[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 109 (Tuesday, September 14, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7139-H7183]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H7139]]
House of Representatives
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2005--Continued
{time} 1800
The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the
authorization in law rests with the committee. Finding that this burden
has not been carried, the Chair sustains the point of order, and the
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal-Aid Highways
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for
which are in excess of $34,641,000,000 for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal
year 2005: Provided, That within the $34,641,000,000
obligation limitation on Federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction programs, not more than $478,000,000
shall be available for the implementation or execution of
programs for transportation research (sections 502, 503, 504,
506, 507, and 508 of title 23, United States Code, as
amended; section 5505 of title 49, United States Code, as
amended; and sections 5112 and 5204-5209 of Public Law 105-
178) for fiscal year 2005: Provided further, That this
limitation on transportation research programs shall not
apply to any authority previously made available for
obligation.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again I rise to offer a point of
order.
Mr. Chairman, on page 15, line 4, to page 15, line 22, I raise a
point of order on that language because it provides an appropriation
for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates section 2(a) of
rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part, an
appropriation may not be in order for an expenditure not previously
authorized by law.
Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized, and I insist on my
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order? The Chair is prepared to rule.
The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the
authorization in law rests with the committee. Finding that this burden
has not been carried, the Chair sustains the point of order. The
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
federal-aid highways
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for carrying
out the provisions of title 23, United States Code, that are
attributable to Federal-aid highways, including the National
Scenic and Recreational Highway as authorized by 23 U.S.C.
148, not otherwise provided, including reimbursement for sums
expended pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308,
$35,000,000,000 or so much thereof as may be available in and
derived from the Highway Trust Fund, to remain available
until expended.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the phrase
``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' on page 16, line 4.
This phrase violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill, in
violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any further Members wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this language explicitly supersedes existing
law. The language, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the phrase
identified by the point of order is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
federal-aid highways
highway trust fund
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances of funds apportioned to each
State under the programs authorized under sections
1101(a)(1), 1101(a)(2), 1101(a)(3), 1101(a)(4), and
1101(a)(5) of Public Law 105-178, as amended, $386,000,000
are rescinded.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 16,
line 13, through line 20. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
It changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an
appropriations bill in violation of the House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The paragraph identified in the point of order by the gentleman from
Florida rescinds contract authority provided in a law other than an
appropriation Act. As such, the paragraph constitutes legislation on an
appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of
order is sustained, and the paragraph is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
general provisions--federal highway administration
Sec. 121. (a) For fiscal year 2005, the Secretary of
Transportation shall--
(1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid Highways amounts authorized for administrative
expenses by section 104(a)(1)(A) and 104(a)(1)(B) of title
23, United States Code, for the highway use tax evasion
program, and for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
[[Page H7140]]
(2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation
for Federal-aid Highways that is equal to the unobligated
balance of amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety programs for the previous fiscal
year the funds for which are allocated by the Secretary;
(3) determine the ratio that--
(A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid Highways less
the aggregate of amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1)
and (2), bears to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
(other than sums authorized to be appropriated for sections
set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (b) and
sums authorized to be appropriated for section 105 of title
23, United States Code, equal to the amount referred to in
subsection (b)(8)) for such fiscal year less the aggregate of
the amounts not distributed under paragraph (1) of this
subsection;
(4) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid
Highways less the aggregate amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2) for section 201 of the Appalachian
Regional Development Act of 1965, and $2,000,000,000 for such
fiscal year under section 105 of title 23, United States Code
(relating to minimum guarantee) so that the amount of
obligation authority available for each of such sections is
equal to the amount determined by multiplying the ratio
determined under paragraph (3) by the sums authorized to be
appropriated for such section (except in the case of section
105, $2,000,000,000) for such fiscal year;
(5) distribute the obligation limitation provided for
Federal-aid Highways less the aggregate amounts not
distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts
distributed under paragraph (4) for each of the programs that
are allocated by the Secretary under title 23, United States
Code (other than activities to which paragraph (1) applies
and programs to which paragraph (4) applies) by multiplying
the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by the sums
authorized to be appropriated for such program for such
fiscal year; and
(6) distribute the obligation limitation provided for
Federal-aid Highways less the aggregate amounts not
distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts
distributed under paragraphs (4) and (5) for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs (other than
the minimum guarantee program, but only to the extent that
amounts apportioned for the minimum guarantee program for
such fiscal year exceed $2,639,000,000, and the Appalachian
development highway system program) that are apportioned by
the Secretary under title 23, United States Code, in the
ratio that--
(A) sums authorized to be appropriated for such programs
that are apportioned to each State for such fiscal year, bear
to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
such programs that are apportioned to all States for such
fiscal year.
(b) The obligation limitation for Federal-aid Highways
shall not apply to obligations: (1) under section 125 of
title 23, United States Code; (2) under section 147 of the
Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978; (3) under
section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981; (4) under
sections 131(b) and 131(j) of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1982; (5) under sections 149(b) and 149(c)
of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation
Assistance Act of 1987; (6) under sections 1103 through 1108
of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991; (7) under section 157 of title 23, United States Code,
as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; and (8)
under section 105 of title 23, United States Code (but, only
in an amount equal to $639,000,000 for such fiscal year); and
for Federal-aid highway programs for which obligation
authority was made available under the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century or subsequent public laws for
multiple years or to remain available until used, but only to
the extent that such obligation authority has not lapsed or
been used.
(c) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall
after August 1 for such fiscal year revise a distribution of
the obligation limitation made available under subsection (a)
if a State will not obligate the amount distributed during
that fiscal year and redistribute sufficient amounts to those
States able to obligate amounts in addition to those
previously distributed during that fiscal year giving
priority to those States having large unobligated balances of
funds apportioned under sections 104 and 144 of title 23,
United States Code, section 160 (as in effect on the day
before the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century) of title 23, United States Code, and under
section 1015 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1943-1945).
(d) The obligation limitation shall apply to transportation
research programs carried out under chapter 5 of title 23,
United States Code, except that obligation authority made
available for such programs under such limitation shall
remain available for a period of 3 fiscal years.
(e) Not later than 30 days after the date of the
distribution of obligation limitation under subsection (a),
the Secretary shall distribute to the States any funds: (1)
that are authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year
for Federal-aid highways programs (other than the program
under section 160 of title 23, United States Code) and for
carrying out subchapter I of chapter 311 of title 49, United
States Code, and highway-related programs under chapter 4 of
title 23, United States Code; and (2) that the Secretary
determines will not be allocated to the States, and will not
be available for obligation, in such fiscal year due to the
imposition of any obligation limitation for such fiscal year.
Such distribution to the States shall be made in the same
ratio as the distribution of obligation authority under
subsection (a)(6). The funds so distributed shall be
available for any purposes described in section 133(b) of
title 23, United States Code.
(f) Obligation limitation distributed for a fiscal year
under subsection (a)(4) of this section for a section set
forth in subsection (a)(4) shall remain available until used
and shall be in addition to the amount of any limitation
imposed on obligations for federal-aid highway and highway
safety construction programs for future fiscal years.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of observations, in a
sense give a progress report on what has happened on this bill so far,
given what the Rules Committee did in exposing this bill to these
points of order. There are a lot of things that have happened to this
bill so far, but I would like to simply talk about the values that have
led the House at this point to strike certain programs from the bill,
while not striking others.
As I understand the actions that have been taken so far by points of
order raised by Members of the majority, as I understand it, we have so
far eliminated formula highway grants to the States; we have done
serious damage to the essential airline service for small rural
airports; we have done significant damage to FAA grants for airports,
all of which will impact States' and localities' ability to develop
their economies. But let me describe something that has not been
eliminated from this bill.
This bill still contains--and it is interesting that this provision
was not stricken by any of those who lodged their motions--this bill
contains a provision that extends government-offered reduced rate
insurance for airlines operating in the domestic United States.
Premiums are set under that program at no more than twice what
commercial rates were 3 years ago. This means that airlines only pay
about one-fifth what they would pay if they were forced to obtain their
insurance from the private sector.
My understanding is that this year airlines will pay about $150
million for government-subsidized risk insurance as opposed to $700
million they would have to pay on the open market. So, once again, we
are keeping a let-us-pretend industry afloat, an industry which for all
practical purposes is bankrupt. All you have to do is watch what has
happened with USAir, I do not know how many times USAir, Continental
will go bankrupt before they are bankrupt; but all you have to do is
watch that to understand that if you are big enough in this society,
you have a safety net created which holds you up no matter how many
times you tend to fall. But we do not provide that same kind of safety
net to average workers in this country.
What it demonstrates, for instance, is that the Federal Government is
now willing to provide this huge subsidy in order to provide insurance
to big airline corporations around the world or around the country, at
the same time that this Congress continuously refuses to provide health
insurance for 45 million Americans. I find that distinction
interesting. I do not find it surprising, given the values of this
Congress that I have come to expect, unfortunately; but it does say
something about our national priorities.
If we are willing to exempt from our parliamentary purity our concern
about language in this bill when it affects some of the big industries
in the country, but we are not willing to skip over it when it comes to
inconveniencing and damaging State economies and the transportation
ability of small units of government, I find it especially interesting
that while the Congress continues to deny actions that would provide
health insurance for the 45 million Americans who do not have it, and
every time we talk about doing that work we are being for socialized
medicine; yet we are willing to socialize risk when it comes to
insurance costs for the airline industry. That is a great set of
values, isn't it?
[[Page H7141]]
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, but just very briefly in
response, I did start out the consideration of this bill with the point
that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has certain
prerogatives, and that is what we wanted to exercise tonight.
This House of Representatives works under a set of rules, and that
rule is our charter of jurisdiction; and if we go outside of the rules
or outside of the committee's jurisdiction and get into other areas, we
can create chaos.
Each of the points of order that have been, in fact, raised, that I
have raised, tonight deal with the charter that is set forth of
responsibilities for conduct of legislative business of this House, and
each of those have been ruled on by the Chair in a favorable manner.
I chose to propose a narrow scope in some of the limitations and some
of the points of order that have I raised because we want programs to
continue; and quite frankly, they are going to continue. I did not
choose to expand them to wipe out these programs. So I think some of
the accusations that have just been made are not accurate.
We are concerned about essential air service. We are concerned about
airlines that may be going out of business, although I do not support
the government underwriting losing-business propositions. I do support
health care for everyone and am concerned about those who may lose
their benefits if businesses go out of business, but that is not the
intent of this.
We have a set of rules by which we operate, by which the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure can operate. I cannot get up here and
appropriate money. I would love to have that power. These are some of
the most powerful people in the United States of America. The chairman
of the full committee I respect from Florida; the gentleman who
controls a lot of the transportation agenda and appropriations, the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). All are honorable individuals and
doing their job.
I am trying to do my job on behalf of the 70-plus members of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and do it in a
responsible fashion.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 122. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data
products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aid highways
account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such
expenses: Provided, That such funds shall be subject to the
obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction.
Sec. 123. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, item number 89 is amended by striking ``Construct I-
495/Route 2 interchange east of existing interchange to
provide access to commuter rail station, Littleton'' and
inserting ``Ayer commuter rail station improvements, land
acquisition and parking improvements''.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I stand and graciously and humbly raise a
point of order against section 123 on page 22, line 20, through page
23, line 2.
This provision clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It does, in
fact, change existing law; and, therefore, it constitutes legislating
on an appropriations bill, which is in clear violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any Members desire to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section explicitly supersedes existing law.
The section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause
2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Section 123 is stricken
from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 124. Of the $6,000,000 portion of the funds
appropriated under the heading ``Highway Demonstration
Projects'' in title I of Public Law 102-143 (105 Stat. 929)
that was allocated for Routes 70/38 Circle Elimination, NJ,
$4,500,000 shall be transferred to, and made available for,
the following projects in the specified amounts: Mantua Creek
Overpass in Paulsboro, NJ, $2,000,000; Delsea Drive Route 47
Timber Creek in Westville, NJ, $787,000; Camden Northern End
Parking Garage in Camden, NJ, $1,213,000; and Route 47 Chapel
Heights Avenue in Gloucester, NJ, $500,000.
Sec. 125. Division F, title I, section 115 of Public Law
108-199 is amended by inserting before the period at the end
the following: ``: Provided further, That notwithstanding any
other provision of law and the preceding clauses of this
provision, the Secretary of Transportation may use amounts
made available by this section to make grants for any surface
transportation project otherwise eligible for funding under
title 23 or title 49, United States Code''.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 125
on page 23, line 14, through line 22.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill, in
clear violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on the
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. The
section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Section 125 is stricken from
the bill.
{time} 1815
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 126. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to require a State or local government to post a
traffic control device or variable message sign, or any other
type of traffic warning sign, in a language other than
English, except with respect to the names of cities, streets,
places, events, or signs related to an international border.
Sec. 127. Of the funds available under section 104(a)(1)(A)
of title 23, United States Code, $4,000,000 shall be
available for environmental streamlining activities, which
may include making grants to, or entering into contracts,
cooperative agreements, and other transactions, with a
Federal agency, State agency, local agency, authority,
association, non-profit or for-profit corporation, or
institution of higher education.
Point of Order
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 127.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 127
on page 24, line 5 through line 12. This provision clearly violates
clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law by addressing funds in
other acts and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations
bill in violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section addresses funds in other acts. The
section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Section 127 is stricken from
the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
motor carrier safety
limitation on administrative expenses
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
(including transfer of funds)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the
funds in this Act shall be available for expenses for
administration of motor carrier safety programs and motor
carrier safety research, and grants, the obligations for
which are in excess of $248,480,000 for fiscal year 2005:
Provided, That $33,000,000 shall be available to make grants
to, or enter into contracts with, States, local governments,
or other persons for carrying out border commercial motor
vehicle safety programs and enforcement activities and
projects for the purposes described in 49 U.S.C.
31104(f)(2)(B), and the Federal share payable under such
grants shall be 100 percent; $20,000,000 shall be available
to make grants to, or enter into contracts with, States,
local governments, or other persons for commercial driver's
licenses program improvements, and the Federal share payable
under such grants shall be 100 percent; and $14,200,000 shall
be available to make grants to States for implementation of
section 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999, and the Federal share payable under such grant shall be
100 percent: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, for payment of obligations incurred to pay
administrative expenses of and grants by the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, $248,480,000, to be derived
from the Highway Trust Fund, together with advances and
reimbursements received by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, the sum of which shall remain available until
expended.
point of order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page
24,
[[Page H7142]]
line 15, to page 25, line 20, because it provides an appropriation for
an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule
XXI.
Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part, ``An appropriation may
not be in order for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members desire to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI such an earmarking must be
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the
authorization in law rests with the committee.
Finding that the burden has not been carried, the chair sustains the
point of order. The paragraph is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
national motor carrier safety program
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 31102, 31106,
and 31309, $190,000,000 to be derived from the Highway Trust
Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, That
none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs the obligations for
which are in excess of $190,000,000 for ``Motor Carrier
Safety Grants'' and ``Information Systems,'' and of which
$17,000,000 shall be available for grants to States for
implementation of section 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1764-1765) and $1,000,000
shall be available for grants to States, local governments,
or other entities for commercial driver's license program
improvements: Provided further, That for grants made to
States for implementation of section 210 of the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1764-1765), and for
grants to States, local governments, or other entities for
commercial driver's license program improvements, the Federal
share payable under such grants shall be 100 percent.
point of order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page
25, line 21, to page 26, line 19, because it provides an appropriation
for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule
XXI.
Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part ``An appropriation may
not be in order for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized by law.
The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members desire to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the
authorization in law rests with the committee.
Finding that this burden has not been carried, the chair sustains the
point of order. The paragraph is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read:
The Clerk read as follows:
general provisions--federal motor carrier safety administration
Sec. 141. Funds appropriated or limited in this Act shall
be subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in section
350 of Public Law 107-87, including that the Secretary submit
a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
annually on the safety and security of transportation into
the United States by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.
Sec. 142. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available
by this Act may be used to implement or enforce any
provisions of the Final Rule, issued on April 16, 2003
(Docket No. FMCSA-97-2350), with respect to the operators of
utility service vehicles, as that term is defined in section
395.2 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 143. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act shall be used to implement or enforce
49 CFR subsections 395.3 or 395.8 as they may apply to
operators of utility service vehicles as defined in 49 CFR
395.2. This prohibition on implementing or enforcing such
regulations shall also apply to any State or agency receiving
funds pursuant to chapter 311 of title 49 U.S.C.
Point of Order
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section
143, on page 27, lines 10 through 17.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the second sentence of section 143
would prevent any State or agency from enforcing the U.S. Department of
Transportation hours-of-service regulations for operators of utility
service vehicles. This provision imposes a new duty on the Department
and the States and agencies. This section is legislative in nature and
is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members desire to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that the sentence beginning on page 27, line 14,
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point
of order is sustained. Section 143 is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
operations and research
For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety under
chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, and part C of
subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, $129,514,000, of
which $107,000,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2007: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this
Act may be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or
implement any rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations any requirement
pertaining to a grading standard that is different from the
three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance) already in effect: Provided further, That none of
the funds in this Act may be used to augment information
technology or computer support funds provided to NHTSA beyond
$2,620,000.
point of order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page
27, line 19, to page 28, line 10, because it provides an appropriation
for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule
XXI.
Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part ``An appropriation may
not be in order for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized, and I insist on my point
of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the
authorization in law rests with the committee.
Finding that the burden has not been carried, the Chair sustains the
point of order. The paragraph is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
operations and research
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, to remain available until
expended, $90,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust
Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the planning or execution of programs the total
obligations for which, in fiscal year 2005, are in excess of
$90,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.
point of order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page
28, line 11, to page 28, line 22, because it provides an appropriation
for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule
XXI.
Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part ``An appropriation may
not be in order for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized, and I insist on my point
of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the
authorization in law rests with the committee.
Finding that this burden has not been carried, the Chair sustains the
point of order. The paragraph is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page H7143]]
national driver register
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Secretary with respect to the National Driver Register under
payment of obligations incurred in carrying out chapter 303
of title 49, United States Code, $3,600,000 to be derived
from the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That none of the funds
in this Act shall be available for the implementation or
execution of programs the obligations for which are in excess
of $3,600,000 for the National Driver Register authorized
under chapter 303 of title 49, United States Code.
point of order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page
29, line 1, to page 29, line 14, because it provides an appropriation
for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule
XXI.
Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part, ``An appropriation may
not be in order for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, this program is unauthorized, and I insist on my point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members desire to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the
authorization in law rests with the committee.
Finding that the burden has not been carried, the Chair sustains the
point of order. The paragraph is stricken from the bill.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding to me.
Again, I want to explain, for those who did not hear the first
explanation, that the reason for these points of order is very simple.
The authorizing committee has decided to raise certain points of
order in this bill that will make the bill at least $1 billion over our
302(b) allocation. So in order to bring the bill back down to within
the 302(b) allocation, we have to raise these additional points of
order to strike out projects that were not authorized.
Mr. Chairman, everybody knows the way this system works; that is, we
have authorizing committees and we have appropriating committees. The
Committee on Appropriations appropriates for those projects and
programs that are authorized. In this case, the authorizing committee
did not pass a bill; did not pass authorizations; and, frankly, are not
even able to extend the existing transportation authorizations to keep
the programs going. That is why we find ourselves in this dilemma.
The system is not working the way it is supposed to. The authorizers
did not authorize, so the appropriators had to do the best we could
within our budgetary limitations to make this bill stay within the
302(b) allocations as set by our 302(a) budget allocation.
I appreciate the chairman of this subcommittee for yielding to me so
that I could make this brief explanation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to note my agreement with the comments of
the distinguished gentleman from Florida. Even before this bill came to
the floor, we were faced with the prospect of having a miserable record
in producing appropriation bills and finishing them before the end of
the fiscal year before we go home to face our constituents in the new
elections.
The House has passed all but, I believe, two appropriation bills,
this one and the VA-HUD bill. And many of the bills that have passed
have, I think, been in pitiful shape, but at least they have passed.
None of them, except Defense, has been signed into law.
This bill was at least on track to pass in inadequate though
meaningful form before we leave here for the election, but now, as the
gentleman from Florida has said, we are facing an even bleaker
situation. We are going to leave here in October with even less of the
people's business done than would have been the case if this debacle
had not occurred on the floor today.
What has happened is essentially this: The transportation authorizing
committee, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, or the
No Transportation, No Infrastructure Committee, as it probably ought to
be called, their basic highway authorization, for instance, expired 9
months ago. They have not yet been able to renew that basic
legislation. The reason for that is that they have a three-corner
debate going with themselves.
There is a debate between the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure members in the House, those in the Senate, and the
wizards in the White House Budget Office, and none of them want to
give. So, as a result, what do we have here? The authorizing committee
has not been able to get its job done, so the Committee on
Appropriations has tried to at least keep these programs afloat while
we continue to go through this Little League debate between the White
House and the authorizers.
But in fact now I guess the situation is that if the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure cannot pass their legislation, they
do not want anybody else to pass meaningful legislation either, or
perhaps they somehow think they are producing leverage for themselves
by shredding this bill. This is, as I said earlier, this is a sad case.
My great friend and mentor Dick Bolling, who used to be the chairman
of the Committee on Rules, and in my view is the greatest Member of
this body who never became Speaker. Dick Bolling used to deride Members
who practiced what he called dung hill politics, Members who were more
interested in protecting the jurisdiction of their own committee than
they were in protecting the legislative reputation and record of the
House as a whole.
{time} 1830
What we have seen today is a sad, sad example of what Dick Bolling
worried about when he referred to that practice of ``dung hill
politics.'' I wish the House were in a more mature mood, and I wish
that the leadership had led so we could have avoided this point today.
There is no point, in my view, in proceeding further with this bill.
I intend to vote against it on final passage because there will be
nothing left of it except the title. We have a motion around here
called ``striking the enacting clause.'' Instead, I suggest today we
should probably strike everything except the enacting clause because we
will have almost done that by the time we get to the last page of this
bill. All we will have done is waste a day and a half of the House's
time when we could have been dealing with more serious business, and
that, indeed, is a shame.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
highway traffic safety grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(limitation on obligations)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out the provisions of 23
U.S.C. 402, 405, and 410, to remain available until expended,
$225,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund:
Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the planning or execution of programs the total
obligations for which, in fiscal year 2005, are in excess of
$225,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402,
405, and 410, of which $165,000,000 shall be for ``Highway
Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 402, $20,000,000 shall be
for ``Occupant Protection Incentive Grants'' under 23 U.S.C.
405, and $40,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Countermeasures Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 410: Provided
further, That none of these funds shall be used for
construction, rehabilitation, or remodeling costs, or for
office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private
buildings or structures: Provided further, That not to exceed
$10,000,000 of the funds made available for section 402, not
to exceed $2,306,000 of the funds made available for section
405, and not to exceed $2,000,000 of the funds made available
for section 410 shall be available to NHTSA for administering
highway safety grants under chapter 4 of title 23, United
States Code: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 of
the funds made available for section 410 ``Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Countermeasures Grants'' shall be available for
technical assistance to the States.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page
29, line 15 to page 30, line 20, because it provides an appropriation
for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule
XXI.
[[Page H7144]]
Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may
not be in order for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized by law, and I insist on
my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating
authorization has not been met.
The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
general provisions--national highway traffic safety administration
Sec. 151. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
States may use funds provided in this Act under section 402
of title 23, United States Code, to produce and place highway
safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema,
and print media, and on the Internet in accordance with
guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation: Provided,
That any State that uses funds for such public service
messages shall submit to the Secretary a report describing
and assessing the effectiveness of the messages: Provided
further, That $10,000,000 of the funds allocated under
section 157 of title 23, United States Code, shall be used as
directed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator
to purchase national paid advertising (including production
and placement) to support national safety belt mobilizations:
Provided further, That, of the funds allocated under section
163 of title 23, United States Code, $7,000,000 shall be used
as directed by the Administrator to support national impaired
driving mobilizations and enforcement efforts, $12,000,000
shall be used as directed by the Administrator to purchase
national paid advertising (including production and
placement) to support such national impaired driving
mobilizations and enforcement efforts.
Point of Order
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 31,
line 6, beginning with ``provided further'' through line 19.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in
violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist the point of order be expanded to
lie against the entire paragraph; and as so expanded, I would concede
the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is expanded; and the point of order
being conceded, it is sustained. The section is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 152. Funds appropriated or limited in this Act to
educate the motoring public on how to share the road safely
with commercial motor vehicles shall be jointly administered
and implemented by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
Federal Railroad Administration
safety and operations
For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad
Administration, not otherwise provided for, $137,738,000, of
which $15,350,000 shall remain available until expended.
Point of Order
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 32, line
2, through page 32, line 6, because it provides an appropriation for an
unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating
authorization has not been met.
The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
railroad research and development
For necessary expenses for railroad research and
development, $33,289,000, to remain available until expended.
Point of Order
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 32, line
7, to page 32, line 10, because it provides an appropriation for
unauthorized programs and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating
authorization has not been met.
The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
railroad rehabilitation and improvement program
The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to
the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations
pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as
amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be
necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the
guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under
sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist
as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding:
Provided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act, as
amended, no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments
shall be made using Federal funds for the credit risk premium
during fiscal year 2005: Provided further, That within thirty
days of enactment of this Act, the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation shall make full payment of all
principal and interest to the Federal Railroad Administrator
in satisfaction of the Corporation's July 3, 2002, direct
loan from the Federal Railroad Administration.
Point of Order
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, page 32, line 26, through page 33, line
5, I would make a point of order against the last proviso of the
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program paragraph. The proviso
begins on page 32, line 26, and ends on page 33, line 5. This proviso
would require Amtrak to repay its loan and interest in full to the
Federal Railroad Administration within 30 days; it is legislative in
nature and in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be
expanded to lie against the entire paragraph; and as so expanded, I
would concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is expanded to the entire paragraph.
The point of order is conceded and is therefore sustained. The
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
next generation high-speed rail
For necessary expenses for the Next Generation High-Speed
Rail program as authorized under 49 U.S.C. 26101 and 26102,
$11,000,000, to remain available until expended.
Point of Order
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 33, line
6, to page 33, line 10, because it provides an appropriation for an
unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating
authorization has not been met.
The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page H7145]]
pennsylvania station redevelopment project
(transfer of funds)
Of the unobligated balances of funds made available in
section 232 of appendix E of Public Law 106-113, $39,827,000
are hereby transferred to and merged with funds for the
Federal Transit Administration, Capital Investment Grants,
for the purposes of constructing the New York Long Island
Rail Road East Side Access (Extension).
grants to the national railroad passenger corporation
To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make quarterly
grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,
$900,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005:
Provided, That not less than $500,000,000 shall be provided
in quarterly grants for capital expenses: Provided further,
That the Secretary of Transportation shall approve funding to
cover operating losses and capital expenditures, including
advance purchase orders, for the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation only after receiving and reviewing a grant
request for each specific train route: Provided further, That
each such grant request shall be accompanied by a detailed
financial analysis, revenue projection, and capital
expenditure projection justifying the Federal support to the
Secretary's satisfaction: Provided further, That the
Secretary of Transportation shall reserve $60,000,000 of the
funds provided under this heading and is authorized to
transfer such sums to the Surface Transportation Board, upon
request from said Board, to carry out directed service orders
issued pursuant to section 11123 of title 49, United States
Code to respond to the cessation of commuter rail operations
by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Transportation shall make the
reserved funds available to the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation through an appropriate grant instrument during
the end of the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005 to the
extent that no directed service orders have been issued by
the Surface Transportation Board as of the date of transfer
or there is a balance of reserved funds not needed by the
Board to pay for any directed service order issued through
September 30, 2005: Provided further, That not later than 60
days after enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall transmit, in
electronic format, to the Secretary of Transportation, the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation a
comprehensive business plan approved by the Board of
Directors for fiscal year 2005 under section 24104(a) of
title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That the
business plan shall include, as applicable, targets for
ridership, revenues, and capital and operating expenses:
Provided further, That the plan shall also include a separate
accounting of such targets for the Northeast Corridor;
commuter service; long-distance Amtrak service; state-
supported service; each intercity train route; including
Autotrain; and commercial activities including contract
operations and mail and express: Provided further, That the
business plan shall include a description of the work to be
funded, along with cost estimates and an estimated timetable
for completion of the projects covered by this business plan:
Provided further, That not later than October 1, 2004 and no
later than 30 days following the last business day of the
previous month thereafter, Amtrak shall submit to the
Secretary of Transportation and the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations a supplemental report, in
electronic format, regarding the pending business plan, which
shall describe the work completed to date, any changes to the
business plan, and the reasons for such changes: Provided
further, That none of the funds in this Act may be used for
operating expenses, including advance purchase orders, and
capital projects not approved by the Secretary of
Transportation nor on the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation's fiscal year 2005 business plan: Provided
further, That Amtrak shall display the business plan and all
subsequent supplemental plans on the Corporation's website
within a reasonable timeframe following their submission to
the appropriate entities: Provided further, That none of the
funds under this heading may be obligated or expended until
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation agrees to
continue abiding by the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5,
9, and 11 of the summary of conditions for the direct loan
agreement of June 28, 2002, in the same manner as in effect
on the date of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That
the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to retain up to
$4,000,000 of the funds provided to be used to retain a
consultant or consultants to assist the Secretary in
preparing a comprehensive valuation of Amtrak's assets to be
completed not later than September 30, 2005: Provided
further, That these funds shall be available to the Secretary
of Transportation until expended: Provided further, That this
valuation shall to be used to retain a consultant or
consultants to develop to the Secretary's satisfaction a
methodology for determining the avoidable and fully allocated
costs of each Amtrak route: Provided further, That once the
Secretary has approved the methodology for determining the
avoidable and fully allocated costs of each Amtrak route,
Amtrak shall apply that methodology in compiling an annual
report to Congress on the avoidable and fully allocated costs
of each of its routes, with the initial report for fiscal
year 2005 to be submitted to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation before December 31, 2005, and
each subsequent report to be submitted within ninety days
after the end of the fiscal year to which the report
pertains.
Point of Order
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 33, line
20, through page 37, line 20, because it provides an appropriation for
an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule
XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) is recognized on the
point of order.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I think we now have reached a second level
of ignominy at this point because here we are now into a whole second
bill which has not been authorized. It has not been authorized. It is
not a bill that is only 9 months or 11 months late of authorization,
but rather the bill for the Federal Rail Administration and Amtrak is
one that is a year and 11 months late at least, if not 2 years and 11
months late.
So while earlier items which have been stricken by the points of
order dealt with highway administration programs and obviously will
also apply to FTA, Federal Transit Administration programs, and have
already stricken the two major safety programs that I mentioned earlier
in my opening remarks which had been already cut by the Committee on
Appropriations to only 75 percent, cut from the President's request, a
dollar figure had been cut 25 percent or giving them only 75 percent of
the President's request, those highway safety programs have already
been stricken from this legislation. That is also carried with the
general highway administration T&I authorization.
But here we are now in the Amtrak and highway administration bill. I
just want to point out that this is an area where I intended to offer
two different versions of an amendment to add funding.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) will
confine his remarks to the point of order. The gentleman may proceed on
the point of order.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I will defer my comments to a striking of
the last word immediately after the Chair sustains this point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order?
The gentleman from Oregon is recognized to speak on the point of
order.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I must confess I share the frustration
of the gentleman from Massachusetts. We produced out of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure a bipartisan bill a year ago that
has never been brought to floor action.
The CHAIRMAN. I remind the gentleman from Oregon that we are on the
point of order and debate on other issues may be taken up after the
Chair disposes of the point of order.
Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
As previous stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating
authorization has not been met.
The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the
bill.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to express some of my frustration, and maybe
then the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) will do the same.
We have now stricken what was already an appropriation of $900
million which was the President's request, true, but which was already
low by $300 million, lower than what each of the last 2 years had
appropriated after the final operation of the Committee on
Appropriations and the conference committee reports for the operation
of Amtrak.
It is silly to think they even could have operated within $900
million in this year without ending up in a shutdown situation, or
without leaving us
[[Page H7146]]
with an ever-worsening deferred maintenance problem.
I want to use this time to point out that Amtrak is a hybrid program.
It runs on 600 miles of the Northeast Corridor roughly, which is owned
by Amtrak and is the direct responsibility of that governmental agency.
That 600 miles of trackage takes more than half of all of the
passengers that are being dealt with by Amtrak.
Now that is the part that we have direct responsibility for. The rest
of the Amtrak lines operate on some 20,000 other miles of trackage that
is run by private freight carriers and Amtrak has contracts with them
and has priority to use that trackage. But we do not have specific
direct maintenance of those. We have the responsibility of making
certain that on the 600 miles the use of that track and that
commutation that is involved will be safe, and we have some
responsibility to make certain that the maintenance of that trackage
does provide safety for the people who are using it.
Now Congress has said several times by appropriating, has said, keep
the national rail system open; and Congress has not suggested that any
particular lines are supposed to be cut out even though they are not
profitable or ever may be profitable. We are waiting for an
authorization; there is no authorization. But the use of Amtrak
remains, and it is an exceptionally important use which moves a very
large number of people, 20 million people or thereabouts, on the
northeast line itself.
Furthermore, we have now eliminated by points of order that one thing
that many people think is a wonderful idea for the future, namely high-
speed rail. High-speed rail was already reduced by two-thirds from last
year's appropriation, more than two-thirds; but it also now has been
stricken and is not authorized either.
So high-speed rail, which is a process used in various parts of the
world, in Japan, Europe, running 120 to 150 miles an hour, where one
moves large numbers of people for relatively short distances between
large metropolitan areas, manages to move people that otherwise would
have to be in the air, and it is done that way much more efficiently.
{time} 1845
Now we take out that possibility as well in the motions that have
occurred.
Mr. Chairman, the Congress has appropriated $1.3 billion in the year
2003, $1.2 billion in the year 2004, an average of $1.1 billion over
each of the last 5 years, some of which came under authorizations that
were in effect, but the last two of which apparently occurred after
there was no authorization, but we managed to get the job done; and the
important thing is that we managed to get the job done. Even at the
level of funding that Amtrak was appropriated for over the last couple
of years, they cannot provide for the critical capital investments that
are particularly needed on the Northeast Corridor where we are directly
responsible for the maintenance and for the safety of the people who
are using that program.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is well understood at this point that we
should be appropriating at least what has been out there for the last
couple of years, or we are not doing the duty that we have to the
passengers who are using that system at the present time.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, there is an ongoing debate that I find somewhat ironic.
There is, on behalf of some of my colleagues, an almost theological
belief that the United States should be the only industrialized country
in the world that does not have subsidized passenger rail service, that
it is not an integral part of our transportation system. We have Amtrak
today because the private sector that had rail passenger service from
the 1830s until 1970 and was mammothly subsidized by the Federal
Government to do so, reached the point where it was not particularly
profitable for them to do it. Then the private rail roads with Congress
and the Nixon administration, created Amtrak so that there would be a
rail passenger alternative.
Some people now think that somehow the private sector is going to
step in and run a national system so that we would not be actually the
only country without passenger rail. Even most Third World countries
have rail passenger service as well as all the developed countries that
surpasses the United States. I find that somewhat ironic because this
Congress year after year after year puts billions of dollars into the
air passenger service which in its long illustrious history of being
force fed by Federal subsidies, starting with airmail, dealing with air
traffic control and the construction of airports, in its entire history
has a net profit of zero. And we continue, appropriately, to put
billions of dollars into it because it is an important part of the
Federal transportation infrastructure.
Now there are those that want to pull the plug on Amtrak. We passed
out of our Rail Subcommittee and then our Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee a year ago with broad bipartisan support,
there may have been one or two people who voted against it, in the
largest committee in Congress, maybe one or two, but I cannot remember
them, that bill has been languishing for 1 year because the Republican
leadership cannot somehow bring it to the floor and allow the will of
Congress to be worked.
So we have this travesty today where we have a program that is not
authorized despite the fact that the authorizing committee did its work
a year ago.
This embarrassing charade, and I am embarrassed for the majority
party that we are going through this, is not going to be sustained. As
George Will pointed out in his column of June 2003 when we were going
through the last shutdown charade, that support for Amtrak is strong
enough among all regions, ages, education levels, and income groups. A
CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll put it, at the height of last year's funding
crisis, at 70 percent American public support. No indication of
anything that that is not even stronger today.
So ultimately we will bump along, we will go through this, we will
fund Amtrak. Unfortunately, the inability of this Congress to move
forward to meet the other body in a responsible fashion and put a
reasonable authorizing bill on the floor means Amtrak is going to
continue to be hamstrung. You will not kill it because the public will
not let you. When we will have a crisis like 9/11 where if we did not
have our rail transportation system, the east coast would have been
shut down in gridlock from Alexandria to New Haven. Ultimately, this
bill will fail, but it continues to cut away at the ability of the new
administration in Amtrak to move forward, to build on the strong
ridership increase and to build the private and public partnerships
with State and local government that will be necessary, ultimately, to
have a successful program.
I as a Member of Congress am embarrassed that we are going through
this again. As somebody who cares about a balanced transportation
system, transit, air, road and rail, I am embarrassed because we need
this as a critical component. We will get there, but today's failure
makes it harder, more expensive, as Congress is increasingly
marginalized.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, of course the effect of the point of order raised is to
take the money that was in the bill, $900 million, the amount requested
by the administration for Amtrak, and to remove it. I regret that the
people who are staunch proponents of Amtrak want to continue it the way
that it is running now.
The administration opposes any more than $900 million for Amtrak
without reforming it. Amtrak has not been authorized since December of
2002 when the prior authorization bill expired. I think it is important
that we recognize why it has not been reauthorized. Until a couple of
years ago, Amtrak was still telling us, oh, they are about to start
making a profit and not to need Federal subsidies anymore.
After operating for 30 years, Amtrak has received over $40 billion in
Federal subsidies. It still only provides one-half of 1 percent of all
inner city transportation. Half of it is in the Northeast Corridor. In
the last 5 years, the subsidies by taxpayers through the appropriations
process have gone up 71 percent. In the same time, Amtrak's ridership
is only up 11 percent. It is a huge gap.
[[Page H7147]]
It continues to operate with substantial losses. Why? Because we do
not apply business principles. We do not apply proper principles to it.
Amtrak is only, I think, about 5 percent of all the rail passenger
service in the country. Most of the rail passenger service is commuter
rail. Amtrak functions in many areas actually as commuter rail and the
subsidies are astounding. If Amtrak is operating to provide commuter
rail passenger service, why is all the subsidy dumped on the Federal
taxpayer? Where are the States? Where are the cities? The
administration wants to create partnerships with them to have
participation of the people who benefit from Amtrak and who want a
subsidized rail service which is limited to certain parts of the
country. Those parts of the country need to be the ones that come to
the table and say we want this and therefore we are willing to pay for
part of it.
Amtrak passengers in some cases on some routes receive hundreds of
dollars per passenger in taxpayer subsidies. There are plenty of
examples where it is cheaper to hire a private limousine and driver to
pick up somebody at their door in one city and transport them to
another city to the door of their destination; it is cheaper to hire
them a limo and a driver and give them personal service than to have
them ride Amtrak in some situations.
We are not taking a realistic look at this. We should not be
bemoaning the fact that Amtrak is not being given more taxpayers'
money. If you want subsidized rail travel, you need to get your mayors,
you need to get your Governors, you need to get your local communities
and officials willing to pay for some of the costs of what operates for
many of them as a commuter rail service.
If you take the train, as I have done, between Washington and New
York City, so often you will find when it leaves Washington it does not
have that many people on it. When it gets to Baltimore it still does
not have that many people on it. Only when you get to the outskirts of
New York City do you start picking up a lot of passengers because it is
a commuter rail to them.
Why are we not talking to the communities about saying, you have a
role in Amtrak if you want it. Do not tell us it is all a Federal
responsibility. I know that the people feel passionately about it; but
we have a failed approach to Amtrak, and it is time that we recognize
it. If we want to do something about rail passenger service, we need a
lot more realistic model than we have with Amtrak. I support the
administration's proposal, which is to say we should not be increasing
funding for Amtrak until such time as we have reform legislation that
brings local and State people to the table and the private sector as
partners in that.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the
chairman that in every place, in every metropolitan area, at least that
I know of in this country, that has commuter rail, those commuter rail
systems are subsidized. None of them operate on a profitable basis. So
the real unreality here has been always the concept that Amtrak, that
our passenger rail system could operate and would operate on a
profitable basis. There has been no passenger rail system that has been
run in any industrialized country anywhere in the world that has
operated on a profitable basis.
The rest of the unreality here is that at the same time that we are
saying they should do that while leaving Amtrak with the mandate of
providing a national rail system with routes which have been designated
and mandated by the Congress and then blaming them for not being able
to do this in a profitable way, the ultimate unreality, it seems to me,
is what we started in the direction of high speed rail where we have
created 10 corridors, hopefully in the belief that there may be some
way of providing high-speed rail, which is extremely costly in its
infrastructure development in the first place, in its capital cost,
that that can possibly be done; and I do not disagree with the chairman
that there are things that probably ought to be done in dealing with a
rail system and in trying to make them more efficient.
We are being totally unrealistic, but we still have a very large
number of commuters who are using the system as we have it, and this
Congress has not managed to pass an authorization suggesting how it is
otherwise to be done. So we still have the problem; we still have
people who are operating every day in an ever less safe manner because
we are funding as low as we are and here we have stricken the money
from the legislation. The unreality here is monumental.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to deal with just the
notion that somehow Amtrak had promised that it was going to turn a
profit. I sat in committees and watched people browbeat the previous
administration; but what people made clear is that it was going to be
necessary to fund the capital requirements of Amtrak.
{time} 1900
There is a planned infrastructure improvement over 5 years,
reconstructing interlockings; installation of almost a million concrete
ties to improve efficiency; 423 miles of track undercutting; new rail,
352 miles; rebuilding of major bridges; cable signal replacement. These
are things that will improve the efficiency of the operation.
Congress has never fully funded the capital requirements, making it
inherently inefficient and chipping away at it. The Amtrak
administration has requested a reasonable capital budget to be able to
move it forward to meet the mandate that Members of Congress had for
more efficiency.
I would respectfully suggest when we look at the funding that we
lavish on the capital for airlines, what we do for highways, only a
portion of which comes from the user fee, only a portion of which comes
from the user fee, that we are selling this important element short at
a time when, if we would enhance it, it would actually reduce demand on
the roads. We would also reduce demand in congested airports when now a
third of our flights are 350 miles or less. We are not thinking this
through in a proper fashion.
I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me because I wanted to make
that point about its capital investment, which is critical if it is
ever going to operate the way my friend on the other side of the aisle
knows I would like to see, but we cannot starve Amtrak first.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
general provisions--federal railroad administration
Sec. 161. For the purpose of assisting State-supported
intercity rail service, in order to demonstrate whether
competition will provide higher quality rail passenger
service at reasonable prices, the Secretary of
Transportation, working with affected States, shall continue
to develop and implement a procedure for fair competitive
bidding by Amtrak and non-Amtrak operators for State-
supported routes: Provided, That in the event a State desires
to select or selects a non-Amtrak operator for the route, the
State may make an agreement with Amtrak to use facilities and
equipment of, or have services provided by, Amtrak under
terms agreed to by the State and Amtrak to enable the non-
Amtrak operator to provide the State-supported service:
Provided further, That if the parties cannot agree on terms,
the Secretary shall, as a condition of receipt of Federal
grant funds, order that the facilities and equipment be made
available and the services be provided by Amtrak under
reasonable terms and compensation: Provided further, That
when prescribing reasonable compensation to Amtrak, the
Secretary shall consider quality of service as a major factor
when determining whether, and the extent to which, the amount
of compensation shall be greater than the incremental costs
of using the facilities and providing the services: Provided
further, That the Secretary may reprogram up to $2,500,000
from the Amtrak operating grant funds for costs associated
with the implementation of the fair bid procedure and
demonstration of competition under this section.
Point of Order
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section
161, which begins on page 37, line 23, and ends on page 38, line 25.
Section 161 would require the Department of Transportation to develop
and implement a procedure of competitive bidding for State-supported
passenger rail routes, to require Amtrak to provide service in some
routes and a compensation determined by the Secretary and to allow the
Secretary to reprogram up
[[Page H7148]]
to $2.5 million from Amtrak operating funds to support this effort.
This is clearly legislative in nature and is in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this provision includes language imparting
direction. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 161 is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 162. Section 24315(b) of title 49 U.S. Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(b) Amtrak Annual Report and Budget Request.--(1) Not
later than February 15 of each year, Amtrak shall submit to
the President and Congress a complete report of its
operations, activities, and accomplishments, including a
statement of revenues and expenditures for the prior fiscal
year. The report--
``(A) shall include a discussion and accounting of Amtrak's
success in meeting the goal of section 24902(b) of this
title; and
``(B) may include recommendations for other legislation.
``(2) Not later than May 1st of each year, Amtrak's Board
of Directors shall submit to the Secretary of Transportation
Amtrak's budget request for the fiscal year commencing 17
months later.
``(3) The Secretary shall annually submit to Congress an
approved budget request for Amtrak as part of the President's
annual budget request to Congress.
``(4) Amtrak shall not submit any other requests for
funding unless such requests have been approved by the
Secretary of Transportation.''.
Point of Order
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 162
on page 39, line 1 through 23.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI, changing existing law
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in
violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this provision directly amends existing law. The
provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 162 is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 163. Notwithstanding any provisions of this or any
other Act, during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005,
and hereafter, the Federal Railroad Administration may use
funds appropriated by this or any other Act to provide for
the installation of a broadband high speed internet service
connection, including necessary equipment, for Federal
Railroad Administration employees, and to either pay directly
recurring monthly charges or to reimburse a percentage of
such monthly charges which are paid by such inspectors:
Provided, That the Federal Railroad Administration certifies
that adequate safeguards against private misuse exist, and
that the service is necessary for direct support of the
agency's mission.
Federal Transit Administration
administrative expenses
For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal
Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of
title 49, United States Code, $15,100,000: Provided, That no
more than $75,500,000 of budget authority shall be available
for these purposes: Provided further, That of the funds
available not to exceed $424,565 shall be available for the
Office of the Administrator; not to exceed $6,715,000 shall
be available for the Office of Administration; not to exceed
$4,061,000 shall be available for the Office of the Chief
Counsel; not to exceed $1,200,000 shall be available for the
Office of Communication and Congressional Affairs; not to
exceed $7,600,000 shall be available for the Office of
Program Management; not to exceed $6,700,000 shall be
available for the Office of Budget and Policy; not to exceed
$2,750,000 shall be available for the Office of Civil Rights;
not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be available for the Office of
Planning; not to exceed $19,982,000 shall be available for
regional offices; and not to exceed $19,557,000 shall be
available for the central account: Provided further, That the
Administrator is authorized to transfer funds appropriated
for an office of the Federal Transit Administration: Provided
further, That no appropriation for an office shall be
increased or decreased by more than a total of 3 percent by
all such transfers: Provided further, That any change in
funding totaling an amount greater than 3 percent during the
fiscal year shall be submitted for approval to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That
any funding transferred from the central account shall be
submitted for approval to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided or limited in this or any other Act may be used to
create a permanent office of transit security under this
heading: Provided further, That of the funds in this Act
available for the execution of contracts under section
5327(c) of title 49, United States Code, $3,000,000 shall be
reimbursed to the Department of Transportation's Office of
Inspector General for costs associated with audits and
investigations of transit-related issues, including reviews
of new fixed guideway systems: Provided further, That
$2,500,000 shall be for the National transit database to
remain available until expended: Provided further, That upon
submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2006
President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation shall
transmit to Congress the annual report on new starts,
proposed allocations of funds for fiscal year 2006: Provided
further, That the amount herein appropriated shall be reduced
by $20,000 per day for each day after initial submission of
the President's budget that the report has not been submitted
to the Congress.
Point of Order
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against page 40,
line 13, to page 42, line 15 because it provides an appropriation for
an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule
XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating
authorization has not been met.
The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the
bill.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, was the previous point of order against the
language of the entire paragraph?
The CHAIRMAN. The entire paragraph was stricken.
Mr. PETRI. Including all of page 41 and page 42 through line 16?
The CHAIRMAN. All of page 41, yes.
Mr. PETRI. And page 42 through line 16, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Page 42 through line 15.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
formula grants
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5308,
5310, 5311, 5327, and section 3038 of Public Law 105-178,
$767,800,000 to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $4,039,000,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes.
Point of Order
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on page 42, line
16, to page 42, line 21 because it provides an appropriation for an
unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating
authorization has not been met.
The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
university transportation research
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5505,
$1,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $6,000,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes.
Point of Order
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against page 42,
line 22, to page 42, line 26 because it provides an appropriation for
an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule
XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating
authorization has not been met.
The point order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
[[Page H7149]]
The Clerk read as follows:
transit planning and research
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304,
5305, 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322,
$25,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $126,000,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes: Provided further, That
$5,250,000 is available to provide rural transportation
assistance (49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)); $4,000,000 is available to
carry out programs under the National Transit Institute (49
U.S.C. 5315); $8,250,000 is available to carry out transit
cooperative research programs (49 U.S.C. 5313(a));
$60,386,600 is available for metropolitan planning (49 U.S.C.
5303, 5304, and 5305); $12,614,000 is available for State
planning (49 U.S.C. 5313(b)); and $35,500,000 is available
for the national planning and research program (49 U.S.C.
5314).
Point of Order
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. HEFLEY. I make a point on page 43, line 1, to page 43, line 16
because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and
therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating
authorization has not been met.
The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Trust Fund Share of Expenses
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 5303-5308,
5310-5315, 5317(b), 5322, 5327, 5334, 5505, and sections 3037
and 3038 of Public Law 105-178, $6,047,200,000, to remain
available until expended, and to be derived from the Mass
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That
$3,271,200,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's formula grants account: Provided further,
That $100,800,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's transit planning and research account:
Provided further, That $60,400,000 shall be paid to the
Federal Transit Administration's administrative expenses
account: Provided further, That $4,800,000 shall be paid to
the Federal Transit Administration's university
transportation research account: Provided further, That
$100,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's job access and reverse commute grants
program: Provided further, That $2,510,000,000 shall be paid
to the Federal Transit Administration's capital investment
grants account.
Point of Order
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase
``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 43, line 20.
This phrase violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in
violation of House rules.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order must be
expanded to lie against the entire paragraph and, as so expanded,
concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is expanded. The point of order is
conceded. The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken
from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Capital Investment Grants
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308, 5309,
5318, and 5327, $342,647,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That no more than $2,852,647,000 of
budget authority shall be available for these purposes:
Provided further, That there shall be available for fixed
guideway modernization, $1,214,400,000; there shall be
available for the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase
of buses and related equipment and the construction of bus-
related facilities, $607,400,000, and there shall be
available for new fixed guideway systems $1,030,827,000,
which shall include $39,827,000 transferred from the
``Federal Railroad Administration, Pennsylvania Station
Redevelopment Corporation'', together with $4,307,395 in
unobligated balances made available in Public Law 106-69,
$26,259,689 in unobligated balances made available in Public
Law 106-346, and $127,347,021 in unobligated balances made
available in Public Law 107-87, to carry out section 3037 of
Public Law 105-178, as amended, to be available as follows:
Atlanta, Georgia, North Springs Extension, $260,000;
Baltimore, Maryland, Central Light Rail Double Track,
$29,010,000;
Chicago, Illinois, Douglas Branch Reconstruction,
$85,000,000;
Chicago, Illinois, Metra Commuter Rail Expansions and
Extensions, $52,000,000;
Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood Line Extension, $40,000,000;
Denver, Colorado, Southeast Corridor LRT, $80,000,000;
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, South Florida Commuter Rail
Upgrades, $11,210,000;
Las Vegas, Nevada, Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway Project,
$36,800,000;
Los Angeles, California, Eastside Light Rail Transit
Project, $60,000,000;
Los Angeles, California, North Hollywood Extension,
$660,000;
Minneapolis, Minnesota, Hiawatha Light Rail Project,
$33,110,000;
New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street Corridor Project,
$16,460,000;
New York, New York Long Island Rail Road East Side Access,
$92,000,000;
Northern New Jersey Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS1,
$310,000;
Northern New Jersey Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS2,
$100,000,000;
Northern New Jersey Newark-Elizabeth Rail Line MOS1,
$1,340,000;
Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail,
$69,000,000;
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Stage II Light Rail, $1,121,000;
Portland, Oregon, Interstate Max Light Rail Extension,
$23,480,000;
Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT, $1,130,000;
Salt Lake City, Utah, Medical Center Extension, $8,680,000;
San Diego, California, Mission Valley East Light Rail
Extension, $81,640,000;
San Diego, California, Oceanside-Escondido Rail Corridor,
$55,000,000;
San Francisco, California, BART Extension to San Francisco
International Airport, $100,000,000;
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano Rapid Transit System,
$54,820,000;
Seattle, Washington, Central Link Initial Segment,
$80,000,000;
St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair Extension,
$60,000;
Washington, DC/MD, Largo Metrorail Extension, $75,430,000;
and
Hawaii and Alaska Ferry Boats, $10,296,000.
Point of Order
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on page 44, line
15, to page 47, line 19 because it provides an appropriation for an
unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating
authorization has not been met.
The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants
For necessary expenses to carry out section 3037 of the
Federal Transit Act of 1998, $50,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That no more than $150,000,000 of
budget authority shall be available for these purposes:
Provided further, That up to $300,000 of the funds provided
under this heading may be used by the Federal Transit
Administration for technical assistance and support and
performance reviews of the Job Access and Reverse Commute
Grants program.
Point of Order
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on page 47, line
20, to page 48, line 3 because it provides an appropriation for an
unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating
authorization has not been met.
The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the
bill.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
On page 48 of the bill, line 4, insert the following:
``General Services Administration
real property activities
federal buildings fund
For an additional amount to be deposited in, and to be used
for the purposes of, the
[[Page H7150]]
Fund established pursuant to section 210(f) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended
(40 U.S.C. 592), $1,775,261,000.''
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) reserves a
point of order.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, due to the points of order that have been
raised, we have many amounts, of course, that have been stricken from
the bill. Some of the amounts would have added money to the bill
through the point of order strikings. Some would have subtracted money
from the bill. The net of those is this $1.7 billion figure. We need a
place to put that. I know it might be nice to put it on the national
debt or such, but that would still under parliamentary procedures allow
people to offer an amendment to spend it someplace else.
We have in the General Services Administration the Federal Building
Fund, an unmet backlog of I believe some $7 billion in unmet Federal
construction needs. Although it is not my intent to keep this money
back when this bill goes to conference, it is my intent essentially to
restore and to resolve the parliamentary problems and to restore it to
the accounts of which it was taken.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of this bill today, I offer this
amendment to take this money that has been stricken from the bill and
put it in the Federal Building Fund.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) insist on
his point of order?
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I do not.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) withdraws his
point of order.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
General Provisions--Federal Transit Administration
Sec. 171. The limitations on obligations for the programs
of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any
authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for
obligation, or to any other authority previously made
available for obligation.
Sec. 172. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and
except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made
available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration,
Capital investment grants'' for projects specified in this
Act or identified in reports accompanying this Act not
obligated by September 30, 2007, and other recoveries, shall
be made available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
Sec. 173. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated before October 1, 2004, under any section
of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain
available for expenditure may be transferred to and
administered under the most recent appropriation heading for
any such section.
Sec. 174. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
the purpose of calculating the non-New Starts share of the
total project cost of both phases of San Francisco Muni's
Third Street Light Rail Transit project for fiscal year 2005,
the Secretary of Transportation shall include all non-New
Starts contributions made towards Phase 1 of the two-phase
project for engineering, final design and construction, and
also shall allow non-New Starts funds expended on one element
or phase of the project to be used to meet the non-New Starts
share requirement of any element or phase of the project:
Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this Act
for the San Francisco Muni Third Street Light Rail Transit
Project shall be obligated if the Federal Transit
Administration determines that the project is found to be
``not recommended'' after evaluation and computation of
revised transportation system user benefit data.
Point of Order
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 174
on page 48, line 25, through page 49, line 15.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in
violation of the rules of this House.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this language explicitly supersedes existing
law. The language therefore constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 174 is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 175. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
to any Federal transit grantee after February 1, 2004,
involved directly or indirectly, in any activity that
promotes the legalization or medical use of any substance
listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812 et seq.).
Sec. 176. From unobligated balances in the Federal Transit
Administration's Discretionary Grants account, not to exceed
$72,792,311 shall be transferred as follows: to the Federal
Transit Administration's Formula Grants account, not to
exceed $42,190,828; and to the Interstate Transfer Grants--
Transit account, not to exceed $30,601,483: Provided, That
these unobligated balances are used, together with Formula
Grant funds that are available for reapportionment in such
account, to restore obligation authority reduced due to a
prior deficiency.
Sec. 177. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
unobligated funds designated to the Oklahoma Transit
Association on pages 1305 through 1307 of the Joint
Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference for
Public Law 108-7 may be made available to the Metropolitan
Tulsa Transit Authority and the Central Oklahoma
Transportation and Parking Authority for any project or
activity authorized under section 3037 of Public Law 105-178
upon receipt of an application.
{time} 1915
Point of Order
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against this
section.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 177
on page 50, line 7 through line 15.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in
violation of the rules of this House.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any further Members desire to be heard on the point
of order?
If not, the Chair finds that this language explicitly supersedes
existing law. The language, therefore, constitutes legislation in
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 177 is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby
authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of
funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation,
and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and
commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control
Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the
programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the
current fiscal year.
Operations and Maintenance
(harbor maintenance trust fund)
For necessary expenses for operations and maintenance of
those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and
maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation, $15,900,000, to be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662:
Provided, That, of this amount, $1,500,000 shall be for the
concrete replacement project and related expenses at the
Eisenhower and Snell Locks.
Maritime Administration
Maritime Security Program
For necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag
merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the
United States, $98,700,000, to remain available until
expended.
operations and training
For necessary expenses of operations and training
activities authorized by law, $106,400,000, of which
$23,753,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2005,
for salaries and benefits of employees of the United States
Merchant Marine Academy; of which $13,138,000 shall remain
available until expended for capital improvements at the
United States Merchant Marine Academy; and of which
$8,090,000 shall remain available until expended for the
State Maritime Schools Schoolship Maintenance and Repair.
ship disposal
For necessary expenses related to the disposal of obsolete
vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet of the Maritime
Administration, $19,116,000, to remain available until
expended.
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account
(including transfer of funds)
For administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed
loan program, not to exceed $4,764,000, which shall be
transferred to and merged with the appropriation for
Operations and Training.
[[Page H7151]]
Ship Construction
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$1,979,000 are rescinded.
General Provisions--Maritime Administration
Sec. 185. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,
the Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish
utilities and services and make necessary repairs in
connection with any lease, contract, or occupancy involving
Government property under control of the Maritime
Administration, and payments received therefore shall be
credited to the appropriation charged with the cost thereof:
Provided, That rental payments under any such lease,
contract, or occupancy for items other than such utilities,
services, or repairs shall be covered into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
Sec. 186. No obligations shall be incurred during the
current fiscal year from the construction fund established by
the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, or otherwise, in excess of the
appropriations and limitations contained in this Act or in
any prior appropriations Act.
Sec. 187. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used to implement or make an
award pursuant to the National Defense Tank Vessel
Construction Assistance Program Request for Proposals issued
by the Maritime Administration on February 20, 2004.
Research and Special Programs Administration
Research and Special Programs
For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Research and Special Programs Administration, $46,790,000, of
which $645,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety
Fund, and of which $3,025,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2007: Provided, That up to $1,200,000 in fees
collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall be deposited in the
general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts: Provided
further, That there may be credited to this appropriation, to
be available until expended, funds received from States,
counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and
private sources for expenses incurred for training, for
reports publication and dissemination, and for travel
expenses incurred in performance of hazardous materials
exemptions and approvals functions.
Pipeline Safety
(pipeline safety fund)
(oil spill liability trust fund)
For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the
pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a
pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107,
and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the
Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $68,466,000, of which $14,000,000
shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and
shall remain available until September 30, 2007; of which
$54,466,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund,
of which $22,901,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2007: Provided further, That not less than $1,000,000 of
the funds provided under this heading shall be for the one-
call state grant program.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(emergency preparedness fund)
For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5127(c),
$200,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund,
to remain available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That
not more than $14,300,000 shall be made available for
obligation in fiscal year 2004 from amounts made available by
49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d) 2007: Provided further, That
none of the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i),
5127(c), and 5127(d) shall be made available for obligation
by individuals other than the Secretary of Transportation, or
his designee.
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, $58,000,000: Provided, That the Inspector
General shall have all necessary authority, in carrying out
the duties specified in the Inspector General Act, as amended
(5 U.S.C. App. 3) to investigate allegations of fraud,
including false statements to the government (18 U.S.C.
1001), by any person or entity that is subject to regulation
by the Department: Provided further, That the funds made
available under this heading shall be used to investigate,
pursuant to section 41712 of title 49, United States Code:
(1) unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of
competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket
agents; and (2) the compliance of domestic and foreign air
carriers with respect to item (1) of this proviso.
Surface Transportation Board
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board,
including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $20,771,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed $1,250,000 from fees established by the
Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board shall be
credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and
used for necessary and authorized expenses under this
heading: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar
basis as such offsetting collections are received during
fiscal year 2005, to result in a final appropriation from the
general fund estimated at no more than $19,721,000.
Point of Order
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 56, line
6, to page 56, line 20, because it provides an appropriation for an
unauthorized program and, therefore, violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Do further Members desire to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, as previously stated by the Chair, the burden of
demonstrating authorization has not been met.
The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the
bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
General Provisions--Department of Transportation
(including transfers of funds)
Sec. 188. During the current fiscal year applicable
appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be
available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of
passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability
insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries
on official department business; and uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
Sec. 189. Appropriations contained in this Act for the
Department of Transportation shall be available for services
as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals
not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an
Executive Level IV.
Sec. 190. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for salaries and expenses of more than 106 political and
Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation:
Provided, That none of the personnel covered by this
provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside the
Department of Transportation.
Sec. 191. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 192. (a) No recipient of funds made available in this
Act shall disseminate personal information (as defined in 18
U.S.C. 2725(3)) obtained by a State department of motor
vehicles in connection with a motor vehicle record as defined
in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1), except as provided in 18 U.S.C. 2721
for a use permitted under 18 U.S.C. 2721.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall not
withhold funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a
State is in noncompliance with this provision.
Sec. 193. Funds received by the Federal Highway
Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal
Railroad Administration from States, counties,
municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources
for expenses incurred for training may be credited
respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's
``Federal-Aid Highways'' account, the Federal Transit
Administration's ``Transit Planning and Research'' account,
and to the Federal Railroad Administration's ``Safety and
Operations'' account, except for State rail safety inspectors
participating in training pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.
Sec. 194. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, rule
or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized
to allow the issuer of any preferred stock heretofore sold to
the Department to redeem or repurchase such stock upon the
payment to the Department of an amount determined by the
Secretary.
Sec. 195. None of the funds in title I of this Act may be
used to make a grant unless the Secretary of Transportation
notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
not less than 3 full business days before any discretionary
grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant
agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the
department or its modal administrations from: (1) any
discretionary grant program of the Federal Highway
Administration other than the emergency relief program; (2)
the airport improvement program of the Federal Aviation
Administration; or (3) any program of the Federal Transit
Administration other than the formula grants and fixed
guideway modernization programs: Provided, That no
notification shall involve funds that are not available for
obligation.
Sec. 196. Rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees
and other funds received by the Department of Transportation
from travel management centers, charge card programs, the
subleasing of building space, and miscellaneous sources are
to be credited to appropriations of the Department of
Transportation and allocated to elements of the Department of
Transportation using fair and equitable criteria and such
funds shall be available until expended.
Sec. 197. Amounts made available in this or any other Act
that the Secretary determines represent improper payments by
the Department of Transportation to a third party contractor
under a financial assistance award, which are recovered
pursuant to law, shall be available--
(1) to reimburse the actual expenses incurred by the
Department of Transportation in recovering improper payments;
and
[[Page H7152]]
(2) to pay contractors for services provided in recovering
improper payments: Provided, That amounts in excess of that
required for paragraphs (1) and (2)--
(A) shall be credited to and merged with the appropriation
from which the improper payments were made, and shall be
available for the purposes and period for which such
appropriations are available; or
(B) if no such appropriation remains available, shall be
deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts:
Provided, That prior to the transfer of any such recovery to
an appropriations account, the Secretary shall notify the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of the amount
and reasons for such transfer: Provided further, That for
purposes of this section, the term ``improper payments'', has
the same meaning as that provided in section 2(d)(2) of
Public Law 107-300.
Sec. 198. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to
transfer the unexpended balances available for the bonding
assistance program from ``Office of the secretary, salaries
and expenses'' to ``Minority business outreach''.
Sec. 199. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Department of Transportation may be obligated for the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve
assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds
appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, except
for activities underway on the date of enactment of this Act,
unless such assessments or agreements have completed the
normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Departmental Offices
Salaries and Expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the departmental offices
including operation and maintenance of the Treasury Building
and Annex; hire of passenger motor vehicles; maintenance,
repairs, and improvements of, and purchase of commercial
insurance policies for, real properties leased or owned
overseas, when necessary for the performance of official
business; not to exceed $2,750,000 for official travel
expenses; not to exceed $3,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2006 for information technology modernization
requirements; not to exceed $75,000 for official reception
and representation expenses; not to exceed $258,000 for
unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, to be
allocated and expended under the direction of the Secretary
of the Treasury and to be accounted for solely on his
certificate, $177,000,000: Provided, That the Office of
Foreign Assets Control shall be funded at no less than
$22,511,000 and 120 full-time equivalent positions: Provided
further, That of these amounts, up to $2,900,000 is for
grants to State and local law enforcement groups to help
fight money laundering; $3,393,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2006, shall be for the Treasury-wide financial
statement audit program, of which such amounts as may be
necessary may be transferred to accounts of the Department's
offices and bureaus to conduct audits: Provided further, That
this transfer authority shall be in addition to any other
provided in this Act.
Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs
(including transfer of funds)
For development and acquisition of automatic data
processing equipment, software, and services for the
Department of the Treasury, $36,072,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2007: Provided, That these funds shall be
transferred to accounts and in amounts as necessary to
satisfy the requirements of the Department's offices,
bureaus, and other organizations: Provided further, That this
transfer authority shall be in addition to any other transfer
authority provided in this Act: Provided further, That none
of the funds appropriated shall be used to support or
supplement ``Internal revenue service, information systems''
or ``Internal revenue service, business systems
modernization''.
Office of Inspector General
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as amended, not to exceed $2,000,000 for official
travel expenses, including hire of passenger motor vehicles;
and not to exceed $100,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a
confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the
direction of the Inspector General of the Treasury,
$16,500,000.
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration in carrying out the Inspector General
Act of 1978, as amended, including purchase (not to exceed
150 for replacement only for police-type use) and hire of
passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); services
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be
determined by the Inspector General for Tax Administration;
not to exceed $6,000,000 for official travel expenses; and
not to exceed $500,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a
confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the
direction of the Inspector General for Tax Administration,
$129,126,000.
Air Transportation Stabilization Program Account
For necessary expenses to administer the Air Transportation
Stabilization Board established by section 102 of the Air
Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (Public
Law 107-42), $2,000,000 to remain available until expended.
Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration
(including transfer of funds)
For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Treasury
Building and Annex, $20,316,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2007: Provided, That up to $2,000,000 of the
amount provided under this heading shall be transferred to
and merged with ``Office of Inspector General, salaries and
expenses'' for costs associated with the audit of this
account.
Expanded Access to Financial Services
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$4,000,000 are rescinded.
Violent Crime Reduction Program
(rescission)
Of the unobligated balances available under this heading,
$1,000,000 are rescinded.
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the financial crimes enforcement
network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel
expenses of non-Federal law enforcement personnel to attend
meetings concerned with financial intelligence activities,
law enforcement, and financial regulation; and for assistance
to Federal law enforcement agencies, with or without
reimbursement, $64,502,000, of which not to exceed $7,000,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2007; and of which
$8,354,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2006:
Provided, That funds appropriated in this account may be used
to procure personal services contracts.
Financial Management Service
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the financial management service,
$230,930,000, of which not to exceed $9,220,000 shall remain
available until September 30, 2007, for information systems
modernization initiatives.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of carrying out section 1111 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, including hire of passenger
motor vehicles, $82,542,000; of which not to exceed $50,000
for cooperative research and development programs for
laboratory services; and provision of laboratory assistance
to State and local agencies with or without reimbursement.
United States Mint
united states mint public enterprise fund
Pursuant to section 5136 of title 31, United States Code,
the United States Mint is provided funding through the United
States Mint Public Enterprise Fund for costs associated with
the production of circulating coins, numismatic coins, and
protective services, including both operating expenses and
capital investments. The aggregate amount of new liabilities
and obligations incurred during fiscal year 2005 under such
section 5136 for circulating coinage and protective service
capital investments of the United States Mint shall not
exceed $41,100,000.
Bureau of the Public Debt
administering the public debt
For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt
issues of the United States, $179,566,000, of which not to
exceed $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended for
systems modernization: Provided, That the sum appropriated
herein from the general fund for fiscal year 2005 shall be
reduced by not more than $4,400,000 as definitive security
issue fees and Treasury direct investor account maintenance
fees are collected, so as to result in a final fiscal year
2005 appropriation from the general fund estimated at
$175,166,000. In addition, $60,000 to be derived from the Oil
Spill Liability Trust Fund to reimburse the Bureau for
administrative and personnel expenses for financial
management of the Fund, as authorized by section 1012 of
Public Law 101-380.
Internal Revenue Service
Processing, Assistance, and Management
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for
pre-filing taxpayer assistance and education, filing and
account services, shared services support, general management
and administration; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, at such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner,
$4,071,824,000, of which up to $4,100,000 shall be for the
Tax Counseling for the Elderly Program, and of which
$7,500,000 shall be available for low-income taxpayer clinic
grants.
Tax Law Enforcement
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for
determining and establishing tax liabilities; providing
litigation support; conducting criminal investigation and
enforcement activities; securing unfiled tax returns;
collecting unpaid accounts; conducting a document matching
program; resolving taxpayer problems through prompt
[[Page H7153]]
identification, referral and settlement; expanded customer
service and public outreach programs, strengthened
enforcement activities, and enhanced research efforts to
reduce erroneous filings associated with the earned income
tax credit; compiling statistics of income and conducting
compliance research; purchase (for police-type use, not to
exceed 850) and hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C.
1343(b)); and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at
such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner,
$4,278,107,000, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2007, for research:
Provided, That up to $10,000,000 may be transferred as
necessary from this account to the IRS Processing,
Assistance, and Management appropriation or the IRS
Information Systems appropriation solely for the purposes of
management of the Earned Income Tax Credit compliance program
and to reimburse the Social Security Administration for the
cost of implementing section 1090 of the Taxpayer Relief Act
of 1997 (Public Law 105-33): Provided further, That this
transfer authority shall be in addition to any other transfer
authority provided in this Act.
Information Systems
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for
information systems and telecommunications support, including
developmental information systems and operational information
systems; the hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C.
1343(b)); and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at
such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner,
$1,622,093,000, of which $200,000,000 shall remain available
until September 30, 2006.
Mr. OLVER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I am not sure where we
have gotten here. I was standing and thought I had spoken when the tax
law administration and tax law enforcement item came up. Where are we
now?
The Clerk had called information systems, I think, or had moved to
there and moved right on.
The CHAIRMAN. We have read through page 70, line 3, at this point.
Mr. OLVER. Page 70, line 3?
The CHAIRMAN. Page 70, line 3.
Mr. OLVER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to
page 68, line 16.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, as I did in my earlier comments in
the opening statement, that the IRS tax enforcement program has been
underfunded by $286 million compared with the President's
recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, the tax law enforcement program is an exceedingly
important program. The President has requested $286 million more than
the bill before us provides, and the Commissioner of the IRS has given
us sworn testimony that the proper use of that money would afford us at
least a 6-to-1 margin on revenue gained for the use of the $286
million.
Now, in fact, in my discussion with the IRS Commissioner, he has made
it clear to me that that is an average over all of the administrative
uses of the tax law enforcement program; and that, at least, if one
were to use that in some areas of enforcement, that one might be able
to get as much as a 15- or 20-to-1 return for the amount of money; but
that in the process of trying to organize an orderly program for the
enforcement, that you try to balance that program, as we have been
talking about a balanced transportation program, and only enforce very
hard in one area or another; but that it is possible in some areas to
mix what would be enforcement gains of as much as 15- or 20-to-1 with
other places, so that we really ought to put some effort into where the
gain may be only 2- or 3- or 4-to-1 and end up with an average in the
range of approximately 6-to-1.
Now, with that money, the revenue gained by the use of such
enforcement monies, which the President requested, of just under $300
million, then we have an opportunity to gain $2 billion of revenue,
which can be used in a variety of ways: to cut the debt; to take care
of problems such as we have in this bill even before the charade of all
of the points of order that have been added here or have been taken
here; or for what I originally called the most serious problems of lack
of funding for things like transit new-starts for Amtrak and other
things in the Highway Safety Administration.
Besides that, one has to think of exactly where this money is coming
from. The Commissioner of the IRS points out that there is at least
$300 billion every year of money which is owed under the law to the
Government, which is not collected, which is evaded, in essence,
evaded. And every time there is that kind of evasion, since that is
roughly $1 of $6 or $7 of tax revenue that the whole Government raises,
that when that happens, that people, honest people who have paid their
taxes, as they ought to, in what is basically a voluntary system that
we have, when those people pay their taxes, then the six out of seven
or so that do pay the taxes that are owed under the law end up
subsidizing the one out of seven that is evading the taxes and not
paying any.
So those people, that six out of seven, have to put in a sum of money
which is 10 percent higher or 15 percent higher by the rate in order to
make up for those who are not paying taxes at all.
{time} 1930
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to page
66 of this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from New York (Mrs. Kelly) to return to the last paragraph that begins
on page 65?
Mr. ISTOOK. I reserve the right to object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) reserves the
right to object.
To what paragraph did the gentlewoman wish to return to on page 66?
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has reserved the right to object to the
unanimous consent request. Does the gentleman wish to exercise his
right?
Mr. ISTOOK. I was trying to grant the gentlewoman the courtesy to
state her intent, but I do intend to assert my objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) object?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request is not agreed to.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, my unanimous consent request has been turned down.
However, that unanimous consent request was for an amendment to be
considered as the Kelly - Oxley - Frank - Gutierrez - Royce - Maloney -
Lowey amendment.
Today I have a solidly bipartisan amendment to offer to this bill on
page 66 to increase funding for the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network within the Treasury Department also known as FinCEN. FinCEN is
probably not one of the more well known agencies within our government,
but it is an increasingly important one as we continue to sharpen our
government's abilities to fight terror finance.
I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) because I
know that he recognizes the important role of FinCEN which he did by
meeting the level of the administration at the start of this year. I
offer this amendment, however, because I believe that a relatively
modest increase for FinCEN above the current House level would
significantly improve our government's efforts to combat terrorist
financing and other financial crimes.
Mr. Chairman, I have held 3 years of hearings on following terrorist
crimes and terrorist financing. As many Members know, FinCEN is the
Treasury bureau responsible for administering our anti-money laundering
system. They are also the bureau responsible for collecting, analyzing
and when necessary sharing information with law enforcement and
intelligence agencies regarding illicit financial activity.
The importance of these responsibilities to our national security is
very clear. As Secretary Snow pointed out earlier this year, our
ability to combat terrorist financing is linked with our ability to
combat money laundering. And as many of my fellow members of the
Committee on Financial Services will remember, 9/11 Commissioner Vice
Chairman Lee Hamilton recently testified before our committee about the
critical importance of enforcing our anti-money laundering law. I am
quoting his statement.
``Vigilance in this area assists in preventing notorious and open
fund-raising. It forces terrorists and their sympathizers to raise and
move money clandestinely, therefore raising the costs and risks
involved.''
[[Page H7154]]
Unfortunately, it has become clear that we are not doing as well in
this fundamental aspect of our fight against terror finance. In spite
of this important role in our fight against terrorism, FinCEN still
lacks important resources it sorely needs to be an effective center
point in combating terror financing and money laundering.
It must be understood by Members that FinCEN while responsible for
our anti-money laundering law has few tools of its own. It is reliant
on eight different regulatory bodies, most of which do not fall within
the Treasury Department's jurisdiction, and as we have found through
the Inspector General reports and highly publicized regulatory failures
such as Riggs Bank, this fragmented system has had a serious
interaction problem which has prevented the synchronized effective
regime that circumstances clearly want.
This amendment would bring forth more effective and streamlined focus
to our efforts to trace money laundering and combat terrorist
financing. Progress can only be made through a strong, substantive
commitment to equipping FinCEN with new assets, which is what this
amendment would do.
I would like to point out that the President's request of FinCEN was
made prior to several high profile regulatory failures. This
legislation before us was considered in committee prior to the 9/11
Commission's report and the Commission's subsequent testimony to the
Committee on Financial Services on terrorist financing. Since then,
there has been significant evidence that our government has made many
improvements to combat money laundering. However, we must enhance the
tools that we have to combat terrorist financing and FinCEN is one of
those.
The authorities have all indicated it requires new and different
tools. That is why there is such strong bipartisan support for my
amendment. Increasing funding for FinCEN by a small amount will have a
significant impact on our government's ability to fight the war against
terrorism in a more negative way than it would if my amendment were
accepted. In fact, it is estimated that the agency needs $25.5 million
to expand and improve its capabilities. This additional funding will
help FinCEN secure the appropriate application of state of the art
technology that would dramatically improve its ability to track
terrorist financing. It will also enable the agency to hire much needed
full-time employees to support more effective and extensive
examination.
That being said, having heard my plea, I would again ask unanimous
consent to return to page 66.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I object to the unanimous consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous
consent that the gentlewoman from New York and others be allowed to
submit statements on this subject of this amendment that has been
objected to.
The CHAIRMAN. That request would have to be made in the full House.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the presentation by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
FinCEN financing in this measure is already increased by 12.7 percent
over the last fiscal year. We have added significant dollars in the
full committee to the FinCEN appropriations, and the FinCEN
appropriations is at the level that was requested by the
administration. However, for the gentlewoman from New York and other
Members who are concerned, we will continue to work with them on this
issue to make sure that we do not disagree, have a disagreement with
the administration, and might perhaps be persuaded that there might be
some different number that should be in the final vote of conference.
However, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be constantly in this process
with a long night ahead of us going back and reopening different parts
of the bill that have been closed. We all know it is a slow moving
process as it is. And if we start accepting every unanimous consent, we
would not be completed.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Are
we at the point of the bill dealing with section 216?
The CHAIRMAN. The reading has not progressed to that section.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Business Systems Modernization
For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service,
$285,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007,
for the capital asset acquisition of information technology
systems, including management and related contractual costs
of said acquisitions, including contractual costs associated
with operations authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That
none of these funds may be obligated until the Internal
Revenue Service submits to the Committees on Appropriations,
and such Committees approve, a plan for expenditure that: (1)
meets the capital planning and investment control review
requirements established by the Office of Management and
Budget, including Circular A-11 part 3; (2) complies with the
Internal Revenue Service's enterprise architecture, including
the modernization blueprint; (3) conforms with the Internal
Revenue Service's enterprise life cycle methodology; (4) is
approved by the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of
the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget; (5)
has been reviewed by the General Accounting Office; and (6)
complies with the acquisition rules, requirements,
guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of
the Federal Government.
Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration
For expenses necessary to implement the health insurance
tax credit included in the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
210), $34,841,000.
Administrative Provisions--Department of the Treasury
Sec. 201. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made
available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service may be
transferred to any other Internal Revenue Service
appropriation upon the advance approval of the Committees on
Appropriations.
Sec. 202. The Internal Revenue Service Shall maintain a
training program to ensure that Internal Revenue Service
employees are trained in taxpayers' rights, in dealing
courteously with the taxpayers, and in cross-cultural
relations.
Sec. 203. The Internal Revenue Service shall institute and
enforce policies and procedures that will safeguard the
confidentiality of taxpayer information.
Sec. 204. Funds made available by this or any other Act to
the Internal Revenue service shall be available for improved
facilities and manpower to provide sufficient and effective
1-800 help line service for taxpayers. The Commissioner shall
continue to make the improvement of the Internal Revenue
Service 1-800 help line service a priority and allocate
resources necessary to increase phone lines and staff to
improve the Internal Revenue Service 1-800 help line service.
Sec. 205. Appropriations to the Department of the Treasury
in this Act shall be available for uniforms or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901), including
maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of insurance for
official motor vehicles operated in foreign countries;
purchase of motor vehicles without regard to the general
purchase price limitations for vehicles purchased and used
overseas for the current fiscal year; entering into contracts
with the Department of State for the furnishing of health and
medical services to employees and their dependents serving in
foreign countries; and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
Sec. 206. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriations in
this Act made available to the Departmental Offices--Salaries
and Expenses, Office of Inspector General, Financial
Management Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and Bureau of the
Public Debt, may be transferred between such appropriations
upon the advance approval of the Committees on
Appropriations: Provided, That no transfer may increase or
decrease any such appropriation by more than 2 percent.
Sec. 207. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriation made
available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service may be
transferred to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration's appropriation upon the advance approval of
the Committees on Appropriations: Provided, That no transfer
may increase or decrease any such appropriation by more than
2 percent.
Sec. 208. Of the funds available for the purchase of law
enforcement vehicles, no funds may be obligated until the
Secretary of the Treasury certifies that the purchase by the
respective Treasury bureau is consistent with Departmental
vehicle management principles: Provided, That the Secretary
may delegate this authority to the Assistant Secretary for
Management.
Sec. 209. None of the funds appropriated in this Act or
otherwise available to the Department of the Treasury or the
Bureau of Engraving and Printing may be used to redesign the
$1 Federal Reserve note.
Sec. 210. The Secretary of the Treasury may transfer funds
from ``Financial management service, salaries and expenses''
to ``Debt services'' as necessary to cover the costs of debt
collection: Provided, That such amounts shall be reimbursed
to such salaries and expenses account from debt collections
received in the Debt Services Account.
Sec. 211. Section 122(g)(1) of Public Law 105-119 (5 U.S.C.
3104 note), is further amended by striking ``6 years'' and
inserting ``7 years''.
[[Page H7155]]
Sec. 212. The Treasury Department Appropriations Act, 1997
under the heading ``Treasury Franchise Fund'', as amended, is
further amended by striking ``October 1, 2004'' and inserting
``October 1, 2005''.
Sec. 213. (a) Section 3333 of title 31, United States Code,
is amended as follows:
(1) By amending subsection (a)(1) to read as follows:
``(a)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury is not liable for a
payment made by the Secretary or depositary in due course and
without negligence, of--
(A) a check, draft, or warrant drawn on the Treasury or the
depositary;
(B) an electronic payment issued by the Treasury or the
depositary; and
(C) a debt obligation guaranteed or assumed by the United
States Government.'';
(2) By inserting after paragraph (2) of subsection (a) the
following new paragraph:
``(3) The amount of the relief shall be charged to the
Check Forgery Insurance Fund (31 U.S.C. 3343). A recovery or
repayment of a loss for which replacement is made out of the
fund shall be credited to the fund and is available for the
purposes for which the fund was established.''.
(b) The Check Forgery Insurance Fund (31 U.S.C. 3343) shall
be available to fund amounts relating to the payment of items
listed in 31 U.S.C. 3333(a)(1), as amended above, prior to
the enactment of this Act.
Sec. 214. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act may be used by the United
States Mint to construct or operate any museum without the
explicit approval of the House Committee on Financial
Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
Sec. 215. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this or any other Act or source to the
Department of the Treasury, the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing, and the United States Mint, individually or
collectively, may be used to consolidate any or all functions
of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States
Mint without the explicit approval of the House Committee on
Financial Services; the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs; the House Committee on Appropriations; and
the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. ISTOOK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the text of the bill through page 76, line 2 be considered
as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to that portion of the
bill?
Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 216. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Secretary of the Treasury may be used to publish,
implement, administer, or enforce regulations that permit
financial institutions to accept the matricula consular
identification card as a form of identification.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Oxley
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Oxley:
Strike section 216 (relating to identification accepted by
financial institutions).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1 hour and that the
time be equally divided.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to
object, I just want to point out there is a difference between ending
in 1 hour and 1 hour of debate; namely, whether or not the clock stops.
I would agree if we are talking about 1 full hour of debate, but if
we are talking about 1 hour on the clock I would object.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, that is satisfactory.
The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request is that all debate cease
after 1 hour of debate.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, equally divided, I assume?
The CHAIRMAN. It will be divided and controlled equally between the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the time in opposition to the
gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Oxley) amendment to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Culberson), a member of the subcommittee to let him control that
debate.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)?
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that half of my time be
allocated to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking
member of the Committee on Financial Services.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley)?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The time is divided, one-fourth to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Oxley), one-fourth to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) and one-half to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) is recognized.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and the
ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, as well as a
respected member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
{time} 1945
Our amendment will strike ill advised language adopted in the
Committee on Appropriations that, if allowed to remain in the bill,
would prevent the Treasury Department from enforcing regulations
implementing customer identification provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act
that are critically important to combating money laundering and
disrupting the financing of terrorism.
I note at the outset that the Bush administration has issued a
strongly worded statement of administration position opposing the
language that the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment would strike from this
legislation.
My colleagues are going to hear a lot in today's debate about what
whether one form of ID is better than another; but as the author of the
USA PATRIOT Act's anti-terrorist financing provisions and as a former
FBI, agent, let me set the record straight. Today's debate is not about
good or bad ID. It is about whether we are going to ask financial
services customers for any ID at all. My amendment says yes; and the
bill, as currently constructed, says no.
By way of background, the regulations that the bill seeks to block
were issued by the Treasury Department last year under section 326 of
the USA PATRIOT Act, which I authored. That provision was intended to
enhance the ability of financial institutions to detect and prevent
money laundering and the financing of terrorism by requiring those
institutions to develop comprehensive procedures for verifying customer
identity at the time of account opening. Among other things, the
provision requires financial institutions to consult lists of known or
suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations when opening accounts
for new customers.
In implementing section 326, the administration ultimately decided to
give institutions the flexibility to tailor their customer
identification programs to the risks of money laundering or terrorist
financing posed by their products, services, and customer base.
Consistent with this risk-based approach, the final regulations give
financial institutions the discretion to determine which forms of
identification issued by foreign governments they will accept and under
what circumstances.
Make no mistake, the regulations do not mandate or require the
acceptance of the matricula consular card. If financial institutions
are concerned about their validity, they are free to reject the use of
those cards as identification.
These regulations were finalized only after two lengthy public
comment periods, which included extensive input from the financial
services industry, law enforcement agencies, and a host of other
interested parties, and after careful analysis and study by the
Treasury Department and other financial regulators. The regulations,
effective last year, are currently being enforced by Treasury and the
Federal financial regulators and implemented by financial institutions
across the country.
The so-called Culberson amendment throws into question the obligation
of financial institutions to verify the identities of their customers
and ties Treasury's hands in enforcing one of the centerpieces of the
post-September
[[Page H7156]]
11 congressional response to the terrorist financing threat.
Indeed, when he appeared before our committee last month, 9/11
Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, a former distinguished colleague
of ours, singled out section 326 for particular praise, calling it a
``significant tool to assist fast-moving terrorism investigations.''
Failure to adopt this amendment will result in this critical tool
being taken from the Government's hands. I would suggest to my
colleagues that now is not the time to be unilaterally disarming in the
financial war against terrorists.
The Bush administration and the Treasury Department have registered
their strong support for this amendment, arguing that denying access to
the mainstream financial system serves only to drive consumers into the
underground financial economy, making it virtually impossible to track
their financial activity and frustrating the Government's efforts to
enforce antimoney laundering and antiterrorist financing laws. In the
words of Secretary Snow, if the section my amendment seeks to strike
becomes law, ``it will be a step backwards in the financial war on
terror.''
Let us be very serious and understand that that is what the PATRIOT
Act is all about. This is an effort to repeal part of the PATRIOT Act
that has worked so successfully in protecting American citizens.
Finally, let me express my frustration with this kind of back-door
legislating in appropriations bills. This is simply not the way we
should be operating in this House.
My colleagues have a simple choice before them: vote for our
amendment and give our financial regulators the ability to track,
seize, and freeze terrorist funds or vote against us and drive
terrorist money laundering even further underground. The choice is
clear.
Support our fight against the funding of terror. Support the Oxley-
Frank-Kolbe amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
With immense respect to my good friend, the Chairman of the Committee
on Financial Services, the Congress has already passed the PATRIOT Act.
The Secretary of the Treasury was required under the PATRIOT Act to
prescribe regulations that set forth minimum standards for financial
institutions to open a bank account. The authorizers have already
spoken on this, and the law requires the minimum requirements for banks
to verify the identity of a person opening the account, to maintain
records of that person's identity, and consult lists of known or
suspected terrorists.
I would not have offered this amendment in subcommittee and full
committee, and the Committee on Appropriations would not have felt it
necessary to put this in the bill, had the Treasury Department honored
the PATRIOT Act. In the opinion of the Committee on Appropriations, in
the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has objected to the
Treasury Department's rule.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) stated that he
believes the reference to regulations adopted by Treasury are
insufficient to address the intention of the PATRIOT Act to accurately
identify and track individuals opening bank accounts. The law could not
be any clearer. Yet the Treasury Department yielded to pressure from
the banks, although the banks were required to verify identity, keep
documents of records used to open the account. The Treasury adopted a
rule which specifically allows the banks to shred photocopies of the
person's identifying documents. So there is no record being kept.
I am quoting directly from the rule, in violation of the PATRIOT Act,
the Treasury rule says that any foreign government-issued document that
evidences nationality, as long as it bears a photograph, is valid to
open a bank account. That is in complete violation of the PATRIOT Act.
So the regulation the Treasury Department adopted does not even meet
the express letter of the law in the PATRIOT Act. So we had no other
choice but to cut off the funding to this regulation.
The parents of the families of the victims of September 11 have
written a letter in opposition to this amendment because the parents,
and I am quoting from the 9/11 Families For a Secure America, all of
our members are aware of the fact that the 9/11 murderers relied upon
government-issued identification to open bank accounts and charge
accounts, rent cars and apartments and maintain an aura of legitimacy
during the months that they planned, rehearsed, financed and carried
out their conspiracy. Finally, on the morning of 9/11, government-
issued IDs permitted them to board the planes they used to murder our
loved ones.
For that reason, the parents of the families of 9/11 are scoring this
vote. The parents of 9/11 are asking that Members vote against the
Oxley-Frank amendment.
This is a straight-up national security vote because the FBI has
testified, the Department of Justice also has objected strongly to this
Treasury Department regulation. The Department of Homeland Security,
all Federal law enforcement, uniformly objected to this Treasury
Department regulation because, number one, these consular ID cards that
foreign nationals would use to open bank accounts are widely known to
be easily forged.
The FBI and the Department of Justice have concluded that the
matricula consular is not reliable. It is not a reliable form of
identification due to the nonexistence of any means of verifying the
true identity of the cardholder.
So we have a situation today, Mr. Chairman, where we know the
terrorists are coming back to hit us again between now and the
election. The FBI agent in charge of the southern border in Texas has
seen a large number of countries with al Qaeda connections that are
exploiting the southern border, utilizing long-established and well-
disciplined alien smuggling organizations in Mexico to transit
individuals, foreign nationals through Mexico, into the United States.
It was brought to my attention by Federal law enforcement authorities
in Texas that they have now identified a number of individuals from
Islamic countries changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic surnames,
coming across the border with all the illegals crossing the border.
So we have a situation where we are about to be hit. We have
individuals using false identities, and we have a rule adopted by
Treasury that essentially, according to the Committee on the Judiciary
chairman and the FBI, is making it easier for individuals to create
false identities and open bank accounts.
The Treasury regulation is so wide open that an Iraqi listed on the
50 Most Wanted List but who is not yet apprehended could open a bank
account using an ID card printed in Arabic, issued in 2001, and the
bank would still be in compliance. So the Treasury Department's already
had their chance to comply with existing law, and they did not. So the
appropriators had no choice.
If I could, if my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook), is available, I will be sure to yield to him.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for
the time, and I rise in strong opposition to the Oxley-Frank amendment.
This is the quintessential example of an interest group, namely, this
time, financial interest groups, the banks, et cetera, putting
themselves over the well-being of our country. In this case, we are
talking about an interest group putting its self-interests, its profits
above the safety of our country. Yes, it would make it easier for these
banks to do business with illegal immigrants, and they would make a
profit from it; but our country would be far less safe, and our
children will be less safe if we do this.
Let us note that the matricula consular cards have no other purpose
than providing identification for illegal immigrants. Anyone in the
country lawfully can present a visa, a passport, or other government-
issued identification to do financial transactions. What we have got
here is an effort to make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in
[[Page H7157]]
this country and to be in this country at the expense of the safety of
our very people. During a time when there are terrorist acts being
threatened in our country and throughout the world, this is an insane
proposition.
Hundreds and hundreds of soldiers have sacrificed their lives to win
the war against terror. It is not too much to ask our banks to
sacrifice a little bit of profit to make sure that our country is safe.
This is a disgrace. These financial institutions are putting themselves
above the well-being and safety of the United States of America, and
that is what this amendment is all about.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds
to point out that the last I looked, no bank was sitting in the White
House. We are talking about a policy issued under the authority of the
President of the United States and supported by the Justice Department.
So this very transitory populism on the part of some of my Republican
colleagues, denouncing the bank, may sound right; but this is not any
bank's policy we are talking about.
These are regulations issued by George Bush's Department of Treasury,
supported by George Bush; and the George Bush administration supports
this particular amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Pastor).
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the language of the bill only
deals with one identification card. It is the matricula consular. So it
is specific to a card that is issued by the Mexican consulate, and the
Mexican consulate has been issuing this card since 1871.
A Mexican resident has to go to the consulate, show proof of
citizenship, Mexican citizenship, a photo ID to show that that is the
person, and thirdly, proof of the residence that they are having in
this country. That is the requirement.
Since 9/11, the Mexican Government has made this card harder to get
and also more authentic in terms of a fraud-free card to the best of
their ability.
{time} 2000
Since 9/11, because of the U.S. PATRIOT Act, according to section
219, the Treasury, in cooperation and consultation with the various
departments, Department of Justice, FBI, et cetera, accepted a
regulation that allows this card to be used as primary identification
for a bank or financial institution.
Now, we have heard a number of allegations. All throughout this
debate, at the subcommittee and the full Committee of Appropriations,
the only letter that has come to the Committee on Appropriations has
been the letter signed by the Secretary of the Treasury. The FBI has
not sent a letter. Today, we have a letter before us that is signed by
the Deputy Attorney General from the U.S. Department of Justice saying
that they agree with the regulation of the Treasury and would like to
continue the use of its card.
I have to tell my colleagues that when we talk about terrorist acts,
and I also am concerned about them. But I must say that there are a
number of cities and towns in this country who have accepted this
consular card as a form of I.D., because it allows an entity, city,
county or State, to know the residence of a person who is here
undocumented. If that person did not identify themselves through this
card, we would never know where they live. So sheriffs, police
departments, city governments, county governments, because of the fear
of terrorism, accept this card because they now know where an
undocumented person resides in this country. So it is not only the
financial I.D. aspect of this card but it is also the security provided
by this card that we must vote for the amendment.
The allegations that have been made that the FBI did not support this
card and Homeland Security did not support this card, was done months
ago, and the only notification that we have from this administration is
the Treasury saying they want to keep the regulation and now from the
Department of Justice saying they support the regulation.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to briefly say that the Department of Justice is on record in
opposition to these regulations before they were issued, and then when
they were issued the Department of Justice issued strong objections.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition, and I thought what
I might do is simply quote some of the testimony before this Congress,
starting with Steve McCraw of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the
Office of Intelligence, and he says of these cards: ``It is the
terrorist threat presented by matricula consular that is most
worrisome. The ability of foreign nationals to use the matricula
consular to create a well-documented but fictitious identity in the
United States provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely
within the United States without triggering name-based watch lists that
are disseminated to local police officers.'' Now, that is problem
number one.
Problem two, as the FBI says, ``It also allows them to board planes
without revealing their true identity.'' Mr. McCraw goes on to say that
``Federal officials have discovered individuals from many different
countries in possession of matricula consular cards, and that is
because the documents are easy to forge.'' He testified that ``An
individual of Middle Eastern descent has also been arrested and was in
possession of a matricula consular card.''
What we are doing here, if we pass this amendment, is legalizing a
method that would make it easy for terrorists to gain access to our
financial system, thereby enabling the next group of terrorists to
freely move money around the United States and finance their
operations. This flies in the face of the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations to strengthen I.D.'s.
I do not know how many of my colleagues sat through the hearings and
heard the chairman and cochairman say that instead of permitting the
use of new forms of I.D.'s from other countries that are not secure and
not verifiable, we should be strengthening our own I.D. and visa
systems. We heard the testimony like that from Lee Hamilton, former
chairman of our Committee on International Relations, that we should
adopt biometric identification systems for everyone who comes into the
country. And, frankly, this flies in exactly the opposite direction.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I would
just like to further quote from the FBI document. ``A September 2002
bust of a document production operation in Washington State illustrated
the size of this trade. A huge cache of fake Mexican birth certificates
was discovered. It is our belief that the primary reason a market for
these birth certificates exists is the demand for fraudulently obtained
matricula consular cards. In some locations, when an individual seeking
a card is unable to produce any document whatsoever, he will still be
issued a card by the Mexican Consular official if the official feels
that he filled out the questionnaire and satisfies the official that he
is who he purports to be.''
That is another problem. In addition to being vulnerable to fraud,
the matricula consular is also vulnerable to forgery. As this FBI agent
says, ``There have been several generations of the card and even the
newest version can be easily replicated despite its security features.
It is our estimate that more than 90 percent of these cards now in
circulation are the earlier versions of the cards, which are little
more than simple laminated cards without any security features.''
As a result of these problems, as the FBI says, ``There are two major
criminal threats posed by the cards and one potential terrorist threat.
The first criminal threat stems from the fact that the cards can be a
perfect breeder document for establishing a false identity. Such false
identities are particularly useful to facilitate the crime of money
laundering, as the criminal is able to establish one or more bank
accounts under completely fictitious names. Accounts based upon such
fraudulent premises greatly hamper money laundering investigations once
the criminal activity is discovered.''
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds
to
[[Page H7158]]
say that I agree we have a forgery problem, but it is greater than
Members may think. It is not of the matricula consular. Apparently
someone has forged a letter from the United States Department of
Justice. Because I have a letter today, I know my chairman has it,
signed by a man who purports to be James B. Comey, the Deputy Attorney
General, and it is on the letterhead of the U.S. Department of Justice
and it supports this amendment. And it says, ``The Department of
Justice fully supports the administration's current policy under the
USA PATRIOT Act that requires banks and financial institutions to
establish reasonable procedures. Therefore, the Department supports the
Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment that preserves these regulations.''
So it is not just the matricula consular that is being forged.
Apparently there is somebody forging letters from the Department of
Justice. So maybe we should suspend the proceedings and send out the
Sergeant of Arms. Contempt of Congress.
Now, I think, frankly, that forgery has been somewhat exaggerated in
this debate, but the biggest exaggeration is this: So, yes, a couple of
years ago people said various things, but there has been an evolution
and we now have the policy of President Bush, supported by the
Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury, and that is what
is being assailed here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hinojosa).
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of and as
a proud cosponsor of this amendment. I want to thank my colleagues for
all their support, especially the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Oxley) for offering this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have been working on the matricula consular I.D. card
issue for quite some time with a number of different groups and
individuals. I want to express my particular appreciation for all the
assistance that the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and their
staff have provided during that time.
On February 13, 2003, I introduced H.R. 773, entitled the 21st
Century Access to Banking Act. My legislation would authorize U.S.
financial institutions to accept the matricula consular I.D. card as
valid forms of identification for the purpose of opening an account,
thus bringing unbanked individuals into the U.S. banking system and
resulting in a more efficient regulation of currency in the United
States.
My legislation would result in an increased infusing of cash into our
banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions and, ultimately,
our economy on the whole.
This legislation would allow hardworking families to enter the
mainstream U.S. financial system. It would enable them to open checking
and savings accounts, establish a credit history and possibly even
eventually purchase a car or home. It would help improve our sagging
economy by enabling these struggling families to avoid being preyed
upon by sometimes unscrupulous check cashers and payday lenders.
The chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and
Consumer Credit, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), was kind
enough to hold the first hearing on the importance of the matricula
consular card to the U.S. economy and to the economies of our trading
partners, And I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Bachus
for holding this hearing at my request and for supporting the card.
I was also pleased when Treasury promulgated its rule on section 326
of the USA PATRIOT Act, allowing financial institutions to accept the
matricula card as a form of identification. However, I was deeply
disappointed when the House Committee on Appropriations adopted an
amendment to this legislation that would ban certain Hispanics from
using their matricula consular I.D. card to open an account at a
financial institution in the United States.
When it is adopted, this amendment we offer today will right that
wrong. Because the United States is a party to the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations, we do not have the authority to prevent Mexican
consulates from issuing the matricula consular I.D. card to Mexican
nationals residing in this country. Similarly, foreign countries do not
have the right to prevent United States consulates from issuing similar
cards to its citizens overseas.
I want to stress this latter point. Our United States does issue
cards similar to the matricula card to its own citizens in foreign
countries. It seems to me that the question then becomes whether or not
we should allow financial institutions in the United States to accept
the card as a valid form of I.D. to open an account. The answer to that
question is a very simple yes.
Should my colleagues vote to overturn the misguided anti-matricula
card language currently in this bill? The answer is yes. The card is a
safe, reliable form of identification. The card has over a dozen
security features, including a hologram and infrared band. As the
Washington Times reported in 2002, the matricula card is ``A high-tech
I.D. that is more fraud proof than many State driver's licenses.''
Approximately 163 counties, 1,180 police departments, 377 cities, 33
States and 178 financial institutions accept the matricula card as a
valid form of identification.
The police departments support the use of the card because it helps
undermine the market for illegal identification and fraudulent
documents. It helps them to quickly identify witnesses, victims, and
suspects.
Immigrants with consular identification are more likely to report
crimes and cooperate in police investigations. These police departments
do not believe that the acceptance of the card by financial
institutions will increase immigration.
Despite what its detractors and opponents might claim, the card does
not legalize the status of any immigrant.
It cannot be used to obtain any immigration or citizenship benefits
such as work authorization or to obtain public benefits. It cannot be
used to cross the U.S./Mexico border, and it is only available to
foreign nationals already in the United States. Moreover, Mexican
consulates clearly explain the nature of the document to assure their
Nationals know that the card does not regularize their immigration
status.
If we allow financial institutions to continue to use the card, with
consultations between the U.S. and Mexican governments, the result will
not only be an improvement in the U.S. economy. It will also lead to
increased transparency and strength in our line of defense against
terrorists gaining access to our financial institutions.
For these reasons and more, I strongly encourage my colleagues to
support and vote ``yes'' on the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe-Pastor-Hinojosa
amendment.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment.
This language that is included in the Transportation-Treasury bill
regarding the matricula consular card is a classic case of confusion
about an issue.
Let me take my time for a moment here to tell my colleagues what this
is not about. This is not about giving driver's licenses to illegal
aliens. This is not about giving social services to any illegal aliens.
This is not about allowing any other illegal aliens to enter this
country. It is not about an I.D. card that may be used to obtain any
government service. In fact, what the language does, in effect, is
limit the ability of the Federal Government, the language that is in
the bill now, that was adopted in committee, limits the ability of the
Federal Government to track the money of people who are in this
country. We do not even know who they are. At least we ought to know
something about where their money is going.
Now, if this legislation were adopted with this language in it, the
Treasury Department would be prohibited from issuing any regulations
about identification to the banks, because the language specifically
does not speak about any particular document and, therefore, the
matricula consular card could be included in it and, therefore, they
could not issue any kind of documentation about it.
The administration is not confused about this. There has been a lot
of talk today about this. I have been hearing this going around here,
that, oh, really and truly the FBI and the Justice Department supports
this. Well, they do not support this. They have sent a letter which
makes it very clear that the
[[Page H7159]]
Justice Department does not support the language that is in the bill.
They support the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment.
Secretary Snow made that very clear when we debated this in the
Committee on Appropriations. They do not support adding such language
that prohibits the use of the matricula consular card, because it is
one form of identification that we do not have.
This is not a Department of Homeland Security issue. This is a
Department of Treasury issue that has to do with private banks
identifying people so that they can open bank accounts. And DHS,
Department of Homeland Security, has not said anything about whether
these cards should be used for banking purposes or not.
Treasury does not use a list of particular documents. They set the
standard for what the verification ought to be. The standard
accommodates local conditions as well as innovations of verification
techniques. And the government ought not to be in the business of
saying yes to this document, no to that document, because any document
can be forged or counterfeited. What we need to do is set standards for
verification of those documents, and banks need to have some kind of
standard for that.
{time} 2015
They look to this as one more piece of documentation they can use.
Police departments like it very much because it is one more piece of
documentation they can use when they pick up somebody and the person
does not have a driver's license, for example. It is an added piece of
identification that can help to identify an individual.
This decision ought to be left to the Committee on Financial
Services, if we are going to get into the business at all of trying to
micromanage the regulation being written by the Treasury Department.
The real argument is over whether we are going to have a secure form
of ID. Should we be in the position of saying no to private
institutions? If banks are to be secure, I urge us to vote in favor of
the Oxley-Frank amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
(Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
(Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the
ranking member.
No matter how we spin it, the fact of the matter is this amendment is
not about banking, it is about making it easier for illegal immigrants
to remain in the United States.
U.S. immigration authorities have said the matricula consular is
virtually worthless as an identity document. In fact, if Members do not
believe them, all one has to do is look at the reputation of these
cards in Mexico. Mexican banks themselves do not recognize the
matricula consular card as a valid identity document. In fact, no bank
in Mexico accepts this card to open a bank account.
Despite the fact that its own banks do not accept this card, for 3
years, the Mexican government has aggressively lobbied U.S. banks to
accept the document. Mexico's actions to advance acceptance by U.S.
banks is a blatant attempt to make illegal immigrants in Mexico as
inconspicuous as possible, while facilitating uninterrupted
transmission remittances back to Mexico.
According to the FBI, matricula consular cards are almost exclusively
used by illegal immigrants. Anyone here legally has valid identity
documents they can present to open a bank account, such as a driver's
license, Social Security number or passport.
As a representative from part of the country that bears much of the
burden of illegal immigration, it is $5 billion a year in California, I
feel compelled to tell Members who do not represent areas impacted by
illegal immigration about the impact this amendment will have on those
who are forced to live with the problem on a daily basis.
Illegal immigration places a strain on our society, and I want every
Member in this body to understand, California bears the brunt of the
burden of the failed immigration policies of the Federal Government.
California has the highest number of illegal immigrants residing within
its borders. The estimated number of illegal residents in California is
2.2 million people, or 32 percent of the total number of illegal
immigrants in the United States.
The cost of illegal immigration in terms of governmental expenditures
for education, criminal justice and emergency medical care are
significant. For emergency health care, California spends the most of
any State treating illegal immigrants in our hospitals. The cost of
health care costs for illegal immigrants for California are nearly $650
million per year. For education in California, $2.2 billion each year
is spent on educating the children of illegal immigrants.
While incarceration of illegal immigrants while securing our Nation's
borders falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal
Government, it is State and local government who must bear the cost
when illegal immigrants are incarcerated, and California incurs greater
cost than any other State. In fact, 15 percent of California's inmates
are illegal immigrants, costing the State over $500 million a year.
It is always easy to come to Washington and speak about compassion
for those less fortunate, but when it comes to illegal immigration, the
price California pays for Congress's so-called compassion is steep, and
it is unacceptable. The fact that States must bear the cost of the
government's failed immigration policies make illegal immigration an
unfunded mandate.
If Congress wants to continue to pass policies to encourage illegal
immigration, then we must be willing to reimburse the States for the
high costs they incur as they are forced to live with the impact of
Congress's unfunded mandate. This amendment should be accompanied by a
$5 billion check each year to California for problems of illegal
immigration. I oppose this amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to record my support for the
position of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson). I think the use
of these cards is very misleading. It facilitates money laundering, and
it is completely out of the spirit of the PATRIOT Act.
Therefore, with extreme regret because I do not think I have ever
disagreed with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and only two or
three times have I disagreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank), but I think this matter should stay in the bill and should not
be taken out because it is so important that we close down their
financial money laundering.
I am pleased to support the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds
to make one point.
The notion that people will stop coming here illegally if they do not
have a matricula consular is totally at variance with logic and
experience. People who want to stop illegal immigration have a very
good point, but the notion that people will come to the border and say,
Oh, my God, I forgot my matricula consular, I am staying home, has no
basis in reality.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to
strike the Culberson provision. It says something that this amendment
is supported by such a diverse coalition, the Bush administration, the
banking industry, immigration groups, Members from both sides of the
aisle joining together to remove language that is at its heart designed
to keep immigrants out of the regulated banking system.
This issue is one that I have worked on since I was elected 12 years
ago to the Congress of the United States, and that is, how do you
transfer money back to loved ones that really need it?
If we want to have a debate on immigration, let us have a debate on
immigration. I think that is a substantive debate we should have. As a
matter of fact, it was the President of the United States who, on
January 7, said we should take people who live in obscurity and are
exploited; the leader of the Republican Party, as I saw him at the
convention in New York, in command of the Republican Party and your
candidate for President, who said we
[[Page H7160]]
should deal with this immigration issue.
As a matter of fact, it is President Bush who Members are attacking
here tonight who are saying is making our system unfair because it is
President Bush and his administration that supports this amendment. Let
us make that absolutely clear and have no quibbles about whose policy
this is. This is the Bush administration's. Since the PATRIOT Act, we
dealt with the regulation and the Treasury Department for more than a
year before these provisions were enacted.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know how Members of the President's party can
say the banking industry is trying to sugarcoat this.
Members know what they get with the matricula consular. Ten million
people live in the United States who are probably undocumented. We
should know something about them. Where is the political will in this
country and the requisite resources to deport those 10 million people?
This Congress has never had a serious debate about deporting and
putting the resources towards 10 million people. We never will.
Some Members walk up here and say there are 2 million undocumented
Mexicans in California as if they are just there. Do Members know what
they are doing? They are cleaning bathrooms. They are picking the
grapes. They are doing the arduous work that many of us born in this
country will not do. Let us face up to it, they are working, and they
are contributing to our economy. They are not just here stagnant.
Let us have a real debate, but the matricula consular is not the
place to have debate on immigration policy. They are going to continue
to come. They came before the matricula consular; they will come after
the matricula consular. Let us give an identification that local
economies and local administrations want. That is the matricula
consular.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus), a subcommittee chairman of the Committee on
Financial Services.
(Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I think if the Members back in their
offices were listening to this debate, they would be sufficiently
confused. I think the reason they would be confused is because
something said by both the opponents and the proponents of this
amendment is true. I think there is a great deal of frustration over
the use of these cards, and I think that is the reason that the
gentleman from Texas and others are supporting this amendment.
Unfortunately, the amendment does not accomplish what they want to
accomplish, and that is to make our Nation more secure. I do not
question the sincerity of the gentleman and the frustration of he and
the supporters of this amendment, but I simply ask us all to take a
deep breath and to actually look at what this amendment does.
Now, the underlying section is section 326, and it has been called
the cornerstone of our money laundering efforts. We have letters from
the Department of Justice and from the Treasury Department saying it is
absolutely essential for an effective anti-money laundering program.
Section 326, it is there.
Now, because of frustration with these cards, the gentleman from
Texas has offered an amendment which stops the Treasury Department and
FinCEN from issuing regulations or carrying out regulations or
enforcing the provisions of 326.
Now, just 2 weeks ago, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission came to
this Congress and testified before our committee and commended our
committee for the passage of 326. Unfortunately, what we are all caught
in here tonight is that section 326 is not self-executing. It requires
regulations to be issued.
So the gentleman from Texas has offered, and successfully in the
subcommittee, an amendment which really prevents Treasury from
administering or enforcing regulations pursuant to section 326. Now
that is what the gentleman's amendment does. I hope we can all agree to
that. It basically shuts down 326. For that reason, I have to oppose
it.
Several of the things the gentleman said tonight, I think, are true.
I think there are problems with this card. I think some of the things
that the proponents have said are also true about the policy of
excluding a certain nationality. That is also very troublesome.
In conclusion, I cite a letter from the Department of Justice which
also says, ``including the FBI''; this letter is signed by the deputy
attorney general. And I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson)
was probably caught off guard because when he first rose in this body,
he said Treasury was on one side, and law enforcement and Justice was
on the other side. That is really not true.
I think, had the gentleman gotten an effective remedy, that is true,
but the Department of Justice, including the FBI, asked that we defeat
this and says, if we do not, there will be many dangers associated.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the FBI and Justice want us
to pass this amendment.
Mr. BACHUS. If the gentleman from Ohio will continue to yield, that
is right, they are in favor of the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment, and I
include for the Record this letter to that effect.
Department of Justice, Office of
the Deputy Attorney General,
Washington, DC, September 14, 2004.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Justice fully supports
the Administration's current policy under the USA PATRIOT Act
that requires banks and other financial institutions to
establish reasonable procedures for the identification and
verification of new account holders, which is set forth in
regulations of the Department of the Treasury. Therefore the
Department supports the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment to H.R.
5025 that preserves these regulations.
One concern addressed by the regulations is the danger
associated with driving sectors of the population into
unregulated, underground financial service providers, such as
unregulated hawalas, where persons may be more exposed to
elements involved in money laundering and terrorist
financing. In order to counter this concern, the Justice
Department supports the Administration's determination to
permit--but not encourage--the acceptance of Matricula
Consular cards by financial institutions, under circumstances
where financial institutions reasonably believe they can
properly identify the new customer. Of course, the
Administration will continue to evaluate the security and
reliability of identification documents, including Matricula
Consular cards, that potentially are subject to misuse.
The Department of Justice, including the FBI, continue to
work closely with the Treasury Department on this and other
issues related to halting all financing of terrorists. If we
can be of further assistance regarding this or any other
matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
James B. Comey,
Deputy Attorney General.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Had the Department of Treasury actually implemented the PATRIOT Act,
the Committee on Appropriations would not have shut off funding to this
regulation.
The Treasury-Transportation bill, and this is within our jurisdiction
and the full Committee on Appropriations, cut off funding to implement
or enforce the Treasury regulation which is on the books, and let me
quote from it again, ``The Treasury regulation authorizes banks to open
a bank account for any non-U.S. citizen who can produce any foreign
government issued document with a photograph.''
Now that rule that Treasury adopted is in complete violation of the
PATRIOT Act. That is the opinion of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. Statute
326 has not been complied with by the Treasury Department. It requires
Treasury to adopt a rule that requires banks to verify identity,
maintain records of the person's identity and consult lists of known
terrorists.
{time} 2030
This rule is so bad and so broad, the banks can shred photocopies of
the person's identifying documents as soon as you make the deposit. So
the Appropriations Committee had no choice but
[[Page H7161]]
to shut off funding to this regulation. And before the regulation was
adopted, the Justice Department and the FBI and Homeland Security were
all opposed to it. The Department of Justice was on record.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think there has been
a very broad misunderstanding about the destruction of those
photographs and/or records. The law clearly requires that the financial
institutions keep those documents for 5 years. That is not a change in
policy. Treasury has recognized that for a number of years. The law has
recognized that for a number of years. Financial institutions have
recognized that for a number of years. It is simply not accurate to say
that those records are destroyed immediately by the banks. They are
required by law to keep those records for 5 years.
Mr. CULBERSON. I certainly agree under current law, but the rule
adopted by Treasury, and again I am quoting from the Department of
Justice, the Department of Justice objected very strongly to these
last-minute changes in the Treasury rule because Treasury did change
the rule at the last minute to allow these records to be destroyed and
that is in the rule which is why we cut off the funding. This is the
only way that we could stop the implementation of this rule which
violates the spirit of the PATRIOT Act by cutting off the funding,
because the Treasury ignored the PATRIOT Act's very clear requirements.
Mr. OXLEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, let me just quote
from the letter from the Department of Justice: ``The Justice
Department supports the administration's determination to permit the
acceptance of matricula consular cards by financial institutions under
circumstances where financial institutions reasonably believe they can
properly identify the new customer.''
That is from the letter of the Justice Department.
Mr. CULBERSON. From the Justice Department today. Yes, the Justice
Department is being a good team player. The Justice Department
testified formally in objection to this rule July 31 when it was
adopted. Quoting from the Justice Department:
``The Department of Justice believes that consular identification
cards issued by foreign governments should not be among the documents
that could be accepted by financial institutions.''
Once the Department of Justice made that argument, they lost that
argument. Treasury adopted this very broad rule that allows anybody
from a foreign country to walk in the door with any kind of photo ID
and open a bank account. The Justice Department lost that argument, and
obviously they have gotten on board.
Mr. OXLEY. That letter was dated today. The Justice Department
clearly supports the Oxley amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio knows good and
well, so does my counterpart on the Democrat side, we have testimony
before the committee from the Justice Department, from the FBI, from
law enforcement that this is not a good idea. And you know under
President Clinton or President Bush, if they say this is what we want
out of the White House, those Secretaries and those Department heads
are going to say, Aye-aye, three bags full. That is what they have done
in your letter today.
You are putting this country at risk today. FBI has testified that
these matricula cards, some individuals have up to 30 of these things.
You say Mexico requires a birth certificate. Have you ever tried to get
something in Mexico? I have been down there a lot, and a few dollars
will get you anything. There is no database.
You want to work on a bipartisan bill? You want to work something
bipartisan? Let us have our U.S. Government with a database issue a
card, I will support it, that is controlled by our homeland security,
our FBI; but to take a Costco card out of Mexico and risk our national
security, I am disappointed in this White House, I am disappointed in
my own party, and I am disappointed in those on the other side that
support this amendment.
The gentleman from Ohio is my friend, but he is wrong on this. I have
been here 14 years and nothing has ever bothered me as much from my own
party to put us at risk. These cards are fake. Every single day they
use these cards illegally. It is not about financial services. The FBI
testified, they use these cards to gain driver's licenses. And guess
what? They can get on an airplane, and they can blow it up. FBI has
testified to this. Justice Department. I do not care what letter you
got out of the White House or these guys that are going to say, okay,
Mr. President, we'll give you a letter to support your position. It
means nothing. You look at today's situation, with these folks coming
over that are illegal, with these cards, using them every day, and that
is wrong. I am so disappointed in my own party, I cannot believe it.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. OXLEY. I thank my good friend from California for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me say, this bill was drafted in our committee. I
was the lead sponsor of the legislation. We have fully determined the
efficacy of using these matricula consular cards. By the way, it is not
the only form of identification. As a matter of fact, matricula
consular is not even mentioned in the statute, nor is it mentioned in
the rules and regulations from Treasury Department.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Taking my time back, why do we not do a U.S.-side
card that has a database? Mexico has no database whatsoever. You can go
from area to area and get a different matricula card like this. Why do
we not work this out to where a U.S.-side matricula card that has a
database that can actually control the services and not allow
additional IDs to be formed so that these guys can drive airplanes and
bomb this country? Why do we not do that?
Mr. OXLEY. I would invite the gentleman and the gentleman from Texas
to introduce a bill and to have it referred to the appropriate
committee, the Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will be happy to. In the meantime, I do not want to
support your amendment which in my opinion is a disaster to national
security in this country. Special interests in banking, a caucus over
on this side and people that want to support this, I disagree 100
percent. If you say I am fighting the White House, you are absolutely
100 percent right.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds
to make what I think is a central point. Whether or not the card
exists, whether or not it is honored by banks will have zero effect on
immigration. No one gets to the border deciding to come here without
legal authorization and says, Whoops, I can't cross that river without
my matricula consular.
Illegal immigration is a problem, but it is a wholly irrelevant one
to this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member on the
immigration committee in Judiciary, we have been asking this Republican
Congress to give us comprehensive reform on immigration. To the 9/11
families, let me tell you that this is post-9/11. We understand the
concern, and we have changed things in America. My understanding is
there was no person of Mexican descent on the 9/11 planes. And so this
issue of juxtaposing terrorism and threatening on this very point is
really misusing this debate.
First of all, I am confident that the matricula card is a secure form
of identification. You do not get the card in Mexico. You get it in the
United States. The consular office of Mexico is in my congressional
district. I know their intensity and their sincerity in making this
card secure. The person requesting a card must produce an original
birth certificate and an official Mexican identification card, such as
a passport or a Federal electoral card. There is a computer system to
this that requires a fluorescent light that reveals the letters ``SRE''
across the front of the card. An infrared band appears on the upper
back of the card.
[[Page H7162]]
Mr. Chairman, these are wrong arguments. This is wrong and
misdirected. This card is for people in the United States, it is issued
right here in the United States, and we should support the Oxley
amendment and dismiss this irrelevant debate.
I rise in support of this amendment, which would strike Sec. 216 of
the Transportation, Treasury Appropriations bill, H.R. 5025. That
section prohibits the Department of Treasury from implementing
regulations which provide for Mexico's matricula consular card to be
used as a form of identification when opening a bank account or renting
a safe deposit box.
Opponents of the Matricula will argue that the documents is not
secure. I disagree. I am confident that the Matricula is a secure form
of identification. The person requesting a Matricula must produce an
original birth certificate and an official Mexican identification card
such as a passport or a federal electoral card, and his photograph will
be taken by the consulate office, on the consulate premises.
In addition, the Matricula has been modernized with the use of new
technologies to improve its security features. The Mexican government
uses security standards in making the Matricula that are similar to the
ones by the United States Government in its own official documents.
It has visible security features such as green security paper with
the official Mexican seal printed in a special security pattern, and a
colored hologram with a seal that appears over the holder's photograph
and changes color from green to brown.
It also has security features that are visible only under fluorescent
light. The fluorescent light reveals the letters ``SRE'' across the
front of the card. An infra red band appears on the upper back of the
card.
In case this is not enough, there are security marks visible only
with the use of a special decoder. The decoder reveals the word
``Mexico'' printed on the left side of the card, next to the holder's
photograph. ``Matricular Consular ID Card'' is printed at the bottom.
And, ``SRE'' is printed three times on the right side.
Consequently, I see no reason why matricula consular cards should be
prohibited from use as a form of identification when opening a bank
account or renting a safe deposit box. I urge you therefore to vote for
this amendment to strike Sec. 216 of the Transportation, Treasury
Appropriations bill, H.R. 5025.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time, and I rise in opposition to the Oxley-Frank amendment.
By accepting these cards as legitimate forms of identification, banks,
State, and local governments are undermining the intent of the USA
PATRIOT Act and our national security. The Mexican consulate is issuing
matricula consular by aggressively marketing these documents, often to
individuals living in the United States illegally.
According to the October 21, 2002, report to Congress, in accordance
with section 326(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, serious weaknesses exist in
the acceptance of foreign documents to verify identity. The Treasury
report identified several problems related to foreign documents,
including forgery, lack of uniformity, recognition, reliability, and
legitimacy issues.
Accepting matricula will provide safe harbor for foreign nationals
residing in the United States illegally. The rule makes no distinction
between non-U.S. persons who are here legally and those who are here
illegally. Furthermore, it allows documents issued by any government,
including a foreign government, to be utilized to verify
identification. The rule would allow noncitizens who are in the U.S.
illegally to utilize documents issued by a foreign government with the
intended purpose of bypassing U.S. security laws. We should not allow
this.
Through the acceptance of matricula consular, significant immigration
and national security policy would be undermined. It weakens the very
mechanisms that Members of Congress put in place to prevent identity
theft, fraud, and money laundering. Therefore, I rise in opposition to
this amendment. I support the underlying bill with the original
Culberson language.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I frankly cannot think of another time when I have
disagreed with my friend from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), but I do oppose this
amendment. We simply should not put the private interests of a few
financial institutions ahead of the public good and the security of the
American people.
This amendment would allow matricula cards, which are primarily used
by illegal immigrants, to be accepted in the United States. Giving
illegal immigrants an identification card encourages them to come to
the United States and, of course, makes it easier for them to stay.
That is why the FBI has testified against the use of these matricula
cards and why they pose a grave threat to the security of the United
States.
How regrettable that at the very time when we should discourage
illegal immigration and deter those who would enter our country to do
us harm, we would consider an amendment to undermine the PATRIOT Act
and give terrorists and others the opportunity to exploit our laws for
their own evil purposes.
As a former chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, I recommend
that my colleagues oppose this amendment and put the interests of
Americans first.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
bipartisan amendment and thank my colleagues for bringing it up.
When we passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we asked the Department of
the Treasury to develop customer identification programs subject to
evaluation. This was done to tighten security to our banking systems
and to improve our ability to monitor.
Since these rules were established, matricula consular ID cards have
widely been accepted as a legitimate form of identification at a bank.
Similar cards are issued by our consulates for our citizens who live in
other nations. These cards do not confer citizenship. They do not
confer the right to a driver's license. All they do is say that Gene
Green lives at a certain address, whether it be in Guadalajara, Mexico,
or Frankfurt, Germany.
My concern about this, without adopting this amendment, we are going
to limit our own consular office's ability to do this for our citizens.
I would expect retaliation from countries who we are doing this to
their consulates to do the same thing to us. I have some concern about
it because we have thousands of our residents who retire to Mexico,
retire to lots of places who may need this assistance from our own
consulates. But in all honesty, we do need to have some type of
identification for our local law enforcement to be able to deal with
people that they can show.
Mr. Chairman and fellow Members, I rise today to support this
amendment and I thank my colleagues for bringing it to this floor with
bipartisan support.
When we passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we asked the U.S. Department
of the Treasury to develop customer identification programs subject to
evaluation. This was done to tighten security to our banking systems
and to improve our ability to monitor financial transactions.
Since these rules were established, Matricula Consular I.D. cards
have been widely accepted as a legitimate form of identification to
open a bank account. Similar cards are issued by our consulates for our
citizens who live in other nations.
If we do not amend this bill to keep the Matricula Consular
identification card as a legal form of identification, it will be the
only identification document explicitly banned as proof of identity in
opening a bank account.
What bothers me most about the provision that we are trying to amend
is it specifically targets a form of I.D. issued by the Mexican
government. We could see retaliation against cards issued by our
government.
Businesses in my home state of Texas conduct billions of dollars of
business with Mexican companies. The need for Mexican nationals to come
to the United States and establish legitimate bank accounts is
imperative to the success of our state's economy.
The Department of the Treasury has examined this issue thoroughly and
decided that a flexible standard which accommodates local conditions is
the best and most secure for our nation.
Matricula Consular I.D. cards allow authorities to pursue those who
are breaking our banking laws and then prosecute them diligently.
[[Page H7163]]
Without these I.D. cards, it will be more difficult for Treasury. I
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I have argued very
vocally that the Federal Government should not accept matricula
consular. That is a different issue altogether. But should we be
telling banks what they can and cannot accept? It is their own risk.
They ought to be able to accept this, and we ought to be able to track
and have a better idea where the money is and where it is going. If
this language stays in without the amendment, I fear that it will
impact on that.
I come from Arizona where we face the impact of illegal immigration
very strongly. We bear the brunt of the Federal Government's failure to
enforce and to secure the border. But this does not fix the situation
at all. It may seem something like a fix, but it is not. I commend
those who have brought this amendment forward, and I urge its passage.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
{time} 2045
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and
in support of the language that is in this bill which was adopted in
the Committee on Appropriations.
Certainly the arguments that are being heard today played out in the
committee, and we decided that this was indeed an issue that relates to
financial institutions, sure, but it relates to homeland security as
well. The gentleman from Arizona that spoke before me, talking about
the problems with porous borders, look at the latest issue of Time
Magazine if they want to look at challenges of it and remember that we
have adopted a great amount of legislation telling financial
institutions they need to know their customer. We are talking about the
financial center that is in the Treasury Department to track terrorism
money. And if we do not have valid identification for the people when
we are trying to track foreign assets in the United States and spot
those that are using phony IDs to cover up terrorism, then why are we
spending all the tens of millions and hundreds of millions and billions
of dollars on homeland security if we say, oh, this is just a matter
for the federally chartered, federally regulated financial
institutions? We are going to put a loophole in the Federal law and all
of our efforts to track foreign and potentially terrorism money are
going to be undone because we can use unreliable identification. In the
name of political correctness, we are going to accept the matricula
consular? I think not.
I oppose this amendment. I ask that the Members reject the amendment
and keep in the language that is put in this bill by the committee.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe the number of misstatements
I have heard tonight. I think this is an argument between dumb and
dumber. This is a debate about ID.
Let us look at the facts. Mexico has a national statistics ID
program. The United States does not. Mexico uses the exact same ID
protections in their ID form that the FBI uses for their badges. We do
not have that for American civilians at all. Mexico has a database on
life, death, divorce. It has a base that they can rely upon. We do not.
So what happens in retaliation? What happens the next time you want
to go to a foreign country, you want to rent a car, you want to cash a
check? Where is your national ID? Are you going to pull out your voter
card? That is not recognized as an international ID. It is probably the
only thing we have closest to it. It would not even be recognized at an
airport. You pull out your California driver's license? That is not a
national ID. What are you going to show as your national ID? A Social
Security card? It does not even exist.
Allow a program that has assurances for protection, moderate
protection. The propriety of this protection in this card is owned by a
United States company. It is the same propriety that is used in our top
security cards. That is what they want to use, and all this is, is an
ID card. All this is, is an ID card. Let this amendment pass.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Gallegly), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights.
(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
The amendment guts the section of the PATRIOT Act that Congress
enacted to restrict terrorists' ability to open bank accounts, transfer
funds, and otherwise use the banking system to further terrorist acts.
This amendment would uphold ill-advised Treasury regulations that
permit banks to accept nonsecure identification, including the
matricula consular, to meet the requirements of the PATRIOT Act.
Unfortunately, nonsecure IDs do not establish identity, at all,
rendering identification requirements to the PATRIOT Act useless.
The FBI and Department of Justice have concluded that matricula
consular is not a reliable form of identification. Forgeries are
rampant. An Iranian national trying to cross a U.S.-Mexican border was
caught with one. Smugglers have been caught carrying several
matriculas, each with the same photo with different names.
Because matricula consulars are not reliable identification, a
terrorist can use them to assume an alias, or several. He can use the
banking system to further terrorist plans. PATRIOT Act requirements
that banks check customer names against terrorist lists become useless.
Money is key in carrying out the acts of terrorism. The 9/11
terrorists had to pay tuition. They had to rent apartments. They had to
rent cars and eventually had to buy plane tickets.
It is absurd for Congress to pass laws that attempt to cut off the
funding of terrorist groups, as we did in the PATRIOT Act, and then
allow regulations to create an end run around the law through tax
identity requirements.
Mr. Chairman, in my 18 years in this body, I have seen no piece of
legislation that presents a greater threat to national security than
this amendment, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my
time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I want to thank him and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley) for offering the amendment.
Let me very briefly say this is not about terrorism and homeland
security. This is about immigration. That is the bottom line, because I
saw the Republican Convention, as I think many others did, and I heard
the number one fighter against terrorism was George W. Bush. If that is
true, then the statement of administration policy that all of us have
says under the heading of matricula consular card, the administration
objects to the provision that would prevent the Treasury Department
from spending any funds to issue or enforce regulations that do not
preclude acceptance by financial institutions of the matricula consular
card as a form of identification. It goes on to say the administration,
including the Department of Justice and the FBI, believe that it is
appropriate that these regulations provide a flexible standard that
accommodates local conditions as well as innovation and verification
techniques, not a list of documents or methods that must or must not be
used. The administration strongly opposes this provision and supports
efforts to remove it from the bill during floor consideration. Hence
the administration supports the Oxley-Frank amendment and understands
this is not about terrorism. This is ultimately about immigration.
We have seen this siege time and time again, and what it is about
really is not only about immigration. It is about targeting Mexican
nationals.
[[Page H7164]]
And why do I say that? Because only the matricula consular out of all
of the identity documents in the United States would be explicitly
banned by this section of the bill. And yet those of us who want to
fight terrorism understand that it is in the ultimate interest to have
an identification of who is here and it is the ultimate interest to
make sure that we cannot use the banking services unless we have
information on who is using it.
Support the Oxley-Frank amendment. Understand that the administration
supports it and support our fight against terrorism.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King).
(Mr. KING of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his comments because he is
absolutely correct. This is about immigration. It is about immigration.
I know it is because I see the apologists for illegal immigrants come
to the floor and give speech after speech after speech. And the people
over on this side of the aisle want to open the borders and allow as
many illegals in because they think they can get them to vote for their
guy. And the people over on this side making the argument are
multinational corporation apologists who want to get as many people in
because it is cheap labor. That is the equation.
In the middle are the patriotic Americans who believe that we have to
have cultural continuity in this country and the rule of law.
That is the core of this argument and this debate. I thank the
gentleman for bringing his opposition to the Oxley amendment.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa and the
gentleman from New Jersey, who certainly disagree, but they both have
one thing in common: They are both wrong.
This is about 326, which is a terrorist financing bill. That is what
it is about. And to try to unscramble this egg, I do not think I have
ever seen this body so confused, but let us say we took the gentleman's
amendment off and we took 326 off because that is what will happen
either way tonight, and then what we will have is we will go back to
the present system where 350 banks today are accepting these cards. So
if the gentleman's amendment passes, we will have no regulations, no
monitoring, and they will continue to accept the cards. If the
gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Oxley) amendment passes, then the banks can
accept the cards. The 350 will probably go ahead and accept them. The
others will not, and as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said,
nothing in the regulations say that a bank has to accept these cards.
Some of them are doing it now, and they can continue to do it. And the
Members need to know that. They are accepting them today, and these
regulations are not in force.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, for my part in closing, I first want to say it has been
a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank),
my ranking member.
I do not think any of us take a back seat, I know I do not, in
fighting terrorism. And our committee was in the thick of passing the
PATRIOT Act, and one of the proudest moments I have had as chairman was
the section 326 and what we did in the Act, and to see the President
sign that was indeed a real honor.
This provision that we had is important in the fight on terrorism.
And I regret some of the arguments that indicate otherwise because our
committee had it right the first time, and what I regret, frankly, is
the Committee on Appropriations stepping into an area that the
authorizing committee has the knowledge and the expertise in.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding to me.
I would just stress no one who understands what drives immigration,
legal or illegal, thinks that illegal immigration will decrease by one
person if they do not have the matricula consular. I have never heard
anyone argue that it is the ability to have the matricula consular that
brings people here illegally. So the question is, as the chairman has
phrased it, whatever we can do or not do to stop illegal immigration,
this has nothing to do with it. There will be people here. This is part
of an effort to try to identify some of the people who are here. It is
a separate question. And, again, I would ask does anyone really think
that if we get rid of the matricula consular that this would decrease
illegal immigration by as much as one person? I see no argument for
that. And then once we accept that fact, the chairman's argument is
correct, that it is a way of dealing with facts that are here, while we
try to diminish them to other means, that do have the support of law
enforcement because better information is helpful.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a national security issue. The Congress has
already spoken through the PATRIOT Act. Section 326 requires the
Treasury Department to adopt rules requiring banks to verify the
identity of persons opening an account, to keep records of that
person's identity, and to consult lists of known terrorists.
The Treasury Department did not do that. The rule adopted by
Treasury, against the advice of the FBI, against the advice of the
Department of Justice, the rule that the Committee on Appropriations
has cut off funding for, the rule the Treasury Department adopted, says
that a bank can open an account of a non-U.S. citizen as long as that
person shows any government-issued document with a photograph.
This is why the families of 9/11 have come out strongly in opposition
to the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Oxley) amendment. This is why the
Committee on Appropriations voted to cut off funding for this rule. To
quote the families of 9/11, I think they say it so well: All the
Members are aware that the 9/11 murderers relied upon government-issued
IDs.'' The Committee on Appropriations cut off funding to this rule
because the rule does not require banks to keep records. The rule does
not allow banks to accept any kind of foreign government-issued
identification. So it is important that Members understand that they
need to vote ``no'' against this amendment in the interest of national
security to ensure that Congress' intent in the PATRIOT Act is
enforced. It is the only way to stop this Treasury rule from being
implemented.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, as we all learned just over three years
ago, on September 11, 2001, protecting the American people from
terrorist attack has become the highest priority of all of us here in
the House of Representatives. Shortly after that terrible day, this
body came together and passed the USA Patriot Act to enable our law
enforcement agencies to more effectively investigate and apprehend
foreign terrorists on U.S. soil.
One of our goals when crafting the Patriot Act was to strengthen the
ability of our government to track and eliminate funding sources and
illicit bank accounts which we know terrorists have used to carry out
their deadly attacks. To that end, section 326 of the Patriot Act
requires financial institutions to establish ``reasonable procedures''
to verify the identity of customers seeking to open a new account.
This particular provision of the Patriot Act was written to improve
the ability of financial institutions to detect and prevent money
laundering and terrorist financing. If we were to block funding for
this provision, as the underlying legislation seeks to do, we would be
prohibiting the Treasury Department from telling financial institutions
that they must verify the identity of the customers. We would also be
pushing people toward an underground economy, where tracking terrorist
financing becomes even more difficult. And we would be reversing a key
anti-money-laundering provision of the Patriot Act, which was
specifically singled out by the 9/11 Commission as an important defense
against terrorism.
I am, however, very sensitive to concerns regarding the reliability
of the Matricula Consular card, in particular, as a valid form of
identification. And I recognize that both the Department of Justice and
the Federal Bureau of Investigation have stated concerns regarding
possible fraudulent use of the Matricula Consular ID.
[[Page H7165]]
Because of these concerns, I want to say that I plan to work with my
good friend from Texas, Mr. Culberson, to address this very important
issue. At the end of the day, I am hopeful that we will be able to
implement a system that both allows us to root out terrorist financing
and give us confidence in the validity of identification documents used
at financial institutions. In the meantime, I think it would be wholly
short-sighted to cripple our ability to track terrorist financing by
supporting the existing language in the bill.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this
amendment. This amendment would strip language in the bill that
represents a small but absolutely necessary step toward restoring some
sense of sanity to our national immigration policy.
Ever since September 11, we have endured proposals to reward those
who come here illegally, while efforts to enact responsible immigration
reform have been defeated.
It just doesn't make sense. It seems that we have made no progress
whatsoever in controlling illegal immigration.
Time Magazine has just reported that 3 million illegals will enter
our country this year, adding to the 10 million who are already here.
This is the largest number since 2001, the year we were attacked. Is
this progress?
Instead of cracking down on illegal immigrants and enforcing law and
order, our borders are more porous and chaotic than ever.
Not only does this huge amount of illegal immigrants endanger our
national security, but our crime rates and taxes are also adversely
affected.
I say enough is enough. No more enticing or rewarding illegal
immigrants with promises of amnesty or benefits. No more putting our
national security at risk.
This means ending the acceptance of Matricula Consular cards, which
are issued as a form of identification in Mexico.
Unfortunately, these cards can be easily forged or counterfeited, and
they often are.
The FBI reports that there is no centralized database for issuing
these cards, there are no uniform standards for its issuance, and in
some cases all an applicant has to do to receive a card is say that he
is who he purports to be.
The FBI determined that these are not adequate standards, that they
are fraught with fraud, and I wholeheartedly agree.
This means that those with criminal backgrounds can easily assume
false identities, come here, and break our laws.
This means that even those who are not Mexican can abuse the process
and obtain one of these cards.
And don't think that people from Middle Eastern countries aren't
trying to enter America over the Mexican border, because they are.
The FBI has noted that an Iranian national was recently found in
possession of one of these cards.
And just a few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that
suspected al Qaeda member Adnan El Shurkrijamah might try to cross into
Arizona or Texas.
This suspected terrorist has been identified by the FBI as the
apparent mastermind of an al Qaeda plot to ``launch a mass-casualty
attack in the United States.''
Mr. Chairman, none of us want illegal aliens using these cards to
cross our border or to escape detection once they get here.
None of us want illegal aliens using these cards as a way to obtain
driver's licenses or other forms of state-issued ID. Thirteen states,
by the way, allow these cards to be used as ID for obtaining a driver's
license.
And nobody wants these cards to be used to threaten our national
security.
If people are here legally, God bless them, they should be eager to
get a state-issued ID, because it's a benefit of citizenship.
And as was mentioned earlier in this debate by opponents of this
amendment, there are sufficient measures in place to fight terrorist
financing.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Department of
Homeland Security, to secure our banking system, and to oppose this
amendment.
{time} 2100
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time for
debate has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Oxley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Oxley) will be postponed.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 166, line 3 be considered as read, printed in
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
Mr. Chairman, under the unanimous consent request, at what point in
the subsequent proceedings would it be in order to raise points of
order? Could they be done at any time, or is there any particular time
that they would have to be raised?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If the unanimous consent request is agreed
to, then any portion within that point of the bill would be open for
points of order.
Mr. PETRI. And they should be made forthwith?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The text of the bill from page 76, line 8 through page 166, line 3 is
as follows:
TITLE III--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO
THE PRESIDENT
Compensation of the President
For compensation of the President, including an expense
allowance at the rate of $50,000 per annum as authorized by 3
U.S.C. 102, $450,000: Provided, That none of the funds made
available for official expenses shall be expended for any
other purpose and any unused amount shall revert to the
Treasury pursuant to section 1552 of title 31, United States
Code.
White House Office
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses for the White House as authorized by
law, including not to exceed $3,850,000 for services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 105; subsistence
expenses as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 105, which shall be
expended and accounted for as provided in that section; hire
of passenger motor vehicles, newspapers, periodicals,
teletype news service, and travel (not to exceed $100,000 to
be expended and accounted for as provided by 3 U.S.C. 103);
and not to exceed $19,000 for official entertainment
expenses, to be available for allocation within the Executive
Office of the President, $59,525,000: Provided, That
$8,345,395 of the funds appropriated shall be available for
reimbursements to the White House Communications Agency.
Executive Residence at the White House
operating expenses
For the care, maintenance, repair and alteration,
refurnishing, improvement, heating, and lighting, including
electric power and fixtures, of the Executive Residence at
the White House and official entertainment expenses of the
President, $12,760,000, to be expended and accounted for as
provided by 3 U.S.C. 105, 109, 110, and 112-114.
reimbursable expenses
For the reimbursable expenses of the Executive Residence at
the White House, such sums as may be necessary: Provided,
That all reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive
Residence shall be made in accordance with the provisions of
this paragraph: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, such amount for reimbursable
operating expenses shall be the exclusive authority of the
Executive Residence to incur obligations and to receive
offsetting collections, for such expenses: Provided further,
That the Executive Residence shall require each person
sponsoring a reimbursable political event to pay in advance
an amount equal to the estimated cost of the event, and all
such advance payments shall be credited to this account and
remain available until expended: Provided further, That the
Executive Residence shall require the national committee of
the political party of the President to maintain on deposit
$25,000, to be separately accounted for and available for
expenses relating to reimbursable political events sponsored
by such committee during such fiscal year: Provided further,
That the Executive Residence shall ensure that a written
notice of any amount owed for a reimbursable operating
expense under this paragraph is submitted to the person owing
such amount within 60 days after such expense is incurred,
and that such amount is collected within 30 days after the
submission of such notice: Provided further, That the
Executive Residence shall charge interest and assess
penalties and other charges on any such amount that is not
reimbursed within such 30 days, in accordance with the
interest and penalty provisions applicable to an outstanding
debt on a United States Government claim under section 3717
of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That each
such amount that is reimbursed, and any accompanying interest
and charges, shall be deposited in the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Executive
Residence shall prepare and submit to the Committees on
Appropriations, by not later than 90 days after the end
[[Page H7166]]
of the fiscal year covered by this Act, a report setting
forth the reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive
Residence during the preceding fiscal year, including the
total amount of such expenses, the amount of such total that
consists of reimbursable official and ceremonial events, the
amount of such total that consists of reimbursable political
events, and the portion of each such amount that has been
reimbursed as of the date of the report: Provided further,
That the Executive Residence shall maintain a system for the
tracking of expenses related to reimbursable events within
the Executive Residence that includes a standard for the
classification of any such expense as political or
nonpolitical: Provided further, That no provision of this
paragraph may be construed to exempt the Executive Residence
from any other applicable requirement of subchapter I or II
of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.
White House Repair and Restoration
For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the
Executive Residence at the White House, $1,900,000, to remain
available until expended, for required maintenance, safety
and health issues, and continued preventative maintenance.
Council of Economic Advisers
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Council of Economic Advisers
in carrying out its functions under the Employment Act of
1946 (15 U.S.C. 1021), $4,040,000.
Office of Policy Development
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Policy Development,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3
U.S.C. 107, $2,267,000.
National Security Council
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the National Security Council,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$8,932,000.
Homeland Security Council
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Homeland Security Council,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
$2,475,000.
Office of Administration
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Administration,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3
U.S.C. 107, and hire of passenger motor vehicles,
$92,696,000, of which $12,075,000 shall remain available
until expended for the Capital Investment Plan for continued
modernization of the information technology infrastructure
within the Executive Office of the President: Provided, That
$4,000,000 of Capital Investment Plan funds may not be
obligated until the Executive Office of the President has
submitted a report to the Committees on Appropriations that
includes an Enterprise Architecture, as defined in OMB
Circular A-130 and the Federal Chief Information Officers
Council guidance, that is reviewed and approved by the Office
of Management and Budget, reviewed by the U.S. General
Accountability Office, and approved by the Committees on
Appropriations.
Office of Management and Budget
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Management and
Budget, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and to carry out the
provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code,
$67,759,000, of which not to exceed $1,500 shall be available
for official representation expenses: Provided, That, as
provided in 31 U.S.C. 1301(a), appropriations shall be
applied only to the objects for which appropriations were
made except as otherwise provided by law: Provided further,
That none of the funds appropriated in this Act for the
Office of Management and Budget may be used for the purpose
of reviewing any agricultural marketing orders or any
activities or regulations under the provisions of the
Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.): Provided further, That none of the funds made
available for the Office of Management and Budget by this Act
may be expended for the altering of the transcript of actual
testimony of witnesses, except for testimony of officials of
the Office of Management and Budget, before the Committees on
Appropriations or their subcommittees: Provided further, That
the preceding shall not apply to printed hearings released by
the Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That none
of the funds appropriated in this Act may be available to pay
the salary or expenses of any employee of the Office of
Management and Budget who calculates, prepares, or approves
any tabular or other material that proposes the sub-
allocation of budget authority or outlays by the Committees
on Appropriations among their subcommittees.
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy; for research activities pursuant to the
Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
1998 (21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); not to exceed $10,000 for
official reception and representation expenses; and for
participation in joint projects or in the provision of
services on matters of mutual interest with nonprofit,
research, or public organizations or agencies, with or
without reimbursement, $28,109,000; of which $1,350,000 shall
remain available until expended for policy research and
evaluation: Provided, That the Office is authorized to
accept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts, both real and
personal, public and private, without fiscal year limitation,
for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the
Office.
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses for the Counterdrug Technology
Assessment Center for research activities pursuant to the
Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
1998 (21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), $30,000,000, which shall
remain available until expended, consisting of $10,000,000
for counternarcotics research and development projects, and
$20,000,000 for the continued operation of the technology
transfer program: Provided, That the $10,000,000 for
counternarcotics research and development projects shall be
available for transfer to other Federal departments or
agencies.
Federal Drug Control Programs
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
Program, $215,350,000, for drug control activities consistent
with the approved strategy for each of the designated High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, of which not less than
$208,000,000 shall be provided as base funding to High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas: Provided, That no less than
51 percent shall be transferred to State and local entities
for drug control activities, which shall be obligated within
120 days of the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided
further, That up to 49 percent, to remain available until
September 30, 2006, may be transferred to Federal agencies
and departments at a rate to be determined by the Director:
Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be used for auditing
services and associated activities, and at least $500,000 of
the $2,000,000 shall be used to develop and implement a data
collection system to measure the performance of the High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program: Provided further,
That High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Programs
designated as of September 30, 2004, shall be funded at no
less than the fiscal year 2004 initial allocation levels
unless the Director submits to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, and the Committees approve,
justification for changes in those levels based on clearly
articulated priorities for the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas Programs, as well as published Office of
National Drug Control Policy performance measures of
effectiveness: Provided further, That a request shall be
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations for approval prior to the obligation of funds
of an amount in excess of the fiscal year 2005 budget
request: Provided further, That such request shall be made in
compliance with the reprogramming guidelines.
Other Federal Drug Control Programs
(including transfer of funds)
For activities to support a national anti-drug campaign for
youth, and for other purposes, authorized by the Office of
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), $195,000,000 to remain available until
expended, of which the following amounts are available as
follows: $120,000,000 to support a national media campaign,
as authorized by the Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998;
$70,000,000 to continue a program of matching grants to drug-
free communities, of which $1,000,000 shall be a directed
grant to the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America for
the National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute, as
authorized in chapter 2 of the National Narcotics Leadership
Act of 1988, as amended; $1,000,000 for the Counterdrug
Intelligence Executive Secretariat; $500,000 for the National
Alliance for Model State Drug Laws; $1,000,000 for
evaluations and research related to National Drug Control
Program performance measures; $500,000 for the National Drug
Court Institute; $1,500,000 for the United States Anti-Doping
Agency for anti-doping activities; and $500,000 for the
United States membership dues to the World Anti-Doping
Agency: Provided, That such funds may be transferred to other
Federal departments and agencies to carry out such
activities: Provided further, That of the amounts
appropriated for a national media campaign, no less than 78
percent shall be used for the purchase of advertising time
and space for the national media campaign.
Unanticipated Needs
For expenses necessary to enable the President to meet
unanticipated needs, in furtherance of the national interest,
security, or defense which may arise at home or abroad during
the current fiscal year, as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 108,
$1,000,000.
Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the
Vice President
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses to enable the Vice President to
provide assistance to the President in connection with
specially assigned functions; services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 106, including subsistence expenses
as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 106, which
[[Page H7167]]
shall be expended and accounted for as provided in that
section; and hire of passenger motor vehicles, $4,571,000.
operating expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For the care, operation, refurnishing, improvement, and to
the extent not otherwise provided for, heating and lighting,
including electric power and fixtures, of the official
residence of the Vice President; the hire of passenger motor
vehicles; and not to exceed $90,000 for official
entertainment expenses of the Vice President, to be accounted
for solely on his certificate, $333,000: Provided, That
advances or repayments or transfers from this appropriation
may be made to any department or agency for expenses of
carrying out such activities.
TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
salaries and expenses
For expenses necessary for the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, as authorized by
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended
$5,686,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation
funds received for publications and training expenses.
National Transportation Safety Board
salaries and expenses
(including rescission of funds)
For necessary expenses of the National Transportation
Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and
aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at
rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate
equivalent to the rate for a GS-15; uniforms, or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902)
$76,925,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for
official reception and representation expenses. Of the
available unobligated balances made available under Public
Law 106-246, $8,000,000 are hereby cancelled.
Federal Election Commission
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended,
$52,159,000, of which no less than $4,700,000 shall be
available for internal automated data processing systems, and
of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for
reception and representation expenses: Provided, That none of
the funds provided in this Act or from any other source may
be used to allow any candidate for or member of the House of
Representatives or United States Senate to file information
and reports required by the Commission in any form other than
electronically.
Election Assistance Commission
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out the Help America Vote
Act of 2002 (HAVA), $15,000,000, of which not less than
$2,500,000 shall be transferred to the National Institutes of
Standards and Technology for election reform activities as
authorized by HAVA: Provided, That none of the funds under
this heading may be used for any member or employee of the
Election Assistance Commission for lobbying activities, if
the lobbying relates to the advocacy of a change in the date
provided under Federal law for general elections for Federal
office.
Federal Labor Relations Authority
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the
Federal Labor Relations Authority, pursuant to Reorganization
Plan Numbered 2 of 1978, and the Civil Service Reform Act of
1978, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and
including hire of experts and consultants, hire of passenger
motor vehicles, and rental of conference rooms in the
District of Columbia and elsewhere, $29,673,000: Provided,
That public members of the Federal Service Impasses Panel may
be paid travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence
as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5703) for persons employed
intermittently in the Government service, and compensation as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That
notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received from fees
charged to non-Federal participants at labor-management
relations conferences shall be credited to and merged with
this account, to be available without further appropriation
for the costs of carrying out these conferences.
Federal Maritime Commission
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission
as authorized by section 201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act,
1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. App. 1111), including services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles
as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); and uniforms or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902,
$19,362,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses.
General Services Administration
real property activities
federal buildings fund
limitations on availability of revenue
(including transfer of funds)
To carry out the purposes of the Fund established pursuant
to section 210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 592), the
revenues and collections deposited into the Fund shall be
available for necessary expenses of real property management
and related activities not otherwise provided for, including
operation, maintenance, and protection of federally owned and
leased buildings; rental of buildings in the District of
Columbia; restoration of leased premises; moving governmental
agencies (including space adjustments and telecommunications
relocation expenses) in connection with the assignment,
allocation and transfer of space; contractual services
incident to cleaning or servicing buildings, and moving;
repair and alteration of federally owned buildings including
grounds, approaches and appurtenances; care and safeguarding
of sites; maintenance, preservation, demolition, and
equipment; acquisition of buildings and sites by purchase,
condemnation, or as otherwise authorized by law; acquisition
of options to purchase buildings and sites; conversion and
extension of federally owned buildings; preliminary planning
and design of projects by contract or otherwise; construction
of new buildings (including equipment for such buildings);
and payment of principal, interest, and any other obligations
for public buildings acquired by installment purchase and
purchase contract; in the aggregate amount of $6,996,741,000,
of which: (1) $522,251,000 shall remain available until
expended for construction (including funds for sites and
expenses and associated design and construction services) of
additional projects at the following locations:
New Construction:
California:
Los Angeles, United States Courthouse, $314,385,000
San Diego, United States Courthouse, $3,068,000
District of Columbia:
Southeast Federal Center Site Remediation, $2,650,000
Maine:
Calais, Border Station, $3,269,000
Madawaska, Border Station, $1,760,000
Maryland:
Montgomery County, Food and Drug Administration
Consolidation, $88,710,000
Minnesota:
Warroad, Border Station, $1,837,000
New York:
Alexandria Bay, Border Station, $8,884,000
Massena, Border Station, $15,000,000
North Dakota:
Dunseith, Border Station, $2,301,000
Portal, Border Station, $22,351,000
Texas:
El Paso, Paso Del Norte Border Station, $26,191,000
El Paso, United States Courthouse, $2,714,000
El Paso, Ysleta Border Station, $2,491,000
Vermont:
Derby Line, Border Station, $3,348,000
Norton, Border Station, $1,747,000
Richford, Border Station, $1,545,000
Nonprospectus Construction, $10,000,000
Judgment Fund repayment, $10,000,000:
Provided, That each of the foregoing limits of costs on new
construction projects may be exceeded to the extent that
savings are effected in other such projects, but not to
exceed 10 percent of the amounts included in an approved
prospectus, if required, unless advance approval is obtained
from the Committees on Appropriations of a greater amount:
Provided further, That all funds for direct construction
projects shall expire on September 30, 2006, and remain in
the Federal Buildings Fund except for funds for projects as
to which funds for design or other funds have been obligated
in whole or in part prior to such date; (2) $931,211,000
shall remain available until expended for repairs and
alterations, which includes associated design and
construction services: Provided further, That the
Administrator shall fund the following projects from repair
and alterations as the limitation will allow:
Repairs and Alterations:
District of Columbia:
Eisenhower Executive Office Building, $5,000,000
Federal Office Building 6, $8,267,000
Hoover FBI Building, $10,242,000
Mary E. Switzer Building, $80,335,000
New Executive Office Building, $6,262,000
Steam Distribution System, $2,000,000
Theodore Roosevelt Building, $9,730,000
Georgia:
Atlanta, Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building,
$14,800,000
Atlanta, United States Court of Appeals, $32,004,000
Hawaii:
Hilo, Federal Building, $5,133,000
Louisiana:
New Orleans, Boggs Federal Building, $22,581,000
New Orleans, Wisdom Courthouse of Appeals, $8,005,000
Maryland:
Baltimore, George H. Fallon Federal Building, $46,163,000
Suitland, National Record Center, $7,989,000
Woodlawn, Social Security Administration Altmeyer Building,
$6,300,000
Minnesota:
St. Paul, Warren E. Burger Federal Building--Courthouse,
$36,644,000
Missouri:
Kansas City, Richard Bolling Federal Building, $40,048,000
New York:
New York, Foley Square Courthouse, $2,505,000
[[Page H7168]]
Queens, Joseph P. Addabbo Federal Building, $5,455,000
Ohio:
Cincinnati, Potter Stewart Courthouse, $37,975,000
Cleveland, Celebreeze Federal Building, $37,375,000
Washington:
Seattle, William Nakamura Courthouse, $50,210,000
Special Emphasis Programs:
Chlorofluorocarbons Program, $13,000,000
Energy Program, $30,000,000
Glass Fragment Retention, $20,000,000
Design Program, $49,699,000
Basic Repairs and Alterations, $394,500,000:
Provided further, That funds made available in this or any
previous Act in the Federal Buildings Fund for repairs and
alterations shall, for prospectus projects, be limited to the
amount identified for each project, except each project in
this or any previous Act may be increased by an amount not to
exceed 10 percent unless advance approval is obtained from
the Committees on Appropriations of a greater amount:
Provided further, That additional projects for which
prospectuses have been fully approved may be funded under
this category only if advance approval is obtained from the
Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That the
amounts provided in this or any prior Act for repairs and
alterations may be used to fund costs associated with
implementing security improvements to buildings necessary to
meet the minimum standards for security in accordance with
current law and in compliance with the reprogramming
guidelines of the appropriate Committees of the House and
Senate: Provided further, That the difference between the
funds appropriated and expended on any projects in this or
any prior Act, under the heading repairs and alterations, may
be transferred to basic repairs and alterations or used to
fund authorized increases in prospectus projects: Provided
further, That all funds for repairs and alterations
prospectus projects shall expire on September 30, 2006 and
remain in the Federal Buildings Fund except funds for
projects as to which funds for design or other funds have
been obligated in whole or in part prior to such date:
Provided further, That the amount provided in this or any
prior Act for basic repairs and alterations may be used to
pay claims against the Government arising from any projects
under the heading repairs and alterations or used to fund
authorized increases in prospectus projects; (3) $161,442,000
for installment acquisition payments including payments on
purchase contracts which shall remain available until
expended; (4) $3,672,315,000 for rental of space which shall
remain available until expended; and (5) $1,709,522,000 for
building operations which shall remain available until
expended: Provided further, That funds available to the
General Services Administration shall not be available for
expenses of any construction, repair, alteration and
acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required by
the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended, has not been
approved, except that necessary funds may be expended for
each project for required expenses for the development of a
proposed prospectus: Provided further, That funds available
in the Federal Buildings Fund may be expended for emergency
repairs when advance approval is obtained from the Committees
on Appropriations: Provided further, That amounts necessary
to provide reimbursable special services to other agencies
under section 210(f)(6) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C.
592(b)(2)) and amounts to provide such reimbursable fencing,
lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or
other property not in Government ownership or control as may
be appropriate to enable the United States Secret Service to
perform its protective functions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056,
shall be available from such revenues and collections:
Provided further, That revenues and collections and any other
sums accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 2005, excluding
reimbursements under section 210(f)(6) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.
592(b)(2)) in excess of the aggregate new obligational
authority authorized for Real Property Activities of the
Federal Buildings Fund in this Act shall remain in the Fund
and shall not be available for expenditure except as
authorized in appropriations Acts.
GENERAL ACTIVITIES
Government-wide Policy
For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for,
for Government-wide policy and evaluation activities
associated with the management of real and personal property
assets and certain administrative services; Government-wide
policy support responsibilities relating to acquisition,
telecommunications, information technology management, and
related technology activities; and services as authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109, $62,100,000.
Operating Expenses
For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for,
for Government-wide activities associated with utilization
and donation of surplus personal property; disposal of real
property; telecommunications, information technology
management, and related technology activities; providing
Internet access to Federal information and services; agency-
wide policy direction and management, and Board of Contract
Appeals; accounting, records management, and other support
services incident to adjudication of Indian Tribal Claims by
the United States Court of Federal Claims; services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and not to exceed $7,500 for
official reception and representation expenses, $82,175,000.
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $42,351,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $15,000 shall be available for
payment for information and detection of fraud against the
Government, including payment for recovery of stolen
Government property: Provided further, That not to exceed
$2,500 shall be available for awards to employees of other
Federal agencies and private citizens in recognition of
efforts and initiatives resulting in enhanced Office of
Inspector General effectiveness.
Electronic Government (E-Gov) Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses in support of interagency projects
that enable the Federal Government to expand its ability to
conduct activities electronically, through the development
and implementation of innovative uses of the Internet and
other electronic methods, $5,000,000, to remain available
until expended: Provided, That these funds may be transferred
to Federal agencies to carry out the purposes of the Fund:
Provided further, That this transfer authority shall be in
addition to any other transfer authority provided in this
Act: Provided further, That such transfers may not be made
until 10 days after a proposed spending plan and
justification for each project to be undertaken has been
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations.
Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents
(including transfer of funds)
For carrying out the provisions of the Act of August 25,
1958, as amended (3 U.S.C. 102 note), and Public Law 95-138,
$3,449,000: Provided, That the Administrator of General
Services shall transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of such
Acts.
Expenses, Presidential Transition
For expenses necessary to carry out the Presidential
Transition Act of 1963, as amended, $7,700,000, of which not
to exceed $1,000,000 is for activities authorized by sections
3(a) (8) and (9) of the Presidential Transition Act of 2000,
and may be used notwithstanding section 3(f) of such Act (3
U.S.C. 102, note).
general provisions--general services administration
Sec. 401. The appropriate appropriation or fund available
to the General Services Administration shall be credited with
the cost of operation, protection, maintenance, upkeep,
repair, and improvement, included as part of rentals received
from Government corporations pursuant to law (40 U.S.C. 129).
Sec. 402. Funds available to the General Services
Administration shall be available for the hire of passenger
motor vehicles.
Sec. 403. Funds in the Federal Buildings Fund made
available in fiscal year 2005 for Federal Buildings Fund
activities may be transferred between such activities only to
the extent necessary to meet program requirements: Provided,
That any proposed transfers shall be approved in advance by
the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 404. No funds made available by this Act shall be used
to transmit a fiscal year 2006 request for United States
Courthouse construction that: (1) does not meet the design
guide standards for construction as established and approved
by the General Services Administration, the Judicial
Conference of the United States, and the Office of Management
and Budget; and (2) does not reflect the priorities of the
Judicial Conference of the United States as set out in its
approved 5-year construction plan: Provided, That the fiscal
year 2006 request must be accompanied by a standardized
courtroom utilization study of each facility to be
constructed, replaced, or expanded.
Sec. 405. None of the funds provided in this Act may be
used to increase the amount of occupiable square feet,
provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or any
other service usually provided through the Federal Buildings
Fund, to any agency that does not pay the rate per square
foot assessment for space and services as determined by the
General Services Administration in compliance with the Public
Buildings Amendments Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-313).
Sec. 406. From funds made available under the heading
``Federal buildings fund, limitations on availability of
revenue'', claims against the Government of less than
$250,000 arising from direct construction projects and
acquisition of buildings may be liquidated from savings
effected in other construction projects with prior
notification to the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 407. Notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 524, 571, and 572, the
Administrator of General Services may sell the Middle River
Depot at Middle River, Maryland, and credit the proceeds of
such sale as offsetting collections to the Federal Buildings
Fund, to be available, in addition to amounts otherwise
appropriated for such Fund, for such capital activities of
the Fund as the Administrator may deem appropriate.
Sec. 408. Section 572(a)(2)(A)(ii) of title 40, United
States Code, is amended by inserting the following before the
period: ``, highest and best use of property studies,
utilization of property studies, deed compliance inspection,
and the expenses incurred in a relocation''.
[[Page H7169]]
Sec. 409. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Administrator of General Services may convey, by sale, lease,
exchange or otherwise, including through leaseback
arrangements, real and related personal property, or
interests therein, and retain the net proceeds of such
dispositions in an account within the Federal Buildings Fund
to be used for the General Services Administration's real
property capital needs: Provided, That all net proceeds
realized under this section shall only be expended as
authorized in annual appropriations acts: Provided further,
That for the purposes of this section, the term ``net
proceeds'' means the rental and other sums received less the
costs of the disposition, and the term ``real property
capital needs'' means any expenses necessary and incident to
the agency's real property capital acquisitions,
improvements, and dispositions.
Sec. 410. Land Conveyance, Nahant, Massachusetts.--(a)
Conveyance Authorized.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Administrator of the General Services
Administration may sell all right, title, and interest of the
United States in and to a parcel of real property, including
improvements thereon, that is located at Castle Road, Gardner
Road and Goddard Drive in Nahant, Massachusetts to the Town
of Nahant. In the event a binding sales contract is not
executed within 30 days of enactment the Administrator shall
commence with a public, competitive sale of the property.
(b) Consideration.--As consideration for conveyance under
subsection (a), the Town of Nahant shall pay, in a single
lump sum payment, $2 million.
(c) Deposit of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Administrator may deposit the net proceeds in the
Real Property Relocation account of the General Services
Administration. In the event proceeds exceed $2 million, the
net amount in excess of $2 million shall be deposited in the
United States Coast Guard Housing Fund established under 14
U.S.C. Sec. 687.
(d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal
description of the real property to be conveyed under
subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory
to the Administrator. The cost of the survey shall be borne
by the purchaser.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Adminstrator may
require such additional terms and conditions in connection
with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Adminstrator
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United
States.
Merit Systems Protection Board
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Merit
Systems Protection Board pursuant to Reorganization Plan
Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere,
hire of passenger motor vehicles, and direct procurement of
survey printing, $34,683,000 together with not to exceed
$2,620,000 for administrative expenses to adjudicate
retirement appeals to be transferred from the Civil Service
Retirement and Disability Fund in amounts determined by the
Merit Systems Protection Board.
Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental
Policy Foundation
morris k. udall scholarship and excellence in national environmental
policy trust fund
For payment to the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and
Excellence in National Environmental Policy Trust Fund,
pursuant to the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in
National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act
of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), $1,984,000, to remain
available until expended, of which up to $50,000 shall be
used to conduct financial audits pursuant to the
Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
289), notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of Public Law 102-259:
Provided, That up to 60 percent of such funds may be
transferred by the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence
in National Environmental Policy Foundation for the necessary
expenses of the Native Nations Institute.
Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund
For payment to the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund to
carry out activities authorized in the Environmental Policy
and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998, $1,301,000, to remain
available until expended.
National Archives and Records Administration
operating expenses
For necessary expenses in connection with the
administration of the National Archives and Records
Administration (including the Information Security Oversight
Office) and archived Federal records and related activities,
as provided by law, and for expenses necessary for the review
and declassification of documents, and for the hire of
passenger motor vehicles, $264,185,000: Provided, That the
Archivist of the United States is authorized to use any
excess funds available from the amount borrowed for
construction of the National Archives facility, for expenses
necessary to provide adequate storage for holdings.
electronic records archives
For necessary expenses in connection with the development
of the electronic records archives, to include all direct
project costs associated with research, analysis, design,
development, and program management, $35,914,000.
repairs and restoration
For the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives
facilities, and to provide adequate storage for holdings,
$7,182,000, to remain available until expended.
National Historical Publications and Records Commission
grants program
For necessary expenses for allocations and grants for
historical publications and records as authorized by 44
U.S.C. 2504, as amended, $3,000,000, to remain available
until expended.
Office of Government Ethics
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office
of Government Ethics pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act
of 1978, as amended, and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere,
hire of passenger motor vehicles, and not to exceed $1,500
for official reception and representation expenses,
$11,238,000.
Office of Personnel Management
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of trust funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office
of Personnel Management pursuant to Reorganization Plan
Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978,
including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; medical
examinations performed for veterans by private physicians on
a fee basis; rental of conference rooms in the District of
Columbia and elsewhere; hire of passenger motor vehicles; not
to exceed $2,500 for official reception and representation
expenses; advances for reimbursements to applicable funds of
the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for expenses incurred under Executive Order No.
10422 of January 9, 1953, as amended; and payment of per diem
and/or subsistence allowances to employees where Voting
Rights Act activities require an employee to remain overnight
at his or her post of duty, $120,444,000, of which $2,000,000
shall remain available until expended for the cost of the
enterprise human resources integration project, $6,615,000
shall remain available until expended for the cost of leading
the government-wide initiative to modernize the Federal
payroll systems and service delivery; $800,000 shall remain
available until expended for the cost of the e-human
resources information system project; $2,000,000 shall remain
available until expended for the cost of the e-clearance
project; and $3,300,000 shall remain available until expended
for the recruitment one stop project; and in addition
$128,462,000 for administrative expenses, to be transferred
from the appropriate trust funds of the Office of Personnel
Management without regard to other statutes, including direct
procurement of printed materials, for the retirement and
insurance programs, of which $27,640,000 shall remain
available until expended for the cost of automating the
retirement recordkeeping systems: Provided, That the
provisions of this appropriation shall not affect the
authority to use applicable trust funds as provided by
sections 8348(a)(1)(B), and 9004(f)(1)(A) and (2)(A) of title
5, United States Code: Provided further, That no part of this
appropriation shall be available for salaries and expenses of
the Legal Examining Unit of the Office of Personnel
Management established pursuant to Executive Order No. 9358
of July 1, 1943, or any successor unit of like purpose:
Provided further, That the President's Commission on White
House Fellows, established by Executive Order No. 11183 of
October 3, 1964, may, during fiscal year 2005, accept
donations of money, property, and personal services: Provided
further, That such donations, including those from prior
years, may be used for the development of publicity materials
to provide information about the White House Fellows, except
that no such donations shall be accepted for travel or
reimbursement of travel expenses, or for the salaries of
employees of such Commission.
Office of Inspector General
salaries and expenses
(including transfer of trust funds)
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act,
as amended, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C.
3109, hire of passenger motor vehicles, $1,627,000, and in
addition, not to exceed $16,461,000 for administrative
expenses to audit, investigate, and provide other oversight
of the Office of Personnel Management's retirement and
insurance programs, to be transferred from the appropriate
trust funds of the Office of Personnel Management, as
determined by the Inspector General: Provided, That the
Inspector General is authorized to rent conference rooms in
the District of Columbia and elsewhere.
Government Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health Benefits
For payment of Government contributions with respect to
retired employees, as authorized by chapter 89 of title 5,
United States Code, and the Retired Federal Employees Health
Benefits Act (74 Stat. 849), as amended, such sums as may be
necessary.
[[Page H7170]]
Government Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life Insurance
For payment of Government contributions with respect to
employees retiring after December 31, 1989, as required by
chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, such sums as may
be necessary.
Payment to Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
For financing the unfunded liability of new and increased
annuity benefits becoming effective on or after October 20,
1969, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 8348, and annuities under
special Acts to be credited to the Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund, such sums as may be necessary: Provided,
That annuities authorized by the Act of May 29, 1944, as
amended, and the Act of August 19, 1950, as amended (33
U.S.C. 771-775), may hereafter be paid out of the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
Human Capital Performance Fund
(including transfer of funds)
For a human capital performance fund, as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5408, $12,514,000: Provided, That such amounts as
determined by the Director of the Office of Personnel
Management may be transferred to Federal agencies to carry
out the purposes of this fund as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5403:
Provided further, That no funds shall be available for
obligation or transfer to any Federal agency until the
Director has notified the relevant subcommittees of
jurisdiction of the Committees on Appropriations of the
approval of a performance pay plan for that agency, and the
prior approval of such subcommittees has been attained.
Office of Special Counsel
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office
of Special Counsel pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 2
of 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
454), as amended, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989
(Public Law 101-12), as amended, Public Law 103-424, and the
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994
(Public Law 103-353), including services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109, payment of fees and expenses for witnesses,
rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia and
elsewhere, and hire of passenger motor vehicles; $15,449,000.
United States Postal Service
Payment to the Postal Service Fund
For payment to the Postal Service Fund for revenue forgone
on free and reduced rate mail, pursuant to subsections (c)
and (d) of section 2401 of title 39, United States Code,
$61,709,000, which shall not be available for obligation
until October 1, 2005: Provided, That mail for overseas
voting and mail for the blind shall continue to be free:
Provided further, That 6-day delivery and rural delivery of
mail shall continue at not less than the 1983 level: Provided
further, That none of the funds made available to the Postal
Service by this Act shall be used to implement any rule,
regulation, or policy of charging any officer or employee of
any State or local child support enforcement agency, or any
individual participating in a State or local program of child
support enforcement, a fee for information requested or
provided concerning an address of a postal customer: Provided
further, That none of the funds provided in this Act shall be
used to consolidate or close small rural and other small post
offices in fiscal year 2005.
United States Tax Court
Salaries and Expenses
For necessary expenses, including contract reporting and
other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $41,180,000:
Provided, That travel expenses of the judges shall be paid
upon the written certificate of the judge.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Act
(including transfers of funds)
Sec. 501. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2004 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or
previous appropriations Acts.
Sec. 502. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for
the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses
of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening
in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
Sec. 503. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal
year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations,
unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 504. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract
pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures
are a matter of public record and available for public
inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing
law, or under existing Executive Order issued pursuant to
existing law.
Sec. 505. For the purpose of any applicable law, for fiscal
years 2004 and 2005, the city of Norman, Oklahoma, shall be
considered to be part of the Oklahoma City urbanized area.
Sec. 506. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government, except pursuant to a
transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act
or any other appropriations Act.
Sec. 507. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be available for any activity or for paying the salary
of any Government employee where funding an activity or
paying a salary to a Government employee would result in a
decision, determination, rule, regulation, or policy that
would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff
Act of 1930.
Sec. 508. No part of any appropriation contained in this
Act shall be available to pay the salary for any person
filling a position, other than a temporary position, formerly
held by an employee who has left to enter the Armed Forces of
the United States and has satisfactorily completed his period
of active military or naval service, and has within 90 days
after his release from such service or from hospitalization
continuing after discharge for a period of not more than 1
year, made application for restoration to his former position
and has been certified by the Office of Personnel Management
as still qualified to perform the duties of his former
position and has not been restored thereto.
Sec. 509. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be
expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in
expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections
2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c,
popularly known as the ``Buy America Act'').
Sec. 510. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and
Products.--Hereafter, in the case of any equipment or
products that may be authorized to be purchased with
financial assistance provided under this Act, it is the sense
of the Congress that entities receiving such assistance
should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American-
made equipment and products.
(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a
notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the
Congress.
Sec. 511. Hereafter, if it has been finally determined by a
court or Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed
a label bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any
inscription with the same meaning, to any product sold in or
shipped to the United States that is not made in the United
States, such person shall be ineligible to receive any
contract or subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to
this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and
ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 through
9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 512. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law,
not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
available at the end of fiscal year 2005 from appropriations
made available for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2005
in this Act, shall remain available through September 30,
2006, for each such account for the purposes authorized:
Provided, That a request shall be submitted to the Committees
on Appropriations for approval prior to the expenditure of
such funds: Provided further, That these requests shall be
made in compliance with reprogramming guidelines.
Sec. 513. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Executive Office of the President to request
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation any official
background investigation report on any individual, except
when--
(1) such individual has given his or her express written
consent for such request not more than 6 months prior to the
date of such request and during the same presidential
administration; or
(2) such request is required due to extraordinary
circumstances involving national security.
Sec. 514. The cost accounting standards promulgated under
section 26 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(Public Law 93-400; 41 U.S.C. 422) shall not apply with
respect to a contract under the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program established under chapter 89 of title 5,
United States Code.
Sec. 515. For the purpose of resolving litigation and
implementing any settlement agreements regarding the
nonforeign area cost-of-living allowance program, the Office
of Personnel Management may accept and utilize (without
regard to any restriction on unanticipated travel expenses
imposed in an appropriations Act) funds made available to the
Office pursuant to court approval.
Sec. 516. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available
under this Act shall be made available to any person or
entity that has been convicted of violating the Buy American
Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
Sec. 517. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be
available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative
expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal
employees health benefits program which provides any benefits
or coverage for abortions.
Sec. 518. The provision of section 517 shall not apply
where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus
were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an
act of rape or incest.
Sec. 519. None of the funds provided in this Act, provided
by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies or entities
funded in this Act that remain available for obligation or
expenditure in fiscal year 2005, or provided from any
accounts in the Treasury derived by the collection of fees
and available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be
available for obligation or expenditure through a
reprogramming of funds that--
[[Page H7171]]
(1) creates a new program;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
(3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity
for which funds have been denied or restricted by the
Congress;
(4) proposes to use funds directed for a specific activity
by either the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations
for a different purpose;
(5) augments existing programs, projects, or activities in
excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is greater;
(6) reduces existing programs, projects, or activities by
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is greater; or
(7) creates or reorganizes a branch, division, office,
bureau, board, commission, agency administration, or
department different from the budget justifications submitted
to the Committees on Appropriations;
unless prior approval is received from the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 520. Exemption From Limitations on Procurement of
Foreign Information Technology That Is a Commercial Item.--In
order to promote Government access to commercial information
technology, the restriction on purchasing nondomestic
articles, materials, and supplies set forth in the Buy
American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.), shall not apply to the
acquisition by the Federal Government of information
technology (as defined in section 11101 of title 40, United
States Code, that is a commercial item (as defined in section
4(12) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41
U.S.C. 403(12)).
Sec. 521. It is the sense of the House of Representatives
that empowerment zones within cities should have the
necessary flexibility to expand to include relevant
communities so that empowerment zone benefits are equitably
distributed.
Sec. 522. It is the sense of the House of Representatives
that all census tracts contained in an empowerment zone,
either fully or partially, should be equitably accorded the
same benefits.
Sec. 523. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce--
(1) the proposed rule relating to the determination that
real estate brokerage is an activity that is financial in
nature or incidental to a financial activity published in the
Federal Register on January 3, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 307 et
seq.); or
(2) the revision proposed in such rule to section 1501.2 of
title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Sec. 524. It is the sense of Congress that, after proper
documentation, justification, and review, the Department of
Transportation should consider programs to reimburse general
aviation ground support services at Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport, and airports located within fifteen miles
of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, for their
financial losses due to Government actions after the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Sec. 525. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be obligated or expended to establish or implement a
pilot program under which not more than 10 designated
essential air service communities located in proximity to hub
airports are required to assume 10 percent of their essential
air subsidy costs for a 4-year period commonly referred to as
the EAS local participation program.
TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Departments, Agencies, and Corporations
Sec. 601. Funds appropriated in this or any other Act may
be used to pay travel to the United States for the immediate
family of employees serving abroad in cases of death or life
threatening illness of said employee.
Sec. 602. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any
other Act for fiscal year 2005 shall obligate or expend any
such funds, unless such department, agency, or
instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer
in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all
of its workplaces are free from the illegal use, possession,
or distribution of controlled substances (as defined in the
Controlled Substances Act) by the officers and employees of
such department, agency, or instrumentality.
Sec. 603. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the
maximum amount allowable during the current fiscal year in
accordance with section 16 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (60
Stat. 810), for the purchase of any passenger motor vehicle
(exclusive of buses, ambulances, law enforcement, and
undercover surveillance vehicles), is hereby fixed at $8,100
except station wagons for which the maximum shall be $9,100:
Provided, That these limits may be exceeded by not to exceed
$3,700 for police-type vehicles, and by not to exceed $4,000
for special heavy-duty vehicles: Provided further, That the
limits set forth in this section may not be exceeded by more
than 5 percent for electric or hybrid vehicles purchased for
demonstration under the provisions of the Electric and Hybrid
Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976:
Provided further, That the limits set forth in this section
may be exceeded by the incremental cost of clean alternative
fuels vehicles acquired pursuant to Public Law 101-549 over
the cost of comparable conventionally fueled vehicles.
Sec. 604. Appropriations of the executive departments and
independent establishments for the current fiscal year
available for expenses of travel, or for the expenses of the
activity concerned, are hereby made available for quarters
allowances and cost-of-living allowances, in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 5922-5924.
Sec. 605. Unless otherwise specified during the current
fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained in this
or any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any
officer or employee of the Government of the United States
(including any agency the majority of the stock of which is
owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of
duty is in the continental United States unless such person:
(1) is a citizen of the United States; (2) is a person in the
service of the United States on the date of the enactment of
this Act who, being eligible for citizenship, has filed a
declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United
States prior to such date and is actually residing in the
United States; (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the
United States; (4) is an alien from Cuba, Poland, South
Vietnam, the countries of the former Soviet Union, or the
Baltic countries lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence; (5) is a South Vietnamese, Cambodian, or
Laotian refugee paroled in the United States after January 1,
1975; or (6) is a national of the People's Republic of China
who qualifies for adjustment of status pursuant to the
Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992: Provided, That for
the purpose of this section, an affidavit signed by any such
person shall be considered prima facie evidence that the
requirements of this section with respect to his or her
status have been complied with: Provided further, That any
person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony,
and, upon conviction, shall be fined no more than $4,000 or
imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both: Provided
further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to,
and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing
law: Provided further, That any payment made to any officer
or employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall
be recoverable in action by the Federal Government. This
section shall not apply to citizens of Ireland, Israel, or
the Republic of the Philippines, or to nationals of those
countries allied with the United States in a current defense
effort, or to international broadcasters employed by the
United States Information Agency, or to temporary employment
of translators, or to temporary employment in the field
service (not to exceed 60 days) as a result of emergencies.
Sec. 606. Appropriations available to any department or
agency during the current fiscal year for necessary expenses,
including maintenance or operating expenses, shall also be
available for payment to the General Services Administration
for charges for space and services and those expenses of
renovation and alteration of buildings and facilities which
constitute public improvements performed in accordance with
the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 749), the Public
Buildings Amendments of 1972 (87 Stat. 216), or other
applicable law.
Sec. 607. In addition to funds provided in this or any
other Act, all Federal agencies are authorized to receive and
use funds resulting from the sale of materials, including
Federal records disposed of pursuant to a records schedule
recovered through recycling or waste prevention programs.
Such funds shall be available until expended for the
following purposes:
(1) Acquisition, waste reduction and prevention, and
recycling programs as described in Executive Order No. 13101
(September 14, 1998), including any such programs adopted
prior to the effective date of the Executive order.
(2) Other Federal agency environmental management programs,
including, but not limited to, the development and
implementation of hazardous waste management and pollution
prevention programs.
(3) Other employee programs as authorized by law or as
deemed appropriate by the head of the Federal agency.
Sec. 608. Funds made available by this or any other Act for
administrative expenses in the current fiscal year of the
corporations and agencies subject to chapter 91 of title 31,
United States Code, shall be available, in addition to
objects for which such funds are otherwise available, for
rent in the District of Columbia; services in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 3109; and the objects specified under this head, all
the provisions of which shall be applicable to the
expenditure of such funds unless otherwise specified in the
Act by which they are made available: Provided, That in the
event any functions budgeted as administrative expenses are
subsequently transferred to or paid from other funds, the
limitations on administrative expenses shall be
correspondingly reduced.
Sec. 609. No part of any appropriation for the current
fiscal year contained in this or any other Act shall be paid
to any person for the filling of any position for which he or
she has been nominated after the Senate has voted not to
approve the nomination of said person.
Sec. 610. No part of any appropriation contained in this or
any other Act shall be available for interagency financing of
boards (except Federal Executive Boards), commissions,
councils, committees, or similar groups (whether or not they
are interagency entities) which do not have a prior and
specific statutory approval to receive financial support from
more than one agency or instrumentality.
[[Page H7172]]
Sec. 611. Funds made available by this or any other Act to
the Postal Service Fund (39 U.S.C. 2003) shall be available
for employment of guards for all buildings and areas owned or
occupied by the Postal Service and under the charge and
control of the Postal Service, and such guards shall have,
with respect to such property, the powers of special
policemen provided by the first section of the Act of June 1,
1948, as amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318), and, as to
property owned or occupied by the Postal Service, the
Postmaster General may take the same actions as the
Administrator of General Services may take under the
provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as
amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318a and 318b), attaching
thereto penal consequences under the authority and within the
limits provided in section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as
amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318c).
Sec. 612. None of the funds made available pursuant to the
provisions of this Act shall be used to implement,
administer, or enforce any regulation which has been
disapproved pursuant to a resolution of disapproval duly
adopted in accordance with the applicable law of the United
States.
Sec. 613. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
and except as otherwise provided in this section, no part of
any of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2005, by this
or any other Act, may be used to pay any prevailing rate
employee described in section 5342(a)(2)(A) of title 5,
United States Code--
(1) during the period from the date of expiration of the
limitation imposed by the comparable section for previous
fiscal years until the normal effective date of the
applicable wage survey adjustment that is to take effect in
fiscal year 2005, in an amount that exceeds the rate payable
for the applicable grade and step of the applicable wage
schedule in accordance with such section; and
(2) during the period consisting of the remainder of fiscal
year 2005, in an amount that exceeds, as a result of a wage
survey adjustment, the rate payable under paragraph (1) by
more than the sum of--
(A) the percentage adjustment taking effect in fiscal year
2005 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, in
the rates of pay under the General Schedule; and
(B) the difference between the overall average percentage
of the locality-based comparability payments taking effect in
fiscal year 2005 under section 5304 of such title (whether by
adjustment or otherwise), and the overall average percentage
of such payments which was effective in the previous fiscal
year under such section.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
prevailing rate employee described in subparagraph (B) or (C)
of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, and no
employee covered by section 5348 of such title, may be paid
during the periods for which subsection (a) is in effect at a
rate that exceeds the rates that would be payable under
subsection (a) were subsection (a) applicable to such
employee.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the rates payable to
an employee who is covered by this section and who is paid
from a schedule not in existence on September 30, 2004, shall
be determined under regulations prescribed by the Office of
Personnel Management.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rates of
premium pay for employees subject to this section may not be
changed from the rates in effect on September 30, 2004,
except to the extent determined by the Office of Personnel
Management to be consistent with the purpose of this section.
(e) This section shall apply with respect to pay for
service performed after September 30, 2004.
(f) For the purpose of administering any provision of law
(including any rule or regulation that provides premium pay,
retirement, life insurance, or any other employee benefit)
that requires any deduction or contribution, or that imposes
any requirement or limitation on the basis of a rate of
salary or basic pay, the rate of salary or basic pay payable
after the application of this section shall be treated as the
rate of salary or basic pay.
(g) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit
or require the payment to any employee covered by this
section at a rate in excess of the rate that would be payable
were this section not in effect.
(h) The Office of Personnel Management may provide for
exceptions to the limitations imposed by this section if the
Office determines that such exceptions are necessary to
ensure the recruitment or retention of qualified employees.
Sec. 614. During the period in which the head of any
department or agency, or any other officer or civilian
employee of the Government appointed by the President of the
United States, holds office, no funds may be obligated or
expended in excess of $5,000 to furnish or redecorate the
office of such department head, agency head, officer, or
employee, or to purchase furniture or make improvements for
any such office, unless advance notice of such furnishing or
redecoration is expressly approved by the Committees on
Appropriations. For the purposes of this section, the term
``office'' shall include the entire suite of offices assigned
to the individual, as well as any other space used primarily
by the individual or the use of which is directly controlled
by the individual.
Sec. 615. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United
States Code, or section 610 of this Act, funds made available
for the current fiscal year by this or any other Act shall be
available for the interagency funding of national security
and emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives
which benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or
entities, as provided by Executive Order No. 12472 (April 3,
1984).
Sec. 616. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act may be obligated or expended by any Federal
department, agency, or other instrumentality for the salaries
or expenses of any employee appointed to a position of a
confidential or policy-determining character excepted from
the competitive service pursuant to section 3302 of title 5,
United States Code, without a certification to the Office of
Personnel Management from the head of the Federal department,
agency, or other instrumentality employing the Schedule C
appointee that the Schedule C position was not created solely
or primarily in order to detail the employee to the White
House.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to
Federal employees or members of the armed services detailed
to or from--
(1) the Central Intelligence Agency;
(2) the National Security Agency;
(3) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
(4) the offices within the Department of Defense for the
collection of specialized national foreign intelligence
through reconnaissance programs;
(5) the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the
Department of State;
(6) any agency, office, or unit of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps, the Department of Homeland Security,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement
Administration of the Department of Justice, the Department
of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, and the
Department of Energy performing intelligence functions; and
(7) the Director of Central Intelligence.
Sec. 617. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any
other Act for the current fiscal year shall obligate or
expend any such funds, unless such department, agency, or
instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer
in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all
of its workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual
harassment and that all of its workplaces are not in
violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Sec. 618. No part of any appropriation contained in this or
any other Act shall be available for the payment of the
salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government,
who--
(1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to
prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the
Federal Government from having any direct oral or written
communication or contact with any Member, committee, or
subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter
pertaining to the employment of such other officer or
employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such
other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether
such communication or contact is at the initiative of such
other officer or employee or in response to the request or
inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee; or
(2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes,
reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance of
efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns,
transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any
employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or
condition of employment of, any other officer or employee of
the Federal Government, or attempts or threatens to commit
any of the foregoing actions with respect to such other
officer or employee, by reason of any communication or
contact of such other officer or employee with any Member,
committee, or subcommittee of the Congress as described in
paragraph (1).
Sec. 619. (a) None of the funds made available in this or
any other Act may be obligated or expended for any employee
training that--
(1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills,
and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of
official duties;
(2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of
emotional response or psychological stress in some
participants;
(3) does not require prior employee notification of the
content and methods to be used in the training and written
end of course evaluation;
(4) contains any methods or content associated with
religious or quasi-religious belief systems or ``new age''
belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988; or
(5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants'
personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or
otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing
directly upon the performance of official duties.
Sec. 620. No funds appropriated in this or any other Act
may be used to implement or enforce the agreements in
Standard Forms 312 and 4414 of the Government or any other
nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such policy,
form, or agreement does not contain the following provisions:
``These restrictions are consistent with and do not
supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the
[[Page H7173]]
employee obligations, rights, or liabilities created by
Executive Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United
States Code (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034
of title 10, United States Code, as amended by the Military
Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to
Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of
title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower
Protection Act (governing disclosures of illegality, waste,
fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats); the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421
et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose
confidential Government agents); and the statutes which
protect against disclosure that may compromise the national
security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of
title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the
Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The
definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions,
and liabilities created by said Executive order and listed
statutes are incorporated into this agreement and are
controlling.'': Provided, That notwithstanding the preceding
paragraph, a nondisclosure policy form or agreement that is
to be executed by a person connected with the conduct of an
intelligence or intelligence-related activity, other than an
employee or officer of the United States Government, may
contain provisions appropriate to the particular activity for
which such document is to be used. Such form or agreement
shall, at a minimum, require that the person will not
disclose any classified information received in the course of
such activity unless specifically authorized to do so by the
United States Government. Such nondisclosure forms shall also
make it clear that they do not bar disclosures to Congress or
to an authorized official of an executive agency or the
Department of Justice that are essential to reporting a
substantial violation of law.
Sec. 621. No part of any funds appropriated in this or any
other Act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch,
other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative
relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for
the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet,
booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation
designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the
Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.
Sec. 622. None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act may be used by an agency to provide a Federal
employee's home address to any labor organization except when
the employee has authorized such disclosure or when such
disclosure has been ordered by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
Sec. 623. None of the funds made available in this Act or
any other Act may be used to provide any non-public
information such as mailing or telephone lists to any person
or any organization outside of the Federal Government without
the approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
Sec. 624. No part of any appropriation contained in this or
any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda
purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized
by the Congress.
Sec. 625. (a) In this section the term ``agency''--
(1) means an Executive agency as defined under section 105
of title 5, United States Code;
(2) includes a military department as defined under section
102 of such title, the Postal Service, and the Postal Rate
Commission; and
(3) shall not include the General Accounting Office.
(b) Unless authorized in accordance with law or regulations
to use such time for other purposes, an employee of an agency
shall use official time in an honest effort to perform
official duties. An employee not under a leave system,
including a Presidential appointee exempted under section
6301(2) of title 5, United States Code, has an obligation to
expend an honest effort and a reasonable proportion of such
employee's time in the performance of official duties.
Sec. 626. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 610 of
this Act, funds made available for the current fiscal year by
this or any other Act to any department or agency, which is a
member of the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program
(JFMIP), shall be available to finance an appropriate share
of JFMIP administrative costs, as determined by the JFMIP,
but not to exceed a total of $800,000 including the salary of
the Executive Director and staff support.
Sec. 627. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 610 of
this Act, the head of each Executive department and agency is
hereby authorized to transfer to or reimburse ``General
Services Administration, governmentwide policy'' with the
approval of the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, funds made available for the current fiscal year by
this or any other Act, including rebates from charge card and
other contracts: Provided, That these funds shall be
administered by the Administrator of General Services to
support Government-wide financial, information technology,
procurement, and other management innovations, initiatives,
and activities, as approved by the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, in consultation with the appropriate
interagency groups designated by the Director (including the
Chief Financial Officers Council and the Joint Financial
Management Improvement Program for financial management
initiatives, the Chief Information Officers Council for
information technology initiatives, and the Federal
Acquisition Council for procurement initiatives): Provided
further, That the total funds transferred or reimbursed shall
not exceed $17,000,000: Provided further, That such transfers
or reimbursements may only be made 15 days following
notification of the Committees on Appropriations by the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Sec. 628. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act may be used by the Office of Personnel Management
or any other department or agency of the Federal Government
to prohibit any agency from using appropriated funds as they
see fit to independently contract with private companies to
provide online employment applications and processing
services.
Sec. 629. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
woman may breastfeed her child at any location in a Federal
building or on Federal property, if the woman and her child
are otherwise authorized to be present at the location.
Sec. 630. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United
States Code, or section 610 of this Act, funds made available
for the current fiscal year by this or any other Act shall be
available for the interagency funding of specific projects,
workshops, studies, and similar efforts to carry out the
purposes of the National Science and Technology Council
(authorized by Executive Order No. 12881), which benefit
multiple Federal departments, agencies, or entities:
Provided, That the Office of Management and Budget shall
provide a report describing the budget of and resources
connected with the National Science and Technology Council to
the Committees on Appropriations, the House Committee on
Science; and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation 90 days after enactment of this Act.
Sec. 631. Any request for proposals, solicitation, grant
application, form, notification, press release, or other
publications involving the distribution of Federal funds
shall indicate the agency providing the funds, the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance Number, as applicable, and the
amount provided: Provided, That this provision shall apply to
direct payments, formula funds, and grants received by a
State receiving Federal funds.
Sec. 632. Subsection (f) of section 403 of Public Law 103-
356 (31 U.S.C. 501 note), as amended, is further amended by
striking ``October 1, 2004'' and inserting ``October 1,
2005''.
Sec. 633. (a) Prohibition of Federal Agency Monitoring of
Individuals' Internet Use.--None of the funds made available
in this or any other Act may be used by any Federal agency--
(1) to collect, review, or create any aggregation of data,
derived from any means, that includes any personally
identifiable information relating to an individual's access
to or use of any Federal Government Internet site of the
agency; or
(2) to enter into any agreement with a third party
(including another government agency) to collect, review, or
obtain any aggregation of data, derived from any means, that
includes any personally identifiable information relating to
an individual's access to or use of any nongovernmental
Internet site.
(b) Exceptions.--The limitations established in subsection
(a) shall not apply to--
(1) any record of aggregate data that does not identify
particular persons;
(2) any voluntary submission of personally identifiable
information;
(3) any action taken for law enforcement, regulatory, or
supervisory purposes, in accordance with applicable law; or
(4) any action described in subsection (a)(1) that is a
system security action taken by the operator of an Internet
site and is necessarily incident to the rendition of the
Internet site services or to the protection of the rights or
property of the provider of the Internet site.
(c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``regulatory'' means agency actions to
implement, interpret or enforce authorities provided in law.
(2) The term ``supervisory'' means examinations of the
agency's supervised institutions, including assessing safety
and soundness, overall financial condition, management
practices and policies and compliance with applicable
standards as provided in law.
Sec. 634. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used to enter into or renew a contract which includes
a provision providing prescription drug coverage, except
where the contract also includes a provision for
contraceptive coverage.
(b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract
with--
(1) any of the following religious plans:
(A) Personal Care's HMO; and
(B) OSF Health Plans, Inc.; and
(2) any existing or future plan, if the carrier for the
plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious
beliefs.
(c) In implementing this section, any plan that enters into
or renews a contract under this section may not subject any
individual to discrimination on the basis that the individual
refuses to prescribe or otherwise provide for contraceptives
because such activities would be contrary to the individual's
religious beliefs or moral convictions.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require
coverage of abortion or abortion-related services.
Sec. 635. The Congress of the United States recognizes the
United States Anti-Doping
[[Page H7174]]
Agency (USADA) as the official anti-doping agency for
Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic sport in the United
States.
Sec. 636. None of the funds made available under this or
any other Act for fiscal year 2005 shall be expended for the
purchase of a product or service offered by Federal Prison
Industries, Inc. unless the agency making such purchase
determines that such offered product or service provides the
best value to the buying agency pursuant to governmentwide
procurement regulations, issued pursuant to section 25(c)(1)
of the Office of Federal Procurement Act (41 U.S.C.
421(c)(1)) that impose procedures, standards, and limitations
of section 2410n of title 10, United States Code.
Sec. 637. Each Executive department and agency shall
evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing
the individual a government purchase charge card or
government travel charge card. The department or agency may
not issue a government purchase charge card or government
travel charge card to an individual that either lacks a
credit history or is found to have an unsatisfactory credit
history as a result of this evaluation: Provided, That this
restriction shall not preclude issuance of a restricted-use
charge, debit, or stored value card made in accordance with
agency procedures to (a) an individual with an unsatisfactory
credit history where such card is used to pay travel expenses
and the agency determines there is no suitable alternative
payment mechanism available before issuing the card, or (b)
an individual who lacks a credit history. Each Executive
department and agency shall establish guidelines and
procedures for disciplinary actions to be taken against
agency personnel for improper, fraudulent, or abusive use of
government charge cards, which shall include appropriate
disciplinary actions for use of charge cards for purposes,
and at establishments, that are inconsistent with the
official business of the Department or agency or with
applicable standards of conduct.
Sec. 638. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated for official travel by Federal departments and
agencies may be used by such departments and agencies, if
consistent with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
126 regarding official travel for Government personnel, to
participate in the fractional aircraft ownership pilot
program.
Sec. 639. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be
used to implement or enforce regulations for locality pay
areas in fiscal year 2005 that are inconsistent with the
recommendations of the Federal Salary Council adopted on
October 7, 2003.
Sec. 640. (a) Not later than 180 days after the enactment
of this Act, the head of each Federal agency shall submit a
report to Congress on the amount of the acquisitions made by
the agency from entities that manufacture the articles,
materials, or supplies outside of the United States in that
fiscal year.
(b) The report required by subsection (a) shall separately
indicate--
(1) the dollar value of any articles, materials, or
supplies purchased that were manufactured outside of the
United States;
(2) an itemized list of all waivers granted with respect to
such articles, materials, or supplies under the Buy American
Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.); and
(3) a summary of the total procurement funds spent on goods
manufactured in the United States versus funds spent on goods
manufactured outside of the United States.
(c) The head of each Federal agency submitting a report
under subsection (a) shall make the report publicly available
to the maximum extent practicable.
Sec. 641. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds appropriated or made available under this Act or
any other appropriations Act may be used to implement or
enforce restrictions or limitations on the Coast Guard
Congressional Fellowship Program, or to implement the
proposed regulations of the Office of Personnel Management to
add sections 300.311 through 300.316 to part 300 of title 5
of the Code of Federal Regulations, published in the Federal
Register, volume 68, number 174, on September 9, 2003
(relating to the detail of executive branch employees to the
legislative branch).
Sec. 642. Subsection (e) of section 3716 of title 31,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law
(including 42 U.S.C. 407 and 1383(d)(1), 30 U.S.C. 923(b),
and 45 U.S.C. 231(m), regulation, or administrative
limitation, no limitation shall terminate the period within
which an offset may be initiated or taken pursuant to this
section.
``(2) This section does not apply when a statute explicitly
prohibits using administrative offset or setoff to collect
the claim or type of claim involved.''.
Sec. 643. Section 453(j) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 653(j)), is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(7) Information comparisons and disclosure to assist in
federal debt collection.--
``(A) Furnishing of information by the secretary of the
treasury.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall furnish to the
Secretary, on such periodic basis as determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary,
information in the custody of the Secretary of the Treasury
for comparison with information in the National Directory of
New Hires, in order to obtain information in such Directory
with respect to persons--
``(i) who owe delinquent nontax debt to the United States;
and
``(ii) whose debt has been referred to the Secretary of the
Treasury in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(g).
``(B) Requirement to seek minimum information.--The
Secretary of the Treasury shall seek information pursuant to
this section only to the extent necessary to improve
collection of the debt described in subparagraph (A).
``(C) Duties of the secretary.--
``(i) Information disclosure.--The Secretary, in
cooperation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall compare
information in the National Directory of New Hires with
information provided by the Secretary of the Treasury with
respect to persons described in subparagraph (A) and shall
disclose information in such Directory regarding such persons
to the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this
paragraph, for the purposes specified in this paragraph. Such
comparison of information shall not be considered a matching
program as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552a.
``(ii) Condition on disclosure.--The Secretary shall make
disclosures in accordance with clause (i) only to the extent
that the Secretary determines that such disclosures do not
interfere with the effective operation of the program under
this part. Support collection under section 466(b) of this
title shall be given priority over collection of any
delinquent federal nontax debt against the same income.
``(D) Use of information by the secretary of the
treasury.--The Secretary of the Treasury may use information
provided under this paragraph only for purposes of collecting
the debt described in subparagraph (A).
``(E) Disclosure of information by the secretary of the
treasury.--
``(i) Purpose of disclosure.--The Secretary of the Treasury
may make a disclosure under this subparagraph only for
purposes of collecting the debt described in subparagraph
(A).
``(ii) Disclosures permitted.--Subject to clauses (iii) and
(iv), the Secretary of the Treasury may disclose information
resulting from a data match pursuant to this paragraph only
to the Attorney General in connection with collecting the
debt described in subparagraph (A).
``(iii) Conditions on disclosure.--Disclosures under this
subparagraph shall be--
``(I) made in accordance with data security and control
policies established by the Secretary of the Treasury and
approved by the Secretary;
``(II) subject to audit in a manner satisfactory to the
Secretary; and
``(III) subject to the sanctions under subsection (l)(2).
``(iv) Additional disclosures.--
``(I) Determination by secretaries.--The Secretary of the
Treasury and the Secretary shall determine whether to permit
disclosure of information under this paragraph to persons or
entities described in subclause (II), based on an evaluation
made by the Secretary of the Treasury (in consultation with
and approved by the Secretary), of the costs and benefits of
such disclosures and the adequacy of measures used to
safeguard the security and confidentiality of information so
disclosed.
``(II) Permitted persons or entities.--If the Secretary of
the Treasury and the Secretary determine pursuant to
subclause (I) that disclosures to additional persons or
entities shall be permitted, information under this paragraph
may be disclosed by the Secretary of the Treasury, in
connection with collecting the debt described in subparagraph
(A), to a contractor or agent of either Secretary and to the
Federal agency that referred such debt to the Secretary of
the Treasury for collection, subject to the conditions in
clause (iii) and such additional conditions as agreed to by
the Secretaries.
``(v) Restrictions on redisclosure.--A person or entity to
which information is disclosed under this subparagraph may
use or disclose such information only as needed for
collecting the debt described in subparagraph (A), subject to
the conditions in clause (iii) and such additional conditions
as agreed to by the Secretaries.
``(F) Reimbursement of hhs costs.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall reimburse the Secretary, in accordance with
subsection (k)(3), for the costs incurred by the Secretary in
furnishing the information requested under this paragraph.
Any such costs paid by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be
considered costs of implementing 31 U.S.C. 3711(g) in
accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(g)(6) and may be paid from the
account established pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3711(g)(7).''.
Sec. 644. (a) In General.--Section 6402 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, is amended by redesignating subsections
(f) through (k) as subsections (g) through (l), respectively,
and by inserting after subsection (e) the following new
subsection:
``(f) Collection of Past-Due, Legally Enforceable State
Unemployment Compensation Debts.--
``(1) In general.--Upon receiving notice from any State
that a person owes a past-due, legally enforceable State
unemployment compensation debt to such State, the Secretary
shall, under such conditions as may be prescribed by the
Secretary--
``(A) reduce the amount of any overpayment payable to such
person by the amount of such unemployment compensation debt;
``(B) pay the amount by which such overpayment is reduced
under subparagraph (A)
[[Page H7175]]
to such State and notify such State of such person's name,
taxpayer identification number, address, and the amount
collected; and
``(C) notify the person making such overpayment that the
overpayment has been reduced by an amount necessary to
satisfy a past-due, legally enforceable State unemployment
compensation debt. If an offset is made pursuant to a joint
return, the notice under subparagraph (B) shall include the
names, taxpayer identification numbers, and addresses of each
person filing such return.
``(2) Priorities for offset.--Any overpayment by a person
shall be reduced pursuant to this subsection--
``(A) after such overpayment is reduced pursuant to--
``(i) subsection (a) with respect to any liability for any
internal revenue tax on the part of the person who made the
overpayment;
``(ii) subsection (c) with respect to past-due support;
``(iii) subsection (d) with respect to any past-due,
legally enforceable debt owed to a Federal agency; and
``(B) before such overpayment is credited to the future
liability for any Federal internal revenue tax of such person
pursuant to subsection (b). If the Secretary receives notice
from a State or States of more than one debt subject to
paragraph (1) and/or subsection (e) that is owed by a person
to such State or States, any overpayment by such person shall
be applied against such debts in the order in which such
debts accrued.
``(3) Notice; consideration of evidence.--No State may take
action under this subsection until such State--
``(A) notifies the person owing the past-due legally
enforceable State unemployment compensation debt that the
State proposes to take action pursuant to this section;
``(B) gives such person at least 60 days to present
evidence that all or part of such liability is not past-due
or not legally enforceable;
``(C) considers any evidence presented by such person and
determines that an amount of such debt is past-due and
legally enforceable; and
``(D) satisfies such other conditions as the Secretary may
prescribe to ensure that the determination made under
subparagraph (C) is valid and that the State has made
reasonable efforts to obtain payment of such unemployment
compensation debt.
``(4) Past-due, legally enforceable state unemployment
compensation debt.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
`past-due, legally enforceable State unemployment
compensation debt' means overpayments of unemployment
compensation assessed under the law of a State certified by
the Secretary of Labor pursuant to section 3304 of the
Internal Revenue Code, which have become final under State
law and remain uncollected.
``(5) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations
prescribing the time and manner in which States must submit
notices of past-due, legally enforceable State unemployment
compensation debt and the necessary information that must be
contained in or accompany such notices. The regulations shall
specify the minimum amount of debt to which the reduction
procedure established by paragraph (1) may be applied. The
regulations may require States to pay a fee to the Secretary,
which may be deducted from amounts collected, to reimburse
the Secretary for the cost of applying such procedure. Any
fee paid to the Secretary pursuant to the preceding sentence
shall be used to reimburse appropriations which bore all or
part of the cost of applying such procedure. The regulations
may include a requirement that States submit notices of past-
due, legally enforceable State unemployment compensation debt
to the Secretary via the Secretary of Labor in accordance
with procedures established by the Secretary of Labor. Such
procedures may require States to pay a fee to the Secretary
of Labor to reimburse the Secretary of Labor for the costs of
applying this subsection. Any such fee shall be established
in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury. Any fee
paid to the Secretary of Labor may be deducted from amounts
collected and shall be used to reimburse the appropriation
account which bore all or part of the cost of applying this
subsection.
``(6) Erroneous payment to state.--Any State receiving
notice from the Secretary that an erroneous payment has been
made to such State under paragraph (1) shall pay promptly to
the Secretary, in accordance with such regulations as the
Secretary may prescribe, an amount equal to the amount of
such erroneous payment (without regard to whether any other
amounts payable to such State under such paragraph have been
paid to such State).''.
(b) Disclosure of certain information to States requesting
refund offsets for past-due legally enforceable State
unemployment compensation debt.
(1) Paragraph (10) of section 6103(l) is amended by
striking ``(c), (d), or (e)'' each place it appears and
inserting ``(c), (d), (e) or (f)''.
(2) Paragraph (10)(A) of section 6103(l) is amended by
inserting ``and to officers and employees of the Department
of Labor in connection with a reduction under subsection (f)
of section 6402'' after the words ``section 6402''.
(3) The heading of paragraph (10) is amended by striking
``subsection (c), (d), or (e) of section 6402'' and inserting
``subsection (c), (d), (e) or (f) of section 6402''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (a) of section 6402 is amended by striking
``(c), (d), and (e),'' and inserting ``(c), (d), (e) and
(f),''.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 6402(d) is amended by striking
``and before such overpayment is reduced pursuant to
subsection (e)'' and inserting ``and before such overpayment
is reduced pursuant to subsections (e) and (f)''.
(3) Subsection (g) of section 6402, as redesignated by
subsection (a), is amended by striking ``(c), (d) or (e)''
and inserting ``(c), (d), (e) or (f)''.
(4) Subsection (i) of section 6402, as redesignated by
subsection (a), is amended by striking ``subsection (c) or
(e)'' and inserting ``subsection (c), (e) or (f)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective as to refunds payable under section 6402
of the Internal Revenue Code on or after the date of
enactment.
Sec. 645. (a) The adjustment in rates of basic pay for
employees under the statutory pay systems that takes effect
in fiscal year 2005 under sections 5303 and 5304 of title 5,
United States Code, shall be an increase of 3.5 percent, and
this adjustment shall apply to civilian employees in the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security
and such adjustments shall be effective as of the first day
of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after
January 1, 2005.
(b) Notwithstanding section 613 of this Act, the adjustment
in rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems that take
place in fiscal year 2005 under sections 5344 and 5348 of
title 5, United States Code, shall be no less than the
percentage in paragraph (a) as employees in the same location
whose rates of basic pay are adjusted pursuant to the
statutory pay systems under section 5303 and 5304 of title 5,
United States Code. Prevailing rate employees at locations
where there are no employees whose pay is increased pursuant
to section 5303 and 5304 of title 5 and prevailing rate
employees described in section 5343(a)(5) of title 5 shall be
considered to be located in the pay locality designated as
``Rest of US'' pursuant to section 5304 of title 5 for
purposes of this paragraph.
(c) Funds used to carry out this section shall be paid from
appropriations, which are made to each applicable department
or agency for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2005.
Sec. 646. (a) Limitation on Conversion to Contractor
Performance.--None of the funds appropriated by this Act or
any other Act shall be available to convert to contractor
performance an activity or function of an executive agency,
that on or after the date of enactment of this Act, is
performed by more than 10 Federal employees unless--
(1) the conversion is based on the result of a public-
private competition plan that includes a most efficient and
cost effective organization plan developed by such activity
or function, in accordance with Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-76, as implemented on May 29, 2003; and
(2) the Competitive Sourcing Official determines whether
over all performance periods stated in the solicitation of
offers for performance of the activity or function, the cost
of performance of the activity or function by a contractor
would be less costly to the executive agency by an amount
that equals or exceeds the lesser of--
(A) 10 percent of the most efficient organization's
personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or
function by Federal employees; or
(B) $10,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any points of order to this
portion of the bill?
point of order
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section
505.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 505
on page 117, line 7 through line 10.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law
and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in
violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
This section contains legislative prescription. Therefore, the point
of order is sustained. Section 505 is stricken.
point of order
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
language on page 148, lines 11 through 21.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. PETRI. The language referred to constitutes a violation of House
rule XXI which prohibits provisions, changing existing law in a general
appropriations bill, especially since it contains the language ``or any
other act,'' which clearly changes existing law, and includes a proviso
relating to a specific determination by the agency which also changes
substantive law. This is legislating on an appropriations bill in
violation of the rules of the House.
[[Page H7176]]
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section addresses funds in other acts. This
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Section 636 is stricken from
the bill.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Chairman, was that section 636?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
point of order
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the fourth
proviso under the heading, ``High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas''
program on page 85, lines 10 to 19. This provision violates clause 2(b)
of House rule XXI and proposes to change existing law within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform and, therefore,
constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the
House rules.
Mr. Chairman, this provision is clearly authorizing language in
appropriations legislation, and I am disappointed that it is in the
bill. It directly violates language used in H.R. 2096, the Office of
National Drug Control Policy Act 2003.
Not only did this pass the House, it passed our subcommittee and full
committee unanimously, which is no small feat. Four major committees of
this House either waived or sent additional information into the
Committee on Rules, the Committee on Education and Workforce, the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on the Judiciary, and
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Then it came to the
floor of the House and passed unanimously.
So I do not understand why in the relations with other committees
they would not have worked with us when they choose to authorize on an
appropriations bill.
Let me get to the specifics of this. This has to do with High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. What has happened to this program,
which was supposed to focus on High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas,
it has become a pork program in many cases to move money around to
individual Members' personal HIDTAs. The bill that passed the House
unanimously says that will give flexibility to the appropriators, but
there has to be a fixed amount that goes to the southwest border HIDTA,
which is the number one drug trafficking point we have in the United
States, and then next to the seven HIDTAs originally authorized and
appropriated by the Committee on Appropriations, and then the rest of
the money can be divided; but you have to have some priority system in
the HIDTA program.
We have passed this unanimously in the House. We see the changing
patterns of drug trafficking. We know we need more HIDTAs. We know we
need more money. We have methamphetamine problems across the country.
But when we establish a program and we have rules of the House, that
needs to be followed.
So I appreciate all of the work that the chairman has done in the
drug area, and I regret that I have to make a point of order; but I
believe that without this point of order, this bill is in clear
violation of the House rules and would also devastate our High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Program.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that they
should confine their remarks to the point of order.
If no other Member wishes to be heard on this point of order, the
Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this proviso includes language imparting
direction. It therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause
2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. The fourth proviso is stricken from
the last paragraph that begins on page 84.
point of order
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against section 642 as legislation in an appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to speak on his
point of order?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, Mr. Chairman. I think it is pretty
clear.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. The
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 642 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
that section 643 is legislation in an appropriations bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his
point?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I make the same argument as I made on the
previous point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. This
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 643 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
that section 644 is legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore
should be stricken.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The same response?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If there are no other remarks, the Chair is
prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. The
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 644 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have 11 points of order, and I will try to
go through them quickly.
I rise for a point of order against section 407. This provision
violates clause 2(b) of the House rule XXI. I could speak longer, but I
can end here.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section explicitly supercedes existing law.
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 407 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section
408. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. The
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 408 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section
409. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard?
If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this section explicitly supersedes existing law.
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 409 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section
410. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section explicitly supersedes existing law.
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 410 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section
509. This
[[Page H7177]]
provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on this
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section contains a legislative contingency.
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 509 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section
510. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section expresses a legislative sentiment.
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 510 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section
511. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section contains legislative prescription.
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 511 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section
628. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on this
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section addresses funds in other acts. The
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 628 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section
637. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section imparts direction. The section
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 637 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section
640. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section imparts direction. The section
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 640 is stricken from the
bill.
point of order
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, finally, and I do appreciate the indulgence
of the House and the chairman of the subcommittee, I make a point of
order against section 646. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House
rule XXI. That is section 646.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the
point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section addresses funds in other acts. The
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained. Section 646 is stricken from the
bill.
Are there any other points of order to this portion of the bill?
Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?
Amendment Offered by Mr. Pombo
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pombo:
At the end of the bill before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. 647. None of the funds made available in this Act
shall be available for the development or dissemination by
the Federal Highway Administration of any version of a
programmatic agreement which regards the Dwight D. Eisenhower
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways as
eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic
Places.
{time} 2115
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple one. No funds in
this bill are to be used by the Federal Highway Administration to
pursue a nationwide programmatic agreement that would make part of the
Interstate Highway System eligible for inclusion on the National
Register Of Historic Places.
I do not question the historic importance of the Interstate Highway
System. Things like the Golden Gate and George Washington Bridges are
undoubtedly historic elements that should be protected. However, the
importance of these elements does not make the entire system something
that should be shoehorned into the Historic Preservation Act.
The programmatic agreement has several problems, including the fact
that my committee which has exclusive jurisdiction over the National
Historic Preservation Act was not included. Another and more basic
problem with the programmatic agreement is the fact that it incorrectly
assumes that the entire interstate highway system is something that
should be eligible for inclusion on the register. In other words,
including massive public work projects like the interstate system is
not consistent with the intent of the Historic Preservation Act.
Little, if anything, would be gained by listing the interstate system
on the register and it is becoming more and more obvious that there is
a growing effort by some groups to use Federal laws such as the
Historic Preservation Act to further a land usage agenda which includes
preventing road construction.
Finally and most important, adding another bureaucratic layer by
listing the interstate system could have the effect of delaying
critical safety improvements in a timely way.
All of this being said, I understand the Federal Highway
Administration may attempt to craft an administrative exemption for the
interstate system. It is not my intention that my amendment would
affect that effort.
Finally, I want to say that dealing with the issue of including the
interstate system on the National Register is yet another reason why we
need to complete work on the 6-year transportation bill, which will
include a strong exemption of the interstate system from the Historic
Preservation Act. With that, I ask the support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 647. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into any contract with an incorporated
entity where such entity's sealed bid or competitive proposal
shows that such entity is incorporated or chartered in
Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua, or Panama.
Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask the amendment
be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment and any amendment thereto be limited to 20 minutes to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponents and myself, the
opponent.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) will
[[Page H7178]]
control 10 minutes. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) will
control 10 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It would prevent the
departments and agencies under this bill from using any funds to
contract with American companies which have created shell corporations
in tax haven countries in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Both the
House and the Senate have now passed a similar ban on the Homeland
Security Appropriations bill.
Recent data shows that despite costing our government $5 billion in
lost tax revenue, corporate expatriates reaped $1.4 billion in Federal
contracts in 2002 alone. This in the middle of a budget crisis. As a
result, this bill lacks sufficient funding for public transit for the
Nation's commuters and for Amtrak.
We are struggling to find the resources to fund an ongoing war on
terrorism, to equip our first responders, and ensure the safety of our
ports and air transit. The notion that we would reward these companies
for their bad behavior with taxpayer funded contracts is not only
counterintuitive, it offends our values as Americans.
This amendment will not affect existing contracts. Let me repeat
that. This amendment will not affect existing contracts. It will simply
ensure that in the future we will favor good corporate citizens with
government contracts rather than rewarding companies for moving
overseas and putting tax paying American companies at a permanent
competitive disadvantage.
Failing to pass this amendment will allow companies who reduce their
tax burdens by setting up these shell corporations overseas to underbid
these good corporate citizens. That hurts American companies who pay
their taxes and employ citizens across this Nation.
These companies have made a clear choice to leave this country and
not pay their taxes. It is now up to us to make a choice. We should set
standards. We should set the tone. We should set the obligation that if
they are going to do that and not pay taxes in the United States, then
in fact they can not feed at the public trough and get government
contracts.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we distinguish what is
being claimed from what is actually being sought. I want to read to
people so they understand. I want to read to them what this amendment
actually says. I ask the gentlewoman that if we have the wrong copy for
any reason, please correct us.
The amendment that is before the House states, ``None of the funds
made available in this act may be used to enter into any contract with
an incorporated entity where such entity's sealed bids or competitive
proposal shows that such entities is incorporated or chartered in
Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua or Panama.''
This is not about corporations that started in the U.S. and went
someplace else. This is not about corporations that are necessarily
involved in any colorable claim of tax evasion.
This is saying if you are chartered in Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman
Islands, Antigua or Panama, you cannot do business with the United
States Government. It does not matter whether you are a big company or
a small one. It does not matter whether you are offering lodging or
travel services or financial services or what knows what. It does not
matter if you ever had a presence in the United States before this
time. This is not about jobs that started in the U.S. and have been
moved overseas.
No matter what you claim the amendment may be about, it is important
that everyone who votes on the amendment reads it and knows what it is
really doing.
Now, we could just as easily say, we have got some beefs with France.
Why do we not add France to this list? There are a lot of Americans
that are unhappy about France. Or we could say maybe somebody does not
want America to do business with Italy or South Africa or Luxembourg,
Thailand, pick your country. Automatically, automatically under the
amendment being offered here we are going to pick out nations and start
disqualifying them not based upon any logical claim that they have done
something wrong in transferring jobs or trying to evade our tax laws,
but that is where they are incorporated.
I think that is a bad policy, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask people to
vote against the amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his comments and his
argument except that the countries were culled from a list of corporate
expatriates and their countries of incorporation. They are the top
destinations of corporate tax dodgers. It is also I think important for
people to know none are members of the WTO.
Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, I thought I was yielding for a
question.
The fact that there may be corporate expatriates in these countries
does not mean you should disqualify everybody that is in those
countries. If you want to get at corporate expatriates, go after them,
but do not say that because, maybe, let us pick a number, maybe it is
as high as 5 percent of the companies that are chartered in one of
these nations is a corporate expatriate you are disqualifying 100
percent.
I do not know what those ratios are, but I do know the vast majority
of companies in these nations are not corporate expatriates. The fact
that the list that you have of corporate expatriates say these are
their chosen destinations does not mean that everybody in those
countries are corporate expatriates.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, no. I do not want running debate.
Just because people that may do a corporate inversion, may choose to
go to these countries does not mean that everybody that is in there is.
If you live in a country or in a city where there is a lot of crime, it
does not mean that you are a criminal. You do not say we will go out
and penalize everybody in that community because some among them are
people that we do not like. We should not do that to any other country
on the Earth.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman would not yield me time and I want to say
that, in fact, we have been trying over the last probably 2 years to
deal with the issue of corporate expatriates. And, quite frankly, as I
said in my opening remarks, we have had success in both the House and
the Senate. And they have now passed a civil ban on the Homeland
Security Appropriations bill. And that is because the rank and file
members of this institution and in the other body realize that, in
fact, this is the height of un-Americanism.
These are corporations who try to diminish their tax liabilities by
going overseas to places like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, and they
do it for one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is not to pay
their fair share of taxes to this country.
We have tried in committee, we have tried in the floor and we have,
truly, we have had moderate success and for that I am grateful to my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But the fact of the matter is
that at every opportunity the leadership on the other side of the
aisle, the White House, have truly removed, removed the will of the
body in their legislation in the bills that have been passed here.
I would say to you that we are going to continue to address this
issue. We do need to make a choice. We do have to demonstrate values
and what we are about, and whether or not we are going to allow
businesses who walk away from their tax obligation and their
responsibility to the United States of America, we are going to allow
them as we did this here afternoon to be exonerated from legal
liability and then we are going to say to them, come back and get
government contracts because
[[Page H7179]]
your behavior has been so exemplary that we want to reward you with
billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers funds.
Do we really believe that that says what this country is all about?
It defies logic. Individuals in this Nation and businesses who are good
corporate citizens are paying their fair share of taxes. They cannot
evade them. They cannot dodge them. Why should these corporations be
allowed to do that at a time when we have so few resources that we
cannot do anything about health care, about retirement security, about
education, about transportation?
{time} 2130
I say to my colleagues, those who vote against this amendment surely
do have some explaining to do to their constituents and their
constituents deserve an answer; and if the answer is they will allow
these tax dodgers to be able to get billions of dollars in Federal
funds and in contracts, then maybe the constituents ought to think
twice when election time rolls around.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers except myself to
close. I am not sure if the gentlewoman has any other speakers or if
she was yielding back her time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). She reserved
her time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time until closing. I believe
I have the right to close.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)
has the right to close.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
In closing, let me just say I have no other speakers. As I have said,
this is an issue of values, and it is an issue of priorities. We talk a
lot today about values and what they mean in our lives, what they mean
to this country and who, in fact, is the best representation of the
fundamentals of this country, as adhered to in its entire history.
If my colleagues want to stand with corporations who have abandoned
our country in a time of war and have gone through such elaborate
contortions to avoid paying U.S. taxes or they have to look into their
souls tonight and say can they stand with those companies who have been
good corporate citizens, they employ Americans, they live up to their
responsibilities to their Nation, I think if we ask any American
citizen, whether they be a Democrat or a Republican, that the answer
would be the same. I have to pay my taxes, why do they not?
Let us put this people's House on record. Let us take an opportunity
to demonstrate that we are on the side of everyday Americans, middle-
class Americans, and let us tell these corporate expatriates, the free
ride is over. Vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to reiterate that this is not an amendment aimed at
corporate inversions. This is not an amendment aimed at expatriating
companies from the United States. This is an amendment that says if you
are in those countries, you are not only presumed to be guilty, you are
judged beyond all doubt that you are guilty and we do not want to do
business with you. It is presuming guilt, not presuming innocence. It
is making guilt not just an assumption, but an absolute finding that
nobody can question.
This would cut off trade between our Nation and Bermuda, Barbados,
the Cayman Islands, Antigua, and Panama. Talk about going too far. If
my colleagues want to go after companies that were once in the U.S. and
moved their headquarters to these, fine, bring an amendment that is
targeted that way; but do not say that every business in these
countries is disqualified. The vast majority of those in these nations
are not corporate expatriates. They are not corporate inversions. My
colleagues disqualify every business in those nations, not just those
who may have moved their corporate presence out of the United States
and into them.
This amendment goes too, too far. It ought to be rejected. It is not
what the author purports it to be, and I ask people to reject the
amendment accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) will be postponed.
Are there further amendments?
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Kelly
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mrs. Kelly:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. . The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are
revised by increasing the amount made available for
``Financial Crimes Enforcement Network--Salaries and
Expenses''; and reducing the amount made available for
``General Services Administration--Real Property Activities--
Federal Buildings Fund'' (consisting of a reduction of
$12,750,000 in the amount made available for rental of space
and a reduction of $12,750,000 in the amount made available
for building operations); by $25,500,000.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly)
will control 10 minutes and the gentlewoman is recognized.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be considered as the Kelly-Oxley-Frank-Gutierrez-Royce-Maloney-Lowey
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would state that the
gentlewoman's unanimous consent request does not recognize cosponsors,
but we will acknowledge that there are others that are with her on
this.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a solidly bipartisan amendment to increase funding for the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network within the Treasury Department,
which is known as FinCEN.
This amendment increases funding for the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, FinCEN, by $25.5 million to provide new tools to expand and
improve the agency's ability to combat terrorist financing. This money
would be used to secure the appropriate application of state-of-the-art
technology that would dramatically improve FinCEN's ability to track
terrorist financing and enable the agency to hire very much-needed,
full-time employees to improve compliance with the anti-terror finance
laws.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman
Istook) for allowing me to offer this amendment at this time. I know he
recognizes the important role of FinCEN, and he did that by meeting the
level requested by the administration at the start of this year, but
things have changed since the start of this year. The need for FinCEN
to have more money is more acute than was originally thought.
I offer this amendment because I think the modest funding in this
bill will not be enough, and that is based on the amount of hearings
that we have held and the testimony of the GAO in front of my
committee. They testified that FinCEN needs $25.5 million in order to
do the job that FinCEN must do, and that is, to disseminate the
information that FinCEN collects to the appropriate agencies. This is a
piece of the fight against terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the full Committee on Financial
Services.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me first commend the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the other cosponsors for this important
legislation.
In late August, our committee held a hearing on the 9/11 Commission
recommendations. We heard from the Homeland Security Department, we
heard from the Justice Department and
[[Page H7180]]
the Treasury Department. A lead witness was our former colleague and
good friend, Lee Hamilton from Indiana, who, as my colleagues know, was
the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, vice chair to Governor Kean of
New Jersey.
In his testimony, Mr. Hamilton made it very clear that FinCEN not
only plays an important logistical and strategic position in
determining and finding terrorist financing, but that their desire for
new technology and a need for new technology was very much appreciated
by the commission. As a result of that testimony, the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Kelly), showing excellent leadership having had a number
of oversight hearings on terrorist financing, and indeed the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) is one of the real experts in
this Congress on terrorist financing, she felt it imperative to
introduce this legislation that would provide another $25 million so
FinCEN could provide this kind of information in real-time, working
with some 70 other countries to locate, identify, in some cases freeze,
or certainly try to recapture those amounts of funding by terrorist
groups.
So I come to the floor not only as a cosponsor of the gentlewoman
from New York's (Mrs. Kelly) amendment, but as chairman of the
Committee on Financial Services to say that clearly Mr. Hamilton made
the kind of point that all of us need to listen to. As we will begin
our efforts in the Congress to adopt the 9/11 Commission report this
month or early next month, this is a first opportunity we have in this
vehicle, this appropriations measure to show that the Congress is
serious about funding FinCEN with the kind of funding necessary for
them to be fully implemented and fully up to speed in terms of
technology. That is what this amendment is about, and I commend the
gentlewoman.
Twenty-five million dollars in the overall scheme of things in an
appropriation is not a lot of money, but FinCEN is not a large
government bureaucracy. It is a very effective, relatively small group
that does an excellent job.
So I stand here in strong support of the gentlewoman from New York's
(Mrs. Kelly) amendment.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer along with my
colleagues an amendment to increase funding by $25.5 million for the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, an agency that is critically
important to our efforts to combat terrorist financing and money
laundering.
I am pleased to work, once again, with the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Kelly), my cochair on the congressional Anti-Terrorist Financing
Task Force. We have also worked on these issues in our roles on the
oversight subcommittee in the Committee on Financial Services, and I
thank her for her leadership on these issues which are so important to
both of us.
Since its establishment in 1990, FinCEN has been dedicated to
collecting, analyzing, and distributing financial data to help identify
and trace financial intersection of potential criminal and terrorist
activity. While FinCEN is a small agency with relatively little
funding, the agency is at the center of our Nation's anti-money
laundering infrastructure, supporting the critical work of the
financial services, law enforcement and intelligence communities.
Recently, the 9/11 Commission stressed the importance of building
global alliances. FinCEN also plays a key role in our country's
international efforts to trace illicit money by actively promoting
coordination with other countries. The agency chairs a global network
of 94 countries that works to improve funding and information sharing
and interaction.
Increasing funding for FinCEN by a small amount would have a
significant impact on our government's ability to fight the global war
against terrorism. In fact, it is estimated that the agency needs $25
million to expand and improve its capabilities. It will help FinCEN
secure the appropriate application of state-of-the-art technology that
would dramatically improve its ability to track and expose terrorist
financing.
I hope we can all join in adding this very, very necessary $25.5
million.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney), my colleague.
{time} 2145
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time and for her leadership on oversight terrorist financing and
money laundering; and, in fact, she has spearheaded a leadership role
on an Anti-Terrorism Task Force on which I serve.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very important amendment. FinCEN is
currently a small bureau of the Treasury Department, but it has
suddenly been put into the position of being at the very center of the
government effort to combat terrorist financing. If the 9/11 Commission
recommendations were implemented, and I firmly support all 41 of the
recommendations and have introduced legislation to implement them,
FinCEN would be required by the government to analyze and distribute
financial information for all of the United States Government. They
have very few members now in their area, and this money is needed for
the technology and the infrastructure and the personnel to complete the
task that is being thrust upon them.
FinCEN was underfunded in the budget request, therefore this
amendment is very much needed and very much in order. We know that the
terrorists, like any small business, if they are out of money, they are
out of business. And if you track the money, you can figure out what is
going on.
Mr. Chairman, this is a tremendously important amendment. I support
this $25 million allocation and I hope that my colleagues will join me
in supporting it in a bipartisan way.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and to the Members of this body, we had a request from the
President for $64.5 million for FinCEN. In the chairman's mark at the
subcommittee level, the number that the chairman gave for this agency
was $59 or $60 million, exactly $60 million. I urged, and persuaded
actually, I think, the chairman to raise that to the President's
request, to $64.5 million, because I felt this was a very important
agency. It is a front-line agency of the Department of the Treasury for
fighting financial crimes and getting at terrorist networks.
Now, the President has never been very shy about asking for large
sums of money increases if he really thought that those were necessary.
He has asked for some other agencies within this legislation for at
least a 50 percent increase in the monies. The amendment that the
gentlewoman from New York has now offered has grown since I first heard
about it earlier this evening from about $8 million, which I probably
would not have bothered to stand up for, but now it is $25 million, on
top of what is already the President's full request for this agency.
There has been no information given to me, as the ranking member,
from any of the people who are saying this is an important thing to do
that we need this kind of an increase. I am not quite sure that any
agency is able to take a 60 percent increase all at once in an
effective kind of a way. I would think it would be much better that we
try to work this out in conference and see whether in fact the
President's Office of Budget, and so forth, thinks that this is what we
ought to be doing at this time.
So at this point, Mr. Chairman, I am going to oppose and vote against
the amendment as it has been proposed, as best I understand it, because
I have heard no real evidence for how this would be done. No one has
come to me as the ranking member to defend this kind of an increase in
the amount for this agency.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The
gentlewoman from New York has 30 seconds remaining.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the President's request for FinCEN was made prior to
several high-profile regulatory failures.
[[Page H7181]]
Since then, the 9/11 Commission has testified before our committee, and
the Committee on Financial Services has also looked at this and has
also considered this legislation. It is very important to FinCEN. It is
very important in our fight against the terrorists financing that we
give FinCEN the appropriate amount of appropriate money that they
deserve. So I urge Members to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the words of my ranking member,
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), and I agree with him that
this matter is going to ultimately be resolved in conference.
We have had a very tight bill, and I realize that some Members think
that, well, because money has been freed up by all these points of
order that we can accomplish lots of things now. But when we get back
to conference, we have to compare the priority of this proposal with
everything else.
FinCEN has already received in this bill a 12.7 percent increase. The
administration has not asked us for one penny more. We have given them
every penny they have asked for, and if they are communicating with
other Members of Congress and not coming to our committee about their
financial needs, they are sure going about things the wrong way.
When someone says, well, maybe they need $8 million more, and then it
balloons up to $25 million more, that is going about things the wrong
way. And so I am not going to subject Members of this body to a vote
for somebody claiming that this is crucial to fight terrorism when we
have not even had a proposal from the administration that reflects how
supposedly this money would be spent to do that.
We will take care of the needs of FinCEN, the legitimate needs, in
conference. We will make sure that the effort to combat the financial
network of terrorism is fully funded. But to say on the spur of the
moment, and to suddenly have a sky-is-falling mentality that if they do
not get a 40 percent increase in a brand new agency, far more than they
have asked for, I think, is going way overboard.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think this issue has been well handled,
because if the administration wanted more money for this, they would
have come to the Committee on Appropriations. They have not done so.
Like I say, I am not going to subject Members to a vote on this because
somebody might think that somehow they are voting against terrorism,
but it will be resolved in a correct manner in the conference
committee.
We have given this agency a 12.7 percent increase already, every
penny that they were asking for. And people can always say things have
changed since then, but we would have heard from the administration if
they wanted this change, and we have not heard from them on the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote this down. We have other needs
that need to be done. We do not need to give an agency more money than
they can consume just because people claim if you do not do it you are
not against terrorism. I urge opposition to this amendment.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to
increase funding for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN),
an agency that is critically important to our efforts to combat
terrorist financing and money laundering. I am pleased to offer this
amendment together with a bipartisan group of my colleagues from the
Financial Services Committee.
As a co-founder of the 9/11 Commission Caucus, dedicated to
implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, I am also a
strong supporter of this amendment because it is an important step in
that direction.
In its Report, the 9/11 Commission made clear recommendation on how
best to fight terrorism in the financial arena: ``Follow the Money.''
That is the mission of FinCEN, which is dedicated to collecting,
analyzing and disseminating financial data for the purpose of combating
crime.
The Commission's recommendation puts FinCEN in the limelight, and
requires a relatively small Treasury bureau with little funding to
assume a key role in fighting terrorism.
FinCEN is essential--as never before--to the work of the
intelligence, law enforcement, and financial services communities in
tracing terrorist money and disrupting potential terrorist action.
The 9/11 Commission also advised that we cannot succeed in combating
terrorist funding without building global alliances.
FinCEN is the United States' voice in that effort.
The present appropriation to FinCEN does not adequately provide for
the bureau to assume the responsibilities that have been thrust upon
it.
The additional funding provided by this amendment would allow FinCEN
to purchase appropriate technology and hire additional staff--steps
that would dramatically improve its ability to track terrorist
financing and provide critical information to our government and our
global allies.
I can think of few investments that are more worth while than this
amendment. I ask for your support for additional funding for FinCEN.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Kelly) will be postponed.
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII,
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 3
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Oxley
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Oxley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222,
noes 177, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 452]
AYES--222
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Castle
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
[[Page H7182]]
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--177
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Duncan
Emerson
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Manzullo
Marshall
McCotter
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Otter
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner (OH)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--34
Ackerman
Baker
Ballenger
Boehlert
Bonner
Cannon
Clay
Conyers
Crowley
Dunn
Engel
Everett
Gephardt
Goss
Houghton
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kleczka
Langevin
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Murtha
Nethercutt
Owens
Rogers (MI)
Schrock
Serrano
Sherwood
Slaughter
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Weiner
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 2220
Mr. LIPINSKI and Mrs. CAPITO changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. BROWN of Ohio and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the
remainder of this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 211, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 453]
AYES--189
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chandler
Clyburn
Cooper
Costello
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--211
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
[[Page H7183]]
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--33
Ackerman
Baker
Ballenger
Boehlert
Bonner
Cannon
Clay
Conyers
Crowley
Dunn
Engel
Everett
Gephardt
Goss
Houghton
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kleczka
Langevin
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Murtha
Nethercutt
Owens
Schrock
Serrano
Sherwood
Slaughter
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Weiner
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 2228
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Kelly
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Kelly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 360,
noes 37, not voting 36, as follows:
[Roll No. 454]
AYES--360
Abercrombie
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clyburn
Cole
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NOES--37
Aderholt
Burton (IN)
Coble
Collins
Cunningham
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Goode
Hayes
Hostettler
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
King (IA)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Lewis (CA)
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Myrick
Norwood
Oberstar
Olver
Pastor
Paul
Petri
Pickering
Sabo
Smith (MI)
Terry
Visclosky
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
NOT VOTING--36
Ackerman
Baker
Ballenger
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonner
Cannon
Clay
Conyers
Crowley
Dunn
Engel
English
Everett
Gephardt
Goss
Houghton
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kleczka
Langevin
Matsui
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Murtha
Nethercutt
Owens
Schrock
Serrano
Sherwood
Slaughter
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Towns
Weiner
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 2236
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday,
September 14, 2004, I was granted an official leave of absence as a
result of my illness. Therefore, I was unable to make rollcall votes
444 to 454.
Had I been here, I would have voted ``no'' for rollcall No. 444,
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4571) to amend rule 11 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve attorney
accountability; ``no'' for rollcall No. 445, H.R. 3369, Nonprofit
Athletic Organization Protection Act; ``aye'' for rollcall No. 446,
H.R. 1787, Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act; ``aye''
for rollcall No. 447, H.R. 1084, Volunteer Pilot Organization
Protection Act; ``aye'' for rollcall No. 448, the Turner Substitute
Amendment; ``aye'' for rollcall No. 449, On Motion to Recommit with
Instructions; ``no'' for rollcall No. 450, H.R. 4571, Lawsuit Abuse
Reduction Act; ``yes'' for rollcall No. 451, on Ordering the Previous
Question; ``yes'' for rollcall No. 452, the Oxley Amendment; ``yes''
for rollcall No. 453, the DeLauro Amendment; ``yes'' for rollcall No.
454, the Kelly Amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Kline) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman
pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 5025) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation and Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2005, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________