[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.

                          ____________________