[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 123 (Tuesday, September 9, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8023-H8053]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2004
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burgess). Pursuant to House Resolution
351 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 2989.
{time} 1412
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2989) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation and Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with Mr. Dreier
in the Chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday,
[[Page H8024]]
September 4, 2003, the amendment by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Cooper) had been disposed of, and the bill was open for amendment from
page 53, line 3 through page 157, line 2.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment
to the bill shall be in order except the amendments designated in the
order of the House, which may be offered only by the Member designated
in the request, or a designee, shall be considered read, shall be
debatable for the time specified in the request, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the
question.
Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. Total appropriations made in this Act (other
than appropriations required to be made by a provision of
law) are hereby reduced by $893,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4,
2003, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I will not take the 5 minutes. I will try to make this as quick and
painless as possible in deference to our chairman here.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to cut by 1 percent
the level of funding in the appropriations bill, which amounts to $893
million. As most Members are aware, I have introduced similar
amendments to appropriations bills. The same tiny 1 percent translates
to one penny of every dollar we spend. Some might ask what we get for
this penny. My amendments would have saved over $3 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I think the committee has done a good job; but we do
have a deficit crisis, I think, and we need to deal with it. I think
now is the time to deal with it, and this is one little way we can
approach that.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman from Colorado,
and despite my great sympathy with his amendment, I cannot support it.
The amendment seeks to make across-the-board cuts in this bill, which
we have carefully crafted to try to balance priorities. That means that
had we received an allocation of lesser numbers, such as the gentleman
effectively would create, we would have changed priorities, not done an
across-the-board cut.
I certainly appreciate his desire, but let me state that what we have
done in the bill is to go through and tighten and clamp down on
everything that it was in my power to do, Mr. Chairman.
{time} 1415
In doing so, we have tried to put as much money as possible where I
believe we have some of the greatest need in this country and where the
taxpayers have been paying through their fuel taxes at the gasoline and
the diesel pump, namely, the highway construction program, which has a
great backlog. It, unfortunately, would be affected most heavily by the
gentleman's amendment. Some $428 million from highway construction
programs would be lost under the gentleman's amendment. That would
greatly diminish our ability to work upon the $400 billion backlog that
we have throughout the country, the tens of thousands of dangerous
bridges that we are trying to address through the funding in this bill.
There are other impacts upon other agencies, but most especially, it
would affect the highway program which we have gone to great lengths to
adjust priorities in this bill to try to give the taxpayers something
for what they have been paying at the gasoline pump, namely, some
improvements in the road situation that is costing taxpayers billions
of dollars a year in lost income and in delays due to the heavy amount
of congestion and difficulty they have in traffic.
So I have great sympathy for the proposal that the gentleman offers,
but I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley)
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Manzullo
Mr. MANZULLO Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec.____. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used--
(1) to acquire manufactured articles, materials, or
supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C.
10a) is applied to the contract for such acquisition by
substituting ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially
all''; or
(2) to enter into a contract for the construction,
alteration, or repair of any public building or public work
unless section 3 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is
applied to such contract by substituting ``at least 65
percent'' for ``substantially all''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4,
2003, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, in a couple of minutes when I finish speaking, I will
move to withdraw my amendment from the floor and acknowledge the
propriety of the point of order and the circumstances.
This amendment would increase the American-made content of the
equipment purchased under the bill from 50 to 65 percent. This modest
increase will strengthen the job-creation benefits of the bill. I am
all for having a strong construction industry in America, and the
infrastructure funded by this bill will provide many jobs in that
industry. At the same time, I want to give our manufacturing industry
the same boost. Our Nation's industrial workers deserve no less, and
their need for help is great.
The Washington Post said on September 3, 2003, ``In his Labor Day
address, the President signaled that the loss of 2.6 million
manufacturing jobs during his administration had moved to the top of
his list of domestic policy concerns.''
In 1981 Rockford, Illinois, which I have the privilege to represent,
had an unemployment rate of 25 percent, the highest in the Nation.
Today it is around 11 percent, and I do not want to see a recurrence of
1981. This summer we lost two more factories. We are in danger of
seeing our industrial base irreparably harmed. Many of these well-
paying jobs are leaving forever. How do we get back the jobs once they
are moved to a foreign-producing country?
In August, manufacturing employment declined again for the 37th
consecutive month. That is a record. That is another 44,000
manufacturing jobs erased from the payroll.
For the first time in our Nation's history, we have fewer than 10
percent of our jobs in the manufacturing sector of the labor force.
That means fewer employees at any time since 1961 when the U.S.
population was 100 million smaller. Manufacturing & Technology News
said on May 16, 2003, ``The U.S. manufacturing sector is now producing
1 billion per day less than its own domestic markets demand as a flood
of cutthroat-priced imports displaces output and jobs at an
unprecedented rate. U.S. industry now produces $10 billion less auto
parts each month than our own
[[Page H8025]]
markets demand, $3 billion less in computer and computer parts, and so
on throughout the sector.''
Are not our manufacturers deserving of this modest help that we can
give them here today? Mr. Chairman, we need help in the manufacturing
sector.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment
because of the rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Sessions
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Sessions:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 742. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to operate individual Amtrak routes whose Operating
Ratio (defined as expenses divided by revenues, where
revenues include State subsidies) is identified as greater
than 2.0 in the February 7, 2002, report by the Amtrak Reform
Council entitled ``An Action Plan For the Restructuring and
Rationalization of the National Intercity Rail Passenger
System''.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4,
2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a modest attempt to inject an objective
standard into the Federal Government's Amtrak route funding decisions.
Under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Federal
financial assistance to cover operating losses incurred by Amtrak were
to be eliminated by the year 2002. Sadly, Amtrak is nowhere near
eliminating its need for Federal financial assistance to cover its
operating losses. I cannot say we are any closer to achieving that goal
now than we were in 1997.
The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 established and
provided for an independent commission known as the Amtrak Reform
Council, which was statutorily charged with evaluating Amtrak's
performance and making recommendations for achieving further cost
containment, productivity improvements, and financial reforms. Its work
has not gone completely unnoticed by this Member. At least I believe
one amendment and change should be made as a result of its report that
was made in February 2002 to Members of Congress.
Appendix V of that report, which I have blown up for Members'
consideration and will include for the Record, calculates in its last
column what is known as the operating ratio for each of its 2001
routes.
My amendment simply states that based on each route's operation
ratio, Amtrak either gets fiscal year 2004 Federal funding to operate
the route or it does not. The routes highlighted in green on this chart
will make the cut and receive Federal 2004 funding. Those are routes
that recoup 50 cents in revenue which include State subsidies for each
dollar in operating costs. The routes highlighted in red on this chart
will not make the cut and will receive no fiscal year 2004 funding. I
believe these routes unfairly stretch the pocketbooks of the American
taxpayer and put the Amtrak system at risk.
This amendment is an honest and modest attempt to inject some
objectivity into the Amtrak funding process. As Members can see, the
lion's share of the corridor trains will stay in business in fiscal
year 2004 under my amendment. That is because they show the greatest
potential for ridership and for achieving the goal of the Amtrak Reform
and Accountability Act of 1997 of eliminating Federal assistance to
cover Amtrak's operating losses.
Six of the 19 long-distance trains will receive 2004 Federal funding
under my amendment. Those that cannot show at least $1 for every $2 in
cost will not. This amendment is more than reasonable. With it,
Congress simply says any passenger route that fails to generate just $1
in revenue for $2 in cost is a route not worth keeping in the upcoming
financial year. This amendment also involves more than just a
concentration of funds on the most visible lines of Amtrak. It also
involves America's trust.
The public must trust in what Congress is doing with their money.
Amtrak is not a public welfare project. It provides a real service, it
buys capital equipment, it owns a significant amount of real estate,
and it holds substantial quantities of hard assets, all of which were
once in the hands of the private sector.
My amendment is also about running a railroad. If we lay any claim to
being a competent governing body capable of spending taxpayer money
wisely, then we have to take the responsibility for the money and we
have to make sure that the way it is spent is put to good use. Putting
a cap on poor performance and the routes that do not make this revenue
cut simply is something that Congress must step up to the plate and
address. Allowing Amtrak to operate any and all unprofitable lines
without any limitation forfeits far too much of our credibility with
this body that we can run a railroad or be worthy stewards of the
taxpayer money.
APPENDIX V: AMTRAK'S 2001 PROFIT/LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL ROUTES
[From the February 7, 2002, report by the Amtrak Reform Council entitled ``An Action Plan For the Restructuring and Rationalization of the National
Intercity Passenger System.'']
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
ratio,
Revenue Total Total costs Profit/Loss expenses
Ridership excluding revenue with excluding on full Loss per divided by
(000) State State depreciation costs rider (full revenues
payments payments (millions) (millions) costs) (including
(millions) (millions) State
subsidies)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corridor Trains:
Keystone & Clocker................................ 3,021 42.4 45.2 65.6 (20.4) (6.75) 1.45
Route 1, Metroliner/Acela Exp..................... 2,652 271.2 271.2 220.0 51.3 19.33 0.81
Route 3, Ethan Allen Exp.......................... 42 2.0 2.2 4.5 (2.2) (52.91) 1.99
Route 4, Vermonter................................ 69 4.3 5.8 6.4 (0.6) (9.09) 1.11
Route 5, NE Direct/Acela Regional................. 6,262 328.6 328.6 400.1 (71.5) (11.42) 1.22
Route 15, Empire Service.......................... 1,304 52.5 52.5 89.0 (36.5) (27.97) 1.69
Route 20, Chicago-St. Louis....................... 254 7.8 11.5 27.7 (16.1) (63.63) 2.40
Route 21, Hiawathas............................... 424 7.6 12.6 26.0 (13.3) (31.47) 2.06
Route 22, Chicago-Pontiac......................... 295 9.7 9.7 30.9 (21.2) (71.95) 3.20
Route 23, Illini.................................. 105 3.5 6.0 9.1 (3.1) (29.75) 1.52
Route 24, Illinois Zephyr......................... 100 2.7 5.5 8.2 (2.7) (27.09) 1.49
Route 29, Heartland Flyer......................... 58 1.2 5.8 5.2 0.6 9.93 0.90
Route 35, Pacific Surfliner....................... 1,716 31.0 52.5 78.6 (26.1) (15.21) 1.50
Route 36, Cascades................................ 565 15.5 31.8 38.1 (6.3) (11.21) 1.20
Route 37, Capitols................................ 1,073 11.7 30.2 34.6 (4.4) (4.11) 1.15
Route 39, San Joaquins............................ 712 19.8 43.0 52.0 (9.0) (12.62) 1.21
Route 40, Adirondack.............................. 100 4.4 7.1 7.8 (0.7) (7.29) 1.10
Route 41, International........................... 105 3.4 7.1 10.0 (2.9) (27.47) 1.41
Route 56, Kansas City-St. Louis................... 177 4.5 10.5 12.6 (2.1) (11.75) 1.20
Route 65, Pere Marquette.......................... 59 1.9 4.1 6.6 (2.5) (42.61) 1.61
Route 67, Piedmont................................ 51 0.7 4.0 5.0 (1.0) (20.35) 1.26
Totals, Corridor Trains..................... 19,146 826.4 946.9 1,137.9 (191.1) (9.98) 1.20
Long Distance Trains:
Route 16, Silver Star............................. 266 30.7 30.7 60.8 (30.0) (112.86) 1.98
Route 17, Three Rivers............................ 134 26.5 26.5 59.3 (32.8) (244.69) 2.24
Route 18, Cardinal................................ 68 4.4 4.4 17.1 (12.6) (186.91) 3.85
Route 19, Silver Meteor........................... 252 28.5 28.5 49.8 (21.2) (84.12) 1.74
Route 25, Empire Builder.......................... 398 53.3 53.3 98.7 (45.4) (114.14) 1.85
Route 26, Capitol Limited......................... 154 21.4 21.4 45.6 (24.2) (157.33) 2.13
[[Page H8026]]
Route 27, California Zephyr....................... 361 51.7 51.7 103.7 (52.0) (143.93) 2.01
Route 28, Southwest Chief......................... 265 65.9 65.9 128.7 (62.8) (236.76) 1.95
Route 30, City of New Orleans..................... 187 15.3 15.3 39.1 (23.7) 126.81) 2.55
Route 32, Texas Eagle............................. 149 22.4 22.4 60.7 (38.4) (258.25) 2.72
Route 33, Sunset Limited.......................... 110 17.7 17.7 56.1 (38.3) (347.45) 3.16
Route 34, Coast Starlight......................... 494 41.2 41.2 87.1 (45.9) (92.98) 2.11
Route 45, Lake Shore Limited...................... 293 30.6 30.6 72.4 (41.9) (142.65) 2.37
Route 48, Silver Palm............................. 219 28.3 28.3 57.0 (28.7) (131.31) 2.01
Route 52, Crescent................................ 265 30.8 30.8 65.8 (35.0) (132.37) 2.14
Route 54, Kentucky Cardinal \1\................... 29 1.4 1.4 7.6 (6.2) (211.65) 5.39
Route 57, Pennsylvanian........................... 90 9.2 9.2 35.4 (26.3) (292.34) 3.87
Route 63, Auto Train.............................. 214 54.6 54.6 66.4 (11.8) (54.96) 1.22
Route 66, Carolinian.............................. 242 13.5 16.2 20.2 (4.0) (16.37) 1.24
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals, Long-Distance Trains................ 4,190.0 547.5 550.2 1,131.4 (581.2) (138.71) 2.06
=================================================================================================
Grand Total, All Trains..................... 23,335.7 1,374.0 1,497.1 2,269.3 (772.2) (33.09) 1.52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Kentucky Cardinal classified as a long-distance train because it is an overnight train with sleeping accommodations.
Source: Amtrak; excludes special trains and $4.3 million in unallocated labor expense.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's
amendment. I believe it is a common sense amendment. Amtrak says that
with the allocation we have for them in this bill, they cannot operate
at their current level. It is only common sense that they should look
at the routes where they lose the most money, routes that cost them to
run that do not have local support and do not have State support
sufficient to justify the operation. That would enable them to focus
their operations on the areas of the country where things make more
sense. So I certainly support the gentleman's amendment, and I
appreciate his offering it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This
amendment would eliminate from the present list of roughly 40 routes
that Amtrak operates 16 of these routes, including such routes as
Chicago to St. Louis and Chicago to Pontiac, which are two of the key
routes within the Chicago hub system, routes which, interestingly
enough, are part of a hub system, which has been much touted for in the
long-term high-speed-rail development.
In fiscal year 2003, Amtrak did not initiate additional changes in
its long distance routes because the individual long distance routes
would not result in any significant savings, and no savings at all in
the first several years. In the interim, severance costs would be very
costly expenses, estimated up to a billion in the first year for
taxpayers if one were to eliminate the long-distance routes.
I have not analyzed whether these routes are exactly the same routes,
but there is a great deal of overlap between the routes that have been
considered for long-distance elimination and to what I have said
applies, that there would be no savings in the short run; and, in fact,
would have considerable severance costs involved.
The gentleman's amendment bans the use of States to subsidize these
routes, routes like the Chicago to St. Louis and the Chicago to Pontiac
or to Detroit, those represent part of a close-in system where urban
areas are close to each other and which by every indication the
President himself has been suggesting that these should be routes that
ought to be supportable for operating purposes and for some capital
purposes by the States, that they ought to be involved. This amendment,
as I understand it, bans the uses of States to subsidize routes.
{time} 1430
I do not know if we should be in the business of telling States how
to spend their own money. The issue of long-distance trains, and how to
deal with those, really is one for the authorization committee and not
for the Appropriations Committee.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas. This amendment is designed to
eliminate virtually all of Amtrak's long-distance train operations. If
enacted, it would mean the end to our national system of intercity rail
passenger service. The nation would be left with an unconnected
collection of corridor-type services and whole regions of the nation
would lose access to this mode of travel.
The amendment calls for eliminating any passenger train route where
operating expenses are twice operating revenues as determined by the
Amtrak Reform Council in its Final Report. At first blush, this might
not seem all that unreasonable. The reality is, however, that what this
amendment would accomplish is highly unreasonable. The gentleman from
Texas ignores the fact that hardly any passenger train service in the
world comes close to covering its cost. Most rail transit operators,
for example, would be thrilled to have a 50 percent cost recovery
factor. Let's look at the impact of adopting this amendment.
Intercity rail passenger service between New York City and Chicago
would be eliminated, as Amtrak would have to drop its Lake Shore and
Three Rivers services. Service between Washington, D.C. and Chicago
likewise would disappear with the termination of the Capitol Limited
and Cardinal trains. There would be no more rail passenger service from
the East Coast to Amtrak's hub in Chicago, as the Pennsylvanian service
between Philadelphia and Chicago would also be eliminated.
Service between Chicago and San Francisco on the California Zephyr
would be history. As a result, rail travel through some of the most
scenic parts of North America would be no more. Gone, too, would be the
fabled City of New Orleans, as all service between Chicago and New
Orleans would have to crease. Service between Chicago and Los Angeles
via St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, and San Antonio would end with the
elimination of the Texas Eagle. Service between Florida and Los Angeles
on the Sunset Limited through New Orleans and Houston would also be
axed. Amtrak's popular and scenic train along the West Coast between
Seattle and Los Angeles, the Coast Starlight, also would be cut, as
would Amtrak's Crescent train between New Orleans and New York via
Atlanta and Washington.
With the exception of Amtrak's Silver services between New York and
Florida and the Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles via
Arizona, there would be no rail passenger train service in the Southern
half of the nation. In fact, the only other long distance train that
would survive would be the Empire Builder between Chicago and Seattle.
And the cuts are not limited to Amtrak's long-distance train
operations. Under the route elimination criterion established by this
amendment, passenger train services between Chicago and Milwaukee,
Chicago and St. Louis, and Chicago and Pontiac, Michigan, also would
have to be discontinued. These are critically important components of
the Midwest High-speed Rail Initiative. It makes no sense whatsoever to
stop service today when these corridors are leading candidates for
significant upgrades for high-speed service.
If this amendment were to pass, many of America's largest cities
would be left without any intercity rail passenger service including:
Birmingham, Alabama; Little Rock, Arkansas; Phoenix, Arizona; Denver,
Colorado; Atlanta,
[[Page H8027]]
Georgia; New Orleans, Louisiana; Omaha, Nebraska; Reno, Nevada;
Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Toledo, Ohio; Austin, Dallas, El Paso,
Houston, and San Antonio, Texas; and Salt Lake City, Utah.
And to what purpose? If this amendment were to pass, little, if
anything, would be saved. Moreover, once these routes were gone, the
remaining services would have to share a greater part of the cost
burden. Another round of cutbacks would be sure to follow. There is a
cascading effect as the connecting revenues lost from these services
affect the financial performance of the remaining trains.
It also should be clear that once these routes are eliminated, they
will be gone forever. The nation's freight railroads will be quick to
take steps to ensure that passenger train services will not be
reinstated. The freight railroads have long only grudgingly
accommodated Amtrak's operations.
The loss of the long-distance train affects many who rely on these
trains for trips between online city pairs. It is true that relatively
few people use the trains for transcontinental travel, but millions of
riders each year use them to travel between places other than the
terminal cities. This travel will be lost and we will lose forever the
ability to develop these intra-route corridors.
Finally, the approach taken by the Amtrak Reform Council to measure
the route losses, is, in itself, flawed. Amtrak and the Federal Railway
Administration have developed a more accurate measure of train
performance, which takes into account downstream effects of route
eliminations. Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that the Amtrak
Reform Council repeatedly erred in both assumptions and facts in its
reports. In fact, each year of the ARC's existence, the House cut the
ARC's budget to indicate its overwhelming displeasure with the ARC's
clear agenda to attack Amtrak.
Therefore, this amendment must be rejected. It arrives at the wrong
solution through flawed analyses. We need positive approaches to
rebuilding and expanding our nation's intercity rail passenger system.
We need to find ways to give Amtrak President, David Gunn, and his
staff the resources needed to correct the years of neglect from a lack
of funding.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions)
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Honda
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Honda:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ____. For an additional amount for new fixed guideway
systems under the heading ``Federal Transit Administration--
Capital Investment Grants'' for the Silicon Valley, CA, Rapid
Transit Corridor, and the amount otherwise provided under
such heading for the San Francisco, CA, Muni Third Street
Light Rail Project is hereby reduced by, $1,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4,
2003, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I offer a simple amendment that subtracts $1 million from the San
Francisco Muni Third Street Light Rail Project and adds that amount to
the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project.
The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project is a meritorious
project that deserves Federal funding. It will connect BART with the
highly frequented Santa Clara County destinations, including Santa
Clara County's light rail system, ACE rail system, Cal Train's San Jose
Station, the planned people mover at the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose
Airport, and thousands of Silicon Valley employers.
In addition, this project is the last link needed to complete the
connection of all the region's rail systems around San Francisco Bay.
Mr. Chairman, I am honored and thankful that the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) support this effort, and I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would not claim the
time in opposition because I do not oppose the amendment. As the
gentleman indicated, I support it. I appreciate the Members that have
worked together to transfer funds among some things that are all
involved in the Bay Area of northern California and I know, as the
gentleman and I have visited together about this, that there is a huge
amount of local financial support that predominates far and away over
any Federal funding anticipated.
I support the shifting of funds, and I appreciate the cooperation of
Members toward this effort, knowing that it is all part of that
interrelated Bay Area system as well.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek time in opposition to the Honda
amendment?
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 157, insert the following after line 2:
Sec. 742. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to administer or enforce part 515 of title 31,
Code of Federal Regulations (the Cuban Assets Control
Regulations) with respect to any travel or travel-related
transaction.
(b) The limitation established in subsection (a) shall not
apply to the administration of general or specific licenses
for travel or travel-related transactions, shall not apply to
section 515.204, 515.206, 515.332, 515.536, 515.544, 515.547,
515.560(c)(3), 515.569, 515.571, or 515.803 of such part 515,
and shall not apply to transactions in relation to any
business travel covered by section 515.560(g) of such part
515.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4,
2003, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each
will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Flake-McGovern-Emerson-Delahunt amendment is very simple. It
prohibits any funds in this bill from being used to enforce the
regulations that restrict United States citizens from traveling to
Cuba. Under current law, ordinary Americans cannot travel to Cuba
unless they fit into narrowly defined categories and endure an arduous
bureaucratic application and screening process.
In March of this year, while a sweeping crackdown in sentencing was
going on in Cuba, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, under the
direction of the State Department, eliminated the people-to-people
category of travel licenses to Cuba. This is in direct opposition to
the administration's stated intent to increase people-to-people contact
with ordinary Cubans. My amendment would effectively end the travel ban
and allow ordinary Americans to travel to Cuba and to take their ideals
and values to ordinary Cubans.
This is an issue of freedom for Americans. Let me repeat that. This
is an issue of freedom for Americans. We allow for freedom of travel to
North Korea, to Iran, to Syria and to other countries where the human
rights records are despicable and where animosity toward the U.S. is
the basic foreign policy. Restricting travel to Cuba is not only
ineffective, it curbs the basic American freedom to travel and to
export American ideals and values.
This past March, the Castro regime carried out a sweeping crackdown
on democracy and human rights activists, journalists, independent
library operators and other dissidents who were exercising basic
rights.
[[Page H8028]]
Following the roundup of more than 80 people, they were subjected to
summary trials that flew in the face of justice and were sentenced to
several years in the horrible Cuban prisons. These prison sentences
carried terms of up to 28 years and, given the health of some of these
individuals, they are in effect death sentences.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) introduced a
resolution that was quickly brought to the floor after this crackdown.
Several of my Cuba Working Group colleagues and myself eagerly
supported the Diaz-Balart resolution and joined him at these podiums in
condemning the Castro regime and again demanding the release of Cuban
political prisoners.
The crackdown left many speculating about Castro's timing and his
motives. Some expressed shock and utter disappointment, as if Castro
had at some point turned away from being the oppressive dictator that
he is. I do not think many of us were surprised because, sadly, Castro
has been doing this kind of thing for over 40 years.
There is an old saying, Mr. Chairman, ``if you want to keep getting
what you're getting, just keep doing what you're doing.'' What we have
been doing is isolating Cuba for more than 40 years. And what we have
been getting is this kind of attitude from that regime. I do not think
any of us ought to be surprised that Castro is not a reformed man. What
we should not do is emulate Castro's heavy-handedness by curtailing the
freedom of our own citizens.
Critics suggest that allowing Americans to travel to Cuba will
provide the Castro regime with the financial resources it needs to
sustain itself, but that regime has had enough resources to sustain
itself for over 40 years, including beyond the post-Soviet era in which
many predicted a sure demise within only months. That regime will
sustain itself without American travelers going there, but ordinary
Cubans will continue to be deprived of contact with Americans.
Whether we like it or not, Cuba's economic troubles will not lead to
political instability. We should not base our policy on the hope that
economic catastrophe will cause suffering, political unrest and
ultimately political change. If we base our policy on this hope, we
will be waiting a long, long time over and above the period that we
have already waited. Instead, we ought to unleash the real source of
American influence by allowing all Americans to travel freely to Cuba,
just as Cuban-Americans are currently allowed to do.
In July of this year, 12 Cubans who fashioned a 1951 Chevy into a
boat nearly made it to America, but they were sent back to Cuba after
State Department officials reportedly negotiated 10-year prison terms
with the Cuban government for these individuals. Upon returning to
Cuba, I understand that six were promptly sentenced to these 10-year
terms.
Keep in mind that this is our own State Department officials, the
same ones who pore over applications for travel licenses and purport to
know what is best for ordinary Americans who wish to travel to Cuba.
Think about it. If you vote against this amendment, you are turning
over your right as an American to travel to the same bureaucrats who do
not have enough sense but to negotiate prison terms in Castro's jails
for the Cubans it sends back to the island.
Under Democratic and Republican administrations, it has been a
bedrock principle of American foreign policy that travel is a device
that opens closed societies. American travelers are our best
ambassadors. They carry the idea of freedom to people in Communist
countries.
It is interesting to note that among the sentencing documents used by
the Cuban government to consign nearly 80 political prisoners to jails
in Cuba were written materials like Time Magazine, the Miami Herald,
speeches by President Bush and other U.S. publications. These were
considered subversive by the Castro regime.
Cubans want contact with Americans. Cuban dissidents regularly tell
us that they oppose the travel ban because they believe that American
travelers have a positive impact in Cuba.
It is time to listen to the Cuban people, and it is time to return to
our basic American values. Americans deserve the freedom to travel to
Cuba to see the island for themselves. I urge my colleagues to support
the Flake-McGovern-Emerson-Delahunt amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the number one policy objective of the Cuban
dictatorship is obtaining U.S. mass tourism and the billions of dollars
it would generate for the dictatorship.
Travel to Cuba is now legal, but with a license for humanitarian,
educational or journalistic reasons. But mass U.S. tourism is the
dream, the number one goal, of the dictatorship.
The gentleman from Arizona and those who are pushing for this goal
here in Congress say that Castro fears tourism. ``Let's adopt a real
get-tough policy toward Castro. Let's send him tourists and their
dollars,'' they say. If Castro fears U.S. tourism and its billions of
dollars, then why is obtaining U.S. tourism his number one objective?
His views are very public about this goal. What did he have to say just
1 year ago when these amendments passed this House?
``The House of Representatives voted with determination and courage
for three amendments that bring glory to that institution. We shall
always be grateful for that gesture.''
That was the statement of the Cuban tyrant 1 year ago. To say that
granting the dictator his number one policy goal is to get tough on the
dictatorship, in my view, constitutes uncalled for cynicism.
We have an embargo against the Cuban dictatorship, Mr. Chairman,
because it is in the national interest of the United States for there
to be a transition to democracy in a country 90 miles from our shores.
It is in the U.S. national interest for there to be an end to a
terrorist regime that has had the head of its Air Force indicted for
murder 2 weeks ago, the head of its Navy indicted for drug trafficking,
and which carries out aggressive espionage and infiltration operations
on all branches of the U.S. Government, including this Congress, over
15 Cuban spies having been arrested in the last years alone, with
dozens more having been expelled from the U.S. The FBI confirms that
there is no more aggressive, hostile intelligence service in the United
States than Castro's operation.
It is in the U.S. national interest for there to be an end to a
regime that harbors hundreds of international terrorists and a large
number of felony fugitives from the United States. And just as Europe
told the dictatorships in Spain and Portugal in the 1970s that access
to the European Economic Community, now the European Union, required
democracy in those countries, and that requirement was fundamental to
the democratic transitions in those countries once the dictator of 40
years, Franco, died in Spain and the dictator of even more time in
power, Oliviera, died in Portugal, our policy of conditioning access to
the U.S. market, including mass tourism, to the liberation of all
political prisoners and concrete movement toward free elections in
Cuba, in other words, retaining the embargo until the Cuban people free
themselves from their chains, is absolutely fundamental.
It is in the U.S. national interest, Mr. Chairman, for there to be an
end to a regime that has systematically attempted to derail and hamper
U.S. intelligence efforts against international terrorism in the post-
September 11 era, a regime that harbors countless international
terrorists.
It is in the U.S. national interest for there to be an end to a
regime that maintains a biological weapons program 90 miles from the
shores of the United States.
In the last 6 months, yes, the Cuban people have witnessed the most
brutal crackdown on courageous pro-democracy leaders and independent
journalists, leaders like Marta Beatriz Roque and Dr. Oscar Elias
Biscet and Jorge Luis Garcia Perez (Antunez), all of them who agree
that it is fundamental that we maintain the U.S. embargo, including the
travel restrictions.
[[Page H8029]]
As a consequence of this crackdown, the European Union has imposed
travel restrictions and other sanctions on the dictatorship's henchmen.
Important newspapers, such as the Los Angeles Times, have changed their
prior positions on sanctions.
For example, the Los Angeles Times wrote, ``After years of calling
for liberalized relations with Cuba, this editorial page must now urge
American policymakers to hit the brakes. Fidel Castro has thrown up a
roadblock that cannot be ignored. He sicced his political police on
about 90 independent journalists, political dissidents and union
activists.
Before Congress even thinks about loosening restrictions, it should
demand that Castro free those rounded up and demonstrate that his
nation is moving toward democracy and away from totalitarianism.''
{time} 1445
That change of position by the Los Angeles Times was a call to
conscience.
None of the political prisoners, either of the recent ones or those
serving decades in the torture gulag, have been freed. Over a dozen are
known to have begun hunger strikes to protest the inhumanity of their
captivity. Some are near death.
What this moment calls for, Mr. Chairman, is for this Congress to
bring glory to itself, but not by spending more dollars to the Cuban
tyrant. No. Not a tyrant's kind of glory. But to insist on the release
of all political prisoners and on concrete steps toward free elections
before a single additional dollar is sent to the enslaved island.
That is the glory that this moment requires, the glory characteristic
of the American people, liberator of oppressed nations and their
sovereign free institution, this people's House, not the glory of a
tyrant like the quote that we looked at before, a tyrant who dispatches
his goons to terrorize and imprison unarmed men and women and who sends
those who dare to dream of freedom to the firing squad after farcical
sham trials.
Mr. Chairman, I thank President Bush for his veto threat regarding
these uncalled-for amendments, but I ask my colleagues here to not make
it necessary for the President to carry out his threat. I ask my
colleagues to defeat these sad amendments.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Flake-
McGovern-Emerson-Delahunt amendment to limit funding for the
enforcement of the travel ban to Cuba. This amendment is offered on
behalf of the 52-member bipartisan Cuba Working Group.
For 40 years, U.S. Cuba policy has violated the right of every
American to travel freely. While Americans may travel to Vietnam, to
China, and even to North Korea, they may not legally travel to Cuba.
For 40 years, the American people have been told that the sanctions
against travel to Cuba, like other economic sanctions, will bring human
rights and democracy to Cuba and the downfall of the Castro regime.
This policy has failed, and it has failed miserably.
Currently, Cuba and the United States are engaged in a dangerous
spiral of escalation and recrimination. The Cubans engage in a cruel
crackdown against dissent on the island. The United States tightens the
restrictions on travel and eliminates people-to-people educational and
cultural exchanges.
At the very moment when the Cuban Government was trying to break the
spirit of Cubans who dare to think differently, the United States
Government restricted even further the exposure of Cubans to
individuals and groups who could provide alternative information and
provoke discussion, the American people. We need a better, more
rational, more mature approach.
Mr. Chairman, Americans are a pragmatic and practical people. We like
things that work, that do the job, that deliver results.
After 40 years of a failed policy on Cuba, it is long past time to
try something else. If this policy was going to work, it would have
worked by now. I believe that ending the ban on travel is one of the
best steps we can take. I believe the Cuban people can benefit from
more contact, not less, with the American people. Now is the time to
invade Cuba with doctors and writers, teachers, students, business
leaders, bicyclists, grandmothers, activists and more. They are,
indeed, our very best ambassadors.
I agree with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International that the
40-plus years of a U.S. policy of isolation has not contributed to the
betterment of human rights in Cuba and, in many respects, has had a
negative impact on human rights and that the travel ban should end.
I agree with the vast majority of dissidents living on the island,
including Vladimiro Roca, president of the Cuban Social Democratic
Party, and Oswaldo Paya, leader of the democratic reform movement known
as the Varela Project, who have expressed their full support for an end
on the ban on travel by Americans to Cuba.
I agree with independent journalist Miriam Leiva, wife of imprisoned
dissident Oscar Espinosa Chepe, when she wrote to President Bush this
May declaring: ``The visits of hundreds of thousands of North Americans
to Cuba could contribute to the exchange of ideas and the progress of
democracy.''
This amendment represents the bipartisan majority of this Congress
and the majority view of the American people. It represents the
mainstream view in this country.
For 3 consecutive years, this House has voted overwhelmingly to lift
the ban on travel, only to have a small group of Members undermine the
will of the House in conference committee. I would say to the
leadership of this House, do not just talk about democracy; respect
democracy. Respect the will of this House. Respect the Members of the
greatest deliberative body in the world. Do not hide behind closed
doors and secret negotiations. Do not hide behind rhetoric that
questions the integrity of those who disagree with you.
The current policy has failed. It is time to take a new approach.
Support the freedom of Americans to travel, support Cubans who want to
interact and meet with Americans, support the bipartisan amendment to
end the travel ban on Cuba.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to
yield 6 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague, the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, it is unconscionable that after the recent arrest and
the sentencing of close to 80 dissident human right activists and
opposition leaders by the Castro regime, that we would be here seeking
to reward the dictatorship for its deplorable action, because, make no
mistake, that is what this amendment seeks to do. It is going to
provide it with much needed currency to continue this reign of terror.
It defies all understanding that as the most recent prisoners of
conscience languish in squalid sells, devoid of any light,
malnourished, denied medical attention, the response of the United
States Congress to this would be to bestow to this pariah state another
victory.
In the past, as we heard from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart), the Castro dictatorship, Fidel Castro himself, has
publicly thanked the U.S. House of Representatives for passing this
amendment.
I wonder if Hector Raul Valle Hernandez, a political prisoner at
Guantanamo, would be as understanding. Hector languishes in a tiny,
dark, squalid isolation cell. He is malnourished. He is given
contaminated water. As a result, he has an increasing number of
parasites in his system and is denied any medical treatment. Since his
arrest of March of this year, he has lost over 40 pounds. However, he
does not succumb to this torture. He remains true to his principles and
beliefs. Would he be as understanding about this vote?
Like Hector, we have Marta Beatriz Roque, Oscar Espinosa Chepe,
Victor Rolando Arroyo, Hector Palacios, Omar Pernet Hernandez, Juan
Carlos Gonzalez Leyva, and scores of other political prisoners, like
Antunez, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, and Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, who truly
deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
[[Page H8030]]
Their bodies are weak, they are rapidly deteriorating; but their
courage, their spirit, their commitment to a free Cuba from its
enslavement is stronger than ever. What message would we be sending to
these brave souls about our own commitment to their freedom?
What about our brothers and sisters just 90 miles away? Do they not
bleed when they are stricken? Do they not cry out? Are they not
entitled to freedom and democracy? Are they not entitled to security?
Even the European Union is realizing that its economic entanglements
with Castro are not sound. In June of this year, the EU began
restricting its contact with the dictatorship, citing deep concerns
``about its flagrant violations of human rights and of fundamental
freedoms of members of the Cuban opposition and of independent
journalists.''
Just last week, the Italian foreign minister, whose country, Italy,
holds the EU presidency, stated, ``We have to say that the Cuban
Government has not taken a single positive step to meet the goals that
Europe has set and in fact the situation of human rights has worsened
yet further.''
After years of unrestricted travel by these European tourists and
officials, all of them from EU countries, countries with rich
democratic traditions, has the situation of human rights in Cuba
improved? No. They even say it has worsened.
So this leaves one to question the arguments raised by the proponents
of this amendment about exporting democracy. Let us look at recent
examples.
Georgetown University is planning an educational trip to Cuba. It
cites as one of its stops El Valle de Vinales. El Valle de Vinales is a
lush and beautiful valley, an environmental paradise. Not many Cubans
living there. It is a wonderful tourist stop. How will being in this
tourist stop help democracy grow in Cuba?
Then they highlight a tour of Old Havana and a tour of Cuba's
Revolutionary Museum. Exactly to whom would the participants be
exporting democracy in these visits?
And there is also a case of a delegation which traveled to Cuba just
a few weeks ago. They received a license from OFAC to attend a
religious retreat. It turns out that several of them were participating
in a golf tournament. That was exporting democracy? OFAC is
investigating this further.
Particularly revealing is the fact that when Members of Congress,
certain Members of Congress, seek to travel to Cuba in order to visit
political prisoners in their jail cells, rather than to meet with the
dictator and his cronies, they are denied visas by the regime.
Just ask our colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), Members who have made their
reputation defending human rights and holding dictators accountable for
their actions. One more than one occasion, they have tried to travel to
Cuba with the expressed and limited purpose of engaging the peaceful
and democratic pro-democracy forces within the island. But the regime
has not allowed them to travel to Cuba.
Proponents of this amendment have also recently argued that it is
needed by certain sectors of the U.S. economy which have been seriously
affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11. My response to that
is if we wanted to help the tourism industry, come to my district. Come
visit Key West, come visit Miami Beach.
Also, we are talking about much-needed currency to a state sponsor of
terrorism. We are engaged in an international war against terrorism.
Cuba is engaged in a joint venture with the Iranian regime, having
built a complex on the outskirts of Tehran to work on biological
technology. The regime needs money to keep this program going. This
amendment will help the regime get those funds.
The Cuban regime is also working in concert with other pariah states
like Libya and Syria on what it terms ``scientific cooperation.'' Thus
this amendment runs contrary to President Bush's commitment to deny
terrorists the financing to carry out the attacks against the Americans
and our American interests and allies. I ask our colleagues to reject
this amendment, which will help Fidel Castro.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, through you to my colleagues, it
has been 43 years that we have had this embargo with Cuba. It has not
worked. It seems to me we should do one of two things: we should either
make the pain greater for the Cuban people, as we so with the embargo,
or we should make some changes to improve communications.
How do we make those kind of changes? One change that I think of is
perestroika in Russia. In the late 80s, when more open communication
was started, when the Russian people started learning about what
America was and what we were doing, we saw the beginning of change in
Russia.
How can we better communicate with the Cuban people? I was down in
Cuba about a year and a half ago, and most people of Cuba that I talked
to do not seem to really know what America is all about, what the free
market and free enterprise and liberty is all about. Of course, because
under Castro they have not had it.
I think it should be clear that none of us support Castro. None of us
disagree that Castro is bad. None of us disagree it would be good to
have Castro out of the way. The question is, how do we do something
better than what we have done for the last 43 years?
We talk about some of the prisoners, saying, keep up the pain and
keep your embargo going. I would quote one of the prisoners, Espenosa
Chapa, who said, ``The policy of isolating Cuba, far from bringing
freedom, has only served to give the regime an alibi that the embargo
is the cause of all the ills the country suffers, and it has kept Cuban
society away from a greater flow of democratic ideas and values.''
The current ban on travel is only one element of the embargo. Mr.
Chairman, I would say it is somewhat akin to increased free trade
worldwide where there is freer interaction and more open communication.
So I just call on my colleagues, do not go along with the status quo.
Let us make a change, because the last 43 years have not accomplished
the goals that we want to accomplish. Support the Flake amendment.
{time} 1500
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I have said in the past, doing business
with Cuba means doing business with Castro. So long as Castro maintains
his stranglehold on every aspect of Cuban life, lifting any aspect of
the embargo or allowing Americans to travel to Cuba could mean
subsidizing Castro.
Most Cuban tourist operations and resorts are owned and operated by
fronts for the Cuban military and internal security services. These so-
called ``companies'' funnel money directly into Castro's military,
earning the regime the hard currency it needs to perpetrate its
oppressive policies. Is that where Americans should be spending their
money?
Castro has come to rely almost solely on his income from tourism;
formerly profitable industries like sugar now only represent a small
amount of the island's income. Proponents of travel will lead you to
believe that if only Americans were allowed to travel to the island,
then the Cuban people would realize the great freedoms they are missing
and rise up and demand political and humanitarian reforms from their
leaders.
But, Mr. Chairman, the people of Cuba are not ignorant. Most speak
regularly with their families here in the U.S. and they are fully aware
of their lack of freedom and opportunities. In fact, the people of Cuba
have risen up in protest to their government, only to have Castro throw
over 80 nonviolent opposition leaders behind bars, sentencing many of
them to life sentences in subhuman conditions in Castro's jails.
Tourist travel to Cuba will not increase purposeful contact with the
Cuban people. Europeans and Canadians have been traveling to Cuba for
years and clearly they have had no positive effect on Cuba's leaders or
political machine.
[[Page H8031]]
By lifting these sanctions with nothing in exchange from the Cuban
government, we are betraying the very people these policies were
designed to help. I urge my colleagues to join with me and oppose any
amendments that lift travel restrictions or lift the embargo and to
remain committed to their support of the Cuban people.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a man who has worked tirelessly on this
issue for years.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman from
Florida for 1 minute regarding his observation that this was Castro's
priority. I do not necessarily believe the words of Fidel Castro. I
honestly wonder if this crackdown that we all condemn was a canard to
continue the policy of the Castro government to use the ban on travel
and the economic embargo as an opportunity to sustain the government
and the regime in power. But, as others have indicated, 40 years, more
than 40 years and counting of a failed policy that has brought about no
change in Cuba. That cannot be denied.
The magnitude of the failure of this policy is so colossal that it is
inconceivable that we continue to pursue it. Because while it has not
benefited the Cuban people, it has also diminished American freedoms.
As the former Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once said, and I am
quoting, ``Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society,
setting us apart. It often makes all other rights meaningful.''
Imagine travel police who tell you where you can go and how much you
can spend when you are there, even if you simply want to scatter the
ashes of a beloved parent like one American citizen did. That does not
sound like America travel police, but it is. That is the reality. We
have our own travel police. It is called the Office of Foreign Asset
Control, or OFAC. They decide who will go to Cuba and who does not.
They insist that you account to them what you did there when you
arrived and what you spent. If they do not believe you, they can punish
you. They have even threatened to garnish Social Security benefits from
one individual.
We should all be offended as Americans by this policy.
So yes, this debate today is about democracy. It is all about
democracy; our democracy as well as democracy in Cuba.
This amendment would end this affront to American liberty and
American rights. What makes the curtailment of this freedom of
Americans so particularly repugnant is the hypocrisy of the policy. For
example, and others have alluded to it: Americans can travel today to
Iran, to North Korea, the remaining members of the axis of evil club.
And remember when Saddam Hussein was in power, you could go to Baghdad
and use your American Express card. You cannot do it in Havana.
Those who would maintain the status quo and continue to deny
Americans the freedom to travel proclaim that all Cuba has to do is to
conduct free and fair elections, legalize all political parties, allow
freedom of the press and association, permit the existence of
independent labor unions, and then, we will restore to Americans their
freedom to travel. Those are worthy goals.
Well, if the rights of Americans to travel are predicated on these
standards, then how about Egypt, a one-party State where elections are
a sham, where political and religious dissent is repressed, and freedom
of the press is restricted. But for Egypt, the penalty, the penalty is
$2 billion worth of American foreign aid every year.
What about Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on earth
according to our own State Department, where women can not drive, and
where American soldiers could not practice their religion openly on
Saudi soil.
Well, I have seen women driving in Cuba, and I have attended mass in
Havana with Cuban dissidents. And 15 of the terrorists who attacked the
United States on September 11 were from Saudi Arabia. There was not a
Cuban among them. And yet, some of the most ardent proponents of the
Cuba travel policy today vote for United States assistance to Saudi
Arabia. Is it not time to end the hypocrisy? We ought not to be the
land of the licensed, but the land of the free. Support the amendment.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to do is to thank my
good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who really is a
great freedom fighter and somebody I admire and respect a great deal.
But I have a huge difference of opinion in terms of what promotes
freedom, not just in our hemisphere, but throughout the world with
respect to this specific issue.
One of the many arguments I have heard from the proponents of this
amendment is that the Cuban citizens would be better off if they had
American tourists. Arguably, Iraqi citizens would have been better off
if we had a free flow of Iraqi oil throughout the world and the
prosperity that that might have brought, but not if Saddam Hussein was
using the profits to terrorize his own people and to export terrorism
and totalitarianism elsewhere throughout the world.
That is precisely the predicament we are in. Fidel Castro, as long as
he is alive and in charge in Cuba, will use every last dollar to
terrorize his own people, to basically jail dissidents, to execute
people that disagree with him, and to export terrorism throughout the
world. He is the single last remnant of the 100-year terrorism that
communism plagued upon our entire planet in the last century. Yet, he
stands just 90 miles off of our shores in Florida where he put missiles
aimed at the people of the United States less than 25 years ago.
I will tell my colleagues that when the lambs lay down with the
lions, lambs get slaughtered, and the day to capitulate and to
acquiesce and to acknowledge Castro as some reality that we have to put
up with, condone, and even support with tourism dollars is not here and
it will never be here, as long as those of us who truly believe that
the way to freedom is to show up and stare down dictators, not
cooperate with them.
I will tell you this one out is the last remnant of communism,
totalitarianism, repression, and it is the original terrorist state. We
need to stare down Castro and not succumb to his evil deeds.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I am
also a proud member of the working group, the Cuban working group that
was established almost 2 years ago, and I have to tell my colleagues,
as someone from California, I am on the other side of the country, but
I know that many in my district in Los Angeles and throughout
California have had the chance to visit and also meet with people from
Cuba. One of the things they tell me as a Congresswoman is that they
would love to be able to go and spend more money there, to interact
through educational programs, to visit different tourist sites there,
but to engage with the people there.
On my visit there 2 years ago, I found it very striking that yes,
indeed, the free market is working. It is working in Cuba. I visited a
small restaurant where I sat with the family who owned their own
restaurant. The money that we gave them in dollars was sufficient at
the time. Maybe if we did more of that, they would be able to have a
lot more, but we are not allowing for that. We need to lift the travel
ban. Even in the State of California, where I served as a member of the
Senate, our Senate members voted for a resolution to come to this House
to say that we ought to lift the travel ban. By opening up our doors of
education, culturally, and also economically, we have a lot to gain as
well.
I had the opportunity to meet with other people from different
countries in Cuba, from Canada and from Europe, and I saw that they are
indeed taking advantage of helping to create a market base there, in
different areas, and in agriculture, in the arts, and in the hotel and
tourism industry. Why is not the United States, why cannot California
engage in that by lifting this travel ban and allowing for the free
flow of ideas and exchange, something that all of us here I think
believe in.
When you say terrorism, I do not see that when I think about Cuba. I
see hard-working people who want to be a part of our culture, the
western civilization. I saw people wearing jeans, clothing that was
reflective of people on our streets here in Washington,
[[Page H8032]]
D.C., and I think that they are earnestly looking for a lifting of this
travel ban. I urge Members to do so.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from South Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart).
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am actually amazed
that we are even here discussing this issue. We are right now in the
midst of a war against terrorism. Should we take steps that help fund
anti-American terrorist states, particularly one that is just 90 miles
away from the United States?
Mr. Chairman, right after 9-11 during the joint session of Congress,
President Bush spoke to Congress and he said ``Either you are with us
or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that
continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United
States as a hostile regime.'' And yet, we are discussing an amendment
that would provide billions of dollars to a terrorist anti-American
regime, just 90 miles away from the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I hear, well, but we do business with China. Mr.
Chairman, there are seven nations on the list of terrorist countries:
Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, I guess that one is no
longer on the list, and Cuba, a terrorist, anti-American thug just 90
miles away from the United States. But yet I hear, well, but if he had
money, if he only had money, he would change. He would be different. He
would do really good things with the people of Cuba and also would
become a friendly nation.
But, Mr. Chairman, what did Mr. Castro, that terrorist thug, do when
he did have money, when the Soviet Union gave him the funds, the
billions of dollars that now this amendment hopes to replace? What did
he do? He had troops in Africa. He was helping terrorists in Africa. He
had troops in Grenada, and the U.S. actually invaded Grenada to
liberate those people and there were Cuban troops there, terrorist
Cuban troops there supporting that Communist regime. He was helping to
fight democracies in Latin America. He was funding troops throughout
the world. That is what he did when he had money.
Those who say the embargo has not worked, it sure has worked for the
interests of the United States of America, because that man is not
doing what he was doing: exporting terrorism. Now, he is limited, he is
limited. But this amendment wants to give him billions of dollars so he
can do what he does best: terrorism, anti-American terrorist
activities. This is amazing to me, Mr. Chairman, that we would be
discussing it right now.
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) said we cannot
believe what Castro says. I do not believe, I would say to the
gentleman, what Castro says. I believe his deeds. Yes, he says that he
wants to get rid of the embargo. Yes, he says that he wants to get rid
of the travel ban. And yes, he congratulates the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) and others when he helped him in doing that. But his deeds
also show that, Mr. Chairman.
Here, for example, he has sent out hundreds of thousands of flyers to
travel agents, spending thousands and thousands of dollars on glitzy
brochures saying, please get rid of the travel ban.
{time} 1515
No, the record is clear. Let us not fund anti-American terrorist 90
miles away. Let us not fund a person who has said in Iran that he wants
to get the United States to be on its knees. Let us not fund an enemy
of the American people 90 miles away. Let us not support this
amendment. Let us stand tall with the Cuban people who want to be free.
Let us stand with the President of the United States in his war against
international terrorism.
The way to do that is not by helping Castro, which is what this
amendment will clearly do.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has 11 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has
9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Flake amendment
which would prohibit funds in the underlying bill to enforce the
current ban on travel to Cuba.
I believe it is the right of all Americans to be able to travel
wherever they choose. It is unAmerican to prohibit our citizens from
choosing where they want to travel.
And why? Why should we single out Cuba? We have a right to travel
almost anywhere. This is clearly not about whether U.S. citizens should
travel to an undemocratic or militarily repressive country. If that
were true, then Americans would not be able to travel to countries such
as China, Sudan, Syria, Iran, North Korea. And do you know what?
Americans are able to travel freely to these countries. Yet, they are
forbidden to travel to Cuba.
Thus, the real question is why do we continue to prohibit travel to
Cuba? Why do we deny American citizens a right Cubans are denied in
Cuba, to travel freely? Human rights activists Elizardo Sanchez and
Vladimiro Roca have said it best, and I quote, ``Just as we insist on
the right of Cubans to travel, to leave and return to our country
freely, a right now denied to us, so do we support the right of
Americans to travel freely, including travel to Cuba.''
The travel ban is an archaic part of our archaic foreign policy on
Cuba. We are not defending the Cuban government or its poor human
rights record, especially in light of the most recent crackdown on its
dissidents. We must always speak strongly against the abuse of human
rights in this world and hold these repressive governments accountable.
But Cuban dissidents regularly tell us that they oppose the travel
ban because they believe American travelers would have a positive
impact on Cuba. Further, Human Rights Watch reports that the U.S.
embargo has not only failed to bring about human rights improvements in
Cuba, it has actually, and I quote, ``become counterproductive to
achieving this goal.''
Current U.S. policy towards Cuba hurts the 11 million innocent Cuban
men, women and children who could benefit from our travel, our new
ideas, our steadfast belief in democratic ideals, freedoms and way of
life. We will not advance rights to the Cuban people by embracing a
policy of isolation that has failed for 40 years.
Further, the more we normalize relations with Cuba, the faster Fidel
Castro will lose his grip on the Cuban people. It has worked in
Vietnam. It has begun to work in China, and it can work in Cuba.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Our
policies have failed, and this is the right thing to do for the Cuban
people.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my good friend.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleagues, if you voted in
favor of the Flake amendment in the past, I respectfully ask you today
to reconsider your vote this year.
While I make no secret of the fact that I have opposed, and will
continue to oppose, lifting the travel ban until all political
prisoners are released and other modest human rights forums are
initiated. Today is clearly not the time to be embracing an easement on
travel.
The outrages of last spring, the brutal arrest, conviction and
incarceration for up to 28 years of approximately 80 of Cuba's best and
brightest and bravest is just the most the visible and the most recent
act of hate and cruelty by Fidel Castro. For decades to come, these
individuals, these reformers will now join approximately 400 other
political prisoners in Cuba's infamous Gulags, which the U.S. State
Department has described as ``harsh and life threatening'', where there
is torture, physical and psychological. Don't get sick in one of those
Gulags because if you do, you will likely not get medical treatment and
your condition will be permitted to fester.
Just read the U.S. State Dept's Country Reports of Human Rights
Practices for this year and see how horrific those conditions are. The
treatment of political prisoners is a scandal.
[[Page H8033]]
Look at what the L.A. Times said recently, and I would quote them
briefly. This is an editorial in the L.A. Times, ``After years of
calling for liberalized relations with Cuba, this editorial page must
now urge American policymakers to hit the brakes.'' Hit the brakes my
colleagues. Do not liberalize and allow Castro to reep upwards of $5
billion of profit--money that goes directly into Castro's coffers. We
need to hit the brakes and at least say, not now.
Reference was made earlier about how the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) and I tried to visit Cuba. We were turned down. We wanted to
visit prisoners. We wanted to see Dr. Biscet and others and do what the
International Committee of the Red Cross cannot do. As we know, the
ICRC has been denied, repeatedly, access to prisoners. We tried to do
it, and we were turned down. And what did Fidel Castro say in one of
his speeches? Because we wanted to go into the prisons and assess the
situation firsthand we were ``provocateurs.''
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I have
visited many political prisons around the world, from Perm Camp 35 in
the Soviet Union, when it was the Soviet Union, to China, Beijing
Prison Number 1, where convicts from Tiananmen Square were being
mistreated. I have even gotten into prisons in Indonesia, and met with
East Timoree leader Xanana Gusmao, and yet we cannot get into Cuba.
Yet, some Members want to lift the travel ban. Lifting the ban now
sends a clear message to those who are suffering from Castro's hate and
abuse that we do not care.
I know this is not the maker of this amendment's intention, but that
is the message nonetheless, and I hope Members will vote no on this
amendment. Stand with the oppressed in Cuba, not the oppressor.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake) for yielding me time.
Let us face it. This is not a problem about Castro. This is a problem
about us. We made this law. And this administration wants to enforce
this law. This is not about Fidel Castro. This is about the present
administration and Members of Congress.
It is very interesting that those who do not want to lift this ban
are also exempt from it. Cuban-Americans, can travel freely back
without our country's permission. And as Members of Congress, you can
travel to Cuba, but you cannot do that as a regular American citizen.
What has this law done? Has it prevented Americans from going to
Cuba? Absolutely not. It is estimated 100,000 Americans went to Cuba
last year, 75 percent of them went illegally. Why are they going to
Cuba? It is only 90 miles off our coast. That is probably why they are
not going to Iraq and North Korea and other places which the President
identifies as the axis of evil, and our government does not ban you
from going there.
They are also fascinated by the history Cuba played in the American
Revolutionary War. They are fascinated by a country that wins music
Emmys. They are fascinated by a country and culture that produces good
rum and cigars, yet it is illegal for Americans to drink that rum or
smoke those cigars. It is illegal for Americans to have fun. That is
what this law says.
It is so un-American. It is so unpatriotic. It is so unenforceable.
What are we going to do? Put everybody who went down there to ride
bicycles, to dance, to drink mojitos in jail? That is not what our
country can do. We cannot enforce this law. And to say that nobody can
travel there, and when they will go illegally you will stop that, what
you are doing is stopping the legitimate travel of educators, of
doctors, of people in professions that want to go to try to upgrade
humanity.
Human rights organizations are certainly going to know more about the
abuses in Cuba by sending people who are interested in human rights as
good ambassadors. The law now does not allow that to happen.
This is a good amendment. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Flake) for introducing it, and I urge that all of us pass this
amendment.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), my good friend.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Flake
amendment. I would like to make a series of points in response to some
of what I have heard.
First, what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) does is, in
essence, invite lawlessness. It says that we will prohibit the Treasury
Department from doing what the law says. It does not undo the law. It,
in essence, prohibits the Treasury Department from enforcing the law.
So this Congress would promote lawlessness.
Yes, it is illegal to travel to Cuba under certain circumstances, but
we will look the other way. We will not allow that element of law
enforcement within the Treasury Department to enforce our laws. What a
slippery slope that is when we begin a process that says the law is the
law, but we are not going to allow it to be enforced. What a slippery
process that is.
To my dear friends who talk about the Soviet Union and how they fell
because we went over there, the reality is the Soviet Union fell
because they could not keep up with the arms race with the United
States, and they decided internally on Glasnos and Perestroika. And
when they unleashed those forces of opening, then the people of what
was the Soviet Union began to move. But that crumbling began with from
within, not from without.
I hear about failed policy, let me tell you about a failed policy.
The failed policy is millions of visitors, millions upon millions of
visitors from Canada and Mexico and Spain and other part of Europe and
Latin America in the last decade and what has happened? Not one
positive action towards democracy and human rights has taken place.
That to me is a failed policy. It is a failed policy when prostitution
flourishes inside of Cuba so that foreign tourists can take advantage
of Cuban women. That to me is a failed policy.
It is a failed policy when we believe that by having millions of
Americans go to Cuba and sun themselves on the beaches of Varadero,
smoking a Cuban cigar, and sipping Cuban rum is the way in which we are
going to liberate the Cuban people. What is incredible to me is the
deafening silence of those who advocate these amendments, but when
repression takes place in Cuba, they are virtually silent, and their
silence is deafening.
I say that a vote for this amendment, particularly at this time,
flies in the face of all of those who languish inside of Cuba who
risked their liberty and their lives to make change within their
country.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to fund the Cuban economy
and Cuban tyranny. A vote to support this amendment is a vote to
support a regime that executed three men by firing squad after closed-
door summary trials. A vote for this amendment is a vote to continue to
fund the regime that brutally arrested and jailed over 75 activists
this spring for doing nothing more than demanding human rights for
their people.
A vote for this amendment is to say to those who languish in Castro's
jails, we will go visit the beaches of Cuba, we will smoke the cigars
that were mentioned here, but you will continue to languish in Castro's
jail.
The Cuban government sentenced many of these innocent dissidents to
14 to 27 years in Cuban jails after holding one-day, closed-door
summary trials. Our answer to that is, let us have a grand old time on
Varadero Beach. That is our answer to all those who languish.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the jailing of
these activists who suffer without clean water, edible food, sanitary
conditions and who languish in Castro's jails.
The tales emerging from their prison cells include allegations of
beating, psychological torture, solitary confinement in jail cells
infested with rats and scorpions.
{time} 1530
The prison conditions are so deplorable that 15 Cuban dissidents who
were jailed in the crackdown started a hunger strike to protest the
inhuman conditions. In a letter explaining the protest, family members
said that the
[[Page H8034]]
prison conditions had led them, the prisoners, to make the terrible
decision to declare themselves on a hunger strike that compromises
their health and, in many cases, even their lives.
So let us recall Raul Rivero, Miriam Leiva, Gisella Delgado and
others that, in fact, their suffering and their languishing in those
jails are responded to by us having more tourism.
Vote against this amendment. Vote against such an infamy and let us
begin to speak up for those people who are risking their lives and
liberty.
Travel Ban Amendment
To prohibit the use of funds to enforce the ban on travel to Cuba by
U.S. Citizens.
Congress has already passed the law that supports the travel ban.
This amendment would only create sloppy legislation. The amendment
doesn't change the underlying law. Instead, the amendment would prevent
Treasury from supporting the existing law.
The belief that Americans can change Castro through tourism flies in
the face of evidence that millions of visitors from Canada, Mexico,
Spain and other parts of Europe and Latin America visited Cuba in the
last decade, without impacting one iota of positive change toward
democracy and human rights.
Cuba Travel restrictions are constitutional, according to the Supreme
Court [Regan vs. Wald 1984]. Other courts: the 9th Circuit 1996, and
the 11th Cir. 2000, agreed.
Cuba has been on the list of state-sponsored terrorism since 1982 and
remains on the list for supporting Foreign Terrorist Organizations, for
providing safe haven to U.S. designated foreign terrorist organizations
including the ELN and the FARC from Colombia. Cuba also continues to
harbor fugitives from the U.S. justice system.
Due to the end of Soviet Subsidies and his disastrous economic
policies, Castro is bankrupt. His lack of cash restricts his ability to
engage or support anti-American actions around the world. Castro has
used American tourist dollars to take the place of Soviet payments.
The money obtained from tourism is not invested to benefit the Cuban
people. It is invested to reinforce a state security apparatus that is
used in developing a tourism infrastructure which only benefits the
government.
The tourism infrastructure doesn't benefit average Cubans. Instead,
Castro sets aside hotels, beaches, stores, restaurants, even hospitals
for foreigners, prohibiting Cubans from staying in those hotels and
patronizing those facilities. American tourism under current conditions
would freeze in place Castro's tourist apartheid.
The infusion of U.S. tourist dollars will provide the regime with a
lifeline. Lifting the travel ban without securing meaningful changes in
Cuba will: (1) Guarantees the continuation of the current totalitarian
structures, and (2) Strengthen Castro's security forces.
amendment to end the embargo
Why would members of Congress even suggest ending the embargo at a
time when we are seeing the worst wave of repression in Cuba since
right after the Revolution? The State Department calls this new wave
``the most despicable act of political repression in the Americas in a
decade.''
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to fund the Cuban economy
and Cuban tyranny.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support a regime that
executed three men by firing squad, after closed door summary trials.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support a brutal
government which arrested and jailed over 75 activists this spring for
doing nothing more than demanding human rights for their people.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support this massive
crackdown and Cuban style justice, or more accurately, injustice. The
Cuban government sentenced these innocent dissidents to 14 to 27 years
in Cuban jails after holding one-day, closed door, summary trials.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the jailing of
these activists who suffer without clean water, edible food, and
sanitary conditions and who languish in Castro's jail. The tales
emerging from their prison cells include allegations of beatings,
psychological torture, solitary confinement and jail cells infested
with rats and scorpions.
The prison conditions are so deplorable that 15 Cuban dissidents, who
were jailed in the crackdown, have started a hunger strike to protest
the inhuman conditions. In a letter explaining the protest, family
members said that the prison conditions, ``have led them (the
prisoners) to make the terrible decision to declare themselves on a
hunger strike, which compromises their health and even their lives.''
While the names of the dissidents on the hunger strike have not been
published, the letter in support of the strike was signed by the wife
of poet and dissident journalist Raul Rivero (sentenced to 20 years in
jail), Miriam Leiva, wife of economist Oscar Espinosa Chepe (sentenced
to 20 years in jail), and Gisella Delgado, the wife of activist Hector
Palacios (sentenced to 25 years in jail).
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the government
that has jailed Oscar Manuel Espinosa Chepe. Mr. Chepe, a Cuban
economist and independent journalist, was sentenced to 20 years in jail
for criticizing the Cuban government. At age 62 Mr. Chepe, according to
the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, is suffering from a chronic
kidney condition, a thoracic hernia, persistent hypertension, and
severe weight loss. The Cuban government refused to provide him with
medical treatment. Only when he was near death and only after intense
international pressure, was he transferred to a hospital.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to allow funds to flow to
the government that jailed Oscar Elias Biscet. Dr. Biscet founded the
Lawton Foundation for Human Rights, one of the first independent civic
groups in Havana. On February 27, 1999 he was arrested for hanging the
national flag sideways at a press conference and was sentenced to three
years in jail. After his release, he organized seminars on the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights for Cubans. And he was arrested
again in December of 2002 for organizing these seminars. In April of
this year he was sentenced to 25 years in jail and sent to a special
state prison.
A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the jailing of
Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello. She is an economist and director of the
Cuban Institute of Independent Economists and is the only woman who was
detained. She is the recipient of the 2002 Heinz R. Pagels Human Rights
of Scientists Award of the New York Academy of Sciences. In April, she
was sentenced to 20 years in jail for her opposition work. She is in
acute pain, has nausea attacks and the left part of her body has become
numb, according to the opposition news agency CUBANET. In spite of her
pain, she must sit on a stool throughout the day since prisoners are
not allowed to stay in bed during the daytime.
I'll say again, a vote to support this amendment is a vote to support
the tyranny and brutality of the Cuban government. The embargo is our
strongest weapon against the Castro regime. Vote, ``no''' to this
amendment. Show the men and women who suffer in Cuban jails for the
right to freedom that we stand with them in their fight for human
rights, justice, and a county free of dictatorship.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I just heard that those who support this amendment were silent when
Castro jailed over 80 dissidents in Cuba just months ago. I would
remind the gentleman from New Jersey that the same individuals who are
here in support of this amendment came to the floor and argued on
behalf of the Diaz-Balart amendment condemning Castro for this action.
So we have stood firm, the Cuba Working Group, and others who support
this amendment against the atrocities that have happened there.
I also wanted to respond to whether or not this is a good use of
taxpayer dollars to actually use these dollars to enforce the travel
ban as opposed to actually wage the war on terrorism.
The Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department
currently spends between 10 and 20 percent of its resources actually
enforcing the Cuba travel ban. This is the office charged with the task
of tracking down al Qaeda money, to actually shutting down the
international war on terrorism, the financial war; yet they are
spending over 10 percent of its resources tracking down, in essence,
grandmothers from Iowa who are going on a biking trip to Cuba or the
gentleman from Washington who spent less than 24 hours in Cuba to
scatter his parents' ashes at the churches they built in the 1950s. The
man returned home to a fine, enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets
Control.
I would submit that if we are serious about the war on terrorism then
we will stop this charade of actually limiting Americans' ability to
travel.
Let us stipulate that Fidel Castro is a bad guy. He is a horrible
guy, he is a thug, I have said it many times from this podium; but our
hatred for Castro should not cause us to punch ourselves in the face,
and that is what we are doing in essence here, by imposing upon the
American people a ban on their right to travel. We simply should not do
that.
It has been mentioned through here that some of the dissidents
actually support what we are doing and with regard to travel. I should
note here that many do not. In fact, I would submit that a majority do
not. As Oswaldo
[[Page H8035]]
Paya has mentioned, the leader of the Varela Project and leading
democracy activist said, we appeal to all foreigners who come to our
country as tourists to show solidarity, to take part in demonstrations
to support the opening up of Cuba.
Members have mentioned that some people go to Cuba just to lay on the
beaches of Varadero. This is certainly true. Some of them, however, go
down to protest or some go down to take books to independent libraries.
We do not know who is going to. We should not pretend that we know, and
for us to pretend that we do makes us look like Fidel Castro. Let him
do this.
It is often submitted that if we lift this travel ban that surely
Fidel Castro will impose his own. I have no doubt that he will, that he
will try to limit those who are coming down to Cuba. He will try to
determine who is a sunbather and who is a protestor. That is a policy
befitting of Fidel Castro. It is not a policy befitting of this great
country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I want to point out that I find it somewhat ironic that when
we speak of the wives of Oscar Chepe and Hector Palacios, prominent
leaders in the dissident movement in Cuba who are currently
incarcerated in Cuban jails, for whom my colleague and I and members of
the Cuba Working Group have advocated strenuously for their release and
will continue to do so, that when references to their spouses are made,
it is left to be suggested that they support the ban on travel, when
the contrary is true.
Let me quote from Miriam Leiva, the wife of Oscar Espinosa Chepe:
``The visits of hundreds of thousands of North Americans to Cuba could
contribute to the exchange of ideas and the progress of democracy.'' I
know we all share that. Let us support this.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Just a few points to clarify. Let us be clear, to remind our
colleagues, for example, of who Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet is. There is no
one more respected in Cuba today than Dr. Biscet. Dr. Biscet, because
he is so respected by the Cuban people, has been sentenced to 25 years
in the gulag. Dr. Biscet says that it would be unconscionable to lift
the embargo, to alleviate the embargo in any way and to send the
resources to the dictatorship.
This young man Antunez is serving 18 years because ever since he has
been in high school he has been fighting for democracy in Cuba, and he
says it would be unconscionable to send resources to the dictatorship.
Let us be clear and on and on, Marta Beatriz Roque, the leaders who
represent the Cuban people, who are in prison, do not want resources
sent.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who keeps on saying that he
knows that the dictator is a bad guy but he keeps on introducing
amendments that would have the effect of sending billions of dollars to
the dictator, has said this time that the dictator, and others have
said, that he should not be believed, the dictator should not be
believed when he says, yes, I want billions of dollars, I want billions
of dollars. Imagine if the Flake theory would hold and every enemy of
the United States now received billions of dollars from the United
States because they are enemies of the United States and they cannot be
believed because since they are really enemies of the United States,
but we cannot believe enemies of the United States, it is good to send
them billions of dollars. Imagine that theory.
Imagine that theory. That is the Flake theory and of the United
States, billions of dollars. Do not believe enemies of the United
States, billions of dollars. Let us vote down this amendment; and let
us stand with the people in the Cuban prisons, and let us vote to
support the sanctions until there are free elections in Cuba, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, has all time expired for the other side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has 2 minutes
remaining, and the time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart) has expired.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
I appreciate the comments from the other side. I would maintain that
none of us really know when Fidel Castro is telling the truth and when
he is not.
I do not think that we should pretend that we do. I do not think we
should even try. Therefore, we simply ought to adopt a policy that is
right and consistent with our objectives. That is what ending the
travel ban is all about. It is doing what is good policy regardless of
whether we think Fidel Castro supports it or whether he does not.
I should mention there are others that have called for an end to the
travel ban, other dissidents. Oscar Espinosa Chepe has been cited here
a couple of times. This is a man I met just weeks before he was
imprisoned in what for him may be a life sentence. He said, ``When the
travel of Americans to Cuba is approved, the struggle for democracy and
freedom will by no means end. To the contrary, these measures create
better conditions to achieve these objectives.''
That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to comport with
the wishes of the dissident community in Cuba and to do what is right
for us as well, to lift the ban on Americans to travel.
We need today to strike a blow for freedom. We can do that by
allowing Americans to travel freely as they wish.
If it is freedom that we want for the Cuban people, let us start by
exercising a little more of it ourselves by allowing our citizens to
travel to Cuba and to take their values with them.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Flake
amendment regarding the Treasury Department's limitation of the right
of Americans to travel.
This amendment is based on a core principle--that the policy of
limiting the right of ordinary Americans to travel to Cuba, is an
infringement of all Americans' right to travel anywhere they want at
any time they choose.
Nevermind that the U.S. Cuba policy has been an outright failure for
the last forty years. Nevermind that the travel ban prevents American
businesses from creating jobs in Cuba and the United States, that it
prevents Americans from sharing their best ideas and ideals with a
close neighbor; and it does nothing to advance the cause of freedom and
social justice.
The travel ban runs counter to the core Constitutional concept that
the American right to travel is an absolute and non-negotiable right, a
reflection of the free and open nature of our society.
If you believe in our constitutional rights, if you believe in the
power of travel and trade, if you believe our citizens are the best
ambassadors of American values, and if you agree with President Bush
that engagement is the engine of liberty--then we need to pass this
amendment legislation to legalize travel by Americans to Cuba.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Flake
Amendment to end the unnecessary and counterproductive ban on travel to
Cuba, and I want to recognize and applaud both Mr. Flake and Mr.
Delahunt for their outstanding leadership on this issue and the agenda
of the House Cuba Working Group. In fact, I am a proud sponsor of H.R.
2071, the Working Group's Export Freedom to Cuba Act, which would
accomplish the same objective as this amendment, and would allow travel
between the United States and Cuba. I have long supported normalizing
relations with Cuba and frankly, Mr. Chairman, find it embarrassing
that our policy has remained unchanged and stagnant in the 26 years
since I first got involved in efforts to normalize relations. I wonder
when the Administration will realize that November 9, 2003 marks 14
years since the end of the Cold War.
Americans do not need a license to travel half-way around the world
to North Korea, Iraq and Iran, but the ``dangerous'' island nation of
Cuba 90 miles off the coast of Florida requires stricter regulation.
This policy seems particularly absurd when there is bi-partisan, bi-
cameral support to end the embargo; most Americans oppose the trade and
travel ban. Even Cuban Americans are divided on the issue.
In 2000, a Florida International University poll showed that 63
percent of Americans nationally and 75 percent of Americans of other
than Cuban descent in Miami-Dade favor unrestricted travel to Cuba. We
constantly seem to be moving backwards in our foreign policy, when our
constituents are saying the opposite. Where is the logic in punishing
Americans? A significant number of Representatives from both sides of
the aisle actually agree on ending the travel ban. However, we are
still unable to normalize travel and trade. In 1999 we granted
permanent normalized trade relations
[[Page H8036]]
to China, but are still unable to travel and trade with Cuba freely.
Whether or not other nations agree with the practices of the Cuban
regime, they believe that our policy is ridiculous and outdated.
Mr. Speaker, the obsession with Cuba is two-fold: Those who support
the travel ban are driven by 44-year-old memories of the revolution.
Americans, who are eager to travel, are drawn to the rich, vibrant
Cuban culture. Along with most of my constituents, I belong to the
latter group which believes that we have much to learn from each other.
The Oakland City Council in 1998 passed a resolution to eliminate the
trade sanctions against Cuba and the Bay Area has numerous sister-city
relations with Cubans; these exchanges benefit students, arts
initiatives, encourage humanitarian projects and research sharing for
important diseases like HIV/AIDS, kidney failure and high blood
pressure.
Farmers across the country are eager to engage in trade with Cuba as
the U.S. economy continues to plummet.
The recent elimination of the people-to-people category, within the
OFAC regulations, proves again how the administration is more concerned
with maintaining a grudge than reinstating the American right to
travel.
Mr. Chairman, not only does the travel and trade embargo undermine
and contradict the values upon which our great country is based, but
they are also very costly and logistically difficult to administer
between the Departments of State, Treasury, and Commerce. We should not
be persecuting Americans who are guilty of nothing more than a sense of
curiosity and eagerness to learn and explore our island neighbor, Cuba.
Vote ``yes'' to promote democracy, vote for Americans freedom to
travel, vote for the Flake amendment.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, since the early 1960s, U.S.
policy towards Cuba has consisted largely of isolating the island
nation through comprehensive economic sanctions. In addition, these
sanctions were made stronger with the 1992 congressional approval of
the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA). I feel strongly that it has never been
in our nation's best interest to recognize countries in our hemisphere
that rebel against the ideas and freedoms we hold so dear. Some people
feel that it is time to lift these sanctions.
I believe it is important to uphold the principles of democracy and
freedom, human rights and liberty for which our Founding Fathers fought
so hard. All peoples--including Cubans--have the right to enjoy these
basic, inalienable rights as well. It is my understanding that once
again, recently, the Cuban dictatorship took aggressive action to
stifle the efforts of freedom-loving Cubans. Today is not the day to
reward this repressive behavior. I urge my colleagues to reject the
Flake-Delahunt-Davis Amendment.
Today's proposed amendments, which would open the floodgates of
American dollars to the Castro dictatorship, would only prolong and
strengthen the dictator's grip on the people of Cuba. To allow the
American travel industry to engage Castro would send the worst of all
messages to the freedom-seeking Cuban dissidents who rely on the United
States not to give into this regime.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will
be postponed.
Amendment No. 14 offered by Mrs. Maloney
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 14 offered by Mrs. Maloney:
At the end of title II insert the following new section:
Sec. 213.(a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated by
this Act may be used to assess or collect any tax liability
attributable to the inclusion in gross income of amounts paid
(from funds referred to in subsection (b)) to any person as
assistance on account of any property or business damaged by,
and for economic revitalization directly related to, the
terrorist attacks on the United States that occurred on
September 11, 2001.
(b) Funds.--The funds referred to in this subsection are
amounts appropriated by--
(1) Public Law 107-206 under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Community Planning and
Development'',
(2) section 434 of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-73),
(3) amounts appropriated by Public Law 107-38 and
designated by the President for community development block
grant purposes, and
(4) amounts appropriated by Public Law 107-117 for the
Community Development Fund under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNITY PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND''.
(c) Coordination with Certain Means-tested Programs.--None
of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to treat
amounts to which subsection (a) applies as income or
resources for purposes of--
(1) the United States Housing Act of 1937,
(2) title V of the Housing Act of 1949,
(3) section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1965,
(4) sections 221(d)(3), 235, and 236 of the National
Housing Act,
(5) the Food Stamp Act of 1977, and
(6) the Social Security Act.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4, the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member in opposition to
the amendment each will control 5 minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank my colleagues for their
leadership on behalf of New York following the tragedy of 9/11.
I have never seen Congress so united and determined. We responded
with a national commitment to help New York City rebuild. Part of this
rebuilding effort was Federal grants to businesses and individuals in
Lower Manhattan near Ground Zero.
Just yesterday the New York Times wrote of problems getting all of
the aid to those who needed it most. But what is more disturbing is
that after deserving victims of 9/11 got the aid, the IRS in a surprise
announcement decided to take part of it away in taxes.
Many grant recipients accepted the aid and spent every penny, not
knowing that they would have to pay taxes on it.
It is just unfair for these cash-strapped businesses and individuals
to take another financial hit, a financial hit that the Joint Committee
on Taxation estimates to be $268 million.
The IRS is taking back $268 million in Federal aid that the President
pledged to New York City. This IRS decision has also had a ripple
effect on other Federal benefits that survivors of 9/11 may receive.
Since many agencies rely on the IRS decision and definition of gross
income, some recipients' eligibility for programs like Medicare,
Medicaid, and Social Security may be in jeopardy.
The amendment that I am offering today with my colleague from New
York (Mr. Nadler) would bar the use of any of the funds for 1 year for
the IRS to enforce the decision to collect taxes on these grants to
Lower Manhattan. After all, the Federal Government is supposed to be
sending aid to disaster victims, not taking it away.
Taxing the grants violates the spirit of Federal disaster aid. This
is not the first action that I and others have taken to right this
wrong. Actually, it is the latest in a series of actions.
Along with others in the New York delegation, we have written IRS,
the Secretary of Treasury, we have written the President, Speaker
Hastert, and the leadership of the other body.
I have introduced bipartisan legislation. The Committee on Ways and
Means is aware of the problem. The Congressional Research Service has
done a memo. I have gone before the Committee on Rules seeking to add
it as an amendment to H.R. 1308. And I am on the floor today with this
amendment.
I ask my colleagues, who have the ultimate authority to decide who
gets taxed, for their help. I am confident that it was never this
Congress's intent to tax this disaster aid.
Making this amendment subject to a point of order means that this
Congress has made a decision to continue to tax this 9/11 aid 2 days
before the second anniversary of these attacks.
Mr. Chairman, I call upon my colleagues to support me with this
amendment. It is fair. It was the intent of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler).
[[Page H8037]]
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment
that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and I are offering,
which corrects an incredible injustice faced by some victims of the 9/
11 attacks.
Shortly after the attack, which occurred in my district on September
11, Congress moved quickly to ease the economic suffering of businesses
and residents in Lower Manhattan.
Over $3 billion was appropriated through the Community Development
Block Grant program specifically to assist residents and businesses in
Lower Manhattan through a variety of grant programs to try to recover
from the tremendous economic damage inflicted by the terrorists.
While such programs could never make these individuals and businesses
whole after the devastating losses they suffered, these funds are an
important first step in, and my constituents are truly grateful to the
country for coming to their aid.
Incredibly, the Internal Revenue Service has announced that much of
this money is subject to Federal taxation, effectively withdrawing some
of the aid after it has already been given.
{time} 1545
When we appropriated these funds in this House, it was
incomprehensible that the Federal Government might provide assistance
with one hand and take it away with the other. These funds are not
profit. They are not income that should be taxed. They are funds
intended to begin to defray some of the damages incurred by these
businesses which were closed for months because guards stood on Canal
Street saying ``You cannot go to these businesses. You cannot pass
here.''
The aid that these businesses are getting are a tiny fraction of the
economic damage they suffered because of the terrorists. Twenty percent
have already closed their doors. Twenty percent of the small businesses
in Lower Manhattan have gone bankrupt because of the inadequacy of the
aid that we gave them to make them whole from the terrorists, and now
we are taking away some of the money that we gave them.
Recipients of these funds were never asked to prepare a budget with
the prospect of paying taxes on it in mind. Already near financial
ruin, to place further economic demand on their budgets is simply
cruel. This is an issue of fairness and common sense and decency to the
people who took the hit for this country. I do not believe that anybody
on either side of the aisle who voted for the economic aid to try to
help the victims of the terrorism anticipated this taxation, and we
ought to get rid of it.
Point of Order
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
pending Maloney amendment No. 14 to H.R. 2989 on the grounds that this
provision violates clause 5 of House rule XXI because it proposes a
limitation on funds in a general appropriations bill for the
administration of a tax or tariff.
The gentlewoman from New York is seeking to change existing law and
prohibit taxes from being collected on payments made to those affected
by the September 11 terrorist attacks. While, Mr. Chairman, we
certainly all have tremendous sympathy for those who suffered losses
from this tragic event, we should not be using appropriation bills, or
seeking to use them, to establish new tax policy concerning payments to
them or to any other individuals.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I do.
I very much respect my colleague's point of order, but could the
gentleman please tell me how and when is this Congress going to act to
return the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid promised to them
after 9/11?
We have legislation before this House; we have been before the
Committee on Rules with amendments trying to attach this to other
legislation. We know that many on the other side of the aisle are
calling for permanent tax relief in certain areas. We are asking for
tax relief for the victims of 9/11.
It was truly not the intent of this Congress to tax their aid benefit
packages. In fact, the IRS did not even tell them they were going to do
this until the last minute. Most of them spent the money and now are in
trouble taking out loans to repay. And, really, when they got the
grants, they were well below what they lost. Now to come back and tax
roughly a third of the grant is terribly unfair.
So I respectfully ask my colleagues, When will we be able to act on
this legislation and return hundreds of millions of dollars in aid
promised to the victims of 9/11?
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I do.
I would agree, obviously, with what the gentlewoman from New York, my
coauthor of this amendment, just said. We have tried every different
way.
The aid to small businesses is roughly about $539 million. This tax
is taking it back about $268 million. I will concede that technically
the point of order may stand, but the Committee on Rules of this House
routinely waives all points of order; routinely waives most points of
order. I would appeal to my colleague to withdraw his point of order. I
appeal to my colleague to exercise discretion and not press his point
of order so as not to victimize the victims a second time. Because that
is what we are talking about here.
We have tried, the gentlewoman from New York and I and others in the
New York delegation, to try to press this point to the Committee on
Rules, in separate legislation, and to the IRS. I do not believe
anybody anticipated that someone might come along and say this aid
should be taxed. We would have put a sentence in the initial aid
legislation 2 years ago, no one would have opposed it, and that would
have been that.
No one anticipated this. This was completely shocking. No one
anticipated the IRS would say that this money, which was a small
recompense, with the average aid being about 10 to 15 percent of the
loss, there is no profit or income here, it is 10 to 15 percent of the
economic loss; but no one anticipated this would be taxed, so I urge
that the point of order be withdrawn
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Oklahoma raises a point of order against the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York for violating clause
5(a) of rule XXI. Clause 5(a) provides a point of order against
amendments proposing limitations on general appropriation bills for the
administration of a tax or tariff.
The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York proposes a
limitation on a general appropriation bill for the assessment or
collection of tax liability attributable to the inclusion of certain
economic assistance in the taxpayer's gross income. The amendment
therefore imposes a limitation on funds for the administration of a tax
in violation of clause 5(a) of rule XXI. The point of order is
sustained.
The amendment is not in order.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Delahunt
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Delahunt:
Page 157, insert the following after line 2:
Sec. 742. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enforce any restriction on remittances to
nationals of Cuba or Cuban households, including remittances
for emigration expenses, covered by section 515.570 or
515.560(c) of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, other
than the restriction that remittances not be made from a
blocked source and the restriction that no member of the
payee's household be a senior-level government official or
senior-level communist party official.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4,
2003, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and a Member in
opposition to the amendment each will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This is a very simple amendment, Mr. Chairman. It does exactly the
same thing as the one that I and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake)
and
[[Page H8038]]
others offered last year and which passed the House overwhelmingly. It
prohibits enforcement of the cap on remittances that can be sent to
families in Cuba.
Not many people, I believe, are aware that an aspect of current
policy regarding Cuba imposes limits on family charity. Let me just say
that again. It is American policy to restrict the amount of financial
support that Cuban Americans can send to their families on the island.
U.S. law prohibits Americans from giving more than $1,200 a year to
their Cuban families. I would suggest that this is shameful, especially
for a Nation of immigrants like we have here in the United States.
Is there anything that defines American history or our heritage more
than a first-generation family sending money back to the old country to
buy food or medicine or clothing for loved ones in need? Such
assistance is particularly critical in Cuba. Dollars from American
relatives can make a huge difference in the quality of life for a Cuban
family. One would think that American policy would be to encourage
family assistance; but instead, the law, our law, views Cuban Americans
who give too much help to their families as common criminals who can be
fined up to $55,000 and sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.
Now, as the Treasury Department will readily tell us, the limits on
remittances are rarely enforced. And after the House spoke so clearly
last year on this particular amendment, the administration began to
allow Cuban Americans who visit the island to bring more money with
them. I think the amount is some $10,000, although it did retain the
$1,200 limit per household per year. So I would suggest or conclude
that even the White House recognizes that this policy is a pointless
charade, which begs the question: Why have any limits on remittances at
all?
It is important to understand this policy does nothing to hurt the
Cuban Government. Nothing. Instead, it punishes American citizens by
forcing them to violate the law, and as we have heard elsewhere today,
causes disrespect for the rule of law. And it punishes their relatives
in Cuba by denying them the opportunity for a better life because, and
it cannot be repeated often enough, this money does not go to the Cuban
Government. Remittances are direct aid to families in Cuba from
ordinary people who care to ordinary people in need.
It is the official policy of the United States that you should only
do just so much. This is wrong and it is unacceptable. Last week,
President Bush said, and I am quoting him, ``Millions of acts of
decency and kindness help define the true worth and the true strength
of this great American Nation.'' We all agree with those sentiments.
Our government should never seek to limit the kindness and the decency
of the American people.
Ending the limit on remittances is one of the most kind and decent
things we can do for the people of Cuba and for Cuban Americans here in
the United States. We should do this. Support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the
time in opposition, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Florida for
yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Delahunt
amendment.
While well-intentioned, in practice this amendment would only serve
as yet one more vehicle for the regime to get its hands on much-needed
and much-valued hard currency. The goal of the existing controls on
remittances is so that the average Cuban, who is denied access to basic
necessities by the regime, in order for the dictatorship to provide it
to foreign tourists, it is so that that average Cuban receives
sufficient funds to survive.
Let me reiterate that the goal of the existing controls is to help
the average Cuban receive funds for his needs. Certainly Castro does
not care for his needs.
The amount has been carefully calibrated and reviewed at this moment,
taking into consideration the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar
relative to the economic realities on the island, the same realities
and economic context which has prompted this Chamber time and time
again, Mr. Chairman, to limit microcredit lending to small amounts
benefiting the poorest of the poor. And they apply to the controls
currently in place with respect to remittances in Cuba.
Removing the financial caps, as the Delahunt amendment seeks by
prohibiting their enforcement, means more money for the corrupt regime
to pocket. In removing all but one of the controls on the recipients of
these remittances, the amendment creates an opening for individuals
involved in illicit activities, for example, to receive U.S. currency.
This amendment removes the safeguards that have been put in place and
that are aimed at ensuring that transactions benefit those in need and
cannot be manipulated by a terrorist regime starved for foreign
currency.
In practice, this amendment redirects some of our U.S. currency flows
to Cuba, which in turn the dictatorship can direct towards its friends,
that is, rogue states such as Iran, Libya, and Syria. Denying
terrorists and their sponsors the resources to continue their
activities has become a critical pillar of U.S. policy in the aftermath
of the deplorable acts of September 11.
If we really want to help the Cuban people, then deny their oppressor
and vote ``no'' on the Delahunt Amendment.
{time} 1600
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this
important amendment forward. We should not be in the business of
limiting family charity. We should not tell Cuban Americans in this
country how much they can send to their families in Cuba.
As the situation now is, individuals in Cuba are only given a certain
amount that they can get through the government ration card. That does
not allow for some to have meat in their diet. Allowing individuals to
send money to their families simply allows that basic necessity. Unless
there is a child under the age of 7, for example, you are denied milk.
There is no powdered milk available for families without children under
7. This allows Cubans as a humanitarian gesture to obtain that.
Also, it should be mentioned, this is rarely enforced. I doubt
anybody in opposition to the amendment believes that families sending
in excess of $1,200 a year ought to be prosecuted. If we want respect
for the law, let us bring the law into conformity with what is
happening on a humanitarian basis.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and we are working on a series of
crucial issues in Latin America; but I have a fundamental disagreement
with the gentleman certainly on the issue of Cuba and particularly on
this amendment.
My two points that I want to make, number one, we hear a lot about
Cuban-American families and their families in Cuba, and those of us who
are Cuban Americans struggle with this all the time, the desire to help
our families, at the same time propping up a regime that oppresses
them.
But the amendment goes beyond that because the law permits
remittances from non-Cuban Americans, from ordinary Americans who have
no relationship to Cuba whatsoever, to make remittances into any Cuban
individual inside of Cuba. Now that means that the potential for
unlimited amounts of money by nonfamily members having no relationship
with Cubans on the island to send monies into Cuba would be unlimited.
And when we know of Castro's history of his support of terrorism, of
his harboring fugitives from the United States, imagine those who
support those who think about that in our own country being able to
send U.S. dollars into Cuba without restriction as to amounts or
process, not for Cuban families, but ultimately for those who wish
[[Page H8039]]
us harm. That is the risk with the gentleman's amendment and that is
the law of the land today. We, in fact, as Americans, can send money
into Cuba, and you do not have to have any family inside of Cuba. To
now permit unlimited amounts of that happening is against the national
interest of the United States and the national security of the United
States.
Finally, I would point out that yes, this does help the regime
because not only can nonCubans send money, but at the same time what
does Castro do, in order to be able to grab those dollars and for him
to control its use inside of Cuba, the only way those dollars work are
at government dollar stores which are at inflated prices and in
essence, gouge the Cuban people. He does get the money and resources,
and he gouges the Cuban people in doing so, but it is their only remedy
under this totalitarianism. So ultimately, yes, the regime gets the
money we are sending. Sending unlimited amounts without limitation and
sending it to dollar stores inside of Cuba does not make sense. The
amendment does not make sense.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sessions). Both the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, with the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) reserving the right to close.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this
amendment that would end the limit on remittances that Americans can
send to households in Cuba.
I had a chance to visit Cuba, and I met several people there doing
business on their own. I met a taxi driver, and I asked him a lot of
questions. One of the things he told me was yes, he has to give a
portion of that money to the government, but much of it stayed with
him. I said, Really, how is that done?
He said that is how it is done. He pulled out a wad, maybe this
thick, of dollars. And this is what is going on right now in Cuba.
There is nothing wrong with that. This young man, in my opinion, was
very happy that tourists like myself and others were able to visit and
spend our dollars.
And yes, there are people right now who would love to send not only
dollars but medical equipment to Cuba to help those that are ailing;
but because of restrictions, we cannot do that. We cannot do that
through normal channels. We are hurting the Cuban people, not the
government, but the people. In my opinion, $300 every 3 months is not
enough. $1,200 a year is not enough. $100 a month does not do it. I
would say that we need to support this amendment.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, just to respond to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), Cuba does receive medical
equipment. The U.S. can send medical equipment. The gentlewoman might
want to look at the law before she speaks in front of us.
Mr. Chairman, nobody wants to help the Cuban people more than the
families of those Cuban people. And by the way, no one wants to help
those people more than those Members who represent the families of
those Cuban people here in Congress, and a few of us represent the bulk
of them, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) and myself, and we get elected by those family
members that these Members of Congress are saying that they want to
help.
But what they understand is there is only one solution for the
suffering of the Cuban people, and that is getting rid of the anti-
American terrorist dictator, Fidel Castro. When we send more money that
has to be sent to the government stores and goes to the government
coffers so they can further their terrorist activities, that does not
help the United States of America. It makes no sense to help fund a
terrorist regime.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, debate has been brief, but I think informative on this
matter. The reality is that every dollar that is sent in remittances is
spent in stores. Since the economy is owned by the regime, the stores
are owned by the regime. So obviously this is a delicate issue in the
sense that many people obviously send remittances to their families
knowing that their families have to spend the remittances in the dollar
stores, and thus the remittances will end up in the hands of the regime
that oppresses the Cuban people, including the families that receive
the remittances.
But since it is a terrorist regime that engages in terrorist
activities in addition to repression of its people, that is why these
regulations, this balance, is in place. So again, there is a pattern
here. The pattern is let us increase revenues to this dictatorship.
Notice we are seeing on the floor today measures to increase revenues
to the dictatorship. Whether they come on the floor and say the
dictator is a bad guy, look at the actions. What are the effects of
these amendments, to increase revenues for the dictatorship?
So we should vote down these amendments and take further steps. For
example, when we asked in the resolution that has been alluded to
before that the prisoners be released and elections be held, not one
prisoner has been released, much less has an election been held. Let us
insist on what we asked for, and not help the regime.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I agree with the gentleman, those prisoners should be released, and
we will continue to work hopefully to secure their release. At the same
time, the gentleman cannot deny the level and magnitude of the human
rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, and we have to be equally as ardent and
vociferous in our condemnation on what occurs in that society. We have
to have a policy that is devoid of hypocrisy.
Let me go to the amendment very briefly. The reality is that Cuban
Americans who travel to Cuba, and there are many of them and they go
there frequently, they pour out of the Jose Marti Airport and embrace
their relatives there. And the reality and truth is they do bring
dollars with them far in excess of $1,200 a year, and I know if I had
family in Cuba, I would do the same because family is first.
I recognize the Cuban community and the Cuban-American family believe
in a sense of fairness. This is not to increase revenues for any
government, it is to take care of people, families. When you are in
Cuba and you are there and you are visiting not just with dissidents
but ordinary Cubans, they tell you this is a life line to survive, and
that is why we bring this amendment to legitimatize what is going on.
We know the Treasury Department does not enforce this particular
remittance, but it is to legitimatize the reality and support families
everywhere.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. 742. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to assist in overturning the judicial ruling contained
in the Memorandum and Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois entered on July
31, 2003, in the action entitled Kathi Cooper, Beth
Harrington, and
[[Page H8040]]
Matthew Hillesheim, Individually and on Behalf of All Those
Similarly Situated vs. IBM Personal Pension Plan and IBM
Corporation (Civil No. 99-829-GPM).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
September 4, 2003, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a
Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is cosponsored by the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) who is the ranking member
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht). This amendment also has the
strong support of the AARP, the largest senior citizen group in this
country representing over 35 million Americans, it has the support of
the Pension Right Centers, and the IBM Employees Benefit Action
Coalition.
This amendment is simple and straightforward. Five weeks ago, the
Federal District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ruled that
IBM's cash balance pension conversion violates Federal age
discrimination law. The conversion, Judge Murphy found, violated the
age discrimination provisions of ERISA because it discriminates against
older workers.
{time} 1615
This court decision confirms what millions of American workers have
been saying for years and what hundreds of Members of Congress have
also gone on record as stating. Conversions to cash balance pension
plans discriminate against older workers, are illegal and must not be
allowed to happen. This amendment would simply prevent the Federal
Government from using any funding to assist in overturning the Federal
district court ruling. That is what this amendment does.
By passing this amendment, we would not only be upholding the law,
which is the least we can do, but we will also be standing with
millions of workers who have lost, and are in danger of losing, 20, 30,
40, 50 percent of the pensions that they have been promised by their
employers.
Mr. Chairman, why did Judge Murphy rule against the company and
decide in favor of IBM employees? Let me just read a brief excerpt of
what he wrote:
``In 1999, IBM opted for a `cash balance formula.' The plan's
actuaries projected that this would produce annual savings of almost
$500 million by 2009. These savings would result from reductions of up
to 47 percent in future benefits that would be earned by older IBM
employees. The 1999 cash balance formula violates the literal terms of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, that is, ERISA. IBM's own
age discrimination analysis illustrates the problem.'' That is from
Judge Murphy.
Mr. Chairman, I became involved in this issue several years ago when
many hundreds of IBM employees in Vermont contacted my office and told
me that the pensions they had been promised by the company had been cut
by 30 to 50 percent. Imagine that. Workers staying at a company through
good times and bad times, providing loyalty to their employers, and
then one day the company sends out a message which says, in so many
words, thank you for your years of dedicated service, but forget about
the promises that we made to you regarding the retirement that you and
your family were anticipating. Thank you very much, but we've changed
our minds, we've pulled the rug out from underneath you, we're cutting
your pensions by up to 50 percent.
Yes, IBM had enough money to pay out a $260 million compensation
package to former CEO Lou Gerstner, $260 million to one man, but they
just could not keep their word to their long-term, dedicated employees.
And, of course, it is not just IBM that we are talking about today. It
is hundreds of companies that have done exactly the same thing. It is
companies that have broken the law, discriminated against older
American workers and slashed the pensions that those workers were
promised.
Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the middle class in this country
is hurting. Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. Their
health benefits are being cut. Corporate America has thrown millions of
American workers out on the street as they move our manufacturing
sector to China, to Mexico and anyplace that they can find where they
hire people for pennies an hour. Meanwhile, in many instances, the CEOs
of these very same companies make out like bandits.
Mr. Chairman, a segment of corporate America have destroyed American
jobs, destroyed health care benefits and now they want to destroy the
pension benefits that were promised to their workers. We must not allow
that to happen. Even corporate America, even major campaign
contributors, even folks who can spend huge sums of money by placing
full-page ads in the New York Times and elsewhere, even those people
have got to obey the law. That is what this amendment is about. It is
about obeying the law and not engaging in actions that violate Federal
age discrimination statutes. In our country, we have come a long way by
ending discrimination based on race, gender and disabilities. And today
we have got to make it crystal clear that we will not allow
discrimination against older American workers. We will not allow the
Treasury Department to use taxpayer dollars to support age
discrimination.
Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that companies with defined benefit
pension plans receive $89 billion a year in tax breaks to set up
pension plans for their workers. Out of all of the tax breaks that
companies in America receive, the tax break for pension plans is far
and away the most generous. Congress and the Federal Government should
not be providing taxpayer dollars for companies to commit age
discrimination against its workers.
Mr. Chairman, it is very important for the House to support this
amendment today. It is important, Mr. Chairman, because despite the
fact that cash balance conversions have been found to be illegal in the
courts, the Treasury Department is still pushing proposed regulations
that, if enacted, would give the green light to these very same cash
balance pension plans that the Federal court has ruled are illegal.
Clearly, the Treasury Department is intent on pushing these illegal
conversions by all means at its disposal, and we must not allow that to
happen.
Mr. Chairman, just last year, over 300 Members of the House voted to
require the Treasury Department to protect older workers in cash
balance pension conversions. I thank all of them for their support for
older American workers. In addition, over 200 Members of Congress
recently wrote a letter to urge President Bush to withdraw the proposed
cash balance regulations that are at issue here. Today we have the
opportunity to once again show our support for American workers and
oppose a plan which is unfair, immoral and illegal. I urge strong
support for this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, knowing no other Member to do so, I will
claim the time in opposition, although I do not intend to speak on the
amendment myself, but I will claim it for the purpose of yielding to
any other Members that may wish to do so.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sessions). Is the gentleman seeking
time in opposition?
Mr. ISTOOK. I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman reserves the balance of his
time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just tell my colleagues how I came into this issue in the
State of Vermont. I came into this issue when, several years ago, my
phone lines bounced off the hook because large numbers of workers at
the Vermont IBM plant in Essex Junction, Vermont, suddenly learned for
the first time that the pensions that had been promised to them were
going to be cut substantially and in some cases by up to 50 percent.
I became involved with these workers who stood up and said to the
company, you made us a promise and when times were bad, we stayed with
you, we didn't go someplace else. One of the reasons that we stayed
with you is because you
[[Page H8041]]
had promised us a certain pension that we were basing our family
retirement on. That is the promise that had been made. What these
workers did is stood up, talked to their fellow IBM workers all over
America and they fought back and they won some partial benefits as IBM
made some rescissions in what they did, but they continued the fight.
What they have said, and workers all over America have said, is we
cannot discriminate against workers simply because they are old and
move to cash balance.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me this time. I want to thank him so much for his battle
on behalf of American working families and retirees for pension
protection and safety that he has led in this Congress now for a number
of years.
Mr. Chairman, we are here again because of the relentless effort of
this administration to empower corporations to cut the pensions of
older workers in this country. If this amendment does not pass, the
Treasury Department will go forward and provide a ruling that will make
it safe for corporations to cut the pensions, the defined pension plans
of older workers. Hundreds of corporations already have filed notice
that they want to do this, they are simply waiting for the Treasury
Department to make the ruling. We were here once before, and the
Congress made a determination that this was unfair, it was inequitable,
it was mean-spirited and it was damaging the economics of retirees and
their ability to provide for their retirement.
The last time the gentleman led this effort, the General Accounting
Office came forward and studied the impact of that effort and found
that, in fact, many of these pensioners risked losing half of their
pension. So the situation today is much the same as when the gentleman
from Vermont first sounded the alarm a couple of years ago. But what
has changed is, in fact, we now have a court opinion from the Federal
District Court in the Southern District of Illinois that ruled, in
fact, that IBM had violated the age discrimination protections when it
changed its pension plan to accept a cash balance plan. What they did
there was they ruled against older workers. They were going to deny
older workers the pension benefits that they were entitled to, and they
were going to get far less than younger workers were going to get, and
that is age discrimination, because that is what they are doing. They
are discriminating against older workers, 50, 55 years old, who have
15, 20 years at a company. Now, all of a sudden, they are going to find
out that their pension plans have been cut in half.
What does that mean? That means that those people who have worked
hard, made their plans for retirement, tried to develop their
retirement nest egg so they could have a standard of living to carry
them through their retirement years. All that is now threatened, and,
essentially, it is gone. Because where does an older worker go to get
back that pension benefit when they are 50, 55 years old with that
company? They cannot do that. They cannot do that. That is the
unfairness of this. That is why AARP, the American Association of
Retired Persons, supports our amendment. That is why the Pension Rights
Center supports the Sanders-Miller amendment. That is why they support
this effort to bring equity to this effort.
What are we trying to say? Let the worker make a choice. Let the
worker choose which benefit would help them the most. Companies under
our legislation would still be allowed to convert to cash balances, but
what they would not be allowed to do is to harm older workers and their
families in the effort to do that. That is a significant amount of
money to these workers. We have heard from workers all over the country
who have e-mailed our office because they have heard that their company
is thinking about this. We have heard from people in the financial
industry, in the airline industry that have been through this, the
telecommunications industry, industrial companies from all over the
country who are now being made aware of the fact that they may lose
their pensions.
Mr. Chairman, American families are reeling in this economic
downturn. They are reeling from long-term unemployment, from rising
health care premiums, from steep declines in their savings and the
401(k) investments that were lost in the bursting of the stock market
bubble. These people are scrambling to keep their health care benefits,
to keep their pension benefits and to keep their jobs. This Congress
should not now come along and tell them that we are going to put their
pensions at risk. We know that Americans, the baby boomers, people my
age and others, who are thinking about retirement over the next 10 or
15 years are now starting to focus on whether or not they will be able
to do that. The pension plans that the administration has in order,
that the Treasury Department is trying to put in place, put all that at
risk.
I would urge my colleagues, as they have in the past on a bipartisan
basis, to support the Sanders-Miller-Emanuel-Gutknecht amendment to
make sure that, in fact, those pension plans are not put at risk and
those families are not put in that economic difficulty.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the great passion, and it is
passion that is well-placed, when we talk about the issue of pension
plans for workers and trying to make sure that there is stability and
some surety in those plans.
{time} 1630
So I appreciate that, and I realize that this is an issue that is
being hotly contested in court.
Now, I do not know enough about the intricacies of the argument to
know whether I agree or disagree that the judge has properly followed
the law or not. I do know, however, that it is really going to be
questionable whether this amendment will accomplish the intended
objective.
We have seen several amendments on this bill like that, Mr. Chairman,
where people offer an amendment and they tell everybody this will be
the effect of my amendment. But that does not make it so.
If you look at the text of the amendment actually offered, it says,
and here we are talking about the Transportation and Treasury
appropriation bill: ``None of the funds appropriated by this act may be
used to assist in overturning the judicial ruling contained,'' and then
it recites this court order that was issued out of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois in this particular case
regarding the pension plan of IBM.
Now, when the amendment says you cannot use funds from the
Transportation-Treasury appropriation bill to assist in overturning the
judicial ruling, what does that mean? Because, you see, Mr. Chairman,
it is the Department of Justice that is involved in representing the
government in this litigation.
The funds that are used to potentially file an appeal of this ruling
are the funds of IBM, and they are the funds of the Justice Department.
It is not the Treasury Department directly that is involved in this,
although obviously anything that has to do with pension plans and tax
rulings has implications for the Treasury Department.
But this amendment is not going to control what happens in that case.
I realize it presents an opportunity for different Members to stand up
and say what their position is about that particular ruling about
pension plans, but I do not think this amendment is going to bring
about the result that people desire.
This amendment does not control what the appellate court may or may
not do with the order issued in this case. That is beyond us. We are
not here to dictate to a court that this is what you must find. We are
here to determine what the law is. The courts interpret the laws. If
they do not do a good job, sometimes we will change the laws or do
something related to that court.
But this bill is not ultimately going to control the disposition of
that lawsuit. It ultimately will not control whether the underlying law
is going to be changed or not. As the Committee on Appropriations, we
do not make the tax laws. We do not make the pension laws. We have
other committees in this Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means, the
Committee on Education
[[Page H8042]]
and the Workforce, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, have roles in
part of this. But it is not going to be decided in this bill.
So I think it is important for Members to understand that whether
this amendment is adopted or not adopted is not going to control what
the underlying pension law of the United States is. It is consuming
time for the House to take up the debate, but we will take it as
Members want to. There may be other Members who want to come down to
the floor and talk about the amendment, to oppose it, just as we have
some Members that have come to the floor to speak in favor of it. But I
would not want anyone to think that we are actually deciding what will
be the pension laws or the outcome of that particular litigation when
we vote on what will happen with this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, having said that by way of explanation, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who has played a very active role in this
issue.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, just over a month ago, the Federal court
ruled that IBM violated Federal anti-age discrimination laws when it
converted from its traditional pension plan to a cash balance plan in
the 1990s. As a result, over 130,000 of IBM's longest-serving workers,
including many in my home State of Illinois, moved one step closer to
receiving the retirement benefits they rightfully earned. Despite the
court's decision, this administration is pushing regulations allowing
companies to switch to cash balance.
Let us be honest: cash balance plans can work. We can create a win-
win situation here just along the model that the Secretary of Treasury
did at CSX, where you grandfather in older workers. We do not need to
create a win-lose situation that only benefits employers and harms
employees. There is a way to create a win-win situation that reflects
the commitment of long-serving workers and older workers who are
nearing retirement, and also gives younger workers a plan like a cash
balance retirement plan that is a hybrid between both the defined
benefit and the defined contribution plans.
When Secretary Snow was at his confirmation, he talked about what
they had done at CSX when he was CEO and chairman. We always around
here laud the private sector as a model. Well, I present to you a
model, what CSX did for its own employees. It created a win-win
situation for the company and for the individuals there, whether they
were 58 and near retirement, or 38 and started as new workers. That
should be the way we approach this situation.
I am a proud original cosponsor of this legislation. I think it
reflects our values of rewarding work, loyalty, and taking
responsibility. Thousands of companies are awaiting this decision.
I, along with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my colleagues, went to
testify when there were hearings for this rule change.
It would be wrong to pull the carpet from underneath employees who
are nearing retirement, relying on that retirement, planning on that
retirement. As we say in our own legislation, if this is good enough
for the private sector, let us adopt it here in Congress. Let us have a
cash balance plan.
We all know the study that was done. It would affect older-serving
Members who have years of service here who have relied open that
retirement plan. If it is good enough for people in the private sector
who are older workers, should we try it here in Congress? The answer
resoundingly would be ``no.''
But, again, we are not going to debate today the principles
underneath this bill. What we are going to say is while this decision
is moving through the court, the funds through this appropriation
process cannot be used to go around the court and implement this plan.
Yes, later on we will debate a pension plan and reform the system. We
have the right values in this legislation. I believe it is correct to
withhold the funds to ensure Treasury does not go around the court and
have this decision work its way so we do not in any way send a signal
to other employers to pull the rug out from underneath their employees.
Let the court decision go its way. Do not allow them to fund this
process and go around the court ruling.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who has been a very active leader on this
issue.
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Vermont for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, it has been my privilege since I have been in public
life to represent thousands of IBM employees in Rochester, Minnesota.
In fact, approximately 6,000. I do not know how much of the story has
been told, but this is a serious subject.
Now, I come at this not only as a representative of over 6,000
IBMers, but I come at this as a former member of the Legislative
Commission on Pensions and Retirement. So I am not saying I am an
expert on pension policy, but this is something I probably know a
little more about than the average Member of Congress.
As the gentleman from Illinois just said, the concept of these cash
balance plans or defined contribution plans, modified defined
contribution plans, is not necessarily a bad idea. For many younger
employees who are going to change careers and jobs throughout their
careers, this probably makes some sense. But the bottom line for older
workers, workers who have been with a company for perhaps 20 years,
this is a shameless attempt to try and steal pension money. Part of the
reason that IBM lost that lawsuit in southern Illinois is because the
facts did not support their position.
I want to talk a little bit about a different dimension to this,
because I do also agree with the gentleman from Illinois; we can craft
a plan that is a win-win situation, that would allow companies to
convert their pension plans, with one caveat: that you give vested
employees a choice.
Let me just read from the dictionary the definition of the term
``vested.'' The definition is ``settled, fixed or absolute; being
without contingency, as in a vested right.''
The way you do this, Mr. Chairman, is you literally say to those
employees who have been vested that you get a choice. The companies can
make a conversion, if they want, for any new hires. They can even make
a conversion for those employees who have not vested. But at the least,
we ought to agree with this amendment that the Federal Government and
its resources should not be used to appeal this particular case. This
is a very important case.
Let me just talk to the Republicans for a minute. Understand, I am
not sure that Republicans understand what is at stake here and who
really is involved. We are not just talking about 6,000 IBMers; we are
talking about literally hundreds of thousands of other people, most of
them who are 45 years of age or older, who have been with a company for
a very long time, many of them what we would call professional people,
college-educated, technically trained people. Let me be very blunt: 75
percent of them vote Republican. They understand this issue, if it has
happened to them or if they are afraid that it will happen to them.
In fact, go back to the issue of vested. TIAA-KREFF, when they put
out a questionnaire or they put out some questions and answers when
people sign up for their various pension plans, let me read Question 7
and the answer. I do not have to read the answer.
The question is, ``When do my plan contributions become vested?'' And
then in parentheses it says ``i.e., owned by me.''
Now, what 6,000 IBMers found out, I should say probably 5,000 of them
at least who were vested, what they found out is there is no legal
definition of the word ``vested.''
They came into work one day and they had calculators. As part of
their computer tool kit on their computers, they had pension
calculators which would literally calculate for them how much their
pension would be worth if they stayed with the company until they
retired at age 65 or 66, whatever the age was. They could do their
little calculation of how much their pension was worth.
All of a sudden they came in one day and IBM changed the pension
plan. For a few days IBM made a huge mistake. They left the calculators
on the employees' computer screens. They could
[[Page H8043]]
very quickly do the calculations in terms of how much the old pension
plan was worth to them and then how much the new pension plan was worth
to them.
They did not have to be computer experts to begin to figure out that
all of a sudden they had lost, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of
dollars' worth of pension benefits that they thought were vested.
Mr. Chairman, we should not mess with this. I agree with the chairman
from Oklahoma. I do not think the Congress should be messing with this.
I do not think the administration should be messing with this. I think
this should be left to the courts.
He said, well, this is not pension law. But, understand, and I hope
the gentleman from Oklahoma is paying attention here, because pension
law is set in several different ways. First of all, it is what is in
statute. It is also what is in rule. That is what we are concerned
about.
The other thing we are concerned about that is really at issue today
is in terms of precedent in the courts. In some respects, this
administration is taking a wrong turn by getting involved in this
issue. This is an explosive political issue. If you do not believe it,
I would ask you to come to my hometown and have a town hall meeting, or
have a committee meeting, if you want to hear from 6,000 IBMers.
This is a good amendment. This is the right thing to do. It ought to
be included in this bill.
{time} 1645
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Houghton).
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr.
Sanders), wherever he is, I am going to suggest a vote against his
amendment. I have been around business many years, and I have been in
and out of pension plans in many different corporations, and this is a
dangerous amendment. I am not going to talk a long time on this thing;
I just have to tell my colleagues how I feel.
Also, I am on the Committee on Ways and Means, and I would like to
feel that we would have an opportunity to understand this and look at
it. There has been no notice on this thing whatsoever.
But the bottom line is this: the Cooper ruling threatens to drive
employers out of the pension system. Pension plans nationwide will be
burdened with huge additional liabilities, leaving workers worse off.
Is that what we want?
As a result of the Cooper decision, we understand the voluntary
pension system itself would be in danger. Is this the protection
workers need? I do not think so.
Frankly, I would urge people to vote against the Sanders amendment.
It is not going to help the people I know, the people I have worked
with, particularly the senior employees of various corporations who are
so dependent upon our defined benefit plan.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
This is an ad, I say to my colleagues, that ran in today's New York
Times and it ran in some other newspapers I think here on Capitol Hill
as well. It says, ``Don't destroy America's pension system. Vote no on
the Sanders amendment.'' It says, the Sanders amendment to the Treasury
Appropriation bill threatens to outlaw vast numbers of pension plans.''
Well, that is just outrageous. That is simply not true. We do not
outlaw any pension plans.
It goes on to say, ``Prevent pension plans from protecting employees'
pensions against inflation while they wait to receive their benefits.''
That is not true. The Sanders amendment does not do that.
All this amendment does, I say to my colleagues, is it says the
Federal Government, the Federal taxpayers should not join in this
lawsuit against workers. I mean, these workers literally have had
pension benefits stolen from them and we are saying, at least the
administration should be kept from joining sides with the company. This
is the most outrageous ad since the prescription drug ads that they
were running a few weeks ago.
Now, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and I agree on almost
nothing, but twice a year we agree on two things. One is the
prescription drug prices and the other is pension policy.
This is a good amendment. It ought to be included in this bill. It is
outrageous for the administration to join sides with companies that are
trying to steal from pensions.
I say to my colleagues, we have to understand, pensions are in trust.
We had this when I was on the pension commission back in Minnesota. One
year there was a firefighter from Winona who embezzled something like
$200,000 from the Winona Firefighters Pension Fund. And both sides came
in and said, it is not my money. It is not my money. The money that was
embezzled belonged to the city, or it was not our money that was
embezzled. And then, when the pension fund started to get better rates
of return and they were making more money than they needed, then the
groups were coming in and saying, wait a second. That is our money.
The fact of the matter is pension money does not belong to the
company and it does not belong to the employees. It is in trust. And
when they make these conversions, the real purpose is to take that
money, in effect, out of the trust and put it on to the bottom line of
the companies.
This is a good idea. This amendment should be added to this bill.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders Amendment.
This amendment is simple and straightforward. It would simply prevent
the Federal Government from using any funding to assist in overturning
the federal district court ruling that declared IBM's cash balance
pension conversion to be in violation of the pension age discrimination
laws that are on the books.
This amendment would protect millions of American workers throughout
the country who have been negatively impacted by illegal age
discriminatory cash balance pension conversions.
This amendment has the strong support of the AARP, the largest senior
citizen group in this country representing over 35 million Americans,
the Pension Rights Center and the IBM Employees' Benefits Action
Coalition.
A federal district court in Illinois has already ruled this practice
as illegal. In the case of IBM, 130,000 employees have seen their
pensions slashed as a result of IBM's cash balance scheme. The message
was clear. These cash balance plans--which slash the pension benefits
of older workers by as much as 50%--are illegal.
Despite this court ruling, it appears that the Treasury Department is
still moving ahead with proposed regulations that would give the green
light to the very cash balance pension plans that the federal court
ruled are illegal. This is wrong.
Just last year, over 300 Members of the House voted to require the
Treasury Department to protect older workers in cash balance pension
conversions, and over 200 Members of Congress recently wrote a letter
to urge President Bush to withdraw the proposed cash balance
regulations that are at issue here. Congressional intent is clear--
these conversions hurt our nation's pensioners and this practice must
stop.
But, there are some in Congress who may believe that cash balance
plans are good for American workers. Well, according to a CRS report
the Speaker of the House, the distinguished Majority Leader and others
would see their pensions slashed by as much as 69% under a cash balance
plan.
We do not tolerate discrimination against workers based on race,
based on gender and based on other criteria, and we must not tolerate
discrimination based on age.
I urge my colleagues to support the Sanders Amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Van Hollen
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
[[Page H8044]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Van Hollen:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec.____. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement the revision to Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-76 made on May 29, 2003.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
September 4, 2003, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a
Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to ensure that we have an
even playing field when the Federal Government decides to hold a
competition to contract out Federal jobs and services to private
contractors. It has been the long-standing policy of our government to
allow for public-private competitions for those services that can be
appropriately performed in the private sector, and that process is
known as competitive sourcing and it is a good process. But as part of
an ideologically-run agenda to contract out more and more Federal
Government jobs, the Office of Management and Budget, on May 29, issued
a new circular, a new ruling, and they rewrote the rules to tilt the
playing field in favor of private contractors at the expense of Federal
employees.
Now, Federal employees are happy to submit to competition. I have
thousands of Federal employees in my congressional district and they
are willing to compete with the private sector. But it is unfair to ask
them to compete with one hand tied behind their back, and that is what
the most recent OMB rewrite of the circular does; it stacks the decks
against our public employees.
There are going to be 416,000 Federal employees that will have to
submit to the new privatization process.
Now, under the current system, about 60 percent of the times when we
have these private-public competitions, about 60 percent of the time,
the Federal employees have won the bid. But according to the Private
Contractors Association, the association that represents those who
would be receiving the private contracts, according to them in their
own written statements, if the rules are rewritten, the number of times
the Federal employees could win would drop from about 60 percent to 10
percent of the time. Now, how can we predict that in advance if we have
a fair process?
Well, the reason we can predict it in advance is it is not a fair
process. It rigs the process against Federal employees, and it is a bad
deal for taxpayers, because as taxpayers, what we want is the best deal
for all of us, and to get the best deal, we want an even playing field.
And if we rig the process in one way, it is not just unfair to Federal
employees, it is unfair to taxpayers around this country, because they
are not getting the best bang for their buck.
So what does this amendment do? What this amendment does is it gives
the OMB, officials at the Office of Management and Budget, another
chance to rewrite the rules. It would keep in place the A-76 rules that
have governed the process right up to May 29 of this year. So it does
not get rid of private-public competitions, it just says let us have a
time out and take another look at these rules to make sure that they
are fair.
In fact, it does not go as far as we have gone in this House earlier
this year. In the Interior Appropriations, there was an amendment added
that got through this House that actually prohibits the Department of
the Interior from new contracting out in this coming year, to do new
reviews in this year. This amendment does not go this far. This does
not say no new contracting out. It just says let us play by the rules
that we have been playing with up until May 29 until we have an
opportunity to visit the flaws, revisit the flaws and look at the flaws
in the new process.
What are some of those problems? Number 1, the new OMB circular does
not even allow the Federal employees to submit their best bid. You have
a streamlined, fast-track process. Now, the pro-contractor commercial
activities panel have themselves said that Federal employees should
have the right to submit their best bids because of the so-called most
efficient organization process, the process by which Federal employees
can also organize themselves flexibly so that they can compete on an
even playing field, that that is designed to achieve efficiencies and
promote higher levels of performance.
Well, if the new A-76 process is about performance and efficiencies
and more competition, why is it designed so it does not allow Federal
employees the ability to organize themselves to submit their best bids
in the competition?
Another problem: The new circular does not require contractors to at
least show as part of their bids that there are going to be appreciable
savings. It would not require the contractors as part of the bidding
process to at least promise the taxpayers some financial benefit, and
that is a change. Up until May 29 of this year, we required that the
private contractor submitting that bid show that they are going to
achieve at least a 10 percent savings, or $10 million, whichever is
less, over what is being done by the Federal employees. These
contracting-out processes, these competitions cost us a fair amount of
money and time and resources to organize it. We should, at the end of
the day, at least be able to show the taxpayers that we are going to
get a better deal than at the beginning of the day. That is what the
old OMB circular did. The new one does not do that.
Another problem: It artificially inflates the cost of the Federal
employees' bids. So right off the bat, if you are the Federal employees
group, you are at a disadvantage because it arbitrarily assumes about a
12 percent overhead as part of your bid. Now, the Inspector General of
the Department of Defense has said that the 12 percent overcharge
arbitrarily slapped on in all the in-house bids is insupportable, and
that either a new overhead rate must be established or an alternative
methodology must be devised to allow overhead to be calculated on a
competition-specific basis. In fact, there has been an egregious case
recently showing how Federal employees, that their bid would have saved
the taxpayers millions of dollars over a private sector bid, and the
private sector company got the award, but it turned out that because
they had miscalculated the overhead for the Federal employees, the
taxpayers got burned.
So if the new A-76 process is being written to promote fair public
competition, why does it so dramatically inflate the overhead cost for
the in-house bids by Federal employees?
Another problem: It discourages the private sector from providing
adequate health care benefits to its employees. In other words, in
order to get the contract, the bid from the Federal Government, you in
the private sector, in order to get yourself a better deal, you submit
a package as part of your bid, it does not contain adequate health care
benefits for your employees. Obviously, that saves you money. It
essentially allows the jobs to be shipped out to somebody else who does
not provide adequate benefits.
If that is not the intention, we in this body should do exactly what
the Senate did on a bipartisan basis earlier this year in the Senate
Defense Appropriations bill, where they said that if you are the
private sector company and you are offering a bid that does not have
adequate health care benefits, then the cost of health care benefits
should not be considered as part of either bid. In other words, it
should not be factored into the Federal employees' bid, and it should
not be factored into the private contractor bid. That way, the private
contractor would not achieve an unfair advantage by providing little or
no health benefits to its employees.
So those are just some of the problems, Mr. Chairman. As I said, all
we need to do is take a time out, let us play by the rules that were in
effect up until May 29 of this year, and provide a little time to do
the rest.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.
[[Page H8045]]
{time} 1700
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as I understand this
amendment, it basically strikes the new OMB circular A-76 and would be
replaced by the old OMB circular A-76, which all the parties were
complaining about prior to this time. So the question really before the
House is, is the new circular which was met, after getting input from
all of the stakeholders, with a number of unanimous agreements on how
this should be changed and incorporated into this, after literally 700
comments were received in developing the guidelines, if this should be
changed or should we go back to the old circular A-76.
Is that a correct understanding?
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, there are certainly problems with the
old A-76 that I believe should be corrected, but I also believe that
the new A-76 is, in many parts, worse and creates a more unfair playing
field for Federal employees.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, I understand the
gentleman's position. To be sure, all of us who have dealt with these
issues, and I have, for a number of years, there are concerns about the
way the administration has gone about competitive sourcing. Two major
problems that come in: One we have fixed with this bill, and that is
when the administration goes to competitive sourcing, there is a cost
to that because you have to hire people to evaluate it. There are costs
of the government looking and revamping how they would produce a
service. You are evaluating the private sector to see how they would
provide the service. There are costs to that, and right now those costs
are not currently recaptured.
We have put language into the underlying legislation here through our
committee that will, for the first time, have the Federal Government
report on those costs so that they can be adequately waived.
The second is issue is, I think in some cases the administration is
moving too fast, doing too much competitive sourcing, more than they
can adequately handle and evaluate. We have heard there have been a
couple high-profile instances where the administration has come forward
and the evaluations have probably not been appropriate, and I think
they are biting off more than they can chew. But I do not think that
goes to the base of the A-76 reasonable or reasonable. I like the new
procedure, or if there are revamps, I would prefer not to do it through
this process. I would rather go back and evaluate it in committees. We
have held hearings and are continuing to look at this.
Remember, competitive sourcing is not the same as out-sourcing or
privatization. Its purpose is neither to downsize the workforce or to
contract jobs out. It is about harnessing the benefits of competition
to produce superior performance for the taxpayer, regardless of who
performs a service. And in almost every instance where competitive
sourcing is applied, the government ends up with a savings. Sometimes
this is done by the government employees and the government groups who
have gotten together and have retooled the way they provide the service
and do it more efficiently. Sometimes it is done by an outside party
coming in and showing that they can do it better.
There is no way to measure efficiency in government when you are a
monopoly. But if you can go out, occasionally, to the private sector
and say, what can you perform, it gives us a standard of performance, a
measurement of efficiency that we would not have otherwise.
Now, there is a problem with this that I readily concede, and it
troubles me, and it is one that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van
Hollen) and I have wrestled with. And that is, who wants to come work
for the Federal government and dedicate a career to civil service if
your job is going to be up for evaluation every 5 years, which is what
the guidelines in last year's bill called for. Twenty percent every
year was going to be looked at, of inherently non-governmental services
that the government is providing, and we would see if it could be
competitively sourced. And, basically, that meant on average every 5
years a person's job would be evaluated, and that hurts our
recruitment. It hurts our retention.
Now, the fact of the matter is, in most cases where the outside
parties win, Federal employees are offered rights of first refusal. In
fact, that is spelled out better in the new A-76 circular. That if, in
fact, the government is displaced by an outside firm, jobs are offered
to the Federal employee government to provide that service so they are
not out of work. They are no longer Federal employees. They lose some
benefits; they pick up some benefits in some particular cases. But to
be sure, there are instances that we wrestle with.
Now on May 29, the OMB published its final revisions of the A-76
process. These revisions were the first major overhaul to the
competitive sourcing process in 20 years. And this came after all
parties, but particularly Federal employees, were complaining about the
old system, a system that we return to if this amendment passes.
What we have now is a product of a 2-year effort that includes
discussions and negotiations with all stakeholders including Federal
employee groups, private sector companies. As I stated before, more
than 700 comments were taken into account in developing these new
guidelines. They also incorporated the core recommendations of the
Commercial Activities Panel. This panel, headed by the Comptroller
General, conducted a year-long review of the competitive sourcing
process and issued recommendations, most of them unanimous, for
comprehensive changes to process. And I think we have to give that
revamped process a chance to work before we willy-nilly throw it out
and go back to the old process, which everyone was complaining about.
I think the new process is, in many ways, fair. The gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and I disagree. I will address more of this
later. I urge that we oppose the Van Hollen amendment which would take
us back to the days that everyone was complaining about and just were
not working efficiently.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me respond briefly to a few of those points. There
is no doubt that whenever we do these competitions, and I think these
competitions are a good thing if done fairly, when we do these
competitions, it does cost the taxpayer money just to set them up and
run them. Just as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has said,
that is an expense.
That is why it is baffling to look at the new circular and see that,
unlike the old version, the new circular does not require that the
private contractor show some savings is going to be achieved from their
bid. It used to be you had to show at least a 10 percent savings or $10
million or whichever is less. That is not part of it any more. And yet
we will go through the expense of setting up these competitions and
taking out the one provision that ensured some kind of savings for the
taxpayer.
Number two, I share the gentleman's concern about the Federal
employee who is planning a career, investing time and energy and
knowledge in the Federal Government because the Federal employees can
win the bid and the next day they could be subjected to another round.
And within 5 years, it is required after 5 years that they be subjected
to another round of competition. There is no such requirement placed on
the private contractor.
There are many other issues. I just think it is time to send them
back to the drawing board. They may have spent a lot of time on it, but
they did not get it right. Let us let them get it right.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform,
someone who has spent a lot of time working on this issue as well and
who has been pushing the issue of fairness to Federal employees.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Van Hollen amendment to the
Transportation, Treasury Appropriations bill.
[[Page H8046]]
The amendment of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) blocks
the administration from using Federal funds to implement revisions to
the A-76 process. In effect, it prevents the administration from paying
politics with the civil service system, and it deserves my colleagues'
strong support.
Now, this week the Brookings Institution reported on the true size of
government. Unfortunately, the report is not surprising to those of us
who have watched this administration's assault on the Federal
workforce.
The Brookings Institution found that the shadow workforce of private
contractors working for the Federal Government is now 16.7 million,
which is 9.5 times as large as the civil service workforce.
This administration is not satisfied with a private contractor
workforce of 16.7 million, so it is launching yet another attack on
Federal employees.
Let me say to those conservatives who say, we want to shrink
government, contracting out does not shrink government. It is public-
funded jobs, but it is public-funded jobs in the private sector.
Taxpayers are paying for it, but these people may not have any of the
benefits, and they may not be saving us any money.
This administration is launching yet another attack on Federal
employees because the vehicle for this assault is this obscure OMB
circular called A-76, which the administration recently revised to
accelerate the transfer of Federal jobs to the private sector.
This mad rush to privatize civil service is dangerous. When the
government turns to poorly supervised private contractors, the
potential for waste, fraud, and abuse soars.
This is not just my assessment. Just read the countless GAO reports
on contractor abuses. The problem is so bad that contract management at
DOD, the Department of Energy, and NASA, the three agencies that most
heavily rely on private contractors, is on the GAO's list of high-risk
Federal programs.
Mr. Chairman, the Office of Management and Budget's Statement of
Administration Policy alleges that the Van Hollen amendment prohibits
funding for public-private competitions. It does not. The Van Hollen
amendment simply prohibits these competitions from being conducted
under the newly revised rules giving it an unfair advantage to private
contractors.
The Washington Monthly wrote last month, ``Even the Federal payroll
can become a source of patronage. . . . Bush has proposed opening up
850,000 Federal jobs, about half of the total, to private contractors.
And while doing so may or may not save taxpayers much money, it will
divert taxpayer money out of the public sector and into private sector
firms, where the GOP has a chance to steer contracts toward
politically-connected firms.''
This is not shrinking government. This is using government for
patronage. It does not create new private sector jobs. It creates
private sector public-taxpayer-funded jobs.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop this destructive effort to give
Federal jobs to private contractors who are campaign supporters. Vote
yes on the Van Hollen amendment and stop this administration's war on
Federal employees.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook) allowing me to stand in opposition to the Van Hollen
amendment.
Today what we are talking about really is the opportunity for the
taxpayer to be the winner in the work that is performed by and for the
government. This amendment obviously would require that all public-
private competitions be conducted under the old and wisely distrusted
A-76 circular.
We, in Congress, had a hand in forming not only this Commercial
Activities Panel, but I think that Congress needs to listen to the
changes that took place back in May from this body.
Essentially, what they did is they went and looked at other areas of
government that had been doing outsourcing in a positive way; what I
might call best practices, a way to look at the way things should be
done that would be better for not only government employees and also
good for those who might be bidding, but, more importantly, to really
get them up to date with the leading edge practices.
Essentially what happened was there were a lot of transparencies, a
lot of things that were recognized that needed to be changed. Some of
them had a time frame so that these competitions did not stretch on
forever. But perhaps the most important part of applying this, and
these changes, is that it is going to really offer a level playing
field. That is entirely different than the old A-76 process.
Mr. Chairman, the old A-76 was essentially a competition where
everyone bid and then the government was a part of that. These changes
will create a level playing field that I think is better for government
employees. Because what will happen is the competition will now be
under the Federal acquisition regulations, which means that government
will be able to respond to the best offer from the private sector. So
the government will be able to now respond.
Those employees will now be given an opportunity to see that bid and
to compete against that, which gives government employees a chance, not
in the whole mix, but rather specifically against the best offer to
where it is a real competition.
These are things that have been done in the Department of Defense for
a number of years.
So instead of allowing the mix where government employees would be
participating against eight or ten different proposals, they now have
an opportunity, under the revision that came from this Commercial
Activities Panel, to update the process and make it better. Government
employees now have an opportunity to compete against what is seen as
the best offer.
{time} 1715
I disagree with the gentleman from Maryland. I think really what is
trying to happen here is they are just trying to kill the whole
process, cause a smoke screen when, in fact, we, as Members of
Congress, should recognize that through a series of acts, that we have
talked about and debated on the floor of the House of Representatives
that we determine that the taxpayer needs the best that can come from
these competitions. If it is government employees, so let it be. If it
is not government employees, in a part of the business that is not
inherently governmental, then it should go to whoever can do that best,
who can do it at the best cost, who can provide it day in and day out
to the best effort of what the taxpayer is.
I will tell my colleagues that I oppose the Van Hollen amendment
because I believe that the commercial activities panel who offered many
unanimous recommendations, unanimous recommendations from people all
over, not only unions, but also other commercial bodies, people who
know the business, people who know the marketplace, people who know
what is fair so that the taxpayer can get the best dollar for what they
paid for, they are the people who studied this, they are the people who
made the recommendations, and they said they want to be fair, fairer,
best practices, not only to government employees, but also those
employees who might be in another company who are competing for
something that is part of the business of the United States government
that is not inherently governmental.
So the gentleman from Oklahoma, who is standing up today to oppose
this unwise amendment, I stand with him, also. I stand with the
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform who understands that we
must defeat the Van Hollen amendment.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Chairman, I think one thing we agree on is that what we want is
the best deal for the taxpayer, and the way to get the best deal for
the taxpayer is to have a fair competition process between the Federal
employees and between private contractors who are competing for that.
That is how we get the best deal.
What this new circular does is tips the playing field in favor of
private contractors. That is the only way the association of private
contractors would be able to predict in advance now before any of the
bids have been placed that Federal employees will only win 10 percent
of the contracts in
[[Page H8047]]
the future, in contrast to about 60 percent now.
I outlined a specific series of fatally flawed problems with the new
circular. I have not heard any response to any of them. One, Federal
employees are not given the opportunity to come forward with their best
bids; two, we are not guaranteed any savings under the new process,
although we were under the other process; three, artificially inflated
overhead costs in Federal employee bids that put them at a
disadvantage. Many other problems, unfairness with regard to health
benefits. Those are all problems.
I represent many Federal employees, and I know that the organization
that represents Federal employees, the American Federal Government
Employees Group, is against this new circular. They speak for their
fellow Federal employees. This is a bad idea, and all we are asking in
this amendment, not to get rid of the process. The idea of having a
competitive process is a good one. It is good for the taxpayers, and
when it is done fairly, it is good for everybody.
Let us go back to May 29. It still had problems but this does not fix
it. This makes it worse. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to the amendment. If my colleagues want to try
to kill the bill, and all that it does for transportation in the United
States, sure, go ahead and vote for the amendment because the amendment
will be the reason for a veto of this bill if that amendment is part of
the final product.
The statement of administration policy issued concerning this
legislation reads as follows: ``The administration understands that an
amendment may be offered on the House floor that would effectively shut
down the administration's competitive sourcing initiative. If the final
version of the bill contained such a provision, the President's senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.''
This bill is too important for that, Mr. Chairman. Anyone who does
not think they are serious should look at the current dispute over the
aviation reauthorization bill where there is much of the same issue,
where people that are Federal employees want to guarantee that work
that does not have to be performed by Federal employees nevertheless
must be performed by them, and we are having fights over that. That is
unfortunate because the taxpayers save money every time we go through
the competitive sourcing process.
Typically, most of the time, the Federal employees get to keep the
work, but they have to agree to do it in a manner that gets around some
of the normal red tape that makes everything cost more typically when
it is done by the Federal Government. This is our chance to get around
that, but the amendment that is before us will kill that opportunity.
It will kill the savings for taxpayers. And if this bill were to be
vetoed because the amendments exceed it, bulldozers across the country
would stop. Transportation projects would come to a halt if we did not
have this bill done in time to have those continue.
Effectively, this amendment would kill competitive sourcing. The
President's initiative will have real cost savings to the taxpayers.
Recent A-76 competitions have resulted in savings of 20 to 30 percent.
The Department of Defense alone expects to save $11 billion between
1997 and 2005 as a result of these competitions.
There are more savings like that in other agencies, but most of the
Federal workforce will not ultimately be affected by these things, but
we need the chance for the savings for the taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I
ask that this amendment be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government
Reform.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, again, my friend from
Maryland and I have fought a lot of battles on behalf of Federal
employees. I represent a lot of Federal employees, as he does. We
disagree about this particular amendment. I also represent a lot of
contractors, and I also represent taxpayers who at the end of the day
should be the major beneficiary from this because competitive sourcing,
I think, means not less government or more government, it means more
efficient government, and that is the goal of this. I hope the
gentleman understands that it is a question of how we get to that.
Let me make a couple of comments. I believe this is better for
Federal employees in the sense that the new OMB circular A-76 allows
the government instead of just providing cost estimates that are
compared against competition among the private sector, it almost puts
the government at a disadvantage. This allows them to compete on the
same field. It allows them to be more innovative in competing with the
outside companies, and I think, therefore, more likely to prevail.
Government basically has a chance to respond to the private sector on
the same grounds, something they do not get under the current A-76
circular and something in our hearings has been something they have
complained about. That is thrown out the window with the gentleman's
amendment.
Secondly, since OMB circular A-76 is not a regulation but it is
simply an OMB circular, OMB can put out another provision tomorrow with
minor revisions that we cannot touch. It could be worse, it could be
better, but they do not have to go through the hearing process that
they did by law to arrive at the conclusion they did here. So they
could come back, issue a new circular tomorrow that would be very
similar, could be more onerous, and we could not stop that, and that is
also a fear I have.
Right now we are in a mode where we are working with them where they
are communicating with us, where they are making changes and reacting
to some of the results of our hearings and congressional input. I fear
if this goes, that the executive branch will exercise their
prerogatives and will move ahead in something that I think could be
more disadvantageous to Federal employees.
Finally, this process is fair in the sense that if the private vector
wins a competition, the contractor has to give any displaced Federal
employees a right of first refusal for jobs. The process provides for a
10 percent cost evaluation adjustment to the incumbent services
provider, Federal employees in most instances, and Federal employees
offers do not have to comply with small business requirements or in
many cases have their past performance evaluated. Private sector
companies do.
This is not about campaign contributions. I would add to the
gentleman on the other side, contributions from unions have gone to the
people who are for this amendment and for other dissimilar amendments.
There are interest groups on all side of this issue, but let us do what
is right for the taxpayers, let us do what is right for this country.
Let us defeat the Van Hollen amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van
Hollen) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), who has not arrived yet, I offer an
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, for
necessary expenses to carry out the essential air service
program pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41742(a), there is hereby
appropriated $63,000,000, to be derived from the airport and
airway trust fund and to remain available until expended.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
September 4, 2003, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
[[Page H8048]]
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
When 9/11 hit this country, our airline industry had a crushing blow,
and the part of it that is probably hurting the most is the commuter
system out there that serves much of rural America. It is vital that we
continue the essential air service program that helps them maintain
service until they can build their business back up.
Currently, though inadvertently, this bill no longer has funding for
essential air services. My amendment is very simple. I will keep it
very short. My amendment restores the funding that was in the original
committee markup, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennyslvania (Mr. Peterson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec.____. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used by the Office of Management and Budget, under OMB
Circular A-76 or any other administrative regulation,
directive, or policy, to require agencies--
(1) to establish an inventory of inherently governmental
activities performed by Federal employees;
(2) to establish or implement any streamlined competition
procedures;
(3) to require any follow-on competition; or
(4) to implement the tradeoff source selection process for
any activities other than information technology activities.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
September 4, 2003, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a
Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that, if adopted,
will ensure Federal employees are given an opportunity to compete on a
level playing field during the Office of Management and Budget's
continued efforts to privatize the Federal workforce.
In early 2001, the Office of Management and Budget directed all
agencies, regardless of their needs or missions, to review for
privatization at least 425,000 Federal employee jobs. More than 32,000
Federal employees, I should note, reside and work in south Florida.
On May 29, 2003, OMB finalized its controversial rewrite of the
privatization process. It is referred to and has been talked about here
as OMB circular A-76. Unlike previous revisions, this latest effort has
generated an enormous amount of bipartisan criticism because of the
significant changes that have been wrought which put Federal employees
at a competitive disadvantage.
Mr. Chairman, taking jobs away from Federal employees without giving
them the chance to compete is wrong, period. Yet circular A-76 does
just that. In fact, contractors have said in writing that they believe
as a result of OMB's revisions to circular A-76, the number of
competitions won by Federal employees will dramatically decrease from
60 percent to perhaps 10 percent.
The amendment that I am offering today ensures that Federal employees
receive a fair shake in any public private competition. It is fair,
balanced and is supported by the American Federation of Government
Employees, the AFL-CIO and other major labor groups throughout the
country.
Specifically, the amendment prohibits the use of funds appropriated
by the Act to be used by OMB to require agencies to establish an
inventory of inherently governmental activities performed by Federal
employees or establish or implement any streamlined competition of less
than 6 months.
The amendment also prohibits the use of funds to be used by OMB to
conduct follow-up competitions for public-private competitions won by
Federal employees, something not required in instances where services
are contracted out, and the amendment still allows Federal agencies to
experiment with outsourcing of information technology activities.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not impose a suspension on
contracting out.
{time} 1730
Instead, it is a fair compromise between the new OMB Circular A-76
and a complete prohibition against its use. I certainly hope that my
colleagues will agree with me and vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Does anyone seek time in
opposition?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is
recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we just went through much of this same debate. Whether
you are saying you are totally restricting it or partially restricting
it, we are really talking about the same thing on the competitive
sourcing process, the A-76 process. First, the amendment the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) offers is not going to become law, because
if it is in the bill, the President will veto the bill.
We have gone through this argument before in prior years. This is a
very important initiative to the administration and to the taxpayers of
the United States to allow the opportunity for government to be more
efficient; to allow competitive sourcing that tells the private sector
and the government sector, each of you sharpen your pencils and find
the most cost-effective and efficient and successful way to do the
work.
And typically we are not talking about things that are inherently
governmental. We are talking about everything from food service
contracts to building maintenance contracts, the kind of work that does
not require someone to be a government employee either for issues of
performance or safety or security. We are not competitive sourcing jobs
that involve those areas.
If we want the taxpayers to save billions of dollars, if we want the
typical savings of 20 to 30 percent, we should not be trying to
restrict competition. Government too often claims a monopoly. We do
this because we are the government and nobody has a chance to find a
better way to do it. Give people that chance. Give people the
opportunity. We should be defeating this amendment and allowing the
administration to go forward with what is a very modest effort to
improve the competitive sourcing process.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Oklahoma, the chairman of this
committee, is most sincere, as have been other persons. The gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), for example, was here when the Van
Hollen amendment was on the floor, which I might add I support very
vigorously. That is the Van Hollen amendment. Both of them, and others,
and I see the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) rise again, are
likely to speak of wasteful government spending. I agree with them;
this government has its fair share of wasteful spending. What I do
disagree with, what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) just said
is that if this measure is to pass that it will not become law because
the President and his administration have indicated that they will veto
the measure.
Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that
we have a constitutional responsibility here, as does the President.
The President can veto anything he wants to; and if we are of a mind,
with two-thirds of the vote, we can override a Presidential veto. So it
can be overridden and can become law, and there is a substantial number
of people who feel it ought to become law.
[[Page H8049]]
Now then, I also would ask the chairman to take into consideration
when he and I came to the United States Congress in 1992. Shortly
thereafter, in 1994, the majority won the right to control the House of
Representatives. And among the things that they said that were going to
cost less by privatizing were such things as the printing that is done
here at the House of Representatives, or at least was at that time, and
the folding offices and other offices that have now been outsourced.
In addition to the inherent danger that exists by not having an in-
house family, I defy anybody in the House of Representatives to tell me
that the printing of their newsletters and other matters does not cost
more now that it has been privatized. And there are other examples of
that. One of the worst would be the Federal Aviation Authority. I am
here to tell my colleagues that all of us that fly do not want to get
on airplanes knowing that the people on the ground controlling that
airplane's direction went to the lowest bidder.
Somewhere along the line, we have to come to our senses. Auctioning
off 425,000 Federal employee jobs to the lowest bidder is not the way
to produce savings. If we are to say that public-private competitions
will produce savings, then that is fine. But Federal employees have the
right to compete for their jobs in a nonpredetermined way, where real
savings win out over cutthroat politics.
Federal employees do not want a free ride. They want a fair shot. My
amendment does not halt the administration's efforts to reduce wasteful
government spending. And every one of us uses that rhetoric ought to be
about the business of trying to reduce wasteful government spending,
including that done by the House of Representatives. In fact, it allows
agencies to move forward with the implementation of Circular A-76.
What my amendment does do is ensure that Federal employees are given
equal footing to the contractors they are bidding against in public-
private competitions. It is time for open hunting season on Federal
employees to end. Only then will we fully recognize what best value and
cost savings really are.
I challenge the subcommittee Chair, my good friend, and he is my good
friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), to tell me how it
is that we here in the House of Representatives know more about what is
good for Federal employees than the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees, the Communication Workers of America, the
International Association of Firefighters, the International
Association of Machinists, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers,
the Service Employees Union of America, the National Association of
Government Employees, National Treasury Employees Union, Professional
Airways Systems Specialists, Service Employees Union, and the United
Auto Workers.
Somewhere along the line, some of us need to recognize that these
people who are Federal employees probably know at least as much as
those of us who are Federal employees by election know. I suggest among
other things that not only does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis) represent contractors, but so do I and 433 other Members of the
House of Representatives. And not only he represent Federal employees,
but so do I and 433 other House of Representatives Members. We all
represent the constituency in America that should have a fair shot at
low-cost and less wasteful spending, which their A-76 does not
guarantee. And so, Mr. Chairman, I ask support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do not know where to start
with my friend from Florida on this. I guess we can compare
endorsements of his position on this and mine. He has listed a group of
unions, some of them Federal employee unions, some who have nothing to
do with Federal employment who are interested, obviously, in protecting
their membership. We understand that, and that is a noble purpose.
Our purpose here is not to protect contractors; it is not to protect
employees. It is to protect the taxpayers. And that is what competitive
sourcing is all about, and trying to do it in an appropriate way that
does not destroy the Federal workforce. In some cases, as I have said
before, I am not comfortable with every aspect of what the
administration has done. But we are working hard and we have language
in this underlying legislation that addresses some of those concerns.
The Aerospace Industries Association, the American Congress on
Surveying and Mapping, American Electronics Association, U.S. Chamber
of Congress, American Institute of Architects, Associated General
Contractors of America, Business Executives for National Security,
Contract Services Association of America, Design Professionals
Coalition, Electronic Industries Alliance, and I can go on and on with
National Defense Industrial Council and the National Federation of
Independent Businesses support and oppose the gentleman's amendment. So
we have groups on both sides that add value to this, and our job is to
try to synthesize this.
Last year, I was part of a group in the House that struck down the
administration's quotas, their goals that they were going to go out and
competitively source a certain percentage. I thought that was wrong. I
thought that was an overreach. I thought they were biting off more than
they could realistically chew and manage. And I think in some cases
where they are today that issue can be addressed, but I do not think
the gentleman's amendment addresses those concerns.
This would hamstring the Office of Management and Budget's new
competitive sourcing process that was arrived at after weighing 700
comments, after going through the union recommendations of a council
that included labor leaders and other government personnel.
Competitive sourcing, also known as public-private competition, is
simply a process of determining if the government's commercial
functions, like computer services, food services or maintenance, should
be performed by Federal agencies or by private sector companies. Our
job is to try to get the best services for the taxpayer, the best
value, the lowest-cost value, the overall best value. One of the
problems with the gentleman's amendment is it strikes at the heart of
best-value determinations.
The Hastings amendment limits the agency's use of best value in
determining whether a commercial function should be performed in-house
or by the private sector. This does not make sense in my judgment,
because under our acquisition system, the government buys its more
sophisticated goods and services using this best-value method. It
permits the government to consider quality as well as cost, and that
helps Federal employees, because the quality element has to be clearly
set forth in the solicitation. And cost, of course, has to be a factor,
but value is not new. It has been used for decades by the government,
and it makes no sense to limit its use here.
Our Federal employees ought to be able to use their experience and
their expertise in high-quality performance to their advantage in
public-private competition, and the gentleman's amendment takes that
away. That is a concern. I think it is well meaning, but I think it
takes away the advantage that incumbents who were performing this have
in terms of quality. Commercial entities and private citizens would not
buy services without considering the quality, so why should the
government? And the gentleman's amendment strikes that.
Now is not the time to tinker with these revisions in this setting,
in my opinion. Again, the revisions are the product of more than 2
years of efforts. Seven hundred comments were considered in the
development of the new procedures. They incorporated the core
recommendations of the Commercial Activities Panel. This panel, again,
headed by the Comptroller General in a year-long effort, reviewed the
competitive sourcing process, which was clearly flawed, and which all
sides, from Federal employees to contractors to
[[Page H8050]]
taxpayers, everyone felt it was flawed and needed revamping. They
issued recommendations, this panel did, for comprehensive changes to
the process. These efforts resulted in the revisions to Circular A-76,
which the gentleman now wishes to strike. It was issued on May 29.
We have held hearings on this. I have some concerns, as the gentleman
does, about this as well; but I would rather not throw literally the
baby out with the bath water, good things like competitive sourcing
that come with this. We recently held a hearing to examine the recent
revisions to the competitive sourcing A-76 process, and the Comptroller
General testified that significant savings result no matter who wins
the competition.
The Office of Management and Budget has just submitted a report to
Congress on the methods used by the administration to measure agency
progress in implementing the competitive sourcing initiative. OMB has
pledged to keep Congress fully apprised of that progress and to conduct
the initiative in an open and transparent manner. Let us give them a
chance.
And, again, we have put some underlying language in this bill that
puts some strict reporting requirements on the costs to the government
of competitive sourcing so we can come back and properly evaluate this.
This is something we did not have before.
The Hastings amendment derails the administration's efforts to
increase the efficiency of government operations. You can say you are
for efficiency, you can say you are against wasteful spending, but if
you cannot compare how the government is providing a service to how
someone else may be able to provide that same service, I do not know
how you get at the waste, fraud and abuse. Because waste, fraud and
abuse does not come in neatly tied packages in line items and budgets.
It is marbled throughout the bureaucracy in the way we do business.
Competitive sourcing, particularly the new A-76 Circular, gives our
government employees an opportunity to compete on an even basis under
the Federal Acquisition Regulation, something they cannot do now. Right
now they have to come up with projections and respond to competitive
sourcing on the part of the private sector; the private sector winner
is then compared against the government price. This allows them to
compete even up, to be more innovative, and to, in many cases, improve
the way employees deliver that service.
In my experience, I have found that some of the best savings and
efficiencies we get do not come from the managers in the Federal
Government or the higher-ups. They come from that employee out the
window who is doing the job every day that may come up with that key
idea or innovation in the way we can do this.
{time} 1745
The new A-76 circular takes that into account and basically gives
additional empowerment to that employee at the window to be able to
come forward with their ideas and incorporate those into the government
bid. Under the old circular, that was not really the case.
I understand the gentleman's frustration. I think all of us feel a
frustration, as I have said before. Our concern is constant competitive
sourcing can hurt the recruitment and retention abilities to develop a
strong Federal workforce, and yet it is a useful tool that needs to be
employed. I think perhaps it has been overemployed. There are probably
costs that we are not aware of at this point, but we have tried to get
at this with underlying language, but I think the gentleman's amendment
goes too far.
We want to harness the benefits of competition to produce superior
performance for the taxpayer, regardless of who performs the service
because at the end of the day, our job is to make sure that taxpayers
are getting the best value for their dollar. The gentleman's amendment
undermines our ability to do that, so I urge we vote against the
Hastings amendment.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hastings amendment.
I support this amendment because it will allow agencies to move
forward with the implementation of Circular A-76.
This amendment does not end efforts to reduce wasteful government
spending as many Republicans claim. It simply ensures that Federal
employees are on a level playing field with the contractors they are
bidding against.
Under the current draft of A-76, Federal employees are severely
disadvantaged during any public-private competition.
This amendment is a moderate approach toward reforming the
administrator's privatization process by prohibiting funds from being
spent to penalize Federal employees and stifle the competitive process.
Federal employees don't want to be given an advantage, they simply
want a fair shot.
I stand by Congressman Hastings and the Democrats who have
consistently stood with Federal employees.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Florida
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Florida:
Page 157, after line 2, insert the following new section:
Sec. 742. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the
amendments made to section 515.565(b)(2) of title 31, Code of
Federal Regulations (relating to specific licenses for
``people-to-people'' educational exchanges), as published in
the Federal Register on March 24, 2003.
(b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to the
implementation, administration, or enforcement of
515.560(c)(3) of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
September 4, 2003, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, in March of this year, the Department of Treasury,
Office of Foreign Asset Control, OFAC, proposed a regulation which
would end licenses for travel to Cuba for educational purposes unless
the travel consisted exclusively of students taking formal case work.
This amendment blocks that proposed regulation from taking effect by
blocking any funding to enforce it.
Earlier this year I traveled to Cuba with the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe). We met with governmental officials, the Bishop of the
Methodist Church, leading dissidents, including Vladimir Roca, Espinosa
Chepe, and others.
I left there struck by the horrific plight of the Cuban people who
are living of abject poverty deprived of any freedom or liberty we tend
to take for granted here. I left there struck by the enormous talent
and potential of the Cuban people; and finally, I left there struck by
how much we have in common, folks in my home, the Tampa Bay area and
Florida, with the Cuban people.
I also left there with the resolve that because of the miserable
relationship between the two countries, it is more important than ever
that we as United States citizens reach out to the Cuban people to help
them deal with this very horrific plight they are living in today.
Shortly after I returned, the relationship between the two governments
deteriorated even further with an unprecedented really horrific
crackdown by Fidel Castro of some of the people I met with. Three of
the people I met with have been sentenced to prison, perhaps for the
rest of their lives, and countless others were sentenced to prison
simply because of their fight for freedom.
I believe today what we need to do as the House of Representatives is
to preserve the ability of United States citizens to travel to Cuba for
purposeful contact with the Cuban people to help them help themselves.
Educational institutions, churches, not-for-profits have been engaged
in this type of travel for years under the educational license that
OFAC provides.
[[Page H8051]]
The proposed regulation was proposed to punish Fidel Castro for the
horrific things he has done. I think the House of Representatives
should block that regulation because it, in effect, punishes the Cuban
people. Let me cite some examples why: There are universities that are
taking teachers down to meet with teachers in Cuba to have an exchange.
That could be potentially blocked if this new regulation is not
stopped. There are cultural exchanges where people in my community are
trying to encourage artists and other creative people from Cuba to
travel to the United States and people from the United States to travel
to Cuba to build bridges. There are doctor-to-doctor exchanges focused
on women health that have been taking place, and lawyer-to-lawyer
exchanges focused on helping improve the civil justice system.
All these exchanges which clearly benefit the Cuban people could
effectively be brought to an end if this regulation is not blocked.
These are the type of exchanges and the purposeful type of travel to
Cuba we should be encouraging at this time when Fidel Castro is engaged
in a horrific crackdown of his own people. We should not be afraid to
export democracy to Cuba, and I urge the House to adopt this amendment.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Davis
amendment. Earlier this year after careful review and examination of 4
years of data of so-called educational exchanges, the Departments of
State and Treasury determined that nondegree travel is subject to
manipulation and control by the Castro dictatorship and its tourism
industries in order to meet the regime's political and economic agenda.
The objective of the new regulations is for travel to support the Cuban
people and not the dictatorship that enslaves and oppresses them day in
and day out.
The Davis amendment seeks to repeal this restriction and allow the
facade to continue. The regulations implemented in March of this year
and which this amendment seeks to repeal are to prevent what Members
see here. This is Varadero Beach in Cuba. This article, which appeared
in the September 3 edition of the Washington Post Express goes on to
say, ``The rumba party is not over yet for U.S. travelers to Cuba, but
it may be time to grab that last dance.'' The article explains how the
March regulations have sent the so-called nonprofits ``scrambling to
redesign their tours'' to qualify under the legitimate categories of
people-to-people exchanges. Just doctor up the brochures, they are
still junkets, they are still for tourists, just dress it up so it
appears to be an educational exchange, people to people.
Again, this picture is worth a thousand words because it clearly
unveils what this amendment and others offered here today are truly
about. It is not to educate the Cuban people about freedom and
democracy, it is to have tourism dollars flow to Fidel Castro, and this
is people-to-people contact. This is education. When tourists meet the
cabana boy and he gives them a beach towel, they are going to export
democracy to Cuba? No, they are going to fuel the Castro dictatorship
regime which goes to oppress the Cuban people. Vote against the Davis
amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2
minutes.
What the March regulations by President Bush have sought to do is to
eliminate fraud and abuse by those who, under the guise of promoting
educational travel, and of course, that is legal to the communist
island have used that as a subterfuge for other reasons, fraudulently
abusing the regulations.
For example, here is a brochure. This is precisely what President
Bush sought to eliminate in the March regulations. This is an 8- or 9-
year-old girl with makeup, eyeliner, and lipstick. Unfortunately, the
regime in Cuba encourages child prostitution and there is significant
trafficking in that tourism. That is something that President Bush has
sought to eliminate by entities using the guise of educational travel,
for example, which promote this kind of sickening tourism.
Our colleague from Florida pointed out how blatant tourism also is
encouraged under the guise of educational travel. Again, educational
travel, cultural travel, that is legal, but what President Bush's
regulations in March sought to do was to end the fraud and abuse of
entities that are simply seeking to encourage revenue for the regime
and in the process do horrendous things such as this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear this is not a debate about tourism,
and it is not a debate about illicit activity. It is about whether
certain kinds of educational activities can occur. It is fair to point
out that there is abuse as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) noticed.
I think both sides can agree that OFAC is perfectly willing to deny
applications for licenses where they see fit. That is painfully clear.
And where there is abuse and fraud, OFAC can do its job and deny a
license. OFAC has the authority conferred upon it by Congress to impose
both civil and criminal penalties in cases of fraud. That is not the
issue.
The question is whether the types of examples I have cited, the
exchanges where universities are taking teachers down there who do not
happen to be students engaged in formal case work, instances where
doctors or lawyers are going down there on a peer-to-peer basis should
be allowed to continue. There can be no basis to deny that does benefit
the Cuban people, and should be something that ought to be allowed to
continue.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance
of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the issues that the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) mentioned are still legal without
his amendment. The rule change was to get rid of abuses, and the abuses
we are talking about are very unfortunate. They include pedophilia and
sex tourism, and those are the abuses that the new rules were
implemented to stop.
Let me be very clear. All these amendments that we are seeing today
basically have one effect and one effect alone, to send more dollars to
anti-American terrorist just 90 miles away from the United States who
has said that he wants to destroy the United States, who has shot down
unarmed American airplanes in international air space, and who has done
everything in his power to enslave his people and to try to hurt the
United States. All these amendments do is send more money to this
terrorist regime at a time when we are at war with terrorists around
the world.
I agree with our President when he said you are either with us or
with the terrorists. These amendments, with all due respect,
unfortunately, are sending more funds to a terrorist regime and this
particular amendment gets rid of some regulations to stop abuse,
including those that go to Cuba with the excuse of going for
educational reasons, and they go unfortunately in many cases for sexual
tourism, including the most tragic and savage of them all, including
pedophilia, which is sanctioned by the government of Cuba.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I think it is perfectly clear this is not a debate about the types of
illicit activity that have been mentioned on the other side. It is not
a debate about terrorism. It is a debate about whether certain types of
educational activities should be allowed to continue which I believe
benefit the Cuban people, and there has been no suggestion to the
contrary, a peer-type relationship.
We need to begin to help the Cuban people plant the seeds of
democracy in their country. Goodness knows, it is a terrific task for
them to undertake given how repressive this regime is. I saw firsthand
the plight of the Cuban
[[Page H8052]]
people. My heart went out to them. We cannot ignore that. We need to
reach out and use United States citizens to help build democracy, the
same way democracy was built in this country.
{time} 1800
Ultimately, people are the bridges between countries. It is those
relationships that will once again, once Fidel Castro is gone, bring us
closer to Cuba and help us grow together as democracies. We cannot
build those relationships, we cannot see them grow unless we continue
to have the type of purposeful travel, the type of contact that I have
described today. And I would urge my colleagues to adopt this
amendment, so we can continue, at a minimum, to allow people who are
trying to help the Cuban people travel to Cuba to do so.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Davis) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mica
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mica:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 742. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
unless the Corporation submits all quarterly and annual
reports required by law in accordance with the standards
applicable to reports under Public Law 107-204).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4, 2003, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a simple amendment. It says that none of the funds made
available under this act may be used by the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation unless the corporation submits all quarterly and annual
reports required by law in accordance with the standards applicable to
reports under Public Law 107-204.
Public Law 107-204 is basically the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate
reporting legislation that was passed after the Congress and the
American people realized the extent of the problems brought about by
the Enron scandal. In Enron, we had an instance where about $600
million, less than $1 billion, of investor money was lost through
private investments in a corporation.
We have a corporation that was created, again the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation, also known as Amtrak, almost every year for the
last 4 or 5 years, they have lost $1 billion or in that neighborhood.
Much of this is subsidized by the taxpayer. Hardworking Americans send
their dollars to Washington, and not a whimper has been heard about the
lost money or unaccounted-for money in Amtrak.
We passed a law that required corporations across the land, and
Amtrak is a corporation, this rail corporation, even by its name I just
cited, is a corporation and all this says, that existing current law,
nothing new, nothing greater, that was passed by this Congress for
transparency, for accountability, be also known and be it clear that
Amtrak is required to report on the same basis.
We think it is very important. I will tell you why it is important.
Again, as a member of the Subcommittee on Railroads under the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, let me just cite some of the
things that the General Accounting Office 2000 report gave to our
committee and to Congress. It found that Amtrak did not know its route-
by-route costs of its mail and express program because it never
separately identified these costs. It said in the report, according to
an Amtrak official, Amtrak still has a long way to go in producing
reliable mail and express financial information and in understanding
the true cost of this business.
Again, Amtrak is a corporation that has a board of directors, it has
an employee stock ownership plan, it has assets and liabilities, and it
also has taxpayer money coming into the program. We cannot tell,
according to the GAO report, its finances. So I think it is long
overdue that we take a step such as this and require that they comply
with existing law that all other corporations must comply with. The
report further went on and looked at a review of Amtrak's expenditure
of $2.2 billion in Federal funds from the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act. It
found that Amtrak could not determine how it was spending its Federal
funds, nor was Amtrak able to ensure that its spending was allowed
under Federal law.
So Amtrak, according to the Inspector General, does not even know
what it is required to do under existing law. This is merely a
clarifying, enunciating statement by this Congress that the same
disclosure, the same standards that we require for corporations, it is
clear that Amtrak as a corporation must also comply with. In fact, the
report goes on to say that at one time Amtrak did not even have a
process in place to review its spending practices. So we have questions
again raised, and this is not something I made up. This is a General
Accounting Office February 2000 report, telling us that there is not
clarity in which laws or even which standards of reporting at Amtrak.
We are not creating any new law under this particular provision. What
we are doing is saying that Amtrak, that is taking a huge amount of
taxpayer money, in the billions, going into debt in addition to the
money that Congress is appropriating in the billions, and we are not
able to say that it even complies with existing law. So this is a
requirement to have Amtrak comply with existing law.
Why should Amtrak not be held to the same standards and
accountabilities and reporting requirements that Congress has imposed
on corporate America? That is the question I leave before the House.
Point of Order
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts
insist on his point of order?
Mr. OLVER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is that this proposes
to change existing law and constitutes legislating in an appropriation
bill, and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
I insist upon my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does anyone wish to speak on the point of
order?
Mr. MICA. To the point?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Yes, to the point of order. The gentleman
from Florida wishes to speak on the point of order. The gentleman is
recognized.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, on this point, I am an authorizer, and I am
very much aware that we do not want to authorize on appropriations
measures, so we tried to craft this measure very carefully. In crafting
it, we have used language that says, and again I quote from my
amendment, in accordance with standards applicable to reports under
Public Law 107-204. Public Law 107-204 is a law that applies to
corporations in the United States of America. I have a copy of that
here. Amtrak is the National Passenger Rail Corporation. It has a board
of directors. It has an employee stock ownership plan. It has assets
and liabilities. Additionally, it is taxpayer-funded. We have not gone
outside of the parameters of existing law. There is a question, it
appears from the General Accounting Office reports that I have cited,
that Amtrak does not know what the bounds of the current laws are. This
particular report was done prior to the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley
legislation, Public Law 107-204. Again we are not requiring any new
legislation, any new law. We are stating again that none of the funds
made available under this act would be used by this corporation unless
the corporation submits their quarterly and annual reports as required
by law and in accordance with the standards of an existing
[[Page H8053]]
law, merely clarifying, and I think it is an important point here that
we make, that we do not go beyond any existing law requirements.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does anyone else wish to speak on this
point of order?
It is the opinion of the Chair that the gentleman from Florida has
been unable to carry his burden of proving that the standards in the
relevant statute are already applicable to reports by the Corporation.
Barring that proof, the Chair is constrained to find that the amendment
would make these standards applicable. By making standards apply that
are not otherwise applicable, the amendment changes law in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The amendment is
not in order.
Are there further amendments?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Mica) having assumed the chair, Mr. Terry, Chairman pro tempore of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2989)
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and
Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2004, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________