest of the world can't understand why we don't do the right thing by those detainees who still are at guantanamo bay who we have cleared, in fact, the bush administration cleared for release because they had no evidence on them. president obama has asked the congress to lift restrictions on detainee transfers. he's asked d.o.d. to identify a site in the united states for military commissions. they'll plant a senior envoy charged of transferring detainees to third world countries. he'll lift the transfers to yemen. he's going to staff the periodic review board for those that cannot be transferred. i think he should use the waiver provisions in the national defense authorization act to transfer detainees from guantanamo, beginning with the

reported 86 detainees already been cleared for transfer. but he can't do what he needs to do for our national security as long as language like section 413 is in this bill. that's why my amendment would remove this restriction. what we're doing does not export with america's system of justice or with fairness, and as i say, i believe it's a direct threat to our national security. so, mr. chairman, i would urge that we remove this language. it doesn't need to be there. we have department of defense facilities. they're being underused in the united states. that's the way that we could clear up a situation that we never should have created in the first place. at this point -- can i reserve

time in order to respond to mr. culberson? the chair: the gentleman may not reserve time. does the gentleman yield back? mr. moran: at this point i yield back and anxious to hear from the chairman of the subcommittee. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: mr. chairman, this language is in the bill because it has strong bipartisan support. the american people do not want these terrorists, these criminals captured either on battlefields overseas or who have sworn to kill innocent american men, women and children housed in american prisons. in the second world war, nazi soldiers landed on long island and on the beaches of florida carrying explosives with the intent of killing intent americans. theodore -- franklin roosevelt as president, when they were captured, they were held and tried in the military and

within 90 days they were executed. the prisoners at guantanamo bay quite frankly are being treated much more leniently than i think they should be, than most americans think they should be. and mr. chairman, i rise in strenuous opposition to the gentleman's amendment and would like to, if i could, yield the remainder of my initial time in opposition to my good friend, the chairman of the commerce, justice, science committee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wolf: thank you very much. i rise in opposition to my good friend, and we are good friends , amendment. one, at the outset in the president's first term, an executive order declared to close guantanamo bay and bring the detainees to the united states. that proposal was rejected by the congress overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. similar language is carried in the commerce, state, justice bill on the committee,

subcommittee on which i serve. these provisions reflect a consensus of this in previous congresses. but let me tell you some of the real reasons why this is a bad and even i would say a dangerous amendment. several of these men who have been released from guantanamo who have gone back into the battlefield and have killed americans. second, director muller, and i don't have the letter here, said this could have the impact on local jails. the locality, the jails. you remember the blind sheik, he was stabbed in the eye with regard to the escape. to bring people like this into the united states could have an impact not only on the jail but on also on the community. to bring khalid sheikh mohammed to the united states would cost roughly, if you recall, $ 50 million a year -- $250 million a year. another one who was tried in

alexandria, upset alexandria. if you take the same time, his trial would go on for four years and cost $1 billion, $250 million a year. do you remember when this idea first came out, mayor bloomberg said nothing, chuck shumer said nothing, all of a -- chuck schumer said nothing and all of a sudden, mayor bloomberg came out against it and senator schumer came out against it. we had the ability to reprogram money because they were going to furlough prison guards. they were going to measure low prison guards. to bring people like this in to put the stress on the bureau of prisons would be absolutely crazy. and let me just debunk another thing. for people who say, and i heard the president say, that guantanamo causes terrorism, guantanamo bay prison was not there when 9/11 took place. the blind sheik who was

involved in trying to blow up the world trade center in 1993, there was no guantanamo. it's a hoax to say that. what you say is not true. it's false. to say that bin laden and people like that say, oh, well, the congress and the administration, they're going to close down guantanamo, we are going to close down al qaeda, we are going to close down all the terrorism, it just doesn't make any sense. this is a bad amendment. the gentleman is a good friend. it's a bad amendment and very dangerous amendment and would cost a lot of money and quite frankly would endanger the localities. if you vote for this amendment, you better be prepared. what locality wants to bring khalid sheikh mohammed to their local neighborhood? what locality wants to bring khalid sheikh mohammed to their county, to the state? i say none. i urge a no vote on the amendment and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: mr. chairman, i would just also say by bringing these terrorists into the united states, we would be

giving them american constitutional rights, a very precious, very special privilege that's reserved for the people of the united states. these people should be tried in military courts and treated as prisoners of war and the criminals and the cowards that they are and i urge a no vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: i stand today also concerned about the policy on guantanamo bay detention facility. and as i listen to my colleague and as i consider the speech from the president last week, it is very, very clear that there needs to be additional debate on this subject. i also understand that the house armed services committee will be holding discussions on this very important issue in the coming days as they begin marking up the national defense authorization act. and so i say to my colleagues

this issue deserves a more vick rouse debate, but that this is not the proper venue to hold that debate. as i stated in my opening remarks today, this bill was crafted and brought to the floor as a result of bipartisan work and compromise. and due to the committee's commitment to our service members, their families and to all of our veterans. this is a deeply, deeply controversial issue that i believe requires much more in-depth discussion than we can have here today and i would respectfully submit that this is not the appropriate venue to have discussion on this controversial policy. today is not the time and this bill, i submit, is not the place. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from

virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. moran: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia are postponed. clerk will read. the clerk: section 414, none of the funds made available may be used to execute a contract for goods including construction services where the contractor has not complied with executive order number 12989. section 415, none of the funds made available may be use todd enter into a contract or loan guarantee to any corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation. section 416, none of the funds may be used to enter into a contract or loan guarantee to any corporation that has federal

tax liability that has been assessed. section 417, none of the funds may be used to wind down, alter implementation of a program proposed in a budget request. spending reduction account, section 418, the amount by which the applicable allocation of new budget authority made by the committee exceeds the amount proposed the new budget authority is zero dollars. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? the gentleman from california seek recognition. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will report the amendment. -- designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. farr of california. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. farr: i have a very simple amendment. as most members know, 19 states and the district of columbia have enacted laws that provide for the legal access to medical marijuana. two of those states provide access to marijuana for more than for medicine. in checking out the rules for the v.a. on the matter of medical marijuana, turns out there is a policy enforced which 2011-004 irective that prohibits v.a. providers from come -- completing forms seeking recommendations or opinions a veteran's participation in a state medical program. my amendment denies that prohibition, thus freing up the v.a. doctors to assist v.a. patients in assessing medical marijuana outside the v.a.

system. all this amendment does is make it possible for the v.a. doctors to provide medical advice to the v.a. patients on the relative pros and cons of medical marijuana if they want to have that discussion. for those doctors who wish to offer recommendations to v.a. patients or -- on assessing medical marijuana, they are no longer prohibited from doing so. so essentially the v.a. order is a censorship in those 19 states and district of columbia saying doctors can't even have this discussion. yet, the civilians going to a civilian doctor can have that discussion. so what we're doing is removing the ability for the v.a. to enforce that provision. thinking that that's fair. this is a very controversial, i

know, issue of medical marijuana, but in those states that have made it the law of that state, then veterans ought to be treated equally with civilian patients in being able to have access to the total array of applicable medical devices, including the use of medical marijuana. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california may not reserve his time. mr. farr: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i have an amendment at the desk. gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate that my colleague, mr. farr, bringing this forward. i agree with what he said except for one item and that is that somehow medical marijuana is intensely controversial. what we're finding that with the

american public, it's no longer really that controversial. as he said, 20 jurisdictions, 19 states and the district of columbia have approved medical marijuana to be available to their citizens. over a million americans are people who are legally entitled to have the quality of medical marijuana. and it's long been recognized that it has therapeutic values. they use it to deal with chronic pain, the yeah associated with symptoms of o, s. and patients dealing with ptsd. now, it is ironic that when we are trying to have a veteran's

health system that deals with the total patient -- the committee just supported an amendment that i had earlier to help give them alternative therapies, that we would prohibit a v.a. doctor from even discussing a therapy that is perfectly legal in 20 jurisdictions. what is the rationale here to prohibit the doctor from being able to have that conversation, forcing our veterans to go outside the system and incur additional costs? i think it is a misguided policy in the extreme. we're in the process now where the majority of americans think that marijuana should be legalized. and if you ask the question, should we respect the decisions of states, that majority gets even bigger.

over 60% says the federal government ought not to interfere. here the veterans administration is prohibited from giving candid advice to people in our system, people who could benefit like over a million legal medical marijuana patients. i think that's inappropriate. i think it's unfortunate. i think we should do everything we can to try and relieve the pain and suffering that our veterans are incurring. and if it means having a conversation with a v.a. doctor about something perfectly legal in their community, i think that's the least we can do. i commend the gentleman for bringing the amendment forward and i hope that the day will come when we provide this service to veterans who would like information about it. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back.

is there further debate on the amendment? question is on the amendment offered -- mr. farr: unanimous consent, i would like to withdraw the amendment. the chair: without objection, the amendment is withdrawn. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. kingston: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. kingston of georgia, insert the following, section, a, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to pay more than 75% of the salary of any senior department of veterans affairs official during the period beginning july 1, 2014 and ending september 30, 2014 unless as of july 1, 2014, the percentage of disbuilt compensation claims that are more than 125 days old, less than or equal to 40%, b, and in this section, the term senior

department of veterans affairs official means the secretary of veterans affairs, the deputy secretary of veterans affair and any under secretary or assistant secretary of veterans affairs. the chair: the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston, is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: mr. speaker, this bill provides $43.6 billion for medical treatment for the 6 1/2 million veterans today who use the v.a. it increases funding for processes such as the electronic health records system and the disability claims process, the paperless environment. and yet, that's what we did last year and the year before. nonetheless, today, as we sit re, the v.a. has 865,265 claims in their backlog.

66 1/2% of these claims have been pending for more than 125 days. the current claim to be processed, the current amount of time is 292 days. and some offices report some claims have been pending for 450 days. this is not acceptable -- this is not acceptable. but every year, we provide more money for the v.a. to process claims and every year the backlog gets more. so what this amendment does, it takes a different approach. it takes an approach that is used in the private sector on a regular basis for compensation. it says to the senior members of the v.a. that if they don't have the claims backlog reduced by 40% by next july, the senior leadership will have a pay cut of 25%. and mr. speaker, this follows their own goal.

and all it says, if you don't make your own goal, there will be a 25% pay reduction for the senior management of the v.a. and i think everyone in congress has a v.a. office with problems in their own district. n decatur, georgia, a v.a. hospital that serves 86,000 patients in the state of eorgia, has a backlog of 4,000 patients, 4,000 patients have fallen through the cracks. three deaths have occurred when the v.a. lost track of mental health patients and referred it to a contractor while not keeping close eye on them while they were supposed to be monitored. one may have committed suicide because he could not see a doctor and had an overdose in his treatment. there are other atrocities that happened in that one v.a. clinic. again, mr. speaker, this is not

adequate. this is not acceptable for our veterans, we need to treat them better. i'm a member of the defense committee and i often say the american solder needs the best equipment because we want them to fight and win more and come home and live a normal life. so we need to make sure that our treatment of the american military does not end in a theater of war, but continues throughout the rest of their lives as the claims or as the injuries that they incurred while rendering service to the nation haunt them the rest of their lives, we need to be there for them for their medical treatment. and what this does, this amendment sends a very strong signal to the v.a. that we are serious that this backlog will be cleaned up. and if not, there will be a price to pay. and with that, i yield the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. culberson: i believe mr. kingston has identified the problem in the private sector. if you don't meet a performance goal you'll suffer a cut in pay, you could be discharged from your job. mr. kingston correctly points out that the v.a. set this own standard. they have set their -- this goal of eliminating the backlog by the year 2015. and mr. kingston amendment simply says if they don't meet the -- their own standard, their own yardstick, a measurement of success in reducing the backlog that there will be a pay cut of 25% to the senior leadership that is responsible for this goal, that's responding for leading the v.a. and executing this and congress is tired of the delays, tired of the excuses and we want our veterans to receive what they have earned, to be sure that they're given

compensation for the injuries they suffered in the course of service to the united states of america. and i urge adoption of mr. kingston's amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. mr. bishop: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: i could not agree more with the gentleman from georgia that the claims backlog is absolutely unacceptable. i think the chairman of the full appropriations committee, the ranking member of the full appropriations committee, the chairman of our subcommittee and yours truly as the ranking member of the subcommittee have met with and have criticized and have done everything that we can possibly do to try to bring to the attention of the veterans administration and the secretary of the need to have this backlog addressed, and i do think we address that in this bill. but i must rise in opposition to this amendment.

when i talked to veterans, the number one issue they always have is the claims and the claims backlog. the number one issue being dealt with by my staff in southwest is v.a. claims and the claims backlog -- in southwest georgia is claims and claims backlog. i think this will finally do something about the backlog. will you tell me put a pen there for a moment. the backlog, while unexcusable, does have some basis. just a couple of years ago, this congress in an effort to support our vietnam-era veterans, made it possible for the agent orange claims to be covered by the v.a. even though that had been an ongoing issue for the decades that i had been a member of congress.

as a result of that, that was a great surge of v.a. claims by vietnam veterans which added to the backlog. add to that, the returning veterans from iraq and now from afghanistan, which has added even more through that backlog resulting in the now almost 850,000 claims when two years, before the agent orange claims, we had just about eliminated that backlog. but i think that even though there are some justification, the backlog is inexcusable, but in this bill that we are debating right now, we've done something about the backlog. first, the bill fully funds the general operating expenses for the v.b.a., which will support 20,850,000 claims processors -- 20,850 claims processors and

all 94 of these new claims processors will work disability claims. the bill fully funds the veterans benefit management system at $155 million and the veterans claims intake probable at $136.4 million. these two efforts to speed up the v.a.'s efforts to take old claims that are filed on paper and convert them into digital files that are easily searchable by the claims processors, thus speeding up the claims process. second, we include a monthly reporting requirement for the v.a. to provide congress with several statistics such as the average wait time at each regional office, the rating inventory that's been pending under 125 days, rating claims accuracy and month-to-month updates of any changes in those statistics. third, we require a report on the v.a.'s expedited claims initiative that was announced just a few weeks ago.

this report should give the committee insight into whether or not the secretary's new initiative is having a positive result. i believe that we should let the measures in this bill take effect before we turn to these more drastic measures. i understand the frustration that the gentleman feels and that is felt by most of the members of this congress. and i understand the frustration that is felt by our veterans and even the secretary who is quite frustrated. and i'm opened to all reasonable methods to solve the problem, but i believe we should avoid measures like this. it's unnecessarily punitive, and i believe that the measures that we have put forth in this bill will adequately get results, accountability and ultimately meet our objectives

of eliminating the claims backlog by 2015. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: i'd like to yield time to my good friend, the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. does the gentleman from texas ask unanimous consent to strike the last word? mr. culberson: yes. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: thank you. at this point i'd like to yield to my good friend, the gentleman from georgia, for any closing remarks he might have. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized.

mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for the time, the gentleman from texas, and to my friend from georgia who i know is just as feshent like us about cleaning up the backlog. the only part in which we are in disagreement is this approach and, again, emphasizing that this committee has provided the adequate funding to reduce the backlog. but we did it last year, we did it the year before and we did it the year before that. what we're doing with this amendment is what the private sector do every single day, it bases compensation on performance, and we're saying if you don't perform to your own guidelines there will be a compensation penalty for it. you know, congress has reduced its expenses, depending on your committee, anywhere from 8% to 14%. we have not had a cola in several years now. in fact, the only way the united states senate has to budget this -- passed a budget this year was because of an amendment that was offered called no budget, no pay, and the house passed a budget, too,

under that threat. and one way you do get people's attention is to say you have got to perform in your job or there will be a salary cut. that's all we're doing, and for the men and women who put their lives on the line for our country that we could have this debate today and that we can go about our lives tomorrow and the next day and raise family in a free -- raise our families in a free and independent country, we owe it to them that a backlog of 800,000 claims is not acceptable and we are tired of talking about it. this amendment takes the final step. we are going to make a change. we are going to get that backlog cleaned up. with that i yield back to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: i urge adoption to the gentleman's amendment. it's common sense that your performance should be tied to your pay and i urge adoption to the gentleman from georgia's amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the

gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new hampshire eek recognition? ms. kuster: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: insert the following. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used for any conference as described in office management d budget memorandum, m-12 -- 12 to supporting a agency operations dated may 11, 2012, for which the cost -- to the agency exceeds $500,000. the chair: the gentlelady from new hampshire is recognized for five minutes.

ms. kuster: thank you very much, mr. chairman. my amendment is straightforward. it would prohibit the federal government from spending more than $500,000 of the funds appropriated by this bill on any single conference. this amendment would simply enforce the obama administration's may 11, 2012, office of management and budget memorandum promoting efficient spending. i understand for the v.a. and other agencies to invest in work force development, and i welcome the role that conferences can play in improving services for our constituents, but from the g.s.a. to the i.r.s., time and again we have seen federal agencies misuse public funds at conferences and make expenditures of questionable value. in recent years, this problem has extended to the v.a. in 2011, the v.a. spent over $6 million on just two conferences.

this prompted an investigation by the department's inspector general who documented numerous examples of excessive costs and unnecessary and unsupported expenditures. including over $49,000 for a parody video. over 97,000 for unnecessary promotional items and over $43,000 in awards paid to the staff managing these conferences. we can all agree that the v.a. should focus its limited resources on its core mission -- serving those brave men and women who have worn the uniform and served our country. there's so many more worthwhile uses for v.a. funding. from eliminating the egregious claims backlog, to improving support for survivors of military sexual trauma, to expanding access to health care services in rural communities, such as in my district in the northern town of col brook -- kolbrook, new hampshire, near

the canadian border. out of respect for our constituents during these times of enhanced fiscal to nsibility and in serve our veterans, i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new hampshire. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk printed at number 3 in the congressional record. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. rothfus of pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for five minutes. mr. rothfus: mr. chairman, i rise today to stand with our nation's veterans and their families. we owe our veterans a debt of

gratitude that can never be repaid. as public servants, we have a solemn obligation to make sure our veterans get the respect, care they've earned and rightly expect. that responsibility extend to employees and executives at the department of veterans affairs. unfortunately, the v.a. has failed veterans in western pennsylvania and around the nation. this failure has resulted in the outrageous disabilities claims backlog and the unconscionable death of veterans at the v.a. pittsburgh health care system. in light of these unresolved problems, no one in the senior leadership of the v.a. should be paid a performance bonus. today, over 865,000 veterans around the nation are waiting to receive disability benefits from the v.a. of those veterans, almost 576,000 are considered part of the v.a. backlog, meaning their claims have been pending for more than 125 days. on average our nation's veterans must wait between 316

and 327 days for their first-time disability claims to be processed. wait times in major population centers and in my district are often longer. for example, veterans must wait 642 days in new york, 619 days in los angeles, 542 days in chicago, 517 days in philadelphia and 625 days in pittsburgh. the number of veterans who have been forced to wait more than a year to receive their benefits have grown to more than 2,000% over the last four years, despite significant increases in the v.a.'s budget during the same time period. a study conducted found that veterans who disagree must wait even longer. that study found that it takes an average of 1,040 for the agency to make decisions in appeals cases, that's almost

three years. some veterans wait so long that they die before their claims are processed. the study found almost 3,000 cases between 2009 and 2013 in which veterans or their surviving spouses died before getting decisions on their disputed claims. western pennsylvania veterans have received more egregious failures and the death of five veterans. the v.a. inspector general found that the failure of the pittsburgh v.a. to follow its own safety protocols and breakdown in communication resulted in these unconscionable deaths. after the report was released, the regional director was awarded a $63,000 bonus. in total, the v.a. gave a senior executive bonuses total $2.8

million in 2011. paid bonuses to executives of an organization with this abysmal performance record is ridiculous. in the private sector, this achievement is rewarded with a pink slip, not a bonus check. this taxpayer money should be directed to fixing the problem and ensuring the veterans receive the care they deserve. v.a. executives need to take responsibility, fix these problems and do their jobs. stand with our veterans and support my amendment. i yield to the gentlelady from alabama. the chair: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized. mrs. roby: i would like to support this gentleman's amendment and the number of backlog of cases, each case represents a veteran who may have earned a benefit that is being denied and in the last

four years, the number of v.a. claims pending for more than a year has grown by 2,000% an award of a bonus should be recognition of success and accomplishment, not a right or a routine payment. mr. speaker, i don't consider a backlog of over 1.2 million cases to be cause of celebration or reward. i consider it a troof that must be fixed. restricting the ability to award bonuses until that backlog is cleared is good government policy. i'm pleased to support my colleague's amendment. it is a strong step in that direction. i yield back. mr. rothfus: reclaiming my time, i urge my colleagues to stand with their veterans and families by supporting this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. for what purpose does gentleman seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last

word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise to lend my support for the underlying bill we are debating today that he addresses critical health care, housing and education and employment needs for our soldiers and veterans. the military construction and veteran affairs appropriation measure is one of the most important pieces of legislation congress considers annually and provides the necessary funding to house, train and equip our brave men and women in uniform, support our military families and maintain our military base infrastructure. put simply, no one should stand ahead of our men and women in uniform or nation's veterans. critical to this discussion is priority placed on investments in medical care for active duty service members and veterans. i appreciate that the committee continue the precedent of providing advanced appropriations for the v.a. allowing for advanced appropriations provides a

platform for long-term planning and investment in critical programs to meet the needs of our service members and military families. i thank the committee for providing these resources that will allow our v.a. hospitals to prepare adequately for the number of veterans returning home from deployment. this approach will provide flexibility to capitalize on emerging technology and treatments that will ensure our warriors here at home are receiving the best health care possible. i would like to thank the committee for its important work to ensure we are maintaining investment in our military installations. i applaud the inclusion of money at housing stations in my district. this will allow service members to receive the training they need without overburdenening them. this investment is one that illustrates to utilize existing

infrastructure to achieve efficiencies in training and services. i want to thank the committee for its work on this important bipartisan bill. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia. for what purpose does the gentleman from seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. >> we are all outraged in regards to the claims backlog and the instances of poor quality health services and staste. mr. bishop: the current claims backlog is as we have said over and over today is unacceptable. there is no question that the v.a. has failed to deliver one of its key missions to provide timely ratings of disability. given these failures, it's hard to imagine how v.a. leaders responsibility for claims ratings and claims process and transformation who want high

performance ratings and substantial bonuses. it's also clear that some v.a. health facilities have had serious issues that put the health, safety and well-being of veterans at risk. this, too, is unacceptable. where these incidents have occurred, it is hard to imagine how the v.a. leaders of these facilities could have received high performance ratings and substantial bonuses. however, this amendment will not provide any solution to the ort-term or in the long-term and compounded the problem that it attempts to address. many v.a. workers are compassionate and hard workers. the previous amendment that was adopted, which was adopted by this body on voice vote, referenced models from the ivate sector by cutting pay,

reducing the pay by 25% until the backlog is reduced. however, if you follow that same model from the private sector, bonuses are the converse of that o that when those backlogs are reduced, and if there's exceptional work that goes into reducing that backlog by those responsible at the v.a., then appropriate bonuses could be granted. this amendment, i submit, would make the v.a. a less attractive option than other agencies when it comes to recruiting and retaining quality executive leaders and it will not have the very talented needs to solve the problems that it faces today, like the claims backlog and health care deficiencies.

the pay and bonuses are governed by title 5 of the united states code and administered by the office of personnel management. any change to title 5 to address the v.a. would then also apply to all other federal agencies. attempting an across-the-board, one-size-fits-all fix will dedicatedhose who are and are working hard and trying to find solutions to the v.a. problems. so i would urge our colleagues to vote no on this amendment, the rothfus amendment, not because we don't have the challenges and obligations to eliminate this backlog forte with, but we are -- forthwith, but we are going too far in

attempting to create disincentive for people not solving this backlog. i think recruitment and retention for people in the v.a., talented people, talented executives who can effectively solve the challenges that we face like eliminating the backlog will be in demand if this amendment should become law. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition. >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i have thought bonuses and employment awards should be given out to those who go above and beyond the expectations laid out in the job description and an end of the year bone yussr us

should never be assumed. but the department of veterans affairs takes a different approach, particularly top level administrators and superviseors. mr. huelskamp: we have held multiple hearings on the mismanagement and negligence of federal employees at the v.a. and what's worst, many of these individuals have been rewarded for their behavior. we are aware of the situation at the v.a. pittsburgh system and outbreak of legion air's disease and how many know that the individual in charge received a bonus for the very year that potentially had five deaths from that outbreak that could have been prevented. another hearing conducted by our oversight investigations committee, i asked a v.a. bureaucrat who had missed a deadline and overspent on v.a. construction projects over $1 billion to explain why he deserved $55,000 in bonuses. he claimed he had no idea why he

received this bonus and neither did i. and this afternoon and many more troubling, another v.a. oversight hearing where it was revealed that potentially, potentially up to 20 million veterans' records have been hacked and perhaps accessed by foreign state actors and the individual in charge of the security during these last four years where this occurred has received over $87,000 in bonuses. this has become a trend in the v.a. departments and taxpayer dollars would be directed towards protecting the sensitive records of our veterans and improving health care options and i support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kansas yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: i want to express my support for this amendment and urge its adoption and -- the chair: does the gentleman move to strike the last word?

mr. culberson: i do. i express my support for this amendment and share the gentleman's intense frustration with the failure to meet their own deadlines for eliminating the backlog and urge the adoption of the amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk, grayson number one. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida now seek recognition? mr. grayson: i still have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson at the desk.

add the following new section, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract with any offer or any of its principals if the offerer certifies -- mr. grayson: i waive the reading. the chair: is there objection without objection. the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, is recognized. mr. grayson: this amendment strengthens existing provisions in the bill by preventing the award of contracts by money allocated under this bill to offer to principals who have been convicted or had a civil judgment granted against them for such action as fraud, theft, bribery, making false statements, tax evasion and so on. it would be unconscionable if we allowed taxpayer money to be given to contractors who have

been convicted of such things as bribery and therefore i offer this amendment to prevent that. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. runyan of new jersey. at the beginning add the follork none of the funds made available by this act may be used to fund a new base enclosure ground. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. runyan: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment states that none of the funds made available by

this act may be used to propose, plan, or execute a new or an additional round of base realignment and closure, otherwise known at brac. we all know with the budget problems with efface a round of brac closures now would entail a large upfront cost. we should direct the dollars toward addressing the needs of our war fighters. for that reason, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment which helps ensure that these funds address current needs. i know that many members of the chamber want congress to continue to have oversight of our base and force structure and my amendment ensures we do system of i thank the chairman and members of the subcommittee for working with me then important amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. culberson: i move to strike

the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: i want to state my support for the amendment and urge its adoption by the house. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment number one at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. murphy of florida, at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none hofe funds made available in this act may be used to award a contract in an amount greater than $1 million for which the department of defense did not relieve -- receive at least two officer. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes on his amendment.

mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment that would boost competitive bidding across defense construction projects. the department of defense manages hundreds of billions of dollars in contracts each year, 43% of which are noncompetitively award the government accountability office has reported the department of defense does not keep accurate records of which contracts received multiple bids or why sole source contracts are awarded. this is not good government. competition works because it drives down costs while giving consumers greater choice. it is a cornerstone of our free market economy and needs to be integrated throughout the government. i recently introduced the save act with my colleague david joyce from ohio to root out wasteful government spendering. the bipartisan legislation which would implement several commonsense solutions outlined by the g.a.o. to reduce up to $200 billion in spending over the next 10 years.

one of the 11 measures in my bill encourages the robust use of competitive bidding to reduce contract costs across all agent sis. today's amendment is an extension of the save act. it would prevent the department of defense from spending the taxpayers' moneys on contracts over $1 million that hasn't received at least two competitive bids. with the national debt currently at almost $17 trillion and the current deficit over $600 billion annually, it is clear we must rein in government spend bug we must do it in a strategic way. cutting programs that are wasteful, duplicative or ineffective. this amendment would do just that. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense and cost-saving amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the welt from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. the what purpose does

gentleman from nebraska seek recognition? mr. terry: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: ame by mr. terry of nebraska. at the thoached bill before the short title -- mr. terry: i ask unanimous consent to waive the reading. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: thank you, mr. chairman. the terry amendment requests that none of the funds made available by this act including the funds made available were the -- for the construction and major projects account be used to increase funding if for any major medical facility construction that is in process as of the date of the act. a major medical facility project is defined as a project that involves a total expenditure of more than $10 million. this includes the cost overruns

of new v.a. hospitals. take the new v.a. hospital in new orleans. it was originally supposed to ost $625 million but a new g.a.o. report shows that the cost overruns at this particular facility is $370 million, pushing that to a near billion-dollar hospital. the -- the "navy times" recently reported about a g.a.o. report that show this is problem and should disturb everyone. the government accountability office found that the v.a. hospital construction projects in denver, las vegas, new orleans, and orlando are on average experiencing delays of 35 months and costs overruns of -- and cost overruns of around

$366 million. this comes out to about, with the expected costs and the overruns almost $1 billion per hospital. my amendment is designed to stop these costs overruns. in the omaha metropolitan area, eastern nebraska, western iowa, there's about 112,000 underserved veterans in omaha that are all too familiar with the cost overruns and delays associated with the building of v.a. hospitals. we have a 70-year-old -- almost 70-year-old facility in omaha that is in dire need of replacement. the infrastructure is decrepit, t's rusting away, the h.v.a. system is so poor we can't use many of the rooms and on top of that, our seven operating rooms have been shut down recently. unfortunately, there's no telling when the v.a. is going to get to it. the veterans in omaha are being

told there's no money left. this isn't just omaha, this is occurring in california, texas, and all over the world. this is unfair to the seniors to have this level of cost overruns and mismanagement. that's the purpose and reason behind this amendment is to start making them focus on the bidding process, do it right and not simply just have a bid and then make all the additions and changes afterwards that drive up the costs. so i urge support for this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. terry: i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. culberson: i rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and share his concerns, that's why in section 227 of the bill we included language that's similar. i look forward to supporting the -- the gentleman's

amendment and working with him in conference to make sure there's no duplication. the committee is also concerned about increases in costs beyond that stated and that's why i support the gentleman's amount and urge its adoption. i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nebraska. 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 new york seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: 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 defense or the department of veterans affairs to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for any executive fleet or for an agency's fleet inventory except in accordance with presidential memorandum

federal fleet performance dated may 24, 2011. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. epgell: thank you, mr. chairman. on may 24, 2011, president obama -- mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. on may 24, 2011, president obama issued a memorandum requiring that all vehicles in the federal fleet be alternative fuel vehicles by december 21, 2015. my amendment echos the presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds in the military construction and veterans affairs and related agencies appropriations act from being used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles except in accord with the president's memorandum. our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $600 billion per year to hostile nations 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 tech knolls 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 over 660,000 vehicles in the federal fleet with over 14,000 being used by the department of veterans' affairs. by supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies in our federal fleet, we will encourage development of domestic energy resources including biomass, natural gas, agricultural waste, hydrogen renewable electricity, methanol and ethanol. expanding the role these energy sources play in the transportation economy will help break the leverage over americans held by foreign government control oil companied and increase domestic security and protect consumers from price spikes and shortages in the world oil market. let me say the gentlewoman from florida, congresswoman

ros-lehtinen, and i have a bill that would mandate that by a certain date all vehicles made in america would be flex fuel vehicles. it would cost $100 or less to make each vehicle flex fuel. other countries have it, america should not be behind other countries, and we'll be introducing that legislation shortly. i ask that my colleagues support the engel amendment and i queeled back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back. the question is on 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 colorado seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tipton of colorado. add at -- at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, the ams otherwise provided by this act are revised by reducing the am made available

for department of veterans' affairs departmental administration, general administration and increasing the amount made available for department of veterans afairs, departmental administration, information technology systems, by $10 million. the chair: the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton is recognized for five minutes. mr. tipton: i rise today with an amendment to reduce wasteful spending by the department of veterans fair afairs on conferences. and use the money to assist the backlog of processing disability claims for veterans. 2/3 of -- 2/3 of all vet -- veterans who file disability claims with the v.a. must wait more than 125 days to receive benefits. i've seen this firsthand from constituent miss my district. people contacted my office to share exasperation by the lack of response and endless delays by the v.a. in processing their claims. thing is this isn't a statistic we're talking about. this is literally people's lives. many of the veterans on the

backlog are in desperate need of care. care that has been delayed by needless lack of bure -- needless lag and bureaucrat is -- bureaucratic back log. the v. ample backlog has grown over 2,000% in the last four years despite an increase in the v.a. budget of more than 20%. the v.a. reported there are over 606,000 back logged claims and 865,989 total claims. nearly 900,000 veterans who have sacrificed for our country are not getting their benefits. they're not getting the care that they need. our veterans deserve better. despite the inability of the v.a. to be able to process claims in a timely manner, the agency continues to waste money on unnecessary conferences. in september of 2012, the v.a. office of the inspector genre leased a report highlighting numerous abuses and expenditures by the v.a. at conferences that report

included numerous troubling findings. according to the report of the v.a., they spent more than $6.1 million on two human resource conferences in orlando and nearly $100,000 on unnecessary promotional items like bags, pens and water bottles. in addition to these example the the report concluded the information of many more instances of waste, fraud, and abuse at the v.a. congressman jeff miller, chame of the house committee on veterans affairs stated it can be reasonably concluded that 20% of the v.a. conference spening is wasteful, amounting to $10 million to $15 million a year at least. i whole heartedly agree with chairman miller. that's why today i'm proposing this amendment to target $10 million in wasteful spending on conferences from the secretary's $403 million budget and reprioritize the funds to assist with and address the v.a. backlog. it is time the v.a. focus their

efforts on serving veterans and processing their claims in a reasonable amount of time. not in 125 days or more. the v.a. must reduce the backlog and it went get it done by wasting time and taxpayer dollars at conferences. it's time that the benefits worked for our veterans rather than our veterannings have to be able to work for their benefits. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman from florida. >> i have amendment number 2 at the desk. the chair: clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. murphy of florida, at the end of the bill before the short title, add the following new section, section 419, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to maintain or

improve department of defense real property with a zero percent out lization rate according to the department's real property inventory data base except in the case of maintenance of a historic property as required by the national historic preservation act 16 u.s. code 470 or maintenance to prevent a negative impact as required by the national environmental policy act of 1969, 42 united states code 4321. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mr. murphy: i rise today to offer an amendment to the military construction and veterans affairs appropriations bill that will eliminate spending of unused facilities which will save tens of millions of dollars in 2014 alone. the department of defense has hundreds, possibly thousands of buildings and structures that it has rated at zero percent

utilization. this is an incredible number of useless facilities that the department of defense is paying to maintain. federal agencies must do a better job. taxpayers cannot continue to be paying for unused or underused buildings. that is not good government and not smart spending. that is why i joined with david joyce of ohio to root out $200 billion in wasteful spending over the next 10 years. this amendment is an extension of one of the 11 commonsense solutions. preventing the department of defense spending money on facilities that the department itself has rated at 0% utilization. mr. speaker, we agree we must rein in government spending. my amendment is a commonsense solution to do just that and i urge my colleagues on both sides

of the aisle to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. murphy. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word and enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from georgia, ranking member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> president's budget request included 3.6 million for the in key for boat docks west, florida. this will ensure that the underwater operations school which trains members and conducts support training for troops preparing for deployment can continue to meet its critical role in the nation's defense. the committee recommended no

funds for the project. as i understand it, the subcommittee made that recommendation with no prejudice against the project. having determined that the army had sufficient military construction funds available to complete the project without additional appropriations, the committee recommended no additional funds to undertake the project. i would yield to my friend from georgia to ask if this is a fair characterization of the committee's recommendations. mr. bishop: i would agree with the gentleman from florida. the army did have sufficient funds and unobligated balances from prior military construction appropriations to undertake a $3.6 million project. i would be happy to work with the gentleman to see if the army would use those existing funds on this project. >> i thank the gentleman and i look forward to working with him. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida yields back his time. for what purpose does the

gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa, at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section 419, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement, administer or enforce the prevailing wage requirements in subchapter 4 of chapter 31 of title 40, united states code, commonly referred to as the davis-bacon act. the chair: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for five minutes. mr. king: i appreciate being recognized and i bring this amendment to the floor out of a sense of fiscal responsibility and sense of duty to the people who go out and work hard every day and return a value for every hour they invest, a value returned on the production. i have spent my life in the construction industry. we have paid davis-bacon wage scales in each year i have been in business and we were a merit-shop operation.

so i have both sides of the experience. worked underneath bacon -- davis-bake con wage scale. what it has -- it was rooted back in the 1930's and a couple of people from new york, republicans, they me down, they wanted to provide protection for their people in new york and lock out minorities that would be coming from the south to build federal buildings during that era of the great depression in new york. it remains the last part of jim crow laws that's designed to protect and lock out minorities from the construction industry as far as labor is concerned. my records is that it cost a lot of money to have davis-bacon wage scales. and our king construction records help show 8% to 38% to bid a project. according to beacon hill there is a 9% to 37% increase.

i use the 20% increase as a rule of thumb to discuss the amount of costs that's extra. if we are going to have federally-mandated union scale that turns out to be the increase in price for every federal construction project that has $2,000 or more in it, the result of that is we are going to build four miles of bridges instead of five, only four military facilities instead of five. only four training facilities instead of five. we can get 20% more production out of the dollars that we have and maintain the quality, and maintain that sense of responsibility and have a trained work force and bring more trainees into the process and we'll employ, according to the study i have in front of me, an average of 25,000 more minorities each year within the construction business. what we have instead is, we have some people that are in the

industry that sit down once a year and look at the records and they decide, let's see, let's pay a little bit more for the people here in labor because we don't want to compete outside of our particular industry. we'll raise these wages and transfer that to the taxpayers. it is not a prevailing wage but a mandated union scale. that is the effect of it. i have lived under this at least 28 years i operated 28 construction. we are in the 38th year of business. we have deep experience with it. and the quality of the work does not suffer. neither does the finishing, neither does the completion, neither does the bonding. all of this construction industry works better when you have competition instead of mandated wage scale. plus, eliminating the enforcement of davis-bacon wage scale, it brings efficiency in and brings competition in and it's an impossible and onerous

regulation to try and regulate. no one is sitting in government to determine a prevailing wage. it upsets the relationship between management and workers and i have been on all four sides of that, as a matter of fact. it reduces the efficiency of the crews that are there because it reduces your ability to be flexibility with the assignment of the work force and their ability to self-assign for every possible financial reason you cannot be fiscally responsible and oppose this amendment, mr. chairman. it must be supported by a country that is going deeply in debt. we are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar and we can save 20 cents in this milcon appropriation bill simply by eliminating the enforcement of davis-bacon wage scale. so i urge the adoption of this amendment which would eliminate the effect of the last part of jim crow law with regard to

military construction. save 20%. somewhere between 9% and 37% and we can build five facilities instead of four and this is the right way to go. i urge its adoption. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from iowa yields back. mr. bishop: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i respect my good friend, but i'm totally behalf willed by the comparison to davis-bacon to jim crow laws. it is totally inapplicable. davis-bacon is a fair concept. what it does is protect the government as well as the workers in carrying the policy of paying decent wages on government contracts. the act requires workers on federally-funded constructed projects be paid no less in the

community for similar work. requires every contract that the federal government is a part contain a provision defining the minimum wages paid to various classes of laborers and mechanics. mr. chairman, the house has taken numerous votes on this issue and on every vote this body has voted to maintain these requirements. last year, we aborted language like this and it's my hope we stop attacking the working class and move on to more important matters. davis-bacon wages actually save construction costs. a study of more than 4,000 new schools, some built with prevailing wage and others not, found there were no significant differences in construction costs associated with the prevailing wage requirements. repealing davis-bacon wages has consistently been shown to increase costs because the poor construction resulting in

repairs, revisions and project delays and cost overruns all as a result of employing unskilled workers on project. when president bush suspended davis-bacon wages during the the wages trina, went up due to unqualified workers. opponents claim that it could save billions by eliminating them but they ignore how the act has proven to increase work force activity. for example, a study of 10 states where nearly half of all highway and bridge work in america is done, showed that when high-wage workers were played double the wages, they built 74.4 more miles of road nd 32.8 miles of bridges for

$557 million less. repealing davis-bacon wages dramatically decreases the economic benefits to the local community. for example, studies have shown that davis-bacon wages generate more than two times the amount spent on the construction project itself in the local community since the workers spend part of their income in local businesses and pay local taxes, all of which recirculates throughout the economy. driving wages down will not help balance the federal budget. a flawed analysis such as the bluegrass institute study failed to take into account the enefits of prevailing wages. davis-bacon improves the skill level and training of all of the workers. opponents of prevailing wage regulations assume that repealing the law and lowering wages will not erode savings nor

lead to excess of skilled workers. they are work. davis-bacon increases spending opportunities for all workers, both union and nonunion. davis-bacon wages is usually not a union wage. the davis-bacon prevailing wage is based on surveys of wages and benefits paid to various job classifications of construction workers in the community without regard to union membership. according to the department of labor, a whopping 72% of the prevailing wage rates issued in 2000 were based upon nonunion wage rates. a union wage prevails only if the department of labor survey determines that the local union wage will save 50% of the workers in the job classification. .

we have in the past not included divisive language in our bills and it's my hope that workers.op attacking davis-bacon is a good law and it's cost effective. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> the milcon v.a. bill should be one of the least controversial measure this is committee considers. i am deeply disappointed that instead of seeking to pass the most bipartisan bill possible, some would froifer weigh down the bill that funds veterans and military construction with divisive riders.

mrs. lowey: not only is this procedurally problematic but it's completely wrong on substance. repealing davis-bacon has consistently, as my colleague to hown, been shown increase costs. poor construction results in repairs, revisions, project delays and cost overruns. let's not add an unnecessary policy rider that will not be included in the final version. again, this is probably one of the most bipartisan bills that we have considered and i have applauded the chair and the ranking member for working so closely together to produce a really important bill that helps our veterans. why weigh this down with this divisive rider. let's vote against this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady yields back.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for ive minutes. mr. franks: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my colleague, mr. king's, amendment to h.r. 2216, the military construction and veterans affairs appropriations act. this amendment would ensure that no funds made available by h.r. 2216 could be used to implement, administer, or enforce the davis-bacon act requirements for government contracts. mr. chairman, the davis-bacon act is an anachronistic law enacted in the great depression to prevent way faring contractors from lowballing local construction bids. in defense of my colleague, mr. king's, characterization, the sponsors of the davis-bacon act

originally intended for it to actually discriminate against nonunionized black workers in favor of white workers belonging to white-only unions. mr. king is correct. in all deference to everyone in this debate but this is indeed a vestigall remnant of the jim crow area -- era and has no place in our military construction contracts and should be abandon. furthermore, the davis-bacon act results in billions of wasted taxpayer dollars every year this act requires federal construction contractors to pay their workers, quote, prevailing wages, which could be as much as 1 1/2 times their basic pay rate this results in artificially high costs of construction which are ultimately shouldered by american taxpayers. contractors wishing to offer a lower bid would still be required by law to pay their employees the prevailing wage and file weekly report of the wages paid to each worker this

has a particularly negative effect on small businesses as they are often unable to compete due to davis-bacon wage and benefit requirements which reduces competition and further inflates contract rates. moreover, mr. chairman, davis-bacon was enacted before the fair labor standards act and the national labor relations act. according to the g.a.o. these acts rendered davis-bacon obsolete and unnecessary. there are a number of laws passed by this body that protect construction workers without the discriminatory intent and effect of davis-bacon. during this time of fiscal austerity, congress must do all it can to reduce costs and reduce the burden on american taxpayers. this amendment is designed to stop the hemorrhage of wasteful spending and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment by mr. king that would ensure that no funds made available by h.r. 2216 could be

used to implement, administer, or enforce the wasteful davis-bacon act and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, sir. first of all, i would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from georgia and the gentlelady from new york who spoke previously on this. i rise in strong opposition to the gentleman from iowa's amendment that would prevent davis-bacon from being enforced on projects under this act. mr. lynch: it is a shame, i believe, that this funding bill that provides needed facilities for service members and benefits to our veterans is being exploited to undermine hardworking americans but here we have it. ironically, however, in contravention of what some of the things that have been said here on the noor under this amendment, davis-bacon requires that workers of every color and

every gender be paid based on their work. not on the color of their skin. not on their gender. and that flies in the face of some of the accusations that have been put out for the original purpose of this. i do agree with the gentleman from iowa that there were two republicans who did originally sponsor this back in 1931 but i disagree that the danger, that the evil that it was trying to fight against back then has gone away. as a matter of fact, it is just a race to the bottom that would ensue if we got rid of davis-bacon. i'd like the -- i, like the gentleman from iowa, i have worked on davis-bacon jobs. i was proud to work with the men and women of the building trades and i've worked on jobs where some of the workers were union and some of the workest

were nonunion but the important thing was that we were not exploited by trying to pit us against each other in a race to the bottom based on the wages that we earned. since 1931, the davis-bacon act has required federal contractors to provide workers the local -- the prevailing local wage. what happens is, that's not the union wage and in many cases as the gentleman from georgia has pointed out, it's the nonunion wage. but it is determined by a survey of the department of labor of the wages in that area, the danger it's meant to deal with is that in some areas of the country where there's no work and folks are dealing with a recession or a depression-like conditions in the construction industry, unscrupulous contractors can go down there where workers don't have any shot of going to work and they can take them at very low wages an transport them to another area of the country that has work.

and then depress the wage base in that area. that's what davis-bacon is meant to deal with and that's still the situation we have today and the danger that we guard against. on these federally funded construction projects, davis-bacon protects these workers by preventing wage exploitation while still ensuring that the value for the taxpayer dollar and work quality are not compromised. this amendment would bar funding to administer these wage requirements. without davis-bacon protection, unscrupulous contractors would be free to exploit trades men and women who despite a slight recovery in their job numbers still today face high levels of unemployment. mr. chairman, i want to speak for a moment about my time as an iron worker and my involvement with the men and women of the building trades. these people are incredibly hardworking, they are immensely skilled and they work in a davis industry and truly care about the draftsmanship and

work, they're dead kayed to getting the job done, doing it right, working side-by-side with them was a true honor for me. generations of trade workers by the sweat of their brow and the toil of their hands built our great nation, they ke serve our respect as does the work they do. protecting davis-bacon does just that. the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will not create jobs, it will not house our military and it won't result in better care and services for our veterans. all it will do is take away critical wage protebses and open our workers to exploitation in a race to the bottom. i urge my colleagues to stand behind our american workers and stand mind our veterans and oppose this amendment. i thank my colleague for the opportunity to speak and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. culberson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. culberson: i rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment, it's commonsense that the free market and

competitive, open biz bidding process is going to result in savings to taxpayers. and davis-bacon artificially drives up the cost to taxpayers at a time when we can't afford it, with record debt, record deficit, at a time when all of us is, as stewards of the treasury, need to do everything we can to protect our constituents' hard-earned tax thrars, i strongly support the gentleman from iowa's amendment to make sure we have a competitive bidding process where the lowest price at the obviously free market wages in this environment, the 21st semplingry are going to be fair wages with good compensation and good benefits, we truly don't need to pay higher wages in an era of record debt and deficit. i would, madam chairman, like to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from iowa. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: thank you, madam chair. i appreciate the gentleman from texas yielding. first, in response to some of the remarks that were made that

davis-bacon wages are based on surveys. well, technically they are her rate urveys but shop employers don't always answer those surveys because union organizers show up to organize employees shortly after that. it's often not smart to turn in your wages to the department of labor because it results in labor organizers coming in to drive up wages more. the statement about the cost of davis-bacon wages saving money in katrina reconstruction, that's a new one for me. my recollection is george bush after ka tina suspended davis-bacon so the money could be best supplied to get the cleanup and then the reconstruction dobe down in new orleans in that area under katrina and shortly thereafter he lifted that order so i don't know how a study could show how much money was actually saved if my memory is correct that it

never really was implemented for any length of time that was appreciable. i don't know of a study that shows imposed union scale davis-bacon wages saves the people money unless that is funded by the unions themselves there is no argument that this is the last remaining jim crow law. e law that was designed to lock black americans out of union trade, particularly in new york city, the vestiges of that remain today and i think it's worthy to go back and look at the study and see what ethnic populations are represented in construction trades in place like new york city. i think it would be constructionive to look at that also, labor is a commodity, the value of it needs to be determined by supply and demand in the marketplace. just like gold or oil or corn or beans, where i come from you won't get the real wages unless you let competition determine that as an employer, i want to pay the best wages i can, i want to provide the best

benefits i can, i want to hire the best people i can, and in doing so, your people are your company. when you hire good people and pay them a good wage, you get to keep them. when i set up -- what i set up a business model on was hiring people in a seasonal business to work 12 months out of the year. not going to the union hall and putting them to work for a few tais but saying to them you could have a career here. i'll give you 12 months' work for 2 months' pay, i'll give you a benefits package and i want to compete with that. but when the federal government comes in and tells you somebody on a shovel has to be paid this, somebody on a back hoe this, somebody on a motor grader has to be paid this you'll see them machine hopping during the tai because they'll always be maneuvering to get on the machine that pays the highest wages, not the one that does best for efficiency to get the job done. i've had to go in and police that and go in and build a spread sheathe that call cue lays the movement of everybody on our jobs in order to determine i could comply with the federal government's

requirement i pay the wages they demand and insist insthofede simplicity of saying here's what i'll offer you for pay and benefits and they've said, what's my job? i'll define your job for me, help me make money. and i'll pay you for that i want to reward you by trying to give you enough money and ben fits to keep you. that's how free markets work. we can't be out here sitting up a union scale imposed by people in a back room, can't be supporting the last vestige of jim crow laws, letting the federal government decide what job categories are going to be paid what wages when we just want to put people to work and let them develop and -- develop a skill and develop their trade. so the machine hopping is something that gives me a lot of heart burn and even if we have an actual representation of prevailing wage, it's still not representative of supply and demand because many states have passed mini davis-bay cop laws and the market has been so distorted we don't have a

concept of what that cost is, madam chair. i urge adoption of my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. thank you, madam speaker. >> come from flint, michigan and it's a community that is proud of the fact that in this area and true across the country that the notion has been if you work hard and train yourself and focus on a trade and go to school, you will be paid a wage commensurate with the contribution that you make to the work that you're doing. we live in a time when we are seeing decreasing compensation for the value the worker brings to the workplace. between 1945 and 1975, we saw worker productivity rise in this

country by 97% and we saw household income rising in that same 30-year period. here was parity for the work and compensation they received. fast-forward and we have seen a period of economic growth and expansion, increased worker productivity. 0% over the last 30 years. 10% increase in productivity. we are not compensating the average worker for the quality and the work that they do and contribute to the highly productive society we live in. this is yet another attempt to continue the race to the bottom where we see real wages go down and productivity continue to rise. i have done a tremendous amount

andork in local development as a private citizen, been involved in lots and lots of construction projects involving hundreds of millions of dollars and i will tell you one thing, there is nothing sacrificed that making sure the people are paid a wage that is fair and fits the marketplace. not only good for those families that benefit from a decent and fair wage, but supports the local employers and the small businesses that we all talk about every day that we are trying to support. where does the money come from into communities that support those folks? the workers have a decent living wage that allows them to pay their bills, set aside money for their families and contribute to a local economy. fair wages contribute -- davis-bacon wages contribute to the ability of workers to train

as well. this is the wrong direction for this country and certainly the wrong direction in this budget connected to the work that our nation does and what we fought for in this country was a society that rewards people for the quality and quantity of their work, their hard work and their training they put to work in doing these tough construction jobs and we ought not ever as a nation when we are already seeing private sector wages go down, we ought not as a nation participate in this race to the bottom. thank you, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. bishop: i ask for a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order . an amendment by mr. brown of georgia, an amendment by mr. amodei of nevada, an amendment by mr. moran of virginia. an amendment by mr. king of owa. the unfinished business is request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the . as are 148, the nays are 269

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 151, the nays are 269. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada, mr. amodei, on which further proceedings were postponed on the on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. amodei of nevada. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 248, the nays are 172, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. moran of virginia. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 170, the nays are 254. the amendment is not aagreed to. -- agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having isen, a record vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

he chair: on this vote, the --

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 192, the nays are 231, he amendment is not adopted. the clerk will read. the clerk: page 63, line seven, the act may referred to as military appropriations and construction act of 2013. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: i move that the committee do now rise and report the bill back to the house with sundry amendments and a recommendation that the

amendments be agreed to and the bill do pass. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker. the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2216 directs me to report the same back to the house with ndry amendments and direct that it be agreed to and recommend that the bill as amended be passed. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h r. 2216 and reports the bill back to the house with sundry amendments adopted in the

committee of the whole with a recommendation that the amendments be adopted and that the bill as amend dodd pass. under house resolution 243, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the chair: a bill making appropriations for military construction, the department of veterans' affairs and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2014, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? the house will be in order. he house will be in order.

he house will be in order. members are advised to remove their conversations from the floor. he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the chair: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? >> i am opposed in its present form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. enyard of illinois makes a motion to recommit with a motion to report it back to the house, page 10, after the dollar

amount, insert increase by $9,235,000. page 10 line 12, insert decrease by $9,235,000. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. enyart: i -- mr. rise today -- the speaker: the house is not in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. >> to increase funding for veterans claims processors so we can reduce the disgrateful backlog of claims waiting to be processed. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill nor send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended. we have been fighting two wars

for over 10 year, which has resulted in a large number of veterans returning home with both physical and mental injuries. mr. enyart: in addition, veterans who served in vietnam and the gulf war are getting older. and many are disdiscover -- discovering health issues related to their service. the result is currently there are -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. enyart: the result is that over 900,000 veterans' disability claims are waiting to be processed and the average wait for that backlog is now nine months. we're talking about american heroes like michael boren of energy, illinois. michael is a veteran in my district who was in danger of losing his home because the v.a. took 19 months to track down his paperwork and process

his claim. veterans like michael are in your district and you've heard their stories just as i have. too many veterans are threatened with home foreclosure, having their cars repossessed, having their credit cards cut off, all because of the v.a. backlog. it's shameful. we must act to speed up the process so that disabled, honorably discharged american veterans are not waiting without income for months -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentlelady is correct. the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. enyart: veterans waiting without income for months and years. now this motion to recommit adds $9.2 million to hire 94 additional v. ample claims processors. this doubles the number of claims processors in the base

bill. while the amendment is fully offset from unobligated and unused funds and funds from military construction. this vote serves as a lifeline to countless vent rans who can no longer wait nor problem to be solved. when i look out at this house, i look down the center aisle. i look at the right side and see my colleagues, my friends, in the party of dwight david eisenhower. i see the party of teddy roosevelt, i see the party of abraham lincoln. when i look to the left side, i see my friends who represent the party of harry s truman, the party of franklin delano roosevelt. the party of woodrow wilson. great wartime leaders, all. those great presidents knew the meaning of commitment to the troops we sent to defend and

protect our nation. today, we stand in their shadows. we in congress committed to send these brave men and women in harm's way. for our country. folks in the active duty service, in the guard, and in the reserve. they have served us honorably, they have commit -- they have served their commitment proudly. now we must complete our commitment to veterans in our time. to paraphrase president lincoln, many of the votes we cast here in congress will be little noted nor long remembered. but the veterans, veterans up there in that gallery, veterans back in your district, veterans all across this nation, will remember this vote. their families rill remember this -- will remember this vote.

today we vote to fulfill the promise of a great nation to those who have served that great nation. this is a vote to serve them. vote yes on this final amendment to help veterans get the benefits they have earned and they deserve. vote yes on this motion to recommit. when i step down from this podium, i will walk up that cent e-- center aisle, not to the right or to the left, but to the center aisle and cast my vote yes for this amendment because it is for the veterans and for our great nation. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to please not make reference to people --

occupants of the gallery. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? > mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. culberson: i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is opposed? mr. culberson: i'm opposed to the motion to recommit. our third highest priority in the constitution is to provide for the common defense. this bill more than any other has been done in a bipartisan way. this bill more than any other is vitally important to the peace of mind and the quality of life of our men and women in uniform, when they're on active duty, standing on walls of rome, defending our freep and directing -- protecting us and putting themselves in harm's way. and the peace of mind and comfort of their families back in the united states and around the world where they're deployed and where they become veterans and move into the veterans system. we in this -- in this subcommittee have been a bipartisan, arm-in-arm, doing

everything in our power to help ensure that no man or woman wearing the uniform of the united states should ever worry for one moment about the quality of their life, about the quality of their health care. we think of ourselves as the peace of mind committee for the member and women in uniform, defending the united states. and there's been no more bipartisan bill than this one. there's been no more open bill than this one. there's been no more open process for amendment than the appropriations process. it is possible, in fact, for you to walk down here on the floor and with a yellow note pad and a pen write an amendment and walk down and hand it to the clerk at any point during the debate on this bill and have it considered by the house. yet we got this amendment three minutes and 45 seconds before the debate began. it's just a terrible -- it reflects so poorly on the house of representatives for the

minority to present an amendment that we would have happily worked with you on to have accomplished in the bill in amendment form, had you brought it down to the floor. in fact, we have given the veterans affairs secretary everything that he's asked for. the veterans administration has been given massive increases in funding to handle the claims backlog. in fact, congressman kingston of georgia just offered an amendment which the house has approved which will cut the salary of the senior leadership of the v.a. by 25% if they don't meet their own deadlines on producing the backlog -- reducing the backlog. the united states congress has literally done everything, we've given them every dollar, everything they have possibly asked for. we've offered you every opportunity to just walk down here and amended bill, yet you give it to us three minutes and 45 seconds before the debate begins. this ought to be exhibit a of why we need a rule in the house that all amendments ought to be published at least 24 hours in advance on the internet, especially a motion to recommit

as embarrassing frankly as this one. and i'm happy to yield my time to the chairman of the veterans committee, mr. miller. mr. miller: i thank the chairman very much for yielding his time. i do think it's important that the members know that the committee under both democrat and republican chairmen have given every dollar, every person, every piece of equipment and every software that the department of veterans affairs has asked for. and to do this at the 12th hour is not the way to make a difference in what we are trying to do. our committee, the authorizing committee, has made it their number one focus and members here know this, mike michaud and i together have worked with our committee members and other members across the floor trying to make sure that the backlog is taken care of. this is purely, it is purely a political stunt and not one that we should vote for. i yield back. mr. culberson: thank you. and i urge mens to defeat this motion to recommit -- members to defeat this motion to

recommit and vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. >> mr. speaker, i ask for a record vote, please. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 1 8, the nays are -- 198, the nays are 227. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. under clause 1010 of rule 20, the -- under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]