[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 109 (Tuesday, September 14, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7121-H7126]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5025, TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 770 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 770
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5025) making appropriations for the
Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and independent
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and
for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. During consideration of the bill
for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is, Will the
House now consider House Resolution 770.
The question was taken; and (two thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the House agreed to consider House Resolution 770.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 770 is an open rule that
provides for consideration of H.R. 5025, the Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act
for fiscal year ending September 30, 2005. The rule waives all points
of order against consideration of the bill.
The rule also provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides that the bill shall be
considered for amendment by paragraph. Further, the rule authorizes the
Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed
their amendments in the Congressional Record. And, finally, the rule
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations had an extremely
difficult task this year in funding the many needs of our Nation. They
answered the call by diligently working to produce a bill that deals
with our needs in a whole host of areas, including the Department of
Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, along with the Postal
Service and the Executive Office of the President.
In total the bill provides $89.8 in total budgetary resources. This
funding represents the commitment of this Congress to provide the
necessary resources for programs and projects across the Nation. The
bill provides close to $35 billion in highway spending, a boost of $1
billion over last year's guarantee. This amount fully funds the House-
passed authorization level and will go a long ways towards constructing
and improving highways and roads in our communities.
Transit spending of over $7 billion includes over $1 billion for new
fixed guideway systems. Amtrak is provided with $900 million, which is
equal to the President's request. Included in this funding is $500
million for capital improvements and $60 million to ensure that
important commuter operations continue.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill also provides significant support
for the Federal Aviation Administration with a total of $14 billion.
This includes $3.5 billion for the Airport Improvement Program and $102
million for Essential Air Service. The total FAA funding also includes
$9 million above the budget request in order to hire and train
additional traffic controllers.
From highways and transit programs to airports and the FAA, the
underlying bill ensures that we have a reliable and stable
transportation infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill also
gives support to the Treasury Department, bringing their appropriation
to over $11 billion. Included under the General Services Administration
is over $90 million in funding for new border stations. This will not
only enhance protection of our borders but also improve commercial
efficiency. The bill also includes an increase of $2.8 million for the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which is tasked with implementing
the Treasury Department's anti-money laundering regulations.
Also included in the bill is considerable funding for support of
national anti-drug efforts. The Office of National Drug Control Policy
is provided with just over $468 million. Within that funding is
assistance to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign and full
funding for the Drug-Free Communities program. This funding is
essential to keep our children safe from drugs through education and
community support.
Mr. Speaker, there are many more vital programs funded in the
appropriations bill that I have not mentioned but that I know will be
highlighted in detail during our debate later today.
I would like to commend the chairman and ranking member of both the
full Committee on Appropriations and the subcommittee for their hard
work on this extensive bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill and the
underlying rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, sadly, the best that can be said of this fiscal year
2005 Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
bill is that it represents a valiant effort to fund the important
agencies it covers despite a grossly deficient budget allocation. The
subcommittee's fiscal year 2005 budget allocation is $389 million less
than the President's request and $2 billion than the level of budget
authority provided in the fiscal year 2004 Omnibus Appropriations bill.
So, therefore, I want to be begin by thanking the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), ranking member, for their hard work and
diligence in bringing this bill forward under very difficult and trying
circumstances. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member, also deserves
credit for helping to craft a bipartisan bill that attempts to spread
the pain of this pitifully inadequate budget allocation equally.
[[Page H7122]]
That being said, the fact remains that this appropriations bill does
not meet the very real and growing needs of our Nation in a number of
areas, particularly with respect to our deteriorating transportation
infrastructure. And, Mr. Speaker, that simple fact is especially hard
to reconcile with this administration's reckless fiscal policies of tax
cuts for the wealthy.
This fiscal year 2005 Transportation, Treasury Appropriations bill
provides $89.9 billion in total funding, an increase of $1 billion over
the President's request and $495 million below the fiscal year 2004
level. Discretionary spending is capped at $25.4 billion, which is $2.9
billion below the fiscal year 2004 level.
Among the more glaring shortcomings of this appropriations bill is
the continued, conscious and deliberate underfunding of Amtrak. This
recurring game of brinksmanship with our national passenger rail system
has simply got to stop. During their brief tenure, David Gunn and his
management team have made significant improvements in the operational
efficiency of Amtrak by cutting waste and reducing expenses while
increasing ridership and raising revenues. However, despite these
impressive gains, there still exists a massive $6 billion backlog of
critical capital improvements, created in large part by years of
deferred maintenance along the Northeast Corridor, which absolutely
must be addressed.
No less than the Inspector General has stated that Amtrak needs $1.5
billion annually just for its capital needs. Mr. Speaker, this capital
backlog is not imagined. It is very real and we need to provide
sufficient funding to address it.
The $900 million provided for Amtrak in this appropriations bill is
half of the $1.8 billion Amtrak says it needs next fiscal year to keep
the system operating reliably and to begin to address its capital
backlog. If this $900 million in funding is allowed to stand, Amtrak
will likely cease operations in mid-2005. If my colleagues doubt that,
perhaps they should update their resume and apply for Mr. Gunn's job.
Otherwise, do not be surprised when the trains stop running in the
spring of next year and no private rail carrier steps up and offers to
operate passenger service without a public subsidy. My colleagues
should consider themselves warned.
Mr. Speaker, the underfunding of Amtrak in this appropriations bill
is compounded by a reduction in spending on new starts projects within
the Federal Transit Administration's budget. At a time when our cities
and towns are choking from congestion and the transportation
reauthorization bill is mired in election year politics, we can
scarcely afford to underfund projects which promote public transit. I
have cities in my congressional district like Fall River in
Massachusetts, which has 92,000 residents and is located only 50 miles
south of Boston but has no access to commuter rail service. In these
tough fiscal times, the FTA's new start program represents the only
hope of expanding commuter rail to cities like Fall River. We should be
increasing funding for new starts, not reducing it.
Equally as troubling to me is the dramatic decrease in funding for
Federal Aviation Administration facilities and equipment. This fiscal
year 2005 appropriations bill provides $392 million less for FAA
facilities and equipment than the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. As
the commercial airline industry continues to recover from the terrorist
attacks of 9/11 and consumer confidence returns, we must not jeopardize
the safety and the security of America's airways by short-changing the
agency's staffing equipment or facilities.
{time} 1545
In the Committee on Rules earlier today, Mr. Speaker, several
amendments were offered to the rule, motions that would have provided
protections for important amendments so that they could be debated and
voted on right here on the House floor today. If the Committee on Rules
had approved these motions, the House would have had the opportunity to
debate and to vote on these amendments today. Unfortunately, as has
become kind of regular order in the Committee on Rules, the Committee
on Rules, on party-line votes, denied providing the necessary
protections for these amendments, and they cannot be voted on today.
The first amendment brought to the Committee on Rules by the ranking
member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), would have
increased funding for Amtrak by $300 million. The cost of the amendment
would be paid for by a small reduction in the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
for any person making more than $1 million. This amendment would
provide badly needed funds for Amtrak; and, as we all know, Amtrak
desperately needs increased funds if it is to continue providing the
services that all of our constituents rely on.
The second amendment would have protected from a point-of-order
language already included in the bill that allows government jobs to be
privatized only if such actions would save at least $10 million or 10
percent of the program's cost. The Office of Management and Budget has
been working on a proposed rule that puts civilian employees at a
competitive disadvantage to noncivilian employees. This language would
ensure that the civilian employees have a level playing field when it
comes to competition with noncivilian employees.
Additionally, it would provide that taxpayer funds are properly
spent, which is simply not the case under the new OMB guidelines. In
other words, by leaving this provision unprotected, this important
language, originally adopted in the committee, can be struck from the
bill, making it much easier to privatize important Federal jobs.
The third amendment offered in the Committee on Rules today would
have protected a provision in the bill that provides a 3.5 percent COLA
for Federal civilian employees. This is the same level the President
proposed for members of the Armed Forces; and while all of us support
our troops and we want to ensure that our troops and their families are
paid what they deserve, we cannot and we must not forget about the jobs
that civilian and Federal employees do each and every day. In fact, I
strongly believe we should provide Federal employees with equal pay
adjustments.
Beyond that, a fair pay adjustment is needed to keep pace with
private sector salaries so the Federal Government can compete for
quality employees in the future.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on a special note, I want to publicly commend
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for raising the very important
issue of foreign truck certification in the full committee markup of
this appropriations bill. As a former member of the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the lead sponsor of the Safe
Highways and Infrastructure Preservation Act, I am keenly aware of the
danger bigger trucks, foreign or domestic, pose to the American driving
public on our interstates and highways. I would strongly encourage
Members to take this issue very, very seriously and to immediately
insist on stringent safety and environmental standards for foreign
trucks.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I looked over the transcript from last year and noticed
how similar the debate is coming from my colleague, as the presentation
was: we have to keep spending more money. There is not a district or a
State or, quite frankly, a region of the country that does not feel
that there is more need in transportation appropriations, whether it be
this or from the trust fund; but the reality is, it becomes a time to
look at working within a budget, working within the allocations.
I also want to remind my colleague that while the Committee on Rules
is a traffic cop, deciding many things that comes before the Congress
as it comes from committees to the floor, we have to be a little
careful of just how much legislating we do on appropriations bills. I
do not have to remind my colleague that there was a great deal of
legislating on the appropriations bills via the amendments offered
before the Committee on Rules today, thus making a decision not to make
them in order, as they were not germane; and also there becomes the
subject of looking at paying for some of this by raising taxes.
Now, I look at the fact that there is a tax cut on the books and it
is the law of the land, and that is the rate and what people are going
to pay. Every
[[Page H7123]]
time we want to add something by taking it from the tax cut, we are
raising taxes. I think the Committee on Rules, at least on the
Republican side of the aisle, did not want to get into raising taxes.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is not an easy budget. The entire 13
appropriations bills and the transportation bill is no easier than the
others that we have moved before us or a few that we have to complete
our work on. But the fact is, the Committee on Appropriations has
worked hard. They have worked under the allocations that they had
available, and we should always be on the lookout for an opportunity
where we can provide assistance in transportation needs as money
becomes available.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to say I appreciate the gentleman's response, but I would
just suggest that his priorities and the priorities of his leadership
are wrong. What we are suggesting here is that we do have serious needs
in this country, and the gentleman admitted it, in terms of
transportation and infrastructure needs, and we need to address them.
The gentleman and his party think that it is more important to give
millionaires tax cuts rather than take those resources and invest it in
our infrastructure so our communities can become more competitive, so
that we can create more jobs. I mean, this mess we are in is wholly
created by those of you who run this Congress, and it is an unfortunate
situation that we find ourselves in right now.
There are communities all across this country, States all across this
country, Governors all across this country, Republicans and Democrats,
who are frustrated that the Republican leadership cannot get their act
together and get a highway and transportation bill before both the
House and the Senate that we could put on the President's desk. I think
when they look at the underfunding of some very important public
transportation needs, that frustration is going to continue.
So you are making choices, and I am suggesting that you are making
the wrong choices.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Matheson).
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, these are difficult times for our Nation.
We are fighting terrorism on numerous fronts. We have commitments to
keep our troops overseas, and we struggle to meet our needs here at
home. Our economy needs a boost, unemployment is high, and our future
budget deficits are predicted to be the highest in the history of this
great Nation.
Now is not the time for Members of Congress to be voting themselves a
pay raise. We need to show the American people that we are willing to
make sacrifices. We need to budget, live within our means, and make
careful spending decisions based on our most pressing priorities.
Mr. Speaker, let us send a signal to the American people that we
recognize their struggle in today's economy. Vote ``no'' on the
previous question so we can have an opportunity to block the automatic
cost-of-living adjustment to Members of Congress. This vote ought to be
cast in the light of day and on the record. A ``no'' vote on the
previous question will allow Members to vote up or down on the cost-of-
living adjustment.
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to
the rule. My amendment will block the fiscal year 2005 automatic cost-
of-living pay raise for Members of Congress. Because this amendment
requires a waiver, the only way to get to this issue is to defeat the
previous question. Therefore, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the
previous question.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I know that he is an
expert on rules and rules policy. That is, with an open rule, any
Member can offer any germane amendment to change however they want this
transportation and postal bill. So as we bring the rule, which is an
open rule, to the body and the House makes its decisions of passing the
rule, it allows us to get into the debate on the appropriations report.
That certainly allows, under an open rule, any germane amendment to be
offered that any Member chooses, and I know we will have many. This
bill always has a tremendous amount of amendments to it.
So I look forward to the debate and the votes as they come, and I am
sure there will be many where individual Members will offer amendments
that they deem are important for consideration here; and if they are
germane, they will be entertained by the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just simply respond to the gentleman that the Committee on
Rules makes its own rules, as we have seen so clearly since the
majority has taken over control of that committee. So one of the
frustrations that Members of Congress have is that the only way for
their issues to be heard, the only way to bring up these different
points of view is to go before the Committee on Rules and to ask the
Committee on Rules for protections or for waivers, which, to be honest
with my colleagues, is something that has happened in the past. So I
would simply say to the gentleman, that is all we want, is to be able
to, in the people's House, have a good debate and to be able to bring
up the issues that our constituents talk to us about.
With regard to this bill in particular, which many of us think is
sadly underfunded because of some bad priorities of the people who are
running this House, we would like to have the opportunity to correct
that. When we go home, and I suspect when the gentleman goes home and
he talks to his mayors and his town managers and to his Governor, they
will tell him that there is a desperate need for additional
transportation infrastructure funding. There are bridges that are
collapsing in this country, there are road projects that are not being
done; and the longer we put them on hold, the more expensive they are
going to be. I would say also, it has a negative impact on economic
development.
I would also suggest to the gentleman, since his party does not seem
very interested in creating jobs, since they have a job-loss record
that is on par with Herbert Hoover, that this is a way to create jobs.
We might actually do something different and get up and actually pass a
piece of legislation that will stimulate economic growth and create
some jobs, and I think a lot more people would be happy in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, the Committee on Rules has to sort it all out. I suppose each
of us would like our own personal waiver of something that we would
like to add into this appropriations bill, whether it is our favorite
road, our favorite bridge, our favorite railroad station or track or
some other aspect, or ports or harbors or whatever else we can stick in
the bill.
The reality is that we have a budget. We have 302(b) allocations to
13 appropriations bills, and we have some tough work to do. Our
appropriators on this subcommittee have done their job, and they have
brought the bill here. It is now, as we consider it under an open rule
on the appropriations bill, one that will come to the floor so that any
Member can provide any amendment they so desire that is germane to this
bill for consideration, and that becomes the process of a decision of
whether 218 Members of this body decide in favor of that amendment or
not.
It is not up to the Committee on Rules to sort through each and every
personal agenda item that may come up through the rules hearings for
deliberation. This is a fair and open rule that is before this House
for decisions today and as long as it takes to complete this
appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just respectfully disagree with the gentleman, that it is the
job of the Committee on Rules to go through and to analyze each and
every amendment and every proposal that every Member of this House,
Republican and Democrat, brings before the committee. Everybody in this
Chamber should have the right to be able to go to the Committee on
Rules and have
[[Page H7124]]
their amendment considered, be given fair consideration. All of us were
elected. We represent the same number of people; all of us have the
same right to be able to do that.
I would also say to the gentleman when he mentioned about the budget,
to the best of my knowledge, Congress has not approved a budget yet,
notwithstanding the fact that the Republican Party controls both the
House and the Senate. So we are kind of operating under kind of
imaginary budget caps that the Republican Party has decided to put into
place. I would again say that to the extent that there is a shortfall
here, it is because the gentleman and his leadership and his party have
chosen to devote these resources to something else, namely, tax cuts
for very wealthy people in this country.
I think that is the wrong choice. I think it would be better to
invest some of that money in a strong infrastructure. I think it would
be better for our economy, and it would create more jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey).
{time} 1600
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against the previous question
on the rule. I intend to vote against the rule. And if the House does
what I think it is going to do on this bill in the next 2 days, I
intend to vote against the bill as well.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) indicates that the
Committee on Appropriations has done its job. That is correct. But what
is happening now, the Committee on Appropriations is trying even though
we are at the end of the fiscal year and even though many of the
programs that we are supposed to appropriate money for have not yet
been authorized because of failure of the authorization process, the
Committee on Appropriations is going to see its product shredded
because of the inability of the authorizing committee and the White
House and the majority leadership in both the Senate and the House to
get together on a reasonable compromise, which hopefully would also
include Members of the minority.
And so now what is happening is that a rule is being produced which
is theoretically an open rule, but which in reality will result in
about 80 percent of this bill being shredded. The carcass of this bill
will then go to conference, and in conference the Committee on
Appropriations will be asked to reconstruct the legislation which will
have been shredded on the House floor. No individual member will have
any input into what the final product that comes out of conference will
be.
The reason we have a Committee on Rules is to avoid this kind of
chaos. The reason we have a Committee on Rules is to bring adult
supervision to the House floor from time to time, and the fact is that
the Committee on Rules is being derelict in its duty and the House
leadership is being derelict in its duty when it does not step in to
resolve what Dick Bolling used to call these dung hill fights between
different committees. Dick Bolling used to bemoan the fact that Members
of this House seemed to think that they had a greater obligation to
their committee than they do to the House as a whole. They do not. At
least they should not.
We were not elected to be members of the Committee on Appropriations
or members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or
members of the Committee on Rules. We were elected to be Members of the
House of Representatives, and it is our job to sometimes defend the
House against the arbitrary actions of individual committees. And when
the Committee on Rules does not step in to guarantee that, then the
result is chaos.
That is what we are going to see here today. We are going to have
three different factions of the majority party each trying to impose
its own will by taking advantage of the fact that the Committee on
Rules did not do its job. So in protest, I mean, we only have about 2
weeks before the end of the fiscal year. We only have passed one
appropriations bill. And in my view it is this lack of leadership which
has resulted in this miserable record of performance or rather
miserable record of nonperformance on the part of the House of
Representatives on appropriations issues.
The Committee on Appropriations on both sides of the aisle has worked
and worked and worked to try to overcome an inability to perform on the
part of other committees, and yet the product that the committee has
tried to produce is going to be shredded today because the leadership
did not pull people in and knock their heads together to get them to
act like adults. That is nothing new around here, but I wish to God it
would not be routine.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to make sure that there was no
question in my comments earlier as the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern) brought forth some thought.
I believe it is for the Committee on Rules to listen to each and
every Member on its amendments. What I said was that the Committee on
Rules, that it was not responsible and necessary to give every member a
waiver on everything they wanted as they came up there, which you well
know.
A couple of things that become important also while I listen to both
the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations as well as the
minority member managing this rule, and that is that appropriations has
a very unique aspect here. They can move privileged measures right to
the floor without any rule. Now, I know the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations knows that because last year the Committee
on Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies came through exactly that
way, as a privileged measure that was regular order and never had a
rule, and it came right to the floor as they have that opportunity here
in the House of Representatives.
In fact, as we look at this bill, this bill started with the aspect
that the Committee on Appropriations was going to move it to the floor
as a privileged measure that would not require a rule at all. And it
was also, as I understand, that the Committee on Appropriations did not
want to accommodate waivers, they did not want waivers on this bill, so
they elected that the Committee on Rules would come to play, make its
decisions and bring the bill to the floor without those waivers under
an open rule where every single Member of this body can introduce any
germane amendment he or she so desires. And that is what will happen
today if this rule is passed and we are able to move on to the
appropriations matter.
When we look at the discussion, and there is a debate. I remember
when we had a discussion saying I want to add back all this stuff and I
want to raise taxes to do it, as the minority ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations brought a measure before this House. I
respect his ability to bring that amendment. I also think we were
fortunate that it was defeated so we did not raise taxes on the
American people. But the fact is there was the opportunity to have that
vote after the debate and the decision was not to raise taxes.
I accept those in the minority who want to raise taxes to spend. It
is a fact of life over some of the policies that this body had when the
other party was in power. But the fact is that we are holding the line
on spending. We are making difficult choices. And today as we move this
appropriations bill to the floor, it gives everyone ample opportunity
to amend it with germane amendments how they see fit.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. I found the gentleman's response interesting, Mr. Speaker.
He starts to talk about taxes. This bill and my position on it has
nothing whatsoever to do with taxes. It has everything to do with the
fact that the leadership on your side of the aisle will not meet their
responsibility in choosing which individual Members they are going to
discipline in order to bring a coherent piece of legislation to the
floor. This has nothing to do with tax levels.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I must recall it has only been about a half hour when I
listened to my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), who
[[Page H7125]]
brought his viewpoint to the floor that said there is not enough money
in this thing because there was a tax cut and, therefore, we have got
to increase taxes in order to have more money to spend. And so while I
did not necessarily hear that from the gentleman today, the ranking
member led the debate on increasing taxes so we could put more stuff
back into programs that you put forth in a line by line fashion that
you wanted back from money.
That was not today but you certainly brought that forth and it was
something that you very much wanted to bring forth and we have
accommodated that opportunity. But today the Member managing this rule
on the minority side did bring forth the fact that he did not see the
goals of what he wanted to see in a transportation bill because the tax
cut did not allow him to have that.
Again, I want to remind my colleagues that we have ample opportunity
for every Member to offer whatever amendment they want that is germane
to this bill; and I am sure we will see many of those in the
forthcoming hours on this Committee on Appropriations item.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me clarify to the gentleman, the point I was trying
to make is your priorities are all messed up. The bottom line is there
is a real need out there, all across this country, even in your State,
for more transportation funding, more public transportation funding,
more support. It is essential for economic growth. It is essential for
job creation and you are short-changing it, and those are your
priorities, and I think they are messed up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
I wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker, on this discussion
of taxes that we keep hearing about, my friend from Wisconsin, when he
raised taxes. And he can correct me if I am wrong about this, but every
time he has attempted to make an amendment in order on these
appropriations bills, in committee and here, and when he was permitted
to have an order, a vote that would have amended the budget resolution,
every time, if I am not mistaken, the bottom 99 percent of American
families would not have had their taxes raised at all.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) if that is
correct.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely correct. The majority knows
it but they try to hide it at every opportunity because they do not
have the guts to take the issue on directly.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, it is also my understanding that to
the extent that we have talked about restoring the tax rates that were
in effect in 2001, a tax code which by the way created 22 million new
jobs in the last decade, that the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey)
proposal simply reclaimed a portion of the tax cut that people in that
top 1 percent would have received.
In other words, even under the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey)
proposals, they would get a tax cut because the amount reclaimed was
less than the amount received.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) if that is
correct.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, that is also absolutely correct.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I also want the Record to reflect this
choice: As our constituents sit in traffic tonight, as they cannot get
home because of suburban sprawl and the lack of mass transit, as they
cannot deal with the many, many problems they have, the majority has
made a choice and its choice is a huge tax reduction for the top 1
percent of the people in the country or an honest choice which we would
make which we would say, the top 1 percent could do without that huge
tax reduction. Let us not raise taxes on the other 99 percent and meet
the needs of this country.
That is the real choice. I understand why the majority wants to
obscure it because they are making the wrong choice.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me conclude again by saying what I said at the beginning of this
debate and that is that it is unfortunate that we are dealing with such
an inadequate allocation. Our cities, our towns, our States deserve
much better than this. This reflects poorly on the priorities of the
leadership of this Congress. This has to change. Our communities cannot
afford to be short-changed on important transportation dollars.
This undercuts their economic development. This undercuts job growth.
We need to do much better.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question when we look at our infrastructure
and our roads and bridges and our transit systems and our ports and our
airports, there is always an additional need for money. That is why we
have invested so much as what we have done in our trust funds as well
as annual appropriations. But there also comes a time where you cannot
just keep taxing and spending on the aspect of wanting to provide a big
government to the entire country on every single item, every single
day.
It requires some of the tough looks of where we have to hold some
line item spending. It comes to looking at a budget, and 302(b)
allocations that set forth those tough decisions that both the
appropriators and then this body have to do. Just as the difficulty
that everyone knows we have in bringing forth the final solution for
TEA-LU.
If it was just an unlimited big spending picture of what some of the
failed liberal policies of the 40 years before this majority came into
power, I guess you could keep that tax and spending going. But the
American people have also said a couple of things: One, we need to hold
the line on spending. We need to hold the line on taxes, and we also
need to look at making some of those tough decisions that we have today
as this appropriations bill comes to the floor of the House after the
vote on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I have said it time and time again, it is an open rule.
It is one that gives every single member of this body an opportunity to
bring any germane amendment to the floor for consideration on their
amendments by this body, and I am sure upon the completion of the hard
work that this body will do over the next several days on this bill we
will get the best bill possible to bring forth as a completed
appropriations bill that we have as a rule before us.
{time} 1615
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 170, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 451]
YEAS--235
Abercrombie
Akin
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Barton (TX)
Bass
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (PA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
[[Page H7126]]
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capuano
Cardin
Carter
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emanuel
Eshoo
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hefley
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Honda
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
Lowey
Lucas (OK)
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McHugh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Ney
Nunes
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Pickering
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Saxton
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--170
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Costello
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeMint
Deutsch
Doggett
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Evans
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gingrey
Goode
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herseth
Hill
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hulshof
Inslee
Isakson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
Lewis (KY)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Marshall
Matheson
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ose
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Wu
NOT VOTING--28
Ackerman
Baker
Ballenger
Blackburn
Boehlert
Bonner
Burton (IN)
Cannon
Conyers
Crowley
Engel
Gephardt
Greenwood
Hastings (FL)
Johnson, E. B.
Kleczka
Langevin
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Nethercutt
Owens
Schrock
Serrano
Sherwood
Slaughter
Tauzin
Towns
Whitfield
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1641
Messrs. JENKINS, SULLIVAN, MARSHALL, GIBBONS, Mrs. JOHNSON of
Connecticut, Mr. MICA, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. RAMSTAD, Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon,
Mr. ADERHOLT, Ms. McCOLLUM, and Mr. FOSSELLA changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. LIPINSKI, FRANK of Massachusetts, COOPER, CLYBURN, and Ms.
WATERS changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
____________________