[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 110 (Wednesday, September 15, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7195-H7211]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire). Pursuant to
House Resolution 770 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
further consideration of the bill, H.R. 5025.
[[Page H7196]]
{time} 1022
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5025) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation and Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Isakson (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose
on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the amendment by the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Kelly) had been disposed of and the bill was open for
amendment from page 76, line 8 through Page 166, line 3.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment
to the bill may be offered except:
Pro forma amendments offered at any point by the chairman or ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees
for the purpose of debate;
amendment 1;
amendment 2, debatable for 1 hour;
amendment 5, debatable for 40 minutes;
an amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) regarding
GSA;
an amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver)
regarding Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, debatable for 30
minutes;
an amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver)
regarding the IRS or regarding election reform, debatable for 20
minutes;
an amendment by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) regarding the
definition of manufacturing;
an amendment by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen)
regarding OMB circular A-76, debatable for 20 minutes;
an amendment by the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito)
regarding private collection, debatable for 20 minutes;
an amendment by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) regarding
Cuba, debatable for 1 hour;
an amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt)
regarding Cuba;
an amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) regarding
Cuba;
an amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) regarding
Cuba;
an amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters)
regarding Cuba;
an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) regarding the
debt limit, debatable for 20 minutes;
an amendment by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) regarding
the Comptroller of the Currency, debatable for 30 minutes;
an amendment by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) regarding
chapter 89 of title 5 of the United States Code, debatable for 20
minutes;
an amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield)
on disadvantaged business enterprises;
and an amendment by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) regarding Federal employee health benefit plans.
Each amendment may be offered only by the Member named in the request
or a designee, or the Member who caused it to be printed or a designee;
shall be considered as read; shall not be subject to amendment except
pro forma amendments offered by the chairman or ranking minority member
of the Committee on Appropriations for the purpose of debate; and shall
not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
Except as specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description
stated in the request if it addresses in whole or in part the object
described.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gutierrez
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gutierrez:
At the end of the bill before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act to
the Secretary of the Treasury may be used to take any action
to enforce the rule submitted by the Comptroller of the
Currency relating to bank activities and regulations,
published at 69 Fed. Reg. 1895 (2004) or the rule submitted
by the Comptroller of the Currency relating to bank
activities and regulations, published at 69 Fed. Reg. 1904
(2004).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House on
Tuesday, September 14, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I regret having to offer this amendment, which blocks funds to
implement and enforce the OCC preemption regulations issued earlier
this year. The last time we addressed this issue on the House floor was
during consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations
bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) and the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. Otter), my able colleagues, offered an amendment at
that time that would have prevented any funds in that bill from being
used to enforce these preemption regulations.
At that time the opposition did not argue against the substance of
our concerns, these ill advised preemption regulations that prevent
State attorneys general from protecting their consumers. Instead, those
opposed to our amendment merely put forward procedural arguments and
indicated that this matter should be taken up under regular order,
considered in the Committee on Financial Services.
We strongly agreed with those sentiments. In fact, 10 members of the
Committee on Financial Services sent a bipartisan letter to the
chairman of the committee as well as to the chairman of the Financial
Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee. In this letter, we asked
for consideration of legislation to overturn the preemption regulations
that I introduced in April of this year. This letter was sent 2 months
ago, July 21, 2004, and we have not received the courtesy of an
acknowledgment, much less a substantive reply. Therefore, we are forced
to once again address this issue on appropriation legislation.
That is truly unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, because many Members on both
sides of the aisle believe that these regulations not only represent a
drastic expansion of the OCC's power but they also greatly exceed the
OCC's congressionally granted preemption authority. Furthermore, the
OCC's regulations effectively deny citizens the protections of their
States' predatory lending and other consumer protection laws. While the
OCC claims that it can provide consumer protection equal to that
currently provided by State consumer protection agencies and the State
attorneys general, we are concerned that replicating the functions of
50 State consumer protection agencies would require an enormous
increase in the budget and the power of the OCC, yet will still deny
millions of consumers the same level of protection they currently enjoy
today from their State regulatory agencies.
Perhaps the most important question regarding the preemption
amendments is whether Congress intended to allow the OCC to preempt all
State consumer protection laws applicable to national banks. Clearly it
was not the intent of Congress to create a national banking consumer
protection agency when it granted the OCC limited preemption authority.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) for his cosponsorship in
support on this issue. But there is still time to enact on this
legislation before the end of session. After all, we are only asking
that we have a subcommittee hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) and his
concerns over this issue; and it is my understanding, and I am sure he
will correct me if I am wrong, that after we spend
[[Page H7197]]
the time on the debate that the amendment is actually going to be
withdrawn.
{time} 1030
But it does not mean that the gentleman does not raise important
issues.
The conflict between chartering and laws related to State banks and
national banks is an ongoing one and, frankly, I have not studied it
enough to know whether I would agree or disagree with the gentleman and
his comments.
But I do know that this is not the proper forum to have this debate.
This is something that probably should be brought up by the authorizing
committee, because this goes so much to the heart of the very structure
of the banking system in the United States. It should not be decided
lightly. It should not be the subject of quick debate and superficial
thought by this body. It demands long consideration. It requires
hearings, and it requires very, very careful scrutiny.
The regulations which the gentleman mentions have already been in
effect for a great number of months. Catastrophe has not happened. I do
not believe that it is necessary for this House to adopt this
amendment, and certainly, it is not proper for us to decide banking
structure of the entire country in a few minutes of superficial debate
on this crucial issue.
This is not the bill where we should decide this issue. This is not
the time. This is not the place, and I oppose adoption of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, the
home of the greatest Republican President of the United States, for
yielding me this time.
I hearken back to the Grand Old Party that gave us Teddy Roosevelt
and reflect on how far that party has fallen in the area of consumer
protection, to the point where we now have the most anticonsumer
administration in the history of this country, an administration so
dedicated to stripping away all protections for consumers, so dedicated
to unbridled corporate power, that they would trample on other values
they claim to hold dear, all in an effort to expose consumers to some
of the worst practices in the home mortgage market.
The Grand Old Party claims to care about States' rights, and then
they use the power of renegade regulators to strip away all State
authority to protect consumers in home mortgage lending situations,
when our land law and our mortgage law has traditionally been a matter
of State jurisdiction. They claim to care about democracy, but instead
of this major decision being made by the elected representatives of the
people, it is made in the bowels of the bureaucracy.
The gentleman from Oklahoma correctly points out that the committee
of jurisdiction should be focused on this, but instead, a party
dedicated to corporate power does not deal with this in the Committee
on Financial Services where the gentleman from Illinois and I both sit.
Mr. Chairman, there is one other value that is trampled on, and that
is the value of fair market competition. Because what this OCC
regulation does is it says that if you are a national bank, you do not
have to abide by any of the State laws. But if you are one of one-half
of the banks that is State chartered, well, then, you do. And frankly,
some of those laws are rather Draconian. So it provides a very unfair
advantage to one-half of the competitors, particularly the largest
ones.
Finally, it creates a race to the bottom among bank regulators. Now,
the national banks are exempt from consumer regulation, so what do the
State regulators do if they want market share, if they want to stay in
business, if they want to have any banks to regulate? The pressure is
on them: Race to the bottom.
What we need instead is to get rid of this regulation, to return to a
democratic process in which States can protect consumers and where, if
we are going to have national standards, they are established by a
Congress not looking to strip away all consumer protection but rather a
Congress looking to provide a reasonable level of consumer protection
and a reasonable level of access to credit.
It is time to rein in the renegade regulators. One would have thought
that the folks on the other side of the aisle would be saying just
that.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, the Comptroller of the Currency's regulations,
preemption regulations, are a huge expansion of that office's power.
They exceed the OCC's congressionally-granted preemption authority. The
rules effectively deny citizens the protections of their State's
predatory lending and other consumer protection laws.
The OCC claims that it can provide the consumers protection equal to
that currently provided by State consumer protection agencies. However,
replicating the functions of 50 State consumer protection agencies will
require an enormous increase in their budget and power. Congress did
not grant, in any understanding of mine, the OCC unlimited preemption
authority so the OCC could preempt all State consumer laws applicable
to the national banks and, thus, become a national consumer protection
agency.
Even supporters of this expansion should be concerned when such
changes in policy are undertaken without the explicit consent of
Congress. Expanding OCC's preemption authority should come only after a
full debate and a vote by the people's representatives in this
Congress, not by the agency's unilateral action.
This amendment, which is a limitation amendment, a limitation on
funds, is the only opportunity to have this debate. Since stand-alone
legislation is not likely to be considered by Congress this year,
despite the efforts of the opponents of OCC's preemption to work with
the Committee on Financial Services to advance legislation dealing with
this issue.
Because it is a limitation amendment, while I agree with the chairman
of my subcommittee that the issue ought to be taken up at the
authorizing level, it is entirely appropriate to be brought up here as
a limitation amendment by the gentleman from Illinois, and I support
the amendment as a limitation amendment as entirely legitimate in
controlling this abuse of power and this grab of power that, it seems
to me, is not authorized by the legislation as it sits.
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just say that we wrote this letter on July 21, after we had
the appropriations markup here on the House Floor. And it was stated by
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) that we should go back to our
committee.
Well, 10 Members, bipartisan, sent the letter and said, Let us have
that markup; let us look at the OCC.
I just want everyone to understand that they have said continuously
that local government, State government at the local level are the
incubators of democracy, and we should let local governments do it
because they do it best, and we should get the Federal bureaucracy less
and less out of people's lives. Well, guess what the OCC, the big
Federal bureaucracy has just done to every Attorney General across this
country? It said, Step aside, we are in charge of consumer protection.
That is wrong.
Lastly, just so that my colleagues know, you only can call them
Monday through Thursday, Monday through Thursday if you have a
complaint. I have checked all the 50 States and all of the attorneys
general of all the 50 States. Fortunately, they work 5 days a week,
some of them more than 5 days a week, with local offices closely
accessible.
So I am going to withdraw the amendment but suggest that we are going
to continue to have these debates until we have a vote up or down on
the OCC and whether it can or cannot do this.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Gutierrez
amendment barring the use of funds to enforce the OCC preemption
regulations. This amendment is supported by a bipartisan group of
members of the Financial Services Committee who have been
[[Page H7198]]
frustrated in our efforts to bring legislation on this important issue
before the Committee for full debate and action. We are concerned that
the recently issued OCC preemption and visitatorial regulations deny
our constituents the benefits of State predatory lending and other
consumer protection laws.
The OCC's assertions that it will provide the same level of consumer
protection are simply not realistic. To duplicate the State regulatory
apparatus would require a huge increase in the size and budget of the
OCC--and more to the point, a huge increase in regional experience and
intelligence that the agency simply does not have. Recent crises such
as the Riggs Bank fiasco have put in doubt whether the OCC can do the
job it has now, let alone taking over the job of the 50 State banking
regulators.
Legislation has been introduced to address this issue. Ten members of
the Financial Services Committee, including myself, signed a letter
asking that it be brought up under regular order. But there has been no
action to allow members of the Committee to debate and vote on it, and
to bring it to the floor.
This matter is urgent, and it is not appropriate to simply bury it by
inaction. Thus, we are forced to offer this amendment as a way to
arrest the regulations so that we can have the appropriate process to
debate and vote on this important issue. It is a regrettable, but,
unfortunately necessary, step.
I ask for your support for the Gutierrez amendment so that this body
can all have a chance to examine the OCC preemption regulations before
they take effects and damage our State regulatory systems.
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
By seeking to undo regulations governing the proper application of
State laws to national banks, this amendment goes to the heart of the
Financial Services Committee's jurisdiction over banking matters.
During this Congress, the Financial Services Committee has held two
hearings addressing the OCC's regulations. The hearings revealed deep
divisions between those who, like the proponents of this amendment, are
critical of the OCC's regulations, and those who believe they represent
a thoughtful codification of long-standing statutory and judicial
precedents. I fall into the latter camp.
Based on the Committee's hearings, it is clear that there is no
consensus at the present time on the merits of the OCC's regulations.
Legislation introduced by Mr. Gutierrez to invalidate the regulations
under the Congressional Review Act has received little support. To
attempt to legislate a resolution to this highly contentious issue in
an appropriations bill--over the strong objection of the leadership of
the Committee with jurisdiction over the substantive issue and with no
opportunity for input from that Committee--subverts the regular order
of this House.
The rules that Mr. Gutierrez disagrees with were finalized earlier
this year, after a lengthy period for public notice and comment. The
rules have been in full force and effect for most of the year, and the
dire consequences predicted by Mr. Gutierrez have simply not
materialized. National banks continue to be closely monitored for
compliance with applicable consumer protection laws, and the State
banking system remains strong. Two Federal judges have recently
dismissed legal challenges to the OCC regulations filed by States
against national banks, upholding the OCC's exclusive authority to
regulate the lending activities of national banks and their operating
subsidiaries.
Finally, it is unclear what effect--if any--this amendment might
have. Given that the OCC is self-funded, and any litigation to enforce
the regulation would be undertaken by the Department of Justice and not
the Department of the Treasury, I am unclear about what effect this
amendment might have.
For all of these reasons, I urge Members--regardless of their views
on the underlying OCC regulations at issue--to strongly oppose this
amendment.
Mr. GUTIERREG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment be withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to use this as an opportunity to notify
Members who are listening: We are here on the floor. We have entered
into time agreements for discussion on amendments, but the Members who
are to present those amendments are not here on the floor. We need them
to come to the floor to present their amendments so that we may move
forward and resolve the consideration of this bill.
We know that we are not going to be able to complete bill
consideration today because we have a short day so that Members can be
home for Rosh Hashana observances later today, but I want to make sure
that Members who have amendments are notified that they need to be
coming to the floor. They need to be coming to the floor right now if
they expect to present their amendments. Otherwise, they would lose the
opportunity, of course, to do so.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am not aware of any amendments that are
ready with Members here on the floor to present them.
So I have nothing further to add to my remarks at this time if the
Chair wants us to wait a few minutes for Members to arrive. But I
wanted to give that information.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Committee will wait for Members
offering amendments.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to say that the
chairman has already indicated that we have a list of about 20 people
who supposedly have amendments. And some of these have been planned for
specific times, but some of them are open and have been planned for
today. And if they have their amendments and they have been planned for
today, then they should be here at this time.
But, in the meantime, I think it is worth spending just a few minutes
in reviewing the situation that we found ourselves in last night. The
legislation that we have before us is the yearly appropriations bill
for the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Independent
Agencies appropriations. Year after year, this committee operates
within the authorization by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and now, in this particular year, we do not have an
authorization for at least 11-plus months of the year. And the
authorization for most of the major transportation issues, which
include the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit
Administration and the Federal Rail Administration, are all included in
that bill which has not yet been passed. The authorization for even the
extensions of authorization are only until September 24, just a matter
of a week or so away, a little bit more than a week away, and do not
extend into the fiscal year for which we are passing legislation.
So the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which
obviously has been trying to get an authorization bill through, and
there has been tension between the House and the other body and with
the President, with the administration, over what that bill should look
like, have clearly not been able to make a bill that can be passed by
the House and the other body and passed into law so that we could
operate within our normal authorization process.
So, I think, while I am not sure of this, but in order to get to that
point where they can get a bill passed, they felt it necessary to
essentially eliminate all of the sections, all of the money sections, a
total of $50 billion in expenditures which have to do with
transportation procedures, and to eliminate essentially all of that
last night, through points of order which, under our rules, were
sustained, and therefore, $50 billion of expenditure for all of our
important transportation programs got held up, taken out of the bill.
{time} 1045
Construction dollars are worth 40 to 45,000 jobs per billion dollars
of construction moneys. Not all of that was construction dollars, but a
great portion of it was construction dollars; and so that has a very
major effect upon the whole economy of the country.
So in the process, we have now a situation where we will not be able
to do an authorization bill within the time frame of the fiscal year
apparently; and, therefore, we will be stuck in a process where this
appropriations bill itself cannot be completed, maybe it was not going
to be completed, until some time in November; but it may not now be
possible to complete it until some time into next year. Probably will
not be possible to complete it until there is an authorization bill,
whenever that happens to be.
So it has been a really horrendous kind of a process, a real failure
of the
[[Page H7199]]
legislative process. It has been impossible to get an authorization
bill prior to the appropriation legislation.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Butterfield
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Butterfield:
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 used to pay administrative expenses to State and
local departments of transportation that the Secretary of
Transportation determines do not recognize a certification of
a disadvantaged business enterprise by any other State (as
defined in section 401 of title 23, United States Code).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Butterfield) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the Chair for the opportunity to offer this amendment. I want
to speak on this briefly, and then I will withdraw it.
The Federal Government has a stated goal of supporting small
businesses and, in particular, minority-and women-owned small
businesses. One way the Federal Government promotes these businesses
owned by minorities and women is through the Department of
Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. This
program has been shown to be effective when implemented properly.
In order to become certified as a DBE, the business must go through a
long and rigorous approval process of interviews, audits, reviews, and
visits so as to ensure that a company and its owners are who they claim
to be. However, once certified, a business is forced to go through the
process all over again if it wishes to conduct business in another
State. The forms and criteria do not change from region to region, as
they are all clearly standardized by the Department of Transportation.
The two inches of paperwork and the approval process is so time
consuming that companies can miss deadlines and thus lose contracts
while waiting for a certification.
Since construction projects frequently cross political boundaries,
these bureaucratic delays are frequent. This amendment, if signed into
law, would prohibit the use of funds from this bill to be spent on
administrative expenses and public agencies that do not recognize DBE
certifications by other State or local DOTs.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hefley
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated
or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby
reduced by 1 percent.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House on
Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley)
and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to offer an amendment that would reduce this
appropriations bill by 1 percent, which would have been $899 million at
what we started out. I am not sure what it will be now, 1.25 maybe if
it continues like it was last night; but I am sure that this money will
come back into the bill as we go along. So I would like to offer this 1
percent amendment.
My amendment is not intended in any way to slight the chairman or the
ranking member. I know this has been a difficult task to draft this
bill, and it is still difficult to try to put it together and make it
come out like it should, and they are doing a good job of that. The
chairman has worked with me very closely on some of this effort.
However, I again today offer the amendment to cut the level of
funding in this appropriations bill. As most Members are aware, I have
offered a series of these amendments over the last weeks as we have
dealt with the appropriations bills. If we had adopted these
amendments, Congress would have saved $3.2 billion for the American
taxpayer. Currently, the projected deficit is over $422 billion for
just the next fiscal year, and I do not believe it is too much to ask
that we tighten our belt just a bit; and by just a bit, I mean we tight
our belt by 1 cent on the dollar.
We have to draw the line somewhere. The budget we have is too large.
We can do something about the deficit right now. By voting for my
amendment, my colleagues are stating to the American taxpayers that
they should not have to pay higher taxes in the future because we
cannot control our spending today.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage support for 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,
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
With all due respect to my good friend from Colorado, I do rise in
opposition to his amendment not because I oppose reducing spending. I
wish the budget that we have adopted for this year was spending less
money than we are overall. However, at some point, we make decisions,
we develop a group consensus and we have to go ahead with that.
We made those decisions, Mr. Chairman, when we adopted the budget
earlier this year. There were proposals for lower spending limits along
the lines of what the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is talking
about. I believe I supported those efforts, but we did reach a decision
on what is the total amount of spending in this year's budget. We made
the allocation to the individual subcommittees, and now we need to work
within that particular framework.
If we adopted a revisiting of the amount today on one bill, then we
do on other bills and so forth, that is fine; but we could do it at the
next stage and next stage and so forth. We have to have a concept of
finality. We have reached conclusions on the overall spending level for
this year. Once we have done those, we need to work within those
guidelines.
Secondly, when my colleagues want to reduce spending, as I do want to
reduce Federal spending, it is much better to take a thoughtful
approach and go through bills and say if we are not going to spend as
much, this is where we cut because it is not as high a priority as some
other things that we are doing in that piece of legislation.
The gentleman from Colorado's (Mr. Hefley) approach is not as good as
that. It is an across-the-board approach. It reduces high-priority
programs by the same amount that it reduces low-priority programs. That
is not the best approach that we should be taking.
Again, we have made the decision on the overall spending for this
year, and we should accept that decision and move forward with the
appropriations process.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me correct just one thing.
The gentleman makes a very good argument. By the way, we should have
dealt with this at budget time; there is no question about that. The
way this amendment is crafted, it does not reduce high-priority
programs as well as low-. It allows the administration to determine
where the 1 percent comes from; and, hopefully, they have got the good
sense to not take it out of the high-priority programs.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I
have a lot of faith in this administration. However, when we are
deciding
[[Page H7200]]
what is high priority and what is a lower priority and, therefore,
where our reductions should be made, I want to make sure that this
Congress is involved in exercising our judgment, not only the
administration.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I, too, oppose this amendment. This is a bill which I had already
indicated last night is very underfunded. Every one of the
transportation programs in the bill, even before last night's
activities of striking out parts of the bill, had been underfunded, and
that includes, at least in terms of an inflationary increase, even the
Highway Administration; but the Federal Aviation Administration and the
Federal Rail Administration and the Federal Transit Administration are
all below last year's 2004 enacted numbers in their totality, as well
as the Treasury being in a similar situation.
They are in a situation where even before the things that had been
removed last night had been done, the Rail Administration was $365
million below the enacted 2004 number. Under the Federal Transit
Administration, the New Starts was $130 million below last year's
enacted amount. The FAA's facilities and equipment program was $362
million below the enacted amount. The Secretary of the Treasury and the
Department were $120 million below last year's enacted amounts, and the
Internal Revenue Service was $107 million below last year's enacted
amount.
All of these throughout the bill, there are those kinds of things
which are already considerably more than 1 percent kinds of cuts from
the previous year, and so I think that we are far from where we ought
to be with this bill at the moment, and I am hoping the gentleman's
amendment is not adopted.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HEFLEY. 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 Colorado
(Mr. Hefley) will be postponed.
Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mrs. Capito
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 10 offered by Mrs. Capito:
Page 166, after 3, insert the following new section:
Sec. 647. None of the funds appropriated by the Act may be
used to plan, enter into, implement, or provide oversight of
contracts between the Secretary of the Treasury, or his
designee, and any private collection agency.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House on
Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito) and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) each will control
10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment to H.R. 5025 seeks to keep the collection of taxes in
the IRS and not to a private debt collector. I wish to make it clear
today that I am in complete support of efficient and effective
enforcement of tax collection activities at all levels of the Federal
Government. I also realize that we must recover the billions and
billions of dollars in uncollected and delinquent tax revenue, but at
what cost.
If we authorize the Treasury to allow the IRS to contract with
private companies to collect delinquent Federal taxes, I am extremely
concerned that harm could result from handing over sensitive personal
and financial tax information to private sector businesses to carry out
what OMB and IRS have officially characterized as an inherently
governmental function.
Allowing for private debt collection contracts could create a
multitude of problems. For instance, any negligent or criminal
disclosure of sensitive taxpayer data by private sector tax collectors
could result in fraudulent charges through identity theft and ruined
credit histories for innocent taxpayers.
Moreover, the potential for harassment by debt collectors is
compounded by the private sector tax collection practice of using
incentive-based commission compensation. In other words, the more
aggressive one is in their collection practices, through
misrepresentations or threatening to take actions a person should not
take, the more money they can personally make as a private sector tax
collector. This system could encourage much more confrontational and
abusive tactics that could violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
Additionally, the Federal Government has tested this concept of
private sector tax collection in the past. In 1996, a pilot program
provided $13 million to examine the impact of private tax collection.
The General Accounting Office reported that private companies collected
$3.1 million in revenue while incurring expenses to the Federal
Government in the exact same amount. Moreover, the GAO found that the
pilot program caused the Internal Revenue Service to lose as much as
$17 million in lost collection opportunities. We cannot afford to
implement this type of inefficiency.
Mr. Chairman, the Reagan administration rejected private sector tax
collection in 1986; and they stated: ``The public must be assured at
all times that the person collecting taxes derives no personal benefits
from that activity and that the integrity of the tax system will not be
compromised.''
{time} 1100
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can
continue to ensure the integrity of our tax system and the American
taxpayers are protected.
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 appreciate Mrs. Capito's amendment and the
seriousness of this issue. When we talk about private collection of
debts, we should understand that the Federal Government is already
using private debt collectors in other areas. One significant example
is student loans. I have certainly visited facilities where private
companies are handling the confidential information involved. They are
handling it with responsibility. They are handling it in compliance
with all legal standards, and they are doing a very good job for the
Government, not only getting revenue that we would lose otherwise if we
did not collect on the debts but collecting on debts that the Federal
Government was having difficulty being able to collect upon.
Not only is this happening in the Federal Government, it is happening
in State government. We have a number of States that already use
private vendors to collect delinquent taxes on behalf of their State
government. Again, they manage to handle these issues of
confidentiality in a very responsible manner. There is no reason to
believe that a private entity is unable to do this.
There is reason to believe, however, that we have to do some serious
things about improving the collection process. There is some $16
billion that the IRS says is not only owed but is collectible. However,
it is not always efficient for the IRS to be the entity that does so.
We need to have a mix of the people that are working directly for the
IRS and those that are working for a private entity to collect these
debts.
And for those that are concerned about our shifting jobs away from a
particular area where debt collectors may be located, remember those
same people can be hired in that area just as easily, in fact,
sometimes more easily than they can in another. It is not a job loss
issue for local communities. We have seen so often, when we make a
transition to try to involve private enterprise, that often they will
be in the same area as the public enterprise was located to collect
these.
This is an issue that is, frankly, premature, however, because even
though there are good reasons to go to this, we do not have legislation
that now permits it. Mrs. Capito's amendment says: Do not do this.
Well, guess what? Under
[[Page H7201]]
the current law, we cannot do it anyway. So it is not necessary to
adopt an amendment to say do not do something that the law currently
does not permit you to do.
I would like us to move in that direction. I will certainly
acknowledge that, but we are not there yet, and it is unnecessary to
have an amendment that stops us from doing something we cannot do at
the current time. For these reasons, I oppose the gentlewoman's
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague, the gentlewoman
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), for offering this very important
amendment to ensure the fair treatment of the American taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, it was just back in 1998, in response to concerns over
overly-aggressive IRS collection tactics against individual taxpayers,
that the Congress passed the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act. That act
specifically prevents IRS agents and their supervisors from being
evaluated or rewarded based on the amount of tax revenues they bring in
or that they collect.
And the reason for that was very simple and straightforward: We want
to make sure that IRS agents treat taxpayers fairly and with respect
and that they look at each situation objectively. We wanted to make
sure they did not have a personal financial stake in the outcome of one
of their disputes for the taxpayer. We should not turn IRS agents into
bounty hunters for their own personal profit.
Well, now let us fast forward to this year. In the corporate tax
legislation that we considered earlier this year, the FSC/ETI bill,
there was tucked in a provision that would authorize private
contractors to take up these collection efforts and directly benefit on
a commission basis by how much they collect. How quickly we forget.
This is a direct contradiction to the policy this Congress took back in
1998 when we said we are not going to allow our Federal civil servants
to do this. But, hey, it is okay to turn it over to private contractors
and turn them into bounty hunters.
Now, it is true, as the chairman of the subcommittee said, that that
is not current law yet. But that bill is in the conference committee
right now with that provision that this House passed. I do not think
many Members of this House realized, who voted for that bill, when they
passed that corporate tax bill, they passed a provision that would
empower private collection agents to go out and collect taxes and
personally profit based on the amount of taxes they collect, these same
individuals who, in 1998, voted to prevent public civil servants at the
IRS from doing it.
This Congress was right back in 1998 when it passed that measure to
ensure objective and fair treatment of the American taxpayer, and it is
amazing to me that this Congress would try to reverse that policy and
turn some private collection agents into vigilantes to go out and try
to collect this money.
I offered a resolution last year, H. Con. Resolution 213, on exactly
this issue. We have many cosponsors on that legislation. I am pleased
to hear today we have additional recruits to that very important cause.
We have a system that works now. We need to do better and be more
efficient at the collection of taxes and revenues in order to be fair
to those people paying their taxes in a regular and fair manner.
But it makes no sense to reverse the policy this Congress took in
1998 when it tried to prevent overly-aggressive and abusive tax
collection by the IRS and say we are going to allow these private
contractors to do what we will not allow our public servants to do. We
were right then; we should stick to that policy. I commend my colleague
for offering this very important amendment, and I urge adoption.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on either side?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook) has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from West
Virginia (Mrs. Capito) has 4 minutes remaining.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I find the idea of putting private,
sensitive information in the hands of debt collectors very troubling,
and tax collection is a fundamental responsibility of government.
However, in this instance, this program is limited to the effort, the
proposal at least. And there is, as the chairman has pointed out, there
is no legislation yet allowing this to be done. The proposal that has
been put forward is only to use private collectors to go after what
monies have already been adjudicated but not collected, that have just
not been paid in after the judgments have been reached and the
determinations by the normal staff of the IRS as to what was owed has
been determined.
So there is out there for years people who have just avoided doing
that. And it is not our business, necessarily, to go after them and
waste a lot of time on the part of our staff in the IRS to go after
that, nor is it necessary that there be any particular information,
sensitive information, that has to be involved in that kind of process.
The collection agency, as proposed, would merely go out and take what
record is there of the determination of the tax case and try to
negotiate a payment so that that record could be cleared. There are
billions of dollars of that sort.
Now, that has nothing to do with the $300 billion of unpaid tax
monies each year that are essentially evaded year by year, people who
just are not paying what is owed under the tax laws in the normal
process on a year-by-year basis. That kind of money is not involved in
this whatsoever.
It is also true that the process has been tried a couple of times in
a pilot form and has not been particularly successful. So it needs to
be looked at rather carefully. I do not, as the chairman has said,
think that we really have a problem, but I do not think we should
eliminate the possibility of having that arrangement as a way that we
can collect the delinquent, long-time unpaid judgments that the IRS has
obtained over time.
It is my understanding, at least in the proposal that had been put
forward, that there would be no effect upon the number of employees
that were the regular employees of the Internal Revenue Service. So it
is quite apart, but it has not been authorized and really does not
require this. The amendment is not really needed.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia
for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of her amendment.
Essentially, what her amendment does is prevent the privatizing of
tax collection, and I think this is really very important. My
overriding objection to privatizing tax collection is that it has
always been treated as an inherently governmental function. And I think
that the Federal employees who do this do a great job, and we should be
proud of them. Speaking for myself, I am a Federal employee, and I have
spent many years of my life as a Federal employee. I think the Federal
employees do a great job.
I have met in my congressional district with IRS employees who work
on these important tasks, and they themselves have expressed to me
serious concerns about the proposal that this amendment will correct.
I think that, in this era of electronic information sharing, we have
to be very careful with how we outsource or privatize some of these
tasks. On that basis, I support the gentlewoman's amendment and thank
her for it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in opposition to the amendment by my colleague and
friend from West Virginia.
Preventing the IRS from using the professional services of private
collection agencies to help collect past-due income taxes is bad policy
for taxpayers, and it is bad for IRS collection efforts. It is
fundamentally unfair, Mr.
[[Page H7202]]
Chairman, to people who pay their taxes for those who do not pay their
taxes, the deadbeats, to get off scot-free. And right now, we are
losing millions and millions of dollars because of deadbeat taxpayers.
In fact, the backlog for the IRS is at $280 billion; that is billion
with a ``b'' and growing every year.
The concerns raised by my friend and colleague can be dispelled by
objective study of the IRS proposal. The Subcommittee on Oversight of
the Committee on Ways and Means has examined the issue extensively, and
we have solid evidence of the success of private collection agencies in
collecting other debts for the Federal Government and the more than 40
States that also use them to help collect State income taxes.
First, the security and privacy of sensitive taxpayer information is
absolutely essential. Nobody doubts that. That is why IRS employees,
anyone performing work under contract with the IRS, would be subject to
heavy, heavy criminal penalties for violations of security and privacy.
In addition, a taxpayer could bring a civil suit under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act against private collection agency employees
for any unauthorized disclosure of taxpayer information. So there are
protections to guarantee against the type of abuses that have been
cited.
Second, private collection agencies would not be compensated solely
based on dollars collected. The IRS has developed a set of criteria,
including quality of service, taxpayer satisfaction and case
resolution, in addition to collection results. These would all be
components, elements in determining how PCAs would be paid for the work
performed for the IRS.
Third, Mr. Chairman, more than 40 States already use private
collection agencies to assist with their State tax collection efforts.
{time} 1115
In the last fiscal year, total collections by these private
collection agencies for the Department of Education, the Department of
Health and Human Services and Treasury were $546 million, up 23 percent
from the previous year.
Mr. Chairman, let us get real. Disturbing allegations raised
regarding the practices of one contractor should not taint the quality
work done by many other collection contractors who are serving the
States and Federal Government well. It is important to remember these
collection contracts would only involve cases in which the tax
liability is not in dispute because taxpayers have admitted to the
liability. They have admitted they owe the tax. The more complex cases
where liability is disputed would remain with the professional
employees at IRS. I urge my colleagues to support taxpayer equity and
vote no on this amendment.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Capito amendment
to H.R. 5025. The attempt to significantly change the policy of Federal
tax collections without serious discussion or debate among Members of
Congress is extremely short-sighted. Federal tax collection is
currently and should remain an inherently governmental function.
Shifting the responsibility from the Federal Government to third-party
entities has proven disastrous.
The IRS attempted private tax collection in the past with dismal
results. The 1996 pilot program for private collection was so
unsuccessful it was cancelled after 12 months, despite the fact it was
authorized and scheduled to operate for 2 years. A review by the IRS
Office of Inspector General found that contractors participating in the
pilot programs regularly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, did not adequately protect the security of personal taxpayer
information, and even failed to bring in a net increase in revenue. In
fact, the IRS had a net loss of $17 million for the failed pilot
program.
When privatizing tax collection was proposed in 1986 during the
Reagan administration, then-Treasury Secretary James Baker opposed the
concept. The department's then general counsel in a letter to the House
Committee on the Judiciary wrote, ``The Department strongly opposes
contracting out of the collection of taxes because it is likely to
result in considerable adverse public reaction. The public must be
assured at all times that the person collecting taxes derives no
personal benefits from that activity and the integrity of the tax
system will not be compromised.''
The Federal tax collection system must retain the highest level of
confidence among our constituents. While no one enjoys paying taxes,
they at least want assurance that their personal information is
protected by the government and used only for legitimate purposes in
determining individual tax liability. Wrongful disclosure of tax
information will do irreparable harm to the entire system. I urge my
colleagues to support the Capito amendment.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Capito
amendment.
As a former FBI agent, we would be asked to get a subpoena to get the
records contained in a tax filer's information, even as a Federal law
enforcement agent in an agency right next door. Why, because it is the
most invasive information the government asks of its citizens. And not
only asks, but tells us we must submit. This is information worth
protecting.
Any slip, any slide that takes away the faith and comfort and belief
in the Federal Government to protect that information is wrong. They
have not clearly shown in any way that they can protect this
information.
I would strongly urge that we all stand together on this. For those
of us who disagree with positions of the IRS or do not disagree, the
information does not belong to the government, it belongs to the
people. We should do everything in our power to keep it, including
keeping inherently governmental functions within the government. At
least there is accountability.
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for her leadership on this
amendment, and include my prepared remarks for the Record.
I would like to point out that we appreciate the expertise and
competence of the employees of the IRS, and I am happy to be here to
support the gentlewoman's amendment which reaffirms our faith in these
Federal employees.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Capito amendment to H.R. 5025.
Under the proposed authority granted to the IRS in the FSC/ETI
legislation to ``contract out'' Federal tax collections, the Federal
Government is held harmless for any violations committed by
contractors. Specifically, the legislation states:
``No Federal Liability.--The United States shall not be
liable for any act or omission of any person performing
services under a qualified collection contract.'' (section
6306(d) of H.R. 4520)
While the government can write contracts prescribing certain actions
by contractors or their employees, the IRS does not have adequate
contract oversight capabilities to ensure compliance. The Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) as recently as March,
2004 found that ``. . . a contractor's employees committed numerous
security violations that placed IRS equipment and taxpayer data at
risk. In some cases, contractors blatantly circumvented IRS policies
and procedures even when security personnel identified inappropriate
practices.'' (TIGTA Audit No. 200320010)
Currently, IRS employees are the only personnel who may contact
taxpayers and collect Federal income tax. These individuals are
thoroughly trained in all laws and regulations governing the collection
of taxes and are held accountable to the people. If IRS personnel
commit violations, they are disciplined or terminated and taxpayers may
take legal action against the IRS for such abuse.
Under this proposal, the accountability shifts to third-party
contractors whose employees may or may not have any specific training
and who are motivated by an economic incentive, through a commission
based payment, to ``push the envelope''.
Because this proposal was contained in a very complex international
tax bill, Members did not have the opportunity to directly consider
this significant policy change. The Capito amendment provides Members
with the opportunity and I urge all my colleagues to support the
amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
[[Page H7203]]
I want to repeat my opposition to this amendment. I think Members
recognize that private debt collectors sometimes behave in an abusive
manner. I think we also realize that sometimes government debt
collectors sometimes behave in an abusive manner. It is not a question
of whether that person is employed by the government or in the private
sector, it is the question of whether that person is a responsible
individual that is well-trained and is handling themselves with
integrity. That can be just as true in the private sector as in the
public sector.
Many States already use private debt collection and have seen their
rate of collections increase because of that. The Federal Government
already employs private debt collectors to assist in collecting other
Federal debts. For example, student loans that involve sensitive
personal and financial information, that is done successfully as well.
The amendment is not only something that opposes something which I
think is a promising opportunity, but it is also unnecessary because
current law does not permit the IRS to hire private debt collectors.
Therefore, the amendment really accomplishes no change from the current
law and is unnecessary. I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have stood to offer this same amendment, an amendment
to restore the basic right of Americans to travel to Cuba. The Flake
amendment has, for the past 3 years, enjoyed broad bipartisan support
in Congress, and for good reason.
For the last 45 years, we have attempted to bring about regime change
in Cuba, only to see Fidel Castro outlast nine U.S. Presidents, all the
while his countrymen have been denied their most basic human rights. A
compelling case could be made that our policy of isolating Cuba made
sense during the Cold War. As a part of the Soviet Union, Cuba was
actively exporting revolution with its troops around the world, but we
are more than a decade removed from the Cold War. We now face new
challenges, challenges that it can be safely said do not include the
spread of Cuban-style communism.
Our challenge is to export freedom to Cuba, and for this cause our
current policy is as outdated as the cars that ply the highways of
Havana. How can we promote liberty in Cuba with a policy that denies
our own citizens the right to travel to the island? How can we foster
respect for basic human dignity when we tell Cuban Americans they can
no longer send soap and toothpaste to their long-suffering relatives in
Cuba? Have we failed to see the long-term consequences of our policy?
In a word, yes.
I should note that this blindness does not only inflict the
Republican Party; the Democratic leadership has not offered a vision
that is much clearer. Unfortunately, neither party can see past Florida
when trying to decide what to do about Cuba.
With this bill today, and in other bills this year, we will
appropriate tens of millions of dollars relating to Cuba. It is fitting
that we ask for what purpose. So the think tanks in Miami can churn out
more reports telling the Congress, unsurprisingly, that we ought to
continue the current policy which includes giving them more money; so
that daily television programs can be produced in Miami that Cubans
will never see; so that a Little League team in Arizona will not be
able to play baseball with their peers in Cuba; so that faith-based
groups in Indiana distributing Bibles in Cuba can be fined for their
evangelical zeal; or so a grieving daughter in South Carolina will not
be able to attend her mother's funeral in Cuba?
As a Republican, I fail to see anything conservative about these
policies. There is a saying no man is an island, yet our policy assumes
that Fidel Castro is Cuba's only resident. The people of Cuba have
suffered decades under his rule. Our policies, particularly those
enacted just months ago, which limit family charity, have only added to
their burdens.
Unfortunately, the timing of this legislation this year does not lend
itself to a reasoned and thoughtful debate about our policy toward
Cuba. Our efforts in this area have always been bipartisan in nature,
but with elections so close and politics so raw, this debate would not
receive the thoughtful deliberation it deserves.
I would like to thank those Members of Congress on both sides of the
aisle who are working so hard for a more effective and reasonable Cuban
policy, those who believe that promoting freedom in Cuba is best
achieved by giving Americans more freedom. Our efforts will resume as
soon as the electoral smoke clears.
It is my understanding that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis)
will offer an amendment to roll back the new restrictions on family
travel by Cuban Americans to Cuba. My colleagues and I look forward to
helping the gentleman with his worthy efforts.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be clear for the record and
inquire of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), this means the
gentleman is not offering the Flake amendment either at this time or at
any later time?
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield,
that is correct.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the pertinent
portion of the existing unanimous consent agreement be amended
accordingly to indicate the Flake amendment will not be considered.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would advise the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) his unanimous consent request must be made in the
whole House.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia:
Page 166, after line 3, insert the following:
Sec. 647. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to carry out, enter into, or renew any contract under
chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, which provides for
a health savings account or a health reimbursement account.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House on
Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran)
and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit the Office of Personnel
Management from being able to offer or administer health savings
accounts or health reimbursement accounts as part of the Federal
Employee Health Benefits Plan.
Just yesterday, the Office of Personnel Management announced that
starting on January 1, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan will
include the option of Federal employees to enroll in high deductible
health plans which offer health savings accounts or health
reimbursement accounts.
A bipartisan group of Members in both the House and Senate have
expressed very strong concern that these plans are untested in either
the public or the private sector. For that reason, they should be
viewed very cautiously in terms of whether or not they should be
included in the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan.
As Members know, Mr. Chairman, the Medicare prescription drug bill
which was enacted this past December included a provision unrelated to
either Medicare or to prescription drug coverage. It expanded and
renamed medical savings accounts as health savings accounts. They are
the same thing. Because there was so much controversy surrounding
medical savings accounts, I guess they felt renaming it,
[[Page H7204]]
they will have a better chance of getting it through, but the same
objections apply.
{time} 1130
Health savings accounts are plans that combine a high-deductible,
catastrophic insurance policy with a tax-exempt savings account
dedicated for health care expenses. Health reimbursement accounts are
similar to these HSAs except that they are not tax-exempt and the plan
account credits may only be used for health care expenses.
The general concern is that health savings accounts and health
reimbursement accounts circumvent the fundamental principles of group
health insurance by dividing healthy people from sick people, putting
them into different coverage options. Healthier enrollees tend to
gravitate to the health savings accounts and other so-called consumer-
driven financing schemes because low health care users, those who are
younger and healthier, oftentimes more affluent, they are rewarded with
unspent balances or credits at the end of each year. But the less
healthy enrollees, the older enrollees, the poorer enrollees, they
avoid health savings accounts and these so-called consumer-driven plans
because they could pay out-of-pocket costs in the thousands of dollars.
They are almost sure to use up the entire deductible, so it becomes
prohibitively expensive for older people to use these kinds of plans.
As a result, higher health care users use the traditional comprehensive
plans. The phenomenon is called adverse selection. And it forces
insurance carriers to raise premiums, to cut benefits, in fact, to
squeeze the people who need health insurance coverage out of the
market. They are not going to be able to afford the kind of health
insurance cost that they need because they are reducing the risk pool.
Adverse selection occurred when these health savings accounts as
similar plans were offered to public employees in Ada County, Idaho and
in Jersey City, New Jersey. As a result, the county and city stopped
offering these plans to their employees. They did not work. We have
that empirical experience. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
says that legislation introduced in the 105th Congress to make medical
savings accounts available to the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Program would have cost taxpayers $1 billion over 5 years. This plan
will cost taxpayers $1 billion over 5 years and there is no offset in
this bill for that additional cost. It is also projected that enrollee
costs would skyrocket above the average annual premium increases.
Obviously they are going to skyrocket because as you reduce the pool to
the older, the sicker, the less affluent, it is a much higher risk pool
and the insurance premiums are going to go through the roof.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program has long
been heralded as the model health care plan. However, the inclusion of
these health savings accounts or health reimbursement accounts will
jeopardize the quality and it will raise the cost, the FEHBP program
will not be as successful as it has been in the past, and many people
will suffer as a result. We should not proceed with implementing these
untested plans without knowing the impact of these very high deductible
health plans, what impact they will have on the future of the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Plan.
That is why this amendment is absolutely necessary. It is essential
for the future viability of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan.
We should not be making Federal employees a Petri dish for these
ideological ideas, Mr. Chairman. They have not been tested. In the few
places where they have been tested they have not worked.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to address just the main criticism the gentleman
from Virginia just mentioned. Two things. He says adverse selection,
which means healthy and wealthy people will leave other health care
plans and premiums will go up for everybody else. Point number one. The
Office of Personnel Management took this concern very seriously. So
when they constructed this new health savings account option within the
Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan, an additional option for Federal
employees, they designed the premium so that that would not happen.
Specifically, Federal employees would pay $42.25 every 2 weeks for the
Mail Handlers high deductible plan compared to $45.16 for the standard
coverage, an insignificant difference of $2.81 for every 2 weeks. For
family coverage, the difference would be 11 cents. These very small
differences in premiums will ensure that healthy employees are not
attracted to HSAs by their premium. So the concern of the gentleman,
which is a concern, was already addressed by the OPM.
But one more point and the second point is this. All of the data on
adverse selection has been coming back and none of it has been true.
This was a concern that we were very concerned about. We want to make
sure that the healthy and wealthy were not fleeing traditional health
care plans, leaving them in jeopardy, raising premiums for other
people.
Since these plans have been offered since January and believe me, Mr.
Chairman, they have been really proliferating, the data is showing us
the opposite has occurred. The data is showing us that sicker, older
people are being more attracted to health savings accounts.
A couple of statistics. Assurant Health Care Plan, the leading
provider of these in America, happens to be located in Milwaukee; 43
percent of their HSA applicants did not have any prior coverage at all.
Forty-three percent of the people who bought these HSAs were uninsured.
Thirty-two percent of HSA applicants had not had coverage for at least
6 months prior to enrollment. Half of all HSA applicants had incomes
under $35,000. That is from eHealthInsurance, the major clearinghouse
of all HSA products, the big Web site you go to to buy an HSA. Half of
all their applicants earned under $35,000. EHealthInsurance again, the
clearinghouse, 46 percent of HSA purchasers have family incomes less
than 50 grand.
We are seeing that lower income workers and families are going toward
HSAs and older, less healthy people are going toward HSAs. So the data
is showing that that is not true.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would say to my very bright friend who I know feels very strongly
about this, but the statistics that he cites are not with regard to
public employees nor does it apply to the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Plan, a very successful plan, one of the most successful in
the country, where every Federal employee participates.
I would say to my friend that I do not know any Federal employee that
has asked for this. Every Federal employee wants the system the way it
is working now. I know thousands of Federal employees who are opposed
to this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his amendment
because what he is trying to do is to save the FEHBP from a
catastrophic illness of its own. This plan is trumpeted as the model
for the country. It will not be that way much longer.
I buy the gentleman's notion, my friend on the other side, that
sicker and older people and even poorer people are sometimes trying to
use these health savings accounts. The reason they are trying to do so
is they are trying to reduce the rising cost of health care. What they
do not know, of course, is what we already know, and that is that what
occurs in the existing health care plan where people have comprehensive
coverage is adverse selection that drives up premiums. I do not know if
we have to go through the catastrophe ourselves. We have already had
the most populous county in Idaho to go through it. They withdrew from
the very same kind of plan that we have here in our system because of a
huge rise in health care premiums as some employees got out, leaving
those employees who were in the system in Idaho with a greatly elevated
health care premium.
I do not know how many Idahos you have to have before it gets to the
FEHBP. I do know this. Idaho pulled out, this county in Idaho, the
largest
[[Page H7205]]
county in Idaho, with the most people, and one of the few public
employers who in fact has used health savings accounts, they pulled out
before the year was out because the escalation was immediate.
We have had a 7 percent rise in the Federal Employees Health Benefit
Plan this year. This is the first time we have not been in double
digits. It had nothing to do with health savings accounts. As we all
know, it has had to do with the wild fluctuations in these accounts.
What the gentleman offers is so important that if in our wisdom we do
not in fact act now to prevent what I will call the Idaho catastrophe,
where this public employer came out after less than a year of
experience, that I put the House on notice that I will have an
amendment that will keep people from gaming the system, because what
Idaho found was that people will come into the system and when they
recognize that their health services will go up in the next year they
get out in time to go back into the comprehensive system, leaving, of
course, people who are in that system all the time with the problem of
continuing escalated coverage. I will have a fallback amendment if the
House does not approve the Moran amendment.
I very much thank him for offering his amendment because his
amendment is the right answer.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
(Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia, whose
opinion I respect on many issues, I think is just wrong on this. He
mentioned a few minutes ago that he knows of no other Federal employees
who would like to have this option. I cannot speak for all of the
Federal employees, but I can speak for over a quarter of a million
Minnesota public employee union members who want to have access to
health savings accounts. Will they all choose them? I do not know. But
I have letters here from the Minneapolis Police Relief Association
thanking me and encouraging me to make certain that they have access to
health savings accounts. I have a letter here from Teamsters Local 320
that represents public and law enforcement employees in the State of
Minnesota both at the State and local level. They are encouraging me to
make certain that they have access to health savings accounts. I have a
letter here from the Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association. They
want access to health savings accounts. I have a letter here from the
Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota representing over
150,000 Minnesotans who want access to health savings accounts. I have
a letter here from the Minnesota State Retirement System.
Mr. Chairman, what we have here is a conflict of visions. This is an
important and very critical debate in where we go with health care
reform. The question is whether or not we are smart enough to make all
of these decisions on behalf of these folks or if we allow them to make
more decisions on their own behalf. I can only say that we have gone
out and visited with representatives of public employee unions in the
State of Minnesota, we have shown them the facts, we have shown them
how these programs work, we have allowed them to make the decision, and
the answer is almost unanimous, they at least want to have access to
this option.
No one says that Federal employees or State employees have to choose
this option. But if the Moran amendment passes, you will take that
option away from them. Please do not do that. Please listen to the
employees themselves.
Minneapolis Police
Relief Association,
Minneapolis, MN, June 30, 2004.
Congressman Gil Gutknecht,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Gutknecht: We are writing to you seeking
your continued leadership in addressing Health Savings
Accounts (HSA's). As you are well aware, in the 2003 Medicare
Act, individuals over the age of 65 were excluded from
participating in the newly created HSA's.
It is important that not only do the changes to the
Medicare Reform Act of 2003 include participation for those
over age 65 in the HSA's but the language which ties Medicare
ineligibility to HSA participation must also be removed. HSA
participation would provide a very modest way in which our
over 65 retiree's could tax defer some of their financial
resources.
Our public safety retirees put in their time and duty and
had planned on living out their retirement years with not
having to face financial difficulties. However, health care
costs for those over 65 years of age have increased
dramatically over the last decade. Supplemental insurance to
Medicare can cost a retired couple up to $8,000 per year.
We strongly encourage you to work with other members of
Congress and the Bush Administration to correct his
discrimination against our retirees.
Again, thank you for all your support and past leadership
in the HSA's. Please continue to assist us in this battle for
affordable health care.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Nelson,
Vice President.
____
Minnesota State Retirement
System,
St. Paul, MN, July 26, 2004.
Congressman Gil Gutknecht,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Gutknecht: I want to thank you for your
leadership in establishing Health Savings Accounts for those
under age 65. I strongly encourage you to support similar
accounts that would be valuable for retirees age 65 and over.
As you know, rising health care costs and prescription drug
costs have made it difficult, if not impossible, for many
people to afford adequate health care coverage. Health
Savings Accounts would provide a modest and extremely
effective way to help pay for these costs.
On behalf of the 50,000 state employees and 23,000 benefit
recipients covered by the Minnesota State Retirement System
(MSRS), I encourage you to work with members of Congress and
the Bush Administration to provide Health Savings Accounts to
all retirees.
Again, thank your for your support and leadership on this
and your attempts to lower prescription drug costs.
Sincerely,
David Bergstrom,
Executive Director.
____
Public Employees Retirement
Association of Minnesota,
Saint Paul, MN, July 20, 2004.
Hon. Gil Gutknecht,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Gutknecht: The Public Employees Retirement
Association (PERA) of Minnesota is seeking your continued
leadership in addressing the issues associated with the
Healthcare Savings Accounts (HSA). As you are well aware,
with the enactment of the 2003 Medicare Act, individuals over
the age of 65 were not included for participation in the
newly created accounts.
Important to our participants--150,000 of whom are
currently working local government employees and about 60,000
of whom receive monthly benefits from PERA--is ensuring not
only a change in the Medicare Reform Act of 2003 to include
the availability of the HSA to individuals over the age of
65, but also removing the language which ties Medicare
ineligibility to HSA participation. HSA participation would
provide a very modest way in which our over-age-65 retirees
could defer taxes on some of their financial resources.
Our public safety retirees typically retire earlier than
other public employees due to the physical and emotional
stresses associated with their positions. Due to the earlier
retirement, many begin paying their health insurance at
younger ages, hoping to live out their retirement years
without having to face financial difficulties. The HSA will
help these early retirees until age 65, but as you know
health care costs for those over the age of 65 are rising at
a significant rate. Supplemental insurance to Medicare can
cost a retired couple up to $8,000 a year. Losing the
availability of the HSA at age 65 will prove ever more
burdensome to individuals on limited retirement incomes.
We strongly encourage you to work with other members of
Congress and the Bush Administration to advance legislation
that is fair to retirees of all ages.
Again, thank you for all of your support and the leadership
you have demonstrated in enacting the HSA legislation thus
far. We look forward to your continuing assistance in this
battle for affordable health care.
Sincerely,
Mary Most Vanek,
PERA Executive Director.
____
Minneapolis Firefighters'
Relief Association,
Minneapolis, MN, July 6, 2004.
Congressman Gil Gutknecht,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Gutknecht: We are writing to you seeking
your continued leadership in addressing Health Savings
Accounts (HSA's). As you are well aware, in the 2003 Medicare
Act, individuals over the age of 65 were excluded from
participating in the newly created HSA's.
It is important that not only do the changes to the
Medicare Reform Act of 2003 include participation for those
over age 65 in the HSA's but the language which ties Medicare
ineligibility to HSA participation must also be removed. HSA
participation would provide a very modest way in which our
over
[[Page H7206]]
65 retirees could tax defer some of their financial
resources.
Our Firefighter retirees have dedicated their lives to
serving the public and planned on living out their retirement
years with not having to face financial difficulties.
However, health care costs for those over 65 years of age
have increased dramatically over the last decade.
Supplemental insurance to Medicare can cost a retired couple
up to $8,000 per year.
We strongly encourage you to work with other members of
Congress and the Bush Administration to correct this
discrimination against our retirees.
Again, thank you for all your support and past leadership
in the HSA's. Please continue to assist us in the battle for
affordable health care.
Sincerely,
Walter C. Schirmer,
Executive Secretary.
____
Minnesota Teamsters Public & Law Enforcement Employees'
Union, Local No. 320,
Minneapolis, MN, July 1, 2004.
Congressman Gil Gutknecht,
Cannon House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Gutknecht: We are writing to you seeking
your continued leadership in addressing Health Savings
Accounts (HSA's). As you are well aware, in the 2003 Medicare
Act, individuals over the age of 65 were excluded from
participating in the newly created HSA's.
It is important that not only do the changes to the
Medicare Reform Act of 2003 include participation for those
over age 65 in the HSA's but the language which ties Medicare
ineligibility to HSA participation must also be removed. HSA
participation would provide a very modest way in which our
over 65 retiree's could tax defer some of their financial
resources.
Our public safety retirees put in their time and duty and
had planned on living out their retirement years with not
having to face financial difficulties. However, health care
costs for those over 65 years of age have increased
dramatically over the last decade. Supplemental insurance to
Medicare can cost a retired couple up to $8,000 per year.
We strongly encourage you to work with other members of
Congress and the Bush Administration to correct his
discrimination against our retirees.
Again, thank you for all your support and past leadership
in the HSA's. Please continue to assist us in this battle for
affordable health car.
Sincerely,
Sue Mauren,
Secretary-Treasurer.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The gentleman from Virginia
is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the information we
were just provided by the gentleman from Minnesota, but the fact is
that none of the employees that he cites would be affected by this
amendment. This amendment only affects Federal employees, and every
Federal employee organization is in favor of my amendment and opposes
putting health savings accounts, the same thing as MSAs, into the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. I have a letter from the
National Association of Retired Federal Employees. This is their
biggest issue. Don't do this to us. More than a million people are
saying, don't do this. I have a letter from the National Treasury
Employees Union supporting my amendment, opposing what this bill would
do. The American Federation of Government Employees opposes it.
The gentleman from Wisconsin cited some other employees apparently
that said it was a good thing, but they are not members of the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Plan. Those who would be affected do not want
it.
Support this amendment.
{time} 1145
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
I fail to understand how anybody is threatened by opportunity. When
people say I want to keep the type of health plan I already have, they
still have that option. They are not hurt by saying they have the
options they have already and they have a new option; if they do not
want it, do not take it. If somebody else wants it, let them take it.
Why do we want to shut it off?
That is what the Moran amendment is all about, shutting off
opportunity, telling people that if they do not like any of their
current options, too bad, they do not get any other choices. The Office
of Personnel Management has acted in a responsible manner to expand
choices for people. We should let it happen. We should not have a knee-
jerk reaction from people who feel threatened, for what reason I do not
know; but there is no reason to fear what is going on here. We should
reject the Moran amendment accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam
Johnson).
(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree with the
chairman more. This amendment provides us with an interesting twist on
the norm. Usually, when we talk about Federal employees' health
benefits, we hear arguments that other people deserve the benefits that
Federal employees enjoy. Is it that you do not want the employees to
enjoy the benefits that we are trying to get for the general public?
In today's debate, the landscape is different. I am astounded that
the gentleman from Virginia is keeping something that the public enjoys
out of the Federal system. He is telling us that HSAs are good enough
for the American public, but not good enough for Federal employees.
I do not buy that. Let us take a look at the facts. HSAs put
consumers back in the driver's seat. And Federal employees deserve that
choice as well. A high-deductible plan means lower premiums, and lower
premiums mean more cash to put away in an account to save for medical
expenses as they arise. And contrary to critics' claims that HSAs are
untested, HSAs have seen astonishing success since their enactment in
the Medicare bill. Tens of thousands of people have opened accounts. A
host of insurers are offering plans, including Aetna, Cigna, and
Assurant. HSAs have reduced the number of uninsured Americans, are
working for people and their families from all backgrounds and ages.
And, quite frankly, they belong in the Federal employee health benefit
plan.
I think that we need to make all America equal; and, therefore, we
should reject this amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
yielding me this time, for this opportunity to speak in opposition to
the Moran amendment.
It is important to know that nationwide, 49 percent of HSAs are being
sold to families with children. That makes perfect sense. There are
many years when young families do not have many medical expenses; but
often during those years they have very expensive dental bills for
braces. Does it not make absolute sense to let that family spend less
money on premiums and have more money in their HSA so they can cover
braces, which practically no employer plan covers?
That is why in this Nation we need to dedicate fewer dollars to the
premium portion of health care and have more dollars in our consumer
accounts because they can spend those dollars on anything under the Tax
Code. That is broader than any employer-provided health plan in the
Nation.
So of course families want HSAs. They can pay for braces. They can
pay for glasses. If they have a child with a hearing deficit, and we
know how many more children there are in America that need very
significant and expensive health care in our special ed programs, they
can pay for those kinds of costs out of their HSA.
Their HSA dollars can be employer-provided 100 percent. They can be
employer-provided or pretax dollars from them. It is flexible. It is
better health care coverage than any other employer-provided plan. And
every Federal employee deserves the right, deserves the right, to
dedicate fewer dollars to the insurance component of health and offer
him or herself, frankly, the opportunity to buy with employer-provided
or pretax dollars the full range of health and welfare benefits that
those plans can afford. So I urge opposition to this amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, just three points need to be
made about this amendment.
Point number one, this is an option from which Federal employees can
choose. Why deprive them of this additional choice? They do not want
the
[[Page H7207]]
product, they do not have to have it. Why take it away from them?
Point number two, just in case these adverse selection concerns are
valid, that is why OPM designed this product with identical premiums so
it does not occur. So they already addressed the concern just in case
there is any adverse selection that occurs out there.
But now what we are seeing from the data is that adverse selection
not only is not happening. The opposite is happening. Lower-income,
older, sicker people are buying health savings accounts. The data we
get every day is disproving this notion of adverse selection. But just
in case OPM designed this so that the premium is virtually identical to
the rest of the premiums so that there is a safety valve, an insurance
policy, to make sure that those concerns are not validated, do not
manifest themselves.
Do not take this option away from 8 million families. I urge a vote
``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding to me and for his leadership on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, there are several things that have been said that need
to be clarified. First of all, this concept of medical savings
accounts, health savings accounts, that is the same thing, has, in
fact, not been shown to be successful. It has not even been tested. It
just passed in December with the Medicare prescription drug bill. I
mentioned two situations where they tried it out in Ada County, Idaho,
and in Jersey City, New Jersey; and it was so unsuccessful, they had to
terminate it. This does not work.
The gentlewoman from Connecticut talked about the need to be able to
buy eyeglasses and dentures and so on. That is flexible spending
accounts. We are in favor of flexible spending accounts. There is no
problem with flexible spending accounts. That is not what we are
talking about. We are talking about introducing a relatively radical
new concept and using Federal employees as the guinea pigs.
The Federal employees health benefits plan has 249 different options,
249 different plans. This is not a problem with choice. The gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), I believe it was, mentioned several
public employees. They may not have the options. I am quite confident
they do not have the options that Federal employees have. But the
Federal employees health benefits plan is working. It is working better
than any other health plan in the country, as far as I can see.
And now what do we want to do and why is this amendment so important?
People who for ideological reasons, I think, more than any, perhaps to
save some money, they are offering to young people, people who are the
least likely to get sick, people whose priorities are buying a home,
providing for their start-up family, any number of things, purchasing
an automobile and so on, health care costs are not a big priority
because they are young and they are healthy. And relative to the rest
of the country, they are relatively affluent.
So it makes sense for them to purchase these HSAs. Some will because
there will be a lot of aggressive marketing telling them how much they
will save. But the deductibles are enormous. If they do get sick, if
there is an accident, then they are in tough shape. But a lot of young
people are willing to take the chance. I would have taken the chance.
Most of us, when we were in our 20s and early 30s, take the chance. But
that chance is not availability to older and sicker people. That is why
the National Association of Retired Federal Employees has this as their
number one priority. Because what happens when these younger healthier
people choose these HSAs, MSAs, they pull out of the risk pool. They
are no longer insured. And as a result, we have two different classes.
We have the young and the healthy who are insured by these HSAs, and we
are going to have the older and the sicker who are in the traditional
comprehensive plans because health care is a much greater priority for
them.
So what happens to these traditional plans for the older, the less
healthy, to some extent the less affluent people, what happens? The
risk pool is reduced. It is more exclusively the people who are most
likely to have serious illnesses, and so the premiums go through the
roof. They skyrocket. What we have done is to divide up the health
benefits plans between the young and healthy and the older and the
sicker, and it is the older and the sicker who will not be able to
afford the medical care they need.
What happens to the medical profession? We are going to start
squeezing. The same thing is going to happen to Medicare. We will start
squeezing reimbursement because we cannot afford the kinds of premiums.
We cannot afford to pay 72 percent of the average cost of premiums. The
Federal Government cannot; so we will be cutting back. So doctors will
have their reimbursement back. Everyone is going to suffer except those
folks who are willing to take the risk. And one day, 20 or 30 years
from that decision-making point, they are going to wish that they were
part of the larger pool.
This is terribly dangerous, Mr. Chairman. We cannot let this happen.
Do not do this to Federal employees. Do not do it to the Federal
employees' health benefits plan. Support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. 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 Virginia
(Mr. Moran) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
At the end of title VI (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. . The amount otherwise provided by this Act for
deposit in the Federal Buildings Fund is hereby reduced by
$152,979,000, and, notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the amount available from revenues and collections
deposited into the Fund shall be available for necessary
expenses of real property management and related activities
not otherwise provided for in the aggregate amount of
$8,619,023,000.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is a simple housekeeping amendment. As we noted yesterday, the
various points of order that were raised would have the effect of
increasing the amount of spending in the bill beyond our subcommittee's
allocation. This amendment simply brings the bill back within our
allocation pursuant to our 302(b) allocation and with what we told the
House before.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I do not seek time in opposition. I rise
merely to accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No one seeks time in opposition.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1200
Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The Clerk will designate the
amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Council of Economic Advisers to produce an
Economic Report of the President regarding the inclusion of
employment at a retail fast food restaurant as part of the
definition of manufacturing employment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Tuesday, September 14, the gentleman from
[[Page H7208]]
Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
When it comes to jobs, President Bush has a credibility problem, not
just the White House applauding the offshore outsourcing of American
jobs as a ``good thing'' then trying to explain that a good thing does
not really mean a good thing; not just his Labor Department issuing
guidelines to help companies avoid paying overtime to middle-class and
low-income workers then insisting that they did not really mean for
employers to actually use that guidance to avoid paying overtime; not
just the fact that George Bush promised 6 million jobs with his tax
cuts and has fallen 7 million short of that goal; not just that
President Bush, in a 63-minute speech at the Republican Convention,
mentioned the word ``jobs'' one time.
The particular credibility problem I am talking about can be summed
up in one word: McManufacturing.
In the President's Economic Report, this is put out every year,
signed by the President of the United States, by George Bush, this
report referred to, in trying to answer the problem of lost
manufacturing jobs in our country, and my State alone has lost 170,000,
my State of Ohio alone has lost 170,000 manufacturing jobs, 150 jobs
every single day since George Bush was sworn in 3\1/2\ years ago. So to
deflect that, they have talked about changing the definition of
manufacturing, and here is what they said. This is on page 73 of the
President's economic report: ``The definition of a manufactured product
is not straightforward. When a fast food restaurant sells a hamburger,
is it providing a service, or is it combining inputs to manufacture
products?''
So here is what we got, according to the Bush administration, who
knows they have a problem with the loss of manufacturing jobs, we got
the kid in the restaurant at McDonald's or Burger King, whatever. He is
setting up an assembly line. He unwraps the package, and then he puts
the bun out. And then they chemically treat the beef. We call it
cooking, but in George Bush administration legalese, I guess they call
it chemically treat the beef. They put that on the bun. And then they
take the lettuce, and they put that on and slice the tomato, part of
the manufacturing process, and put that on. Then they chemically treat
the cheese. We would call it melting the cheese. And then they get a
foreign component. They bring french fries in and make some kind of
happy meal of some sort.
I am not making this up. This is in this economic report.
My point is, Mr. Chairman, that we know what manufacturing is. We
know what manufacturing is not, and these are the kinds of games the
Bush administration plays to try to deflect attention away from what
they have done with American manufacturing.
In my State of Ohio, we have lost one out of every six, one out of
every six manufacturing jobs since George Bush took office. And his
answer every time is more tax cuts for the richest people. If you are
making $1 million, you get a $123,000 tax cut. That is not creating
jobs in Ohio and across the Midwest in this country.
His other response is more trade agreements that continue to ship
jobs overseas. It is clear, Mr. Chairman, we need a different
direction. That different direction is to extend unemployment benefits
to the 60,000 or 70,000 Ohioans who are looking for jobs but have lost
their benefits; they have expired. This Congress will not extend
unemployment benefits.
We also need to quit giving incentives to companies that send their
jobs overseas. We continue to give them tax breaks instead of passing
the bipartisan Crane-Rangel bill, which will give those companies that
manufacture domestically, give them incentives. We need to stop those
tax breaks, as I said, that ship jobs overseas and stop those tax
breaks for those companies, in giving those companies contracts with
the Government, like Halliburton and other companies, that continue to
violate so much of what we stand for in our country.
Then the President wants to pass the Central American Free Trade
Agreement which will, again, be more of the same. We need to stop these
kinds of trade agreements. We need to pass unemployment compensation.
We need to pass bipartisan legislation to give incentives to those
companies who manufacture in America.
This amendment, while modest in its goals, I believe at least is
honest in its goals and honest in deciding what really is
manufacturing, what is not manufacturing. It stops the games. This
Congress needs to stay in session and pass legislation that really will
create jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and ask support of
the amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
I will be brief on this because I do not think this amendment does
any damage, and I will not oppose its adoption to our bill.
However, I think it is a mistake to pretend that it accomplishes
anything. I know of no serious effort to change the definition of
manufacturing that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) wants to make
sure that we do not. But I do think it is important to address some of
the other things that he mentioned.
For example, if we look at the fast food sector, typically, most of
us see the counter. And maybe we get a glimpse into the kitchen behind
it. Maybe, sometimes, we are there when a large semi truck pulls up to
deliver some of the product that is involved in there. But there is a
lot more that we do not see.
For example, let me tell you about Lopez Foods, a minority-owned
business in Oklahoma City. Lopez Foods is one of the principal
suppliers to McDonald's. It is a part of the fast food industry, but we
do not see it when we are in the restaurant. If one visits their
facility, one will see that it is a large, modern, clean facility, and
it is filled with high-tech. You would not believe the kind of computer
systems and mechanical systems that are necessary for the quality
control to make sure the ingredients are in the same universal
proportion for the product that is going to be shipped to McDonald's
all over the country.
We do not see that in the fast food sector. It is a very different
image from that of the smiling, young person or perhaps senior citizen
that may be waiting on you on the other side of the counter. We need to
understand that every sector, fast food included, has a supply chain.
It has a logistics chain that is a part of that industry the same as
the person who waits on you is a part of it. We need to understand that
and realize that there are a lot of contributions to the economy of the
United States of America that come from the restaurants that are
sometimes demeaned with the term fast food, but it should not be
considered a term of lightness at all.
So we will not oppose the amendment, but I certainly do oppose some
of the characterizations that we heard earlier on it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)
for purposes of a colloquy with the chairman and myself.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
gentleman for yielding to me. I thank the chairman and Ranking Member
Olver. I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to discuss the issue
of rail security in the context of H.R. 5025 and the urgent need for
the House to work for new measures to be introduced by the conferees to
address this issue.
While the committee members have made provisions in the Federal
Transit Administration's Transit Planning and Research Account for
initiatives like rural transportation assistance, metropolitan
planning, and State planning, there is no specific outlay made for
increasing rail security. I understand that the leading subcommittee of
jurisdiction on this issue has been placed in the hands of the
Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee
[[Page H7209]]
on Appropriations. However, I am sure that my colleagues will agree
that the urgency of this matter should at least warrant some level of
attention in conference for this bill.
Might I just finish by saying additionally, I sit on the Select
Committee on Homeland Security, the authorizing committee, and am well
aware of the jurisdictional combining that we have. I in no way am
attempting to negate that structure. I think it is very, very
important. However, I also think it is important for the Subcommittee
on Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies to coalesce and
allude to this very important issue.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in response to those
comments, I would address the chairman, that I agree that it is
appropriate for the conferees on the Subcommittee on Transportation,
Treasury, and Independent Agencies to be concerned about security,
security for rail operations, which operate actually under the
jurisdiction of our subcommittee, but as to the security on them, the
primary jurisdiction does fall within the Subcommittee on Homeland
Security of the Committee on Appropriations.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield,
let me just cite why I think this is important. Again, I want to always
qualify that we are not here on the floor taking away jurisdiction; we
are adding a collaborative aspect because of the importance of rail
security.
On March 11, 2004, an al Qaeda bombing of commuter trains in Madrid,
Spain, killed nearly 200 people and wounded more than 1,500. A minor
fire incident in a Washington, D.C., subway system recently gave us a
glimpse of the potential for disruption to our public transit system.
Failure to invest in the security of passenger rail and public transit
could leave these critical systems vulnerable to terrorist attack.
Millions of Americans rely on mass transit systems on a daily basis.
Making these systems as safe as they can be from terrorist attacks must
be a high priority whenever appropriations are made for transportation-
related matters as well as for the Department of Homeland Security. It
is, I think, an issue both of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of
the Committee on Appropriations but also some collaborative efforts
with the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, and Independent
Agencies.
Let us be reminded that, in our own Nation, these rail systems run
through our neighborhoods, our rural communities, near our schools, our
churches, our homes. They are a part of our neighborhood, and it is an
important question.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I, again, agree with the
urgency of the issue that has come up in terrorism, and I think it does
appropriately ask for collaboration. I think is the word that the
gentlewoman has used, collaboration with the other committee, and I
hope that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), within that
context, that the gentleman and I might be able to work together as
this subcommittee goes to conference since, probably, the Subcommittee
on Homeland Security will be part of the same overall omnibus
conference in that process and to make certain that rail somehow is not
left out and that the security on rail is to our liking as well.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, as the
gentleman is well aware and the gentlewoman is also, of course, the
Department of Transportation, which is within the jurisdiction of our
subcommittee, no longer has jurisdiction over transportation security
issues. That is with the subcommittee that oversees the Department of
Homeland Security.
I know that the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) is
diligently reviewing this issue with the Transportation Security
Administration and will be attentive to the comments that need to be
referred, as the gentleman mentioned, to him.
The gentleman opines that perhaps we might be a part of the same
package bill. I do not know that that will be the case, but I do know
we will be in communication with the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman
Rogers).
Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring the House's
attention to the important issue of election reform funding in H.R.
5025, the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill for the Departments of
Transportation and Treasury, and independent agencies.
Late last year, the four members of the U.S. Election Assistance
Commission were finally confirmed and able to begin their work to
provide election assistance grants and guidelines to the states. Since
they assumed office and the Commission began its work in earnest, it
has provided over $1.5 billion to the states to meet the requirements
of the Help America vote Act (HAVA) for the development of innovative
election technology, pilot programs to test election technology, and
programs to promote youth involvement in elections.
I am very pleased that in the past two years, we in Congress have
provided most of the funds promised for implementing the Help America
vote Act. There remains, however, an unpaid balance of $800 million. I
am disappointed that this bill does not pay off that balance. While
some may say that the funds we have already appropriated for election
reform grants has not been spent, and therefore more funds are not
necessary at this time, I would argue that now that we have a
functioning EAC, we can expect the pace of grants provided to the
states to increase sharply.
I am very encouraged that this bill contains funding needed by the
EAC to become fully operational. In particular, I support the bill's
appropriation of $10 million for the EAC's operating expenses and $5
million for research authorized by HAVA. I hope that these funding
provisions will receive wide support from my colleagues and remain
intact as this bill works its way through the legislative process.
The EAC is currently understaffed and stretched thin to fulfill its
mission. With the funds provided by this bill, the EAC will be able to
more quickly provide states with their election assistance grants, and
fulfill other mandates of the Help America Vote Act. These are critical
to restoring the trust in our elections that was so greatly damaged by
the deficiencies in our electoral system exposed by the 2000 general
election. One of the most important functions of the EAC that this bill
will fund is the development of voting system guidelines that states
are waiting for in order to make important decisions about which voting
systems to acquire. These guidelines will be developed in consultation
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the
technical Guidelines Development Committee, and will also result in a
national program to test, certify, and decertify voting system.
HAVA created many new requirements in election administration, and
many states are looking toward the EAC for guidance on how to implement
these requirements, such as provisional voting, voting information
requirements, implementation of identification provisions, and
implementation the statewide computerized voter registration databases.
With the operating funds included in this bill, the EAC will be able to
provide such guidance and states will in turn be able to appropriately
spend the election assistance grants they have received so far.
Other important EAC functions that this bill funds are audit and
oversight responsibilities to ensure that states are appropriately
administering their grants and submitting relevant reports required by
HAVA.
Finally, the EAC's research funds included in this bill will be used
to study and report on best practices and other matters relevant to the
effective administration of federal elections.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, this bill provides the funding necessary to
make the Election Assistance Commission an effective tool in helping
states restore the public's confidence in our voting process. If we are
to remain the world's greatest democracy, we cannot hesitate to make
this investment.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill funds many good projects and
will be a welcome relief to many communities. Unfortunately, the
current version is woefully deficient because it provides no funding
whatsoever for a project that is one of the best in the Nation--the
Second Avenue Subway. The Second Avenue Subway is recommended by the
Federal Transit Administration and was included in President Bush's
FY2005 budget.
On day one, the Second Avenue Subway will move more people than any
other project currently planned anywhere in the country. It will (i)
relieve overcrowding on the most overcrowded subway in the nation, (ii)
add capacity to a subway system that has not added capacity in 60 years
and (iii) reach areas of New York City that currently are not served by
any subway system. A report released by the Regional Plan Association
December 2003 shows that Second Avenue Subway can create 156,000 jobs,
boost business creation and retention, improve air quality, save travel
time and create alternative routes to the city's business centers--
something 9/11 proved is essential to New York's security.
There is already a strong market for mass transit in New York.
Because 70-75 percent of all the people commuting to jobs along the
route of the subway use mass transit to get to work, the highest
proportion of mass transit use anywhere in the United States. There are
[[Page H7210]]
1.2 million jobs and nearly 650,000 residents along the proposed route
of the Second Avenue Subway.
This project is moving ahead in a timely fashion. It received a
record of decision from the FTA in July and is expected to go into
Final Design and Engineering shortly.
The Second Avenue Subway, a sure mass transit success, should be
among the earmarks included in this appropriation bill. The Second
Avenue Subway was funded in the last four appropriations bills and,
thanks to the efforts of Senators Schumer and Clinton, is included in
the Senate bill. I hope that the conferees will accept the Senate
language and that the Second Avenue Subway will receive funding in the
final bill.
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. 1
offered by Mr. Hefley of Colorado and an amendment offered by Mr. Moran
of Virginia.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote in this series.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hefley
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Hefley) 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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote followed by a
second 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 69,
noes 333, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 455]
AYES--69
Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Collins
Cox
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gibbons
Graves
Gutknecht
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Isakson
Jenkins
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
King (IA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Mica
Musgrave
Myrick
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Ramstad
Reynolds
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (MI)
Stearns
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Toomey
Wamp
Wilson (SC)
NOES--333
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gephardt
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--31
Ackerman
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Berkley
Boehlert
Bonner
Cannon
Conyers
Crowley
Duncan
Engel
Everett
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Hensarling
John
Johnson, E. B.
Langevin
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Nethercutt
Nunes
Obey
Schrock
Serrano
Slaughter
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Wilson (NM)
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette) (during the vote). There
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1238
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Messrs. SMITH of Washington,
PUTNAM, SHERWOOD, DICKS, RANGEL, Mrs. EMERSON, and Ms. HARRIS changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GUTKNECHT and Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 455 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Virginia
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Moran) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated 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 181,
noes 223, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 456]
AYES--181
Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Costello
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
[[Page H7211]]
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gephardt
Goode
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOES--223
Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Majette
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McKeon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Velazquez
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--29
Ackerman
Alexander
Baker
Ballenger
Berkley
Boehlert
Bonner
Cannon
Conyers
Crowley
Deal (GA)
Dunn
Engel
Everett
Gallegly
Hensarling
John
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy (RI)
Langevin
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Nethercutt
Obey
Schrock
Serrano
Slaughter
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1253
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained due to a
prior obligation and missed the following votes. Had I been present I
would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 454 on agreeing to the
Kelly amendment to H.R. 5025; ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 453 on
agreeing to the DeLauro amendment to H.R. 5025; ``nay'' on rollcall
vote No. 455 on agreeing to the Hefley amendment to H.R. 5025; ``nay''
on rollcall vote No. 456 on agreeing to the Moran amendment to H.R.
5025.
personal explanation
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be present for rollcall
votes 452, 453, 454, 455, and 456. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 452, 453, 454, and 456. I would have
voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 455.
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
455 to 456. I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the
Record that had I been here, I would have voted ``no'' for rollcall No.
455, the Hefley Amendment; ``yes'' for rollcall No. 456, the Moran
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. LaTourette, 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, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________