[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.

                          ____________________