[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 115 (Wednesday, September 22, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H7336-H7351]
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. 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.
{time} 1044
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.
Simmons (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Tuesday, September 21, 2004, amendment No. 2 printed in the
Congressional Record by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) had been
disposed of, and the bill had been read through Page 166, line 3.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Waters
Ms. WATERS. 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. 12 offered by Ms. Waters:
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 to implement any sanction imposed by the United
States on private commercial sales of agricultural
commodities (as defined in section 402 of the Agricultural
Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954) or medicine or
medical supplies (within the meaning of section 1705(c) of
the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992) to Cuba (other than a
sanction imposed pursuant to agreement with one or more other
countries).
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the
House of Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
{time} 1045
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. The United States has
a trade deficit. We are not able to sell our goods abroad in the way
that we should be able to do it.
Cuba has been literally dying for us to sell them goods. We finally
had the good sense to open up the way for the sale of agricultural
commodities, medicine and medical supplies to Cuba, and they are
buying, but they have to pay cash on the barrel head. So this amendment
would prohibit the use of funds to implement sanctions on private
commercial sales of agricultural commodities, medicine and medical
supplies to Cuba.
U.S. exports of agricultural products and medical supplies to Cuba
have been legal since 2001. However, American farmers and other
exporters must maneuver through a myriad of restrictions in order to
export these products to Cuba. Exporters are denied access to export
assistance, credit guarantees and private commercial financing. All
transactions must be conducted in cash in advance or with financing
from third countries. These restrictions make trade with Cuba
unnecessarily expensive, bureaucratic and complicated.
The effect of my amendment would be to free exporters from the need
to comply with these cumbersome regulations.
The people of Cuba need food and medicine. Their needs have never
been greater than they are now, following the devastation caused by
Hurricane Ivan. Cuba is one of several islands in the Caribbean ravaged
by Hurricane Ivan, and the people of Cuba are trying to recover from
the extensive damage caused by this terrible storm.
The people of Cuba are more than willing to purchase food and medical
supplies from their American neighbors. American exporters have already
exported $210 million in products to Cuba in the first 5 months of this
year despite the cumbersome restrictions involved, and they can expect
to increase their market share significantly if they are freed from
these restrictions.
[[Page H7337]]
U.S. agri-business companies have estimated that U.S. farmers are
missing out on a market of $700 million in Cuba because of these
restrictions. Removing the prohibition on private financing would be
especially helpful to smaller companies and individual farmers. Small
businesses cannot afford to export goods to a foreign country without
financing.
My amendment would ensure that American exporters could use private
financing to export agricultural products and medical supplies to Cuba.
A similar amendment was offered by my colleague, the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moran), and was adopted by the House on July 23, 2002.
Unfortunately, this amendment was not included in the conference
report.
Other countries, like China, Germany and Canada, permit trade with
Cuba, and these countries have financing arrangements that facilitate
exports to Cuba. If the United States continues to make exports of food
and medicine unnecessarily difficult and complicated, American
companies will continue to be left out.
My amendment would ensure that American exporters could use private
financing to export agricultural products and medical supplies to Cuba.
Exports of food and medicine to Cuba are good for the American economy
and they are good for the people of Cuba.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I
know that there are Members of this House who strongly dislike Fidel
Castro. I know that there are Members who would do whatever they could
to disadvantage that island. But I think it does not make good sense to
cut off your nose to spite your face. We have all of these small
businesses that want to do business with Cuba. Cuba wants to do
business with us. We need to get rid of these restrictions so that they
can have the kind of credit and financing from private companies, so
that they can buy more and more and more.
How are we ever going to get rid of this trade deficit if we are not
smart enough not to let some of the political ambitions of a few of our
colleagues get in the way of what is good for America? We are sitting
right down here 90 miles from Cuba in Florida with a lot of folks who
want to do business with them. It is time to change our policies and go
in a new direction.
It is time also to show people that we are willing to do the right
thing. How can we sit here and know that people need the food, we need
the money, and not allow it to happen?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). The gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that the facts be clear: The sale of
agricultural products and medicine to Cuba, even to the regime, is
legal. The only requirement is that they have to pay.
Now, I was involved in a negotiation with a number of Members of this
House some years back. It was a very detailed and difficult
negotiation, but an agreement ensued that permitted the sale of
agricultural products. The sale of medical products had been legal
since 1992. The agreement permitted the sale of agricultural products
even to the regime, as I said, Mr. Chairman, as long as the regime
paid.
Now, even the economic interests that do business with the regime
have made it clear that they want to be paid. What the discussion is
about today is financing for the dictatorship, to make available
financing for the dictatorship.
Amendments seem to find their way to this floor, no matter how much
repression and torture the Cuban dictator engages in against his
people, no matter how many people he imprisons simply for their views,
no matter how much he tortures the people whom he imprisons. No matter
how many people he even murders because they try to seek freedom,
amendments manage to find their way to this floor to reward the tyrant.
So now there is one amendment here that seeks to reward the dictator
with financing.
What we are saying is, there has really never been a time to reward a
dictatorship for repression and jailing of opponents and the murder of
opponents. There has never been a time for that. Much less is there a
time now, after the dictator has increased repression.
So on the issue of financing, I would simply remind my colleagues
again that even those who sell to the dictator wish to be paid. Even
those who sell to the dictator have said that they like the fact that
they have to be paid, that they know that the dictator owes billions of
dollars to people who have offered financing to him from other places
of the world. What we do not want is to increase the amount of debt
that the dictator owes, this time to Americans, much less to Americans
who might then wish to have the taxpayer later bail them out.
The bottom line is that the sale of agricultural products is legal,
that the sale of medical products has for a long time been legal, and
that the only requirement is that the dictator pay. So we do not think
that it is appropriate now to reward the dictatorship with financing.
Even the people who sell are not pushing for that, because they like
the fact that they get paid.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really in bad taste, especially when
you consider the torture that the political prisoners are being
subjected to. Those are the future leaders of the Cuban congress, those
are the future leaders of the judiciary and, in fact, the future
presidents of the Republic of Cuba, people who today are languishing in
prison being tortured; and we owe at the very least to them not to
reward this dictatorship with financing that even those who sell
products are not seeking.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask my colleagues to reject this
amendment, which is in bad taste and seeks to reward the dictatorship,
and remind our colleagues that the sale of medical products and of
agricultural products even to the regime is legal. The only conditions
are that the regime pay.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters) will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee
Ms. LEE. 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 Ms. Lee:
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 to implement, administer, or enforce the amendments
made to paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 515.565 of title
31, Code of Federal Regulations (relating to specific
licenses for United States academic institutions and other
specific licenses), as published in the Federal Register on
June 16, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 33772). The limitation in the
preceding sentence shall not apply to the implementation,
administration, or enforcement of section 515.560(c)(3) of
title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of
Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee)
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It prohibits funds in this
bill from being used to enforce new regulations promulgated on June 30
that severely restrict and in many cases eliminate opportunities for
United States students to study abroad in Cuba.
These new election year regulations take our policy toward Cuba in
the exact wrong direction. Many of these regulations are just plain
undemocratic and punitive, and simply do not make sense for Americans.
Regulations that have already and will continue to deny many American
college students the basic opportunity to gain experience, knowledge
and insight through study abroad in Cuba should not be funded. In fact,
not only were many study-abroad programs to
[[Page H7338]]
Cuba effectively eliminated by these new regulations, most of the
schools received little advance notice of the restrictions. Sadly, it
is the students who suffered from this short notice. By the time the
students were finally informed of the program cancellations, it was
simply too late for them to make new study-abroad arrangements.
Goucher College, Johns Hopkins University, Howard University, Siena
College, Butler University, the College of Charleston and Tulane
University, just to name a few, were affected by these regulations. In
my home State, the University of California coordinates study-abroad
programs to Cuba and will be forced to cancel its popular programs next
year.
This is an issue of freedom for our students to travel and gain
invaluable experience and educational opportunity that only
international study-abroad programs can provide. Our students can
travel and study abroad in Communist countries such as China and
Vietnam.
Make no mistake, isolating Cuba and preventing these important
contacts between Cuba and students will not change the government in
Cuba. We should allow these students to exchange ideas, values and
share experiences. These types of exchanges are what will truly bring
change to Cuba.
This amendment is straightforward, Mr. Chairman, and should not be
controversial. We are talking about mainstream family values:
education, freedom to travel, freedom to learn and the freedom to
export our American values.
The State Department and the 9/11 Commission have both stated that
our youth are key to spreading American values. Patricia Harrison,
Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs,
stated before the Committee on International Relations on which I serve
that ``one of our greatest assets in public diplomacy is the American
people themselves. Programs that bring Americans and foreign citizens
in direct contact can and do have tremendous positive impact.''
The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report state that we must
``rebuild the scholarship, exchange and library programs that reach out
to young people and offer them knowledge and hope.''
I cannot agree more. It is in our best interests to allow our youth
to spread our message of American values and hope so that people can
see for themselves who America is and what we stand for.
So today I stand against squandering our resources to enforce these
ineffective, outdated policies as they relate to education, and I ask
Members to support the ranks of American students to be educated, to
travel abroad, to gain experience and to make judgments for themselves.
{time} 1100
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Lee-Tubbs-Jones amendment,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is another ``reward Castro'' amendment. Reward the
firing squads, reward the imprisonment of the opponents. That is what
this amendment is all about.
It is already legal to travel. There are 13 legal categories of
travel. One of them is for educational purposes. You have to get a
license. You get a license. You go, and you do your travel for
educational reasons.
So this amendment simply wants to eliminate all of the regulations.
I would say, it is not going to survive the process. We know that. So
what is it? The goal of this amendment is to provide another symbolic
victory for the dictatorship, to reward the oppression.
These amendments continue to find themselves on the floor. The
reality of the matter is that the facts are pretty clear. As I said
before, there are 13 legal categories. One of them is educational
travel.
I would simply ask my colleagues to remember those people in the
gulag today, those people suffering the full force, the brute force of
the repression of that futile totalitarian tyranny.
When they receive these messages at the hands of their jailers of
these symbolic amendments, victories that are presented and sometimes
passed in the Congress of the United States, how it must make you feel
when you are imprisoned. Nevertheless, they continue to resist. They
continue to embody the dignity of the Cuban nation, in the totalitarian
gulag. They continue, because they are the embodiment of the best of
the Cuban nation, the future of Cuba. There are so many men and women
in the gulag who deserve such extraordinary respect.
So I would ask my colleagues not to send more messages to them, that
the Congress of the United States passes amendments to provide moments
of pleasure for the tyrant. Because that is all it is. That is what
these amendments that unfortunately continue to make themselves here,
they reach the floor, that is what these amendments are.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just respond to my colleague and say, first of all, this
amendment is specifically about United States students, American
students who want to visit under their educational programs to study
abroad. As I said earlier, students are afforded study-abroad
opportunities in a variety of countries. They should not be denied the
right to pursue their educational opportunities in countries in which
they desire to participate.
Secondly, students are our best ambassadors. They are young people
who are very patriotic. They care about America. They want to engage in
dialogue with students throughout the world, especially in Cuba. And
denying them that right really is a terrible thing, first of all, for
our students, but it sets back our foreign policy.
We are talking about creating a global environment of peace and
security. How in the world are our future leaders of the world going to
be able to understand and relate to countries abroad if they do not
have the opportunity to study there? It is a very important initiative,
and we should not be using taxpayer dollars to deny United States,
American students to travel to Cuba to study.
Under the old regulations, of course, they could go to study. Now
they have to stay more than 10 weeks under these regulations. It is
ridiculous. It is going to hurt our students. It is going to hurt
education. It is bad for family values. I urge my colleagues to pass
this amendment.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want to again
clarify that, right now, you can go to Cuba for educational purposes;
you just have to get a license. So the only reason for this amendment
is to symbolically tell the Castro anti-American dictatorship,
terrorist dictatorship, that we like you. That is all this amendment
does. Students can go to Cuba if they get a license.
So despite the fact that the Castro regime continues to imprison and
despite the fact that the Castro regime has murdered Americans,
murdered American citizens, has American blood on his hands, this
amendment would just like to give him a nice pat on the back and say,
even though Americans can go with a permit, with a license to get
education, go for educational purposes to Cuba, we want to give you a
gift, Mr. Castro. Despite the fact that you murder Americans, we want
to give you a gift, and here is a little token gift. Because, again, it
is not going to happen. It is not going to pass the process, but we
just want to show that we support that anti-American dictator who has
American blood on his hands. It is a very sad statement.
Again, fortunately, none of these issues ever happen. But, again,
that is all this amendment is. It is to show that anti-American
dictator, that terrorist 90 miles away, that this amendment supports,
still supports that dictatorship. That is all this does, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think we have
made our points. We oppose the amendment strongly.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lee-
Rangel-Tubbs Jones
[[Page H7339]]
Amendment to H.R. 5025--Transportation, Treasury Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2005. The Lee-Rangel-Tubbs Jones Amendment prohibits the
use of funds to enforce new regulations that affect students who study
abroad or seek other educational opportunities in Cuba.
America students have become victims of politics, which should not be
the intent of U.S. foreign policy. The Office of Foreign Assets
Control's (OFAC) purpose is to track terrorist activities, not punish
Americans interested in educational exchanges to Cuba.
Members of Congress, especially Members of the Congressional Black
Caucus, and the Progressive Caucus, have written and called President
Bush and Secretary Powell about the students at the Latin American
Medical School (ELAM) and the cuts in general education licenses.
All people-to-people educational travel was eliminated in 2003, which
ended thousands of trips by U.S. citizens to Cuba for broader
educational purposes each year. Mr. Speaker, these facts make the Lee-
Rangel-Tubbs Jones Amendment necessary.
The number of U.S. university-level students receiving credit for
study abroad in 2001/02 increased 4.4 percent from the previous year,
reaching a record total of 160,920, according to Open Doors 2003, the
annual report on international educational published by the Institute
of International Education (IIE) with funding from the State
Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.
Open Doors 2003 indicates that most students continue to study abroad
for shorter sojourns (many for less than eight weeks), with more than
50 percent of U.S. undergraduates and masters degree student electing
summer, January term, internships, and other short-term programs
instead of academic year or semester programs. Most American students
who studied abroad in 2001/02 (91 percent) did so for one semester or
less.
The number of U.S. students going to less traditional destinations
remains high. The percent of all study abroad students going to Latin
America has more than doubled since 1985, from 7 percent the first year
of the survey to 15 percent this year, and the number of students going
to Latin America increased by 4 percent to 23,300 this year.
Many countries, particularly in Latin America, saw large increases in
the number of American students they hosted in 2001/02. Countries with
large increases included: Cuba (1,279, up 41 percent), Brazil (1,064,
up 40 percent), and El Salvador (145, up 86 percent).
Current regulations adversely effect study-abroad programs in Cuba.
Educational travel licenses are only granted to undergraduate and
graduate institutions. Under the revised regulations, students can only
participate in exchange programs to Cuba that are organized by the
institution in which they are enrolled. High schools or other
alternative educational institutions are prohibited from having Cuba
travel programs.
This directive adversely affects many of my constituents as it is in
complete discord with the objective of consortium programs. These young
people will be restricted from participating in programs coordinated by
other colleges and universities.
Take example of Jamie Vega, a student at Cleveland State University.
She was raised in a single family home, was the first person in her
family to attend college on a full scholarship. Jamie was an
International Relations Major and Spanish Minor. She was awarded the
National Security Education Program Scholarship in 2003 and studied at
the University of Havana. Due to this Administration's prohibition on
educational exchange opportunities to Cuba, other students will not be
able to benefit from the rich experiences that Jamie profited from. Mr.
Chairman, these facts make the Lee-Rangel-Tubbs Jones Amendment
necessary.
In August, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) within the
Department of Treasury and the State Department issued a two-year
license for the 88 students enrolled at the school.
For those students who planned to participate in 10-week exchange
programs this year, it is too late for them to make alternate study-
abroad arrangements. Even worse, this may have been their only
opportunity to study abroad.
These regulations discriminate against these students on the basis of
where they want to continue their studies. Full-time American students
should be permitted to participate in any exchange initiatives that
their institution approves.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lee-Rangel-Tubbs Jones
Amendment to H.R. 5025--Transportation, Treasury Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2005. The Lee-Rangel-Tubbs Jones Amendment prohibits the
use of funds to enforce new regulations that affect students who study
abroad or seek other educational opportunities in Cuba.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Lee amendment to
prohibit the use of funds in this bill to implement the
Administration's new restrictions on travel to Cuba for educational
purposes.
These new restrictions prohibit American students from participating
in educational programs unless they were organized by the institution
in which the students are enrolled. Students would not be allowed to
participate in programs organized by other colleges or universities.
This would deny students the opportunity to study in Cuba unless their
own institution has its own program in Cuba. This unreasonable
restriction could prevent thousands of American students from studying
abroad in the country of their choice.
Throughout the Cold War, American students studied in the Soviet
Union. Many of them went on to become diplomats, scholars and policy-
makers who used the knowledge they gained to contribute to the
development and implementation of U.S. foreign policy. Similarly, many
Americans are studying in the People's Republic of China today. There
is no reason to treat study in Cuba differently.
Study abroad provides valuable educational experiences for American
students and contributes to the development of knowledgeable and
informed professionals who can use their knowledge to serve our country
in the future. I urge my colleagues to support the Lee amendment and
support educational opportunities for American students in Cuba and
throughout the world.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rangel:
Page 166, insert after line 3 the following new section:
Sec. 647. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the economic
embargo of Cuba, as defined in section 4(7) of the Cuban
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-114), except that the foregoing limitation
does not apply to the administration of a tax or tariff.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
September 14, 2004, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I think that in view of the victory that the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has had, that maybe, just maybe,
there is a breath of fresh air entering the House where we can say, let
us stop this punitive approach to Cuba and the Cuban government, and
let us start a common sense approach.
The gentleman from Florida makes it appear as though we are rewarding
a dictator for not upholding the principles of democracy. None of us
here want to do that. Some would say that we have a disregard for the
loss of life or the imprisonment of people unfairly, as we all agree is
wrong and immoral and indecent, but that is not so. We are not talking
about rewarding; we are talking about normalization. We are talking
about the United States of America's principles. We are talking about
Americans who feel so proud of what we believe in that we do not let
any nickel-and-dime dictator prevent us from taking our message to the
people, the people in Cuba.
For 40 years, we have taken this nonsensical approach that we are
going to punish the Cuban people, deny them access to our markets, deny
them financial assistance, notwithstanding the pain and cruel treatment
that nature has given to them through hurricanes, notwithstanding the
poverty in the country, and we have had this belief on our side, at
least some of us on both sides, that the American approach, if properly
presented to the people, will prevail; not guns, not bombs and not
penalties, but the American way.
We believe that trading with people is a way for our business people
to be ambassadors of the free market system. As the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) said, we believe our kids are better than any
ambassadors that come out of the State Department when they talk about
life in the United States. We believe our farmers and our business
people, they really know how
[[Page H7340]]
to talk to these people about doing the right thing. But if what we are
saying is that we are afraid of Castro and we are afraid of communism,
then I suggest to my colleagues that we ought to get the heck out of
China. We ought to get out of Vietnam. We ought to restore sanctions
against Libya, and for God's sake, if we are looking for a democracy,
we have a long march in Pakistan to find it.
We believe we are powerful enough that we are on the right side of
the issue, and for those who are afraid of the truth, then jam their
stations, jam their TV, have no communications with these people and
just say that we will prevail, because we are powerful enough to bring
not Castro down to his knees but the people who are relying on a little
assistance from their friends in the United States.
I do not think you have to be Cuban-American, I do not think you have
to represent Cuban-Americans to understand what compassion is. But I
will tell my colleagues one thing, I would hate to represent a district
that had families in Cuba, after this horrific hurricane where people
are in real pain economically and socially, and I wanted to send them
some money, I wanted to visit, I wanted to see who got hurt, I may have
wanted to go to a funeral, but I have to say that my heart, my
compassion, my country, we are with you, but because we hate with such
vengeance your president who has survived so many of ours, we will not
be able to help. That, I think, is a more difficult position than to
say that you are against communism.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
A year ago, I was in New York, and I read a newspaper there, the
daily called La Prenza, and there was an interview with the gentleman
from New York, the author of this amendment. It related to the summary
executions that had just taken place by Castro of three young black men
just a few days before, after they had been arrested by the
dictatorship for the crime of trying to come to the United States.
I quote from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) a little over a
year ago: ``I am shocked. There is nothing that the Cuban government
can tell me that would interest me and that would convince me to speak
to them again. It is totally incredible that a government would justify
this type of action. The execution of these people puts an end to any
possible discussion that there could have been with the Cuban
government.''
Now, I wish, Mr. Chairman, that I could say that there has been some
justice for those summary executions, the murders of those three young
men. I wish I could say that the dictator at least had apologized to
the grieving family members for their murders.
No, there has been no justice, only increased repression. I showed
last night a replica of the punishment box for the best known political
prisoner, a physician, Dr. Biscet, who is being held today because he
believes in freedom and democracy. After this amendment, I certainly
will always recall that it is more important when one truly wants to
understand someone to guide oneself by what that person does rather
than by what he says.
This, as the gentleman has just stated, is the ``normalization of
relations'' amendment, the ``normalization of relations with the Cuban
dictatorship'' amendment.
Now, the charter of the OAS may say of this hemisphere, only
representative democracy is legal, legitimate, and the democratic
charter of simply 2 or 3 years says that any interruption in the
democratic process in this hemisphere needs to be sanctioned. But this
amendment says: No, you can ban elections for 45 years. You can crush
labor unions and crush the free press and eliminate and prohibit all
political parties and freedom of expression and execute people,
including three young black men just a year ago for trying to get to
freedom, and imprison them and torture them. And you can kill
Americans, and you can harbor terrorists. And you can harbor fugitives
from U.S. justice, including cop killers from our States here.
{time} 1115
You can do all of that. And you will get an amendment that says let
us normalize relations. You can continue to harbor terrorists, and you
can continue to harbor U.S. felon fugitives who murder U.S. citizens
and spy on the United States and disrupt antiterrorism operations. We
will still normalize with you. That is what this amendment is.
So this is very good that this amendment be on the floor today
because this is, after all, the debate about economic interests and
debate about the coalition of forces that have advocated for the last
years for normalization. This is important debate for our colleagues to
express themselves on. After 45 years of illegal oppression in this
hemisphere, that is the only one where its international law requires
representative democracy, and great strides have been made in recent
decades towards compliance with that legal international law
requirement.
This amendment says, no, in the Western Hemisphere it is all right to
oppress for 45 years and murder and execute and torture and spy on
Americans and harbor fugitives and harbor international terrorists and
disrupt the U.S. international war on terrorism. It is all right. We
will reward you. We will normalize, we will grant you the billions of
dollars unilaterally without the dictatorship having to release any
political prisoners or move towards freedom for its prisoners. We will
reward you unilaterally anyway.
I would ask this Congress of the United States that I hold with such
reverence to stand with the Cuban people today and to reject this
amendment that simply seeks to reward oppression and reward infamy.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart)
time has expired. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 30
seconds remaining.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, let me be brief. It is clear that this is a very
emotional issue. All I can say is that in 1950 when I was shot by the
Communist Chinese on the Yalu River in North Korea, I was emotional as
well. They told me to get over it.
I do not know how many tens of thousands of American lives were lost
as a result of the Communists in North Vietnam. When the trade
agreement came up, they said, Get over it. The families of those that
were killed by the Libyan terrorists in Flight 103, they objected to
trade and they said, Get over it. I would suggest to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) he has to get over it.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Rangel amendment to
prohibit the use of funds to enforce the economic embargo on Cuba.
If Congress were serious about our relationship with Cuba, Congress
would pursue a policy of negotiation and diplomacy--not isolation. Such
a policy would allow the export of seeds, agricultural tools, and other
products, which are desperately needed by the Cuban population.
Instead, Congress is allowing the continuation of its out-dated embargo
against this small country, which is only 90 miles from America's
shores.
I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
will be postponed.
Vacating Demand For Recorded Vote on Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms.
Waters
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
request for a recorded vote on Waters Amendment No. 12 and to have the
Chair put the question de novo.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on amendment No. 12 offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
[[Page H7341]]
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Olver:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to issue or implement the Department of
Transportation's proposed regulation entitled Parts and
Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Certification of
Compliance With Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSSs), published in the Federal Register, volume 67,
number 53, on March 19, 2002, relating to a phase-in period
to bring vehicles into compliance with the requirements of
the regulation.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday,
September 14, 2004, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and a
Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple funding limitation which says
that no funds from this bill can be used to implement a Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration's rule published in the Federal Register
on the 19th of March 2002 in so far as it relates to a phase-in period
to bring vehicles into compliance with the requirements of the
regulation.
The background here is essentially this: current law requires all
motor carriers with minor exceptions entering the United States to
comply with U.S. safety standards. Under the North American Free Trade
Agreement, Mexican trucks were to operate throughout the four border
States by 1996 and in all States by the year 2000. Deep concerns were
raised about truck safety if that schedule were to be met and audits
which were ordered by the Congress and done by the Transportation
Inspector General, Kenneth Meade, in the late 1990s, showed that only a
tiny fraction, only 1 percent really, of all trucks were being
inspected for safety compliance, and even of those, 50 percent were
failing. Driven by those audit results, corroborating the intense
safety concerns, Mexican carriers have been limited to shipping to
border zone transfer points and trans-shippings by carriers which
comply with the U.S. safety requirements.
To move towards full implementation of NAFTA, the administration
issued a proposed rule 30 months ago in March of 2002 to establish a
process for implementation. Under that rule, all new foreign carriers
licensed after the effective date of the rule and all carriers wishing
to expand beyond the service area, beyond the border zones after the
effective date of the rule, must have certification of testing meeting
U.S. safety regulations. But those carriers operating only in the
border zones would have 24 months to obtain certification, so that 24
months after promulgation of that March 2002 rule, all motor carriers
operating in the U.S. would comply with U.S. safety regulations.
Now, the March 2002 regulation was held up in court actions that went
all the way to the Federal Appeals Court for the ninth district and in
June of this year, earlier this year, the Supreme Court reversed the
appeals ruling unanimously, thereby clearing the last major hurdle to
promulgation of the March 2002 rule. Small obstacles remain, but we are
close to full implementation of the NAFTA provisions.
Mr. Chairman, every one of the foreign carriers operating in the
U.S., both in the border zone and beyond, have known for 20 months,
Canadian carriers, Mexican carriers, all of them, that this rule was
pending and moving towards promulgation. They could and certainly
should have gotten all their vehicles certified long before now. It
would now be grossly unfair to add another 24 months on top of the
already 30 months which has passed in terms of the competition with
fully compliant U.S., Mexican, and Canadian carriers operating in the
U.S.
Furthermore, that extra 24 months would prolong the still lingering
safety concerns again and create a chaotic inspection and enforcement
situation.
My amendment essentially says, promulgate the rule, comply with
NAFTA, let all motor carriers which comply with U.S. safety laws, let
all of them operate throughout the U.S., but do not give 24 months more
on top of the 30 months which has already passed since the proposed
rule was published and everyone knew about it to meet the safety
regulations which are United States law.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). As my colleagues are aware, or should be
aware, this is yet another chapter or maybe another page in the book on
the implementation of the NAFTA agreement.
NAFTA carries two major provisions when it comes to trucking
transportation: one on market access for transportation services, the
other relates to cross border investment in the transportation sector.
All three countries that are party to NAFTA, Canada, Mexico and the
United States, have successfully implemented the provisions on
crossborder investment. It is only the United States that has not
implemented its commitment for full border market access in
transportation services.
For years now the U.S. has fudged, has reneged on this provision of
the NAFTA agreement due to spurious claims and lawsuits linked to
purported safety and environmental concerns. That was recognized as
being spurious by the United States Supreme Court when in an absolute
unanimous decision they threw the lawsuits out and said, get on with
it, move on, allowing the U.S. now to fulfill its NAFTA obligations,
all the while achieving high levels of safety in environmental
protection that our citizens expect.
Let us review a few facts of this debate. The Department of
Transportation is not planning to exempt any Mexican trucks from the
underlying motor vehicle standards. The gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Olver) implied that that was the case, that we are talking about
the standards. We are not talking about the case for vehicle safety.
All Mexican carriers have to certify that their vehicles comply with
the core safety standards in order to receive operating authority. The
amendment of the gentleman and the line of argument that he is using is
referring to a grace period that is for labeling of trucks that are
manufactured 10 or more years ago. It is important for Members to
understand that the mere possession of the label or not has nothing to
do with actual vehicle safety. All trucks, all trucks, if they have the
label or if they do not have the label have to be in compliance with
the actual safety standards themselves.
Let me say this a little differently and be more specific. All
Mexican trucks will need to meet what are known as the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations, or the FMCSR requirements, in order to
operate in the United States. All trucks, it does not matter when they
were manufactured, all trucks have to meet those standards in order to
operate in the United States. Regardless of whether or not they have a
label certifying their manufacturing standard at the time of their
production, these trucks are going to be held to a higher, more
inclusive standard than is mandated on their operators. Furthermore,
these standards measure how their trucks are operating today. That is a
far more relevant fact than what it was when they were manufactured 2,
5, or 10 years ago.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Ten years ago the
United States made a commitment to free trade, and it included the
transportation sector. If this amendment passes, it once again
represents the United States turning its back on its trading partners.
It once again says we are really not reliable. When it comes down to
it, we will find ways to avoid complying with it.
I would hope my colleagues will say meeting our legal commitments
makes a difference and is something that is important.
Members should understand that this amendment shrouds itself in the
name of consumer protection, but it is really
[[Page H7342]]
all about protectionism. We should not pass on the high cost of
protectionism to the U.S. consumers once again. Failure to provide
market access in this sector means that U.S. consumers using
transportation services in North America needlessly pay the high cost
of protectionism benefiting a small, but highly mobilized, interest
group.
I think we know what we are talking about here. We are talking about
one special interest group, the Teamsters. For Members who are focused
on making sure that the U.S. remains competitive and generates jobs, we
need to know that failure of our commitments means that U.S.
manufacturers and farmers are going to be hurt.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
This issue is not about highway safety. It is not about consumer
safety. It is not about the environment. Pure and simple, this
amendment is about protectionism.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of the subcommittee.
{time} 1130
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for allowing
me the 2 minutes.
I am a member of the subcommittee. We did have extensive debate on
this issue, but more than that, my district is a border city. The State
of Michigan and the country of Canada border each other. Part of my
district carries these trucks and buses.
What the Bush administration wants to do is to not have some trucks
and buses, some foreign trucks and buses inspected. At a time of
terrorism, is that not about the Teamsters? At a time of terrorism,
inspection is what all trucks and buses must have. As one who
represents thousands of people who live in a border city, I want all
the buses and trucks inspected, and so do all the people who live in my
area.
As the Bush administration asks for some of them to be exempted, I
think that is wrong. How can we talk about terrorism on one hand and
then want to exempt some of the buses and trucks that come into my
district and in other border cities around the country?
The Olver amendment would not allow that administrative rule to go
into effect. It is simple. It is not hard to understand. Thousands of
buses and trucks come into my district every day. We have the largest
border crossing in America, with over $1 billion of commerce coming
every day. I want all the buses and trucks inspected and inspected
thoroughly. I do not want any exempted.
This is a good amendment. We must support it to protect American
citizens who deserve our respect.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. The free flow of goods, services, ideas and capital is very
important, especially in this 21st century economy.
Obviously, we are all concerned about safety. The last speaker was
just referring to the issue on terror. Inspections are a very high
priority, and they are a very important part of this issue.
Three years ago, this Congress passed legislation which put into
place 22 specific guidelines for the Department of Transportation. We
have already exceeded those 22 guidelines, which are very, very
important for us to meet, but as my friend the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe) said, this is now actually the 11th year since the landmark
passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement; and by the way, we
need to realize that today we have nearly a third of $1 trillion in
cross-border trade between Mexico and the United States, having
improved standard of living, the quality of life on both sides of the
border.
Obviously, this issue is an important one, but I will never forget a
study I saw when this issue first came to the forefront on truck
safety. What it found was that there were greater violations when it
came to safety on trucks coming from Canada and on trucks that existed
right here in the United States of America than there were on those
coming from Mexico.
So, yes, we want to make sure that we maintain the safety and the
security of our roads. That is a top priority. We already have in place
a mechanism to do just that.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts will
protect safety on our roads by requiring foreign commercial vehicles,
that means trucks and buses, to meet the same standards as U.S. trucks
and buses. This is not anti-NAFTA. This is not a pro-Teamsters issue.
I-35 goes from my district all the way to the Mexican border. I do not
want those unsafe Mexican trucks rolling up into Minnesota, up into
Duluth, rolling down the hill to Lake Superior and killing people.
Our U.S. safety standards are set by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, inspected by the U.S. Department of
Transportation, and require a certification label. Yes, it does require
a label and that label means something. It means that each vehicle has
been built in compliance with U.S. standards, specifically antilock
brakes, automatic slack adjusters for heavy vehicles and for trucks,
rear underride guards that save lives when there is a rear-end
accident.
I have been at the border. I have seen those trucks from Mexico. We
funded Mexico for training of inspectors who do not inspect. They go
off to do something else. We do not have enough money in our inspection
budget to place inspectors at the border to check those trucks and make
sure they are in compliance. That is what we need.
All those trucks and buses operating in the United States comply with
U.S. safety standards for a good reason. We do not want people being
killed on roadways in the United States. Five thousand people a year
are killed by car-truck crashes in the United States. If we let those
unsafe trucks in from Mexico, that number will go up astronomically. We
cannot allow that.
This is a safety issue. This is not a trade issue. If they make sure
that they comply, they can come into the United States. Meet our
standards. Meet the same standards that U.S. trucks and buses have to
meet in this country. Let us not have one standard for the U.S. and
another standard for trucks and buses coming in from Mexico. Those that
come in from Canada already are in compliance by 85, 95 percent. Let us
have fairness and, yes, protect but protect American lives on our
roadways.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on each
side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has
8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I just want to respond to a couple of things that were said here
today.
This does not have anything, let me repeat it, this does not have
anything to do with the safety standards of the trucks that are
traveling on the roads inside the borders of the United States. It does
not have anything to do with the safety standards of those trucks. It
has to do with the labeling. It has to do with when they were
manufactured 10 years ago these trucks were assembled, they are usually
U.S. trucks, they are assembled perhaps in Mexico or Canada, but they
were not being assembled for use in the U.S. market so they do not have
the label. It is hard now to go back and get that.
To come into the United States, every single standard that is
required of the truck here in the United States has to be met by that
truck coming in from Mexico. Antilock brakes, all the different things
that are required of trucks here, all those have to be proven, and they
have to be on there and exactly in the same way.
This simply has to do with a labeling requirement at the time of
assembly of that truck, and in many cases when it took place 10 years
ago, that label is not readily available. So they have to go back to
the manufacturer and get all the information that is required.
[[Page H7343]]
The gentleman said there were 5,000 people killed last year by truck-
auto accidents, and I am sure he is correct about that. How many of
those people were killed by an uninspected truck coming into the United
States from Mexico? How many of those were killed by that? Accidents
occur, but they are not going to occur in any greater number because we
have trucks coming in from Mexico that are going to be thoroughly
inspected, are going to meet all of the requirements, are going to meet
everything that is required on any truck that is operating on the roads
in the United States, and the operator has to meet the same kinds of
standards.
Let me just make it clear that we are meeting the same kinds of
standards. The trucking standards are not being changed. We are talking
only about a labeling issue.
This is a bogus amendment. It is a protectionism amendment. It is
designed to keep Mexican trucks out of the United States. It has
nothing to do with safety.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
If the gentleman says that this is only about labeling, then they are
still going to have to get that label. The issue is that they could
have started getting that label 30 months ago, and it will be several
months before the rule can be promulgated in which they can get the
label.
All I am saying is, promulgate the rule and let them get the label,
and then they will be in fine shape.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is not like the label on a mattress
that says, ``Do not remove under penalty of law.'' This is a meaningful
certification of the manufacturing and the proper equipping of these
trucks.
There are many trucks operating in Mexico that do not meet U.S.
standards, and what is being advocated on that side is a new faith-
based safety standard. Why is it faith-based? Because there is no
meaningful inspection going on in Mexico. These trucks do not have a
certification on the labels, which they say are meaningless, and we do
not have the inspectors at the border to inspect them on the way in
because they say we cannot afford it. That is what is going on here.
These trucks will flood into this country. No, there have not been a
lot of fatalities involving these trucks because we do not let them go
more than 20 miles from our border, but let them go rumbling up I-5
into Oregon and Washington, let drivers who do not have to keep a
logbook, they are not trained like our drivers, they are underpaid,
operating trucks that do not have the safety equipment of our trucks,
and people will die, plain and simple.
Why should there be unequal treatment? Why? That is what my
colleagues are advocating here. The people who operate the trucks in
the U.S. have to have these labels, which are meaningful. The Canadians
have these labels and standards, but these trucks in Mexico, many of
which do not meet our standards, do not have the labels.
As the gentleman said, they are all going to be inspected. By whom?
Answer that question. The Mexicans will not allow Americans into Mexico
to inspect them, the Mexicans are not inspecting them, and we do not
have enough people at the border. People will die if we do not adopt
this amendment because of unsafe trucks entering our country.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time to close.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) very much for the time, and I
rise to speak in support of the amendment.
It is really just a common-sense amendment that will uphold U.S.
certification for trucks to improve safety. I do not think anybody can
question my record on trade. Seventy percent of the economy in my
district depends on trade. I voted for NAFTA, took a lot of heat for
it, but knew it was the right thing to do at the time.
However, if we insist on our trucks being certified for safety, we
should insist on others. We have code-sharing for our airlines, and a
whole lot fewer people get killed in airplane crashes than on trucks.
About 800 commercial drivers die each year in traffic crashes, and
roughly 4,900 people die and 130,000 are injured from these large truck
accidents, and a lot of them occur in my district.
I-35 from Canada to Mexico has most of it in Texas, and I can assure
my colleagues that we see the crashes. We see the trucks that are not
safe, and that is all we are asking for.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, this is not about Mexican trade. This
goes to the very issue of safety, besides taking our national
sovereignty, our manufacturing base, the American jobs and Mexican
jobs. Look at the data. NAFTA is now threatening the safety of our
constituents.
The decision by a faceless panel is requiring our government to allow
hazardous trucks access to our roadways.
In testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee on July 18, 2001, Secretary Mineta stated, ``Every Mexican
firm, vehicle and driver that seeks authority to operate in the U.S.,
at the border or beyond, must meet the identical safety and operating
standards that apply to the U.S. and Canadian carriers.''
That is where it is at. It is a sad day that the Olver amendment is
desperately needed 3 years later after Mineta's speech, as we cannot
count on the Department of Transportation to act appropriately and in
the public's interest by requiring foreign-built trucks and buses from
meeting Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The measures Congress has passed addressing safety have made progress
towards ensuring trucks on our highways meet certain standards. It is
not just an issue of fairness. It is a matter of life and death.
The bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, the House cannot allow this
administration to gut safety regulations or compromise environmental
standards in the name of trade. Vote ``yes'' on the Olver amendment and
defend the work of the Congress and defend the work of American working
families.
{time} 1145
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members to try to stay within
their time limits.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, could you let me know again how much time
each side has?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
Given the opportunity and a level playing field, I believe in the
ability of American workers to operate their vehicles safely. Without
this amendment, we put our workers at a great, great disadvantage,
allow our air to be unduly polluted and make our highways less safe.
The gentleman from Arizona says it is about the Teamsters. No, it is
about the American people who use America's highways. If trucks from
Mexico are going to bring products into our country, using our
highways, these trucks need to be held to the same safety and emission
standards to which our own trucks are held.
At present, Mexican trucks are not held to American standards for
safety and emissions. Allowing an 18-wheel truck loaded with 88,000
pounds of cargo to speed over our highways without ensuring that the
vehicle is safe simply makes no sense.
Mexican drivers must be subject to the same level of scrutiny that we
demand of our American drivers with regard to training and
recordkeeping and incident violations.
I respectfully urge support of this commonsense amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to get on with the implementation of NAFTA.
To the gentleman from California, I say that my amendment makes
absolutely no distinction between Mexican trucks, Canadian trucks or
U.S. trucks.
[[Page H7344]]
It says all of them, as does the rule that is in process say all trucks
must meet U.S. safety standards.
What my amendment does say is that we are not going to provide 24
more months after the 30 months that has already passed and the
additional months that are going to pass before the actual promulgation
and effective date of the rule. It does not provide an additional 24
months for those trucks, all trucks, to meet the same set of standards.
I think that is absolutely neutral on the issue of whether they are
Canadian, U.S. or Mexican. It is saying, get on with it, promulgate it.
They had plenty of time to get their certificate, their label, whatever
it is that they needed. They have known for a very long time. Let us
get on with it.
Support the amendment so that we can do so.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts and every
speaker that has spoken about the need for the safety of trucks on the
road. I also agree and will work in conference on this bill to make
sure that we do not have an inordinate phase-in period, that we try to
use some rationality there.
But let us understand the difference between many of the things that
are said and what this amendment actually proposes to do. Now, we heard
one speaker talk about how he does not want trucks coming up from
Mexico along I-35, all the way up to Minnesota, that are unsafe. Well,
believe me, I do not either, because they cannot get there without
coming through Oklahoma and my district, and I do not want unsafe
trucks on I-35 as they come through Oklahoma either.
But this amendment is not about whether a vehicle is safe. It is not
about whether it is in safe operating condition. The amendment is about
what was the condition of the vehicle at the time it was originally
manufactured, not what the condition is now. Everybody that owns or
uses a vehicle, a car or a truck or a bus or anything, knows that
things get modified; things are retrofitted.
We have the law, and they enforce it at the border. If a vehicle is
going to come in and move into the interior of the United States, it
has to be in safe operating condition. It has to be in a condition that
meets our standards. But that vehicle might not have originally been
manufactured to those standards. It may have been retrofitted.
The gentleman's amendment says, well, unless you have certification
that it was in that condition at the time it was first built, no matter
how many years ago that was, unless that is the case, we are not going
to let them in. It is aimed at the companies that have trucks that have
been retrofitted that are perfectly safe. That is what it is aimed at.
It is trying to remove their ability to compete and give competitive
advantages to other companies.
I oppose the amendment. We can talk about what should be the
notification procedures and phase-ins and so forth, but let us make
sure that we put the emphasis on the safety of the vehicles in the
condition they are in now, not whether or not they were originally
manufactured to some different specification. I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Olver) will be postponed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma a
question.
We have had five or six amendments adopted, the Van Hollen amendment,
the Davis amendment on Cuba, the Lee amendment on Cuba, the Waters
amendment on Cuba, the Stenholm amendment on debt ceiling and, I
believe, one other. Last year, we had the experience of seeing a good
many amendments which had been adopted on this floor to this and
several other bills evaporate as soon as they went to conference.
I would like to know whether the gentleman can assure us that he will
insist on retaining each of these amendments and will not bring this
bill back from conference if these amendments do not stay in the
conference this year.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's
point, and he is well aware that the controversial amendments which
relate to Cuba always bring up a lot of heat in the debate in this
House. Those amendments are subject to a presidential veto. We have had
the message from the White House in the statement of administrative
policy, which is very unequivocal in indicating the President would
veto the bill over Cuba.
This is why, in past years, the gentleman has certainly seen that
amendment, as the gentleman phrases it, evaporate or at least not come
through in the conference report to the same degree before. My
responsibility, as the gentleman appreciates, is to produce a bill that
will pass into law. I am unable to give him the assurance that he is
seeking, and I am sure he understands why, although he is not pleased
by it.
Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
his candor.
Let me say this, Mr. Chairman, I had originally been willing to
support this bill as it came out of committee, even though many of us
on this side of the aisle thought the bill woefully inadequate in terms
of funding levels for various transportation accounts. But the majority
has been in a three-cornered feud with itself. The authorizing
committee and a number of others in the majority party caucus, for
different reasons, have shredded this bill. They have knocked out, at
this point, highway aid to the States. They have knocked out mass
transit. They have knocked out funding for airport construction. They
have knocked out 80 percent of the Department of Transportation funds
that originally were contained in this bill.
In addition to that, we have received no assurance whatsoever that
the amendments that the House adopted would be retained in conference.
In fact, we have essentially been told, because of the presidential
threat of a veto, that these amendments will once again be stripped in
the conference. That means that virtually all of the action that
occurred on this floor has been meaningless with respect to the items
that were debated today and late last night.
I am certainly willing to meet my responsibilities to help move bills
forward, even if I do not always agree with their content, provided the
majority party itself takes its duty seriously. But if the majority
party itself, if the majority party leadership itself will not defend
their own legislative product as it comes out of the committee, I
certainly do not see why I should, especially when House actions, given
the arbitrary action of the authorizing committee, have turned this
bill into a cadaver.
So, at this point, I intend to vote ``no,'' because I am not going to
vote for a bill which effectively cuts more than half the dollar
resources out of this bill and which effectively cuts 80 percent of the
transportation funding out of the bill just because some people in this
House happen to think that committee jurisdiction is more important
than being responsible.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that I give a response of sorts
to my friend from Wisconsin. We all know that, for parliamentary
reasons, there have been points of order raised that resulted in
certain things being taken from this bill. However, every Member should
be aware, and I certainly want to emphasize to the gentleman from
Wisconsin, the ranking member of the full committee, everyone is aware
that those items relating to transportation funding are going to be
reinstated in conference. The conference report will not be subject to
the same parliamentary points of order that caused the problem.
So if any Member is concerned about, well, my goodness, what are we
accomplishing through this bill, the answer
[[Page H7345]]
is, we are creating the mechanism that allows us to fund transportation
in the United States of America. Whatever may not be in the bill at
this moment can be restored in conference. But we do not get there if
we do not pass this House bill. And if Members want to telegraph that
they do not care about funding for transportation or they do not care
about funding for transportation needs and projects in their district,
there is probably no better way to indicate that than by voting against
the bill.
Now, I understand the gentleman from Wisconsin. His opposition is not
toward funding transportation. I understand he is concerned about the
Cuba provisions and whether they will endure in the final report. But
to every Member of this body it is important that we advance this bill
to the conference with the Senate, which enables us to resolve the
parliamentary problems with our own rules to put in the transportation
funding and, of course, the funding that will benefit the individual
Members in their States and in their districts and the projects in
their areas. It is important to know who supports that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let
me simply say that I am not only concerned with the Cuba provisions, I
am very much concerned with the transportation items. And I am not
about to go on record voting for a bill which has cut these bills, in
essence, almost 80 percent below last year's level in terms of
transportation items.
I have seen the majority party's campaign committee play games with
that too often, and I do not expect to see ads run against Members of
the Congress because they voted for a product which the majority party
itself is asking them to vote for. That has happened too many times for
me to be suckered by that one.
Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I reemphasize that this
bill is the vehicle for the transportation funding. It goes to the
conference with the Senate. The things that were stricken on points of
order can then be restored and will be restored. A vote against this
bill is a vote against the transportation funding that is important to
every Member. It is important to their States and important to projects
in their districts.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Clyburn), the vice chair of my caucus.
(Mr. CLYBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention to the important
work of the United States Election Assistance Commission and issue my
strong support for the $15 million in funding that the Committee on
Appropriations has recommended for this year.
Establishing the EAC was delayed in 2003, and because of that, the
full commissioners were not appointed until December 2003, and the EAC
was woefully underfunded for fiscal 2004.
{time} 1200
Yet despite these obstacles, the four commissioners have worked
diligently to ensure timely progress on the election reform that
Congress envisioned when it passed HAVA 2 years ago. The EAC
commissioners have used their collective commitment, skills, and
dedication to disburse to States the $2.3 billion in HAVA payments that
was appropriated for fiscal year 2004. At the same time, EAC is working
closely with State and local election administrators to make certain
they implement HAVA requirements for Provisional Voting, Voter
Identification, Polling Place Signage, and State Administrative
Complaint Procedures that must be in place for this year's elections.
Mr. Chairman, these are not abstract provisions. Rather, they are
voter reform measures mandated by Congress to ensure that every
eligible citizen can register, vote, and know that their vote can be
counted in a timely and fair manner. We are just weeks away from the
November 2 elections, which will be the first Federal election since
HAVA was enacted.
Free and fair elections are the heart of our democracy. We do not
want to repeat what happened in November, 2000. Yet we jeopardize the
quality of our elections if we shortchange the EAC's ability to
operate, conduct research, set standards for voting systems, and
conduct audits of the HAVA funding that is being paid to States.
H.R. 5025 provides $15 million for the United States Election
Assistance Commission. Without this funding, we cannot guarantee full
implementation of this landmark act, the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this year's
Transportation and Treasury bill was brought to the floor with great
hopes. It had been improved substantially in subcommittee and again in
full committee, and improvements have been made, indeed, on the floor
of this body last week and yesterday and today.
There were already some serious problems like the Amtrak problem,
which we have talked about; the Federal Transit Administration's New
Starts program, which we have talked about; and the Tax Law Enforcement
program, which we talked about. Those problems remain there. And
because of the reasons that my ranking member of the full committee has
already given, we have had a situation where much of the bill has been
struck by broad points of order, leaving us with very limited funding,
no grants to the States and Federal highway-airport improvement grants;
transit formula grants; the highway safety grants, gone. All of that is
true.
However, I am going to vote for the bill because the only way and the
only place that this bill can be put back together and the serious
problems fixed is in the conference. I believe that we are going to
have to work very hard within that conference in order to make certain
that those fundings and those problems are dealt with properly, but I
am willing to work with the chairman to try to do that. I hope that we
will be able to rectify enough of those problems in conference that we
can produce a bill that will have strong, enthusiastic, bipartisan
support. So I will vote for the bill.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). He is certainly correct that the only
mechanism to fix the problems with the bill, the parliamentary
problems, is moving it to a conference with the Senate, which requires
House passage as a prelude to that, and I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I do wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for yielding to me for the opportunity to engage
in a colloquy.
As the chairman knows, I have done a great deal of work on waste,
fraud, and abuse in the Congress. And in particular, I rise today to
discuss the efforts that are underway in our government to address
ongoing fraud that is costing our highway trust fund untold sums.
There is a significant problem going on in every State of this great
Nation that is not only taking money from desperately needed
transportation projects but funding organized crime activities and
quite possibly terrorist activities. The issue is not glamorous and it
is not dangerous. It is not punishable by high criminal penalties and,
therefore, receives little attention. The issue is the fraudulent use
of off-road untaxed diesel fuel as taxable on-road diesel. This type of
fraud leads to a profit of nearly 50 cents a gallon in combined Federal
and State taxes.
It may not sound like much. Some estimates, however, have shown that
well over $1 billion a year is lost in tax revenue. In the scope of our
national budget, some think $1 billion or $2 billion does not seem like
a great amount, and it is not the type of thinking that will ensure the
problems like these will ever get resolved.
Fortunately, the Internal Revenue Service has been examining
technologies for the past few years that
[[Page H7346]]
will give them better tools to fight this type of fraud. Make no
mistake, those involved in this type of fraud are well financed, smart
business people that leverage technology at every opportunity. I think
it is time that we respond in kind. In order to support the IRS's
efforts in finishing this fight, requests have been submitted to the
chairman to fund a pilot program to put technology out in the field.
What is so unique about this pilot project is that we will see
immediate returns. The last time the IRS implemented a program to
combat this type of fraud, there was a 22.5 percent increase in tax
collections in the first 12 months. This pilot project will pay for
itself and will lead to a national program that will recover
potentially billions of dollars that are so desperately needed for our
highways.
I would like the chairman, if he could, to comment on this pilot
project, please.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
from Texas for his comments. As he knows, we are very aware of this
issue, and we are concerned about the level of tax evasion and fraud
that is underway. We want to arm the IRS with the best technology and
an overall program not only to combat the fraud but to locate those
perpetrating the fraud and put them out of business permanently. There
is report language to this effect in this bill. I understand my
counterpart in the Senate, Mr. Shelby, is aware of the issue as well.
We will be working with him in conference to have a strong position in
the final bill.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his diligent
work on this issue and others who are also doing so, and I want to
thank him for his hard work on behalf of all Americans. And I thank the
gentleman for engaging in this colloquy.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe we will
complete debate on this bill after we hear from the chairman of the
full committee.
I do want to express my appreciation to the staff that has worked so
diligently on this: Our chief clerk of the subcommittee, Rich Efford; a
member of my personal staff, Kurt Conrad; and also on the subcommittee
staff, Cheryle Tucker, Leigha Shaw, Dena Baron, and Kristen Jones.
Without them nothing could be accomplished.
This bill merits the support of every Member of this body, and I ask
that people support it accordingly and pass it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to compliment the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Istook) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking
member, for having brought this bill to a successful conclusion.
Despite some parliamentary obstacles that we had earlier in the debate,
they have produced, what I think will be, a highly acceptable bill.
I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, this is number 12 of the 13
regular appropriations bills. There is only one more to go to the
floor. But I also want our colleagues to know that the Committee on
Appropriations had completed work on all 13 bills prior to the August
summer work period. So we have been prepared to move the bills as time
became available on the floor.
This is a good bill. As I have said, there were some parliamentary
problems that I suggested will need to be repaired when we get to
conference. And I am being optimistic when I say it will get to
conference. We are hoping there will be a conference. We would like to
conclude our appropriations business before we break for the election.
I understand why the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has
suggested that he would vote against this bill.
I am going to vote for it, and I think it is worthy of a ``yes''
vote.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just observe the gentleman said this
is a good bill. There is not anything left of this bill except the
enacting clause; that is in great shape. Outside of that, it is a
hollow shell.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what is left,
is a good bill. And whatever repairs need to be made will be made in
the conference. So I urge the Members to vote against the motion to
recommit and for final passage on the bill.
Announcement By The Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would call to the Members' attention the
provisions of clause 1 of rule XVII regarding the wearing of
communicative badges on the floor, which has been interpreted to
proscribe the wearing of such, and the Chair would request that any
Members who are doing so remove them when recognized for debate.
Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic
vote.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 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. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 225, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 461]
AYES--188
Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Grijalva
Harman
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Michaud
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Shimkus
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn
NOES--225
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berkley
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
[[Page H7347]]
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Engel
English
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Marshall
Matsui
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Ortiz
Ose
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--20
Baird
Bishop (GA)
Bonner
Cannon
Gephardt
Goss
Greenwood
Hart
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Kirk
Manzullo
McInnis
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Murphy
Tauzin
Wexler
Wicker
{time} 1234
Messrs. ALEXANDER, REHBERG, PALLONE, and DEUTSCH changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HERGER and Mr. BOOZMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Olver) 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. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 339,
noes 70, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 462]
AYES--339
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baldwin
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kleczka
Kline
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--70
Aderholt
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Cantor
Carter
Chocola
Collins
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Dreier
Dunn
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Granger
Hastings (WA)
Herger
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Lewis (CA)
Linder
McCrery
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Nunes
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Renzi
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (TX)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Vitter
Weldon (FL)
NOT VOTING--24
Baird
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Bonner
Cannon
Cox
Gephardt
Goss
Greenwood
Hart
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Jones (NC)
Kirk
Manzullo
McInnis
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Murphy
Tauzin
Wexler
Wicker
{time} 1243
Mrs. CUBIN and Mr. OTTER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. EVERETT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, earlier today my floor vote was not
recorded on rollcall No. 462, the Olver amendment to H.R. 5025, the
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2005.
Mr. Chairman, had I voted on the Olver amendment, I would have
unequivocally voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 462
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last three lines.
The Clerk read, as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Transportation, Treasury,
and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005''.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the
Transportation
[[Page H7348]]
Appropriation Subcommittee for including in this years Transportation
Appropriation bill, $9 million for the hiring and training for the next
generation of air-traffic controllers.
As a senior member on the Aviation Subcommittee, we are well aware
that air traffic controllers are retiring at a quicker pace than they
are being hired.
Over 50 percent of the air traffic controller workforce will retire
within the next 10 years.
Industry believes that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must
hire 1000 air traffic controllers a year for the next three years to
provide the necessary staffing levels and prepare for the wave of air
traffic controller retirements.
Authorizers and appropriators may disagree on a quite a bit,
especially on this bill, but the safety and security of the flying
public is an issue we can all agree on.
This $9 million is a good first step. However, aside from funding we
must also strive to train and hire the next generation of air traffic
controllers that more accurately represents American society and the
flying public.
By that I mean, in 2003 the following is a break down of the
percentage of the air-traffic controller hirings: 18 percent women; 1
percent African American; 1 percent Hispanics; 1 percent Asians; and 0
percent Native Americans.
Unfortunately, these hiring percentages are following an all to
familiar pattern that has already been established at the FAA.
For example, in 2003 the following is a breakdown of the air traffic
controller workforce made up of the following percentages of women and
minorities: 18 percent women; 1 percent African American women; 1
percent Hispanic women; 0 percent Asian women; and 0 percent Native
American women.
We have a historic opportunity before us. We are facing a time when
we must make unprecedented investments into our air traffic controller
workforce.
I ask this Congress--and this Administration, to make the effort to
reach out to women and minorities so that we may revamp our workforce
to be a replica of our society as a whole.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you and the
Ranking Member on this very important issue as this bill moves to
conference with the Senate.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill.
Members of this House chose to strip funding for Amtrak from this bill
simply because the necessary agreement could not be reached on a floor
rule to consider this legislation that would have protected Amtrak.
Since the end of Fiscal Year 2002 when Amtrak was last authorized,
Congress has continued to keep its commitment to our nation's rail
passengers by funding Amtrak and ensuring that the nations trains
continue to operate. We must continue that commitment as Congress
continues to debate the right path for Amtrak's future through a
reauthorization bill.
I am shocked that Members of this House would consider shutting down
Amtrak in this manner, when a large majority of Americans favor
continuing federal subsidies to Amtrak, and a substantial percentage
would increase federal funding so the ailing passenger railroad can
enhance its service. Fifty-one percent of respondents in an August 2002
Washington Post poll supported keeping Amtrak's funding current levels
and twenty percent supported increasing the funding level.
Mr. Chairman, I request that the House support the $1.2 billion FY 05
level that was recently passed by the Senate Transportation/Treasury
Appropriations Subcommittee. This Senate funding level is equal to the
amount that Congress appropriated to Amtrak in FY 04 and is well short
of the $1.8 billion requested by Amtrak CEO David Gunn to continue his
5-year strategic plan for the railroad. It may not be enough to
implement Mr. Gunn's full plan for FY 05 but passage of the Senate
level is vital to continue to address the acknowledged ``backlog'' of
security and infrastructure needs on the Northeast Corridor--a backlog
that threatens the continuation of safe and reliable passenger rail
operations in the northeast region. That funding level is also
necessary for Amtrak to continue to implement a system wide security
plan.
In a July 17th interview with National Journal, Amtrak President and
CEO David Gunn said that if Amtrak were appropriated $900 million in FY
05, the railroad would have to layoff 2,000 maintenance workers and
close all major maintenance shops, including those in my home state of
Delaware. As the U.S. economy continues to recover, we should not be
cutting federal support for Amtrak work that will lead to jobs for our
constituents. At the end of June, Mr. Gunn released the company's
annual update of its strategic five-year plan that continues the focus
of returning the railroad to a state of good repair
The plan addresses problems including aging interlockings, rail ties,
bridges, catenary hardware, and sets aside capital for major fleet
overhauls. The plan will remove most of the immediate safety threats to
continued service and vastly improve reliability and on-time
performance. By continuing the implementation of Mr. Gunn's five-year
plan, we would remove the immediate impediments to daily service on the
Northeast Corridor. Amtrak has made real headway in this work and it
would be a shame to slow or scale back this effort.
The National Journal article also detailed that as a result of the
management changes during Mr. Gunn's tenure, Amtrak has kept its
expenses flat. By contrast, from 1997 to 2001, expenses grew at an
average rate of 8.5 percent a year. The company has taken on no
additional debt since the federal government's loan in the summer of
2002. Passenger ridership through the first eight months of FY 2004 is
16.2 million, up 6.2 percent over the same period in the last fiscal
year. From February to May of 2004, the railroad has sustained four
consecutive months of all time record ridership and, should the trend
continue through the end of the fiscal year, will exceed 25 million
passengers for the first time.
Mr. Gunn's plan also includes a system wide security plan in the wake
of the earlier railroad bombing this year in Spain that killed more
than 200 people and injured more than 1,600. The FBI announced earlier
this year that they have credible intelligence that the nation's
railroads are being targeted for terrorist attack. Amtrak's security
plan includes the following: Securing key infrastructure, dispatching
and control centers; Emphasizing detection and prevention at stations
and on-board trains; Improving train communications and incident
command systems. The plan states that ``Physical and technological
improvements will create layered security countermeasures to address
the `openness' of the Amtrak system in critical areas.'' Now is not the
time to limit Mr. Gunn's resources to harden targets on the railroad's
infrastructure, improve passenger safety, and strengthen efforts to
facilitate an effective first responder response to a terrorist
incident involving Amtrak.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the budget restraints that the committee
is dealing with in crafting this appropriations bill but now is not the
time to reduce our support for Mr. Gunn's effort to rebuild Amtrak's
aging infrastructure and secure the railroad from potential terrorist
attack
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
If not, pursuant to the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Chairman 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, pursuant to House Resolution 770, he
reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by
the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment adopted in the Committee
of the Whole?
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a separate vote on the Stenholm
amendment trying to contain the national debt.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there a separate vote demanded on any
other amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment on
which a separate vote has been demanded.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment:
At the end of the bill, insert after the last section
(preceding the short title) the following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used by the Secretary of the Treasury to implement, pursuant
to sections 8348(j)(1) and 8348(l)(2) of title 5, United
States Code, any suspension of issuance of obligations of the
United States for purchase by the Civil Service Retirement
and Disability Fund, to implement, pursuant to sections
8438(g)(1) and 8438(h)(2) of such title, any suspension of
issuance of obligations of the United States for purchase by
the Thrift Savings Fund for the Government Securities
Investment Fund, or to implement, pursuant to section
8348(k)(1) of such title, any sale or redemption of
securities, obligations, or other invested assets of the
Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund before maturity.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
[[Page H7349]]
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 404,
noes 8, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 463]
AYES--404
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--8
Collins
Davis, Tom
Johnson, Sam
Ose
Portman
Schrock
Scott (VA)
Thomas
NOT VOTING--21
Baird
Bishop (GA)
Bonner
Cannon
DeMint
Gephardt
Goss
Greenwood
Hart
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Kirk
Lantos
Manzullo
McInnis
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Murphy
Tauzin
Wexler
Wicker
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in the vote.
{time} 1304
Messrs. GUTIERREZ, CUNNINGHAM and KOLBE changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on engrossment
and a third reading.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. OBEY. In its present form, I certainly am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 5025, to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the
same back to the House promptly with an amendment to restore
funding for Payments to Air Carriers, Grants-in-Aid for
Airports, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad
Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the
Surface Transportation Board and increase funding above the
levels in H.R. 5025, as reported, for the Federal-Aid
Highways Limitation on Obligations, Grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation, new fixed guideway systems,
and Grants-in-Aid for Airports.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, last week during consideration of this bill,
three factions of the majority party took turns in striking entire
accounts out of this bill.
More than half the budgetary resources that had been in the bill are
now missing.
More than 80 percent of the Department of Transportation's resources
have been deleted from this bill. This bill is now missing more than
$41 billion in funding that was supposed to flow to each of our States
for highways, transit and aviation.
My motion to recommit the Department of Transportation programs and
provides adequate funding for addressing the Nation's transportation
needs. This motion asks that the Committee on Appropriations restore
the accounts that were deleted by points of order, and it calls for
increased funding above the committee-reported levels for highways,
transit, new start projects, Amtrak and Grants-in-Aid for airports.
It restores funding for rural airports through the Essential Air
Service Program, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Surface
Transportation Board.
The motion is important because without it we are simply not meeting
some of the crucial transportation needs of the country.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my friend from Oklahoma will say that
because of the form of this motion that this bill will effectively be
delayed or killed. The fact is, that is not correct. This bill is
already dead. This bill is already on the way to the morgue. It quit
breathing last Friday. All I am trying to do is to resuscitate the bill
and make it something other than a cadaver.
So, without this motion, this House is acquiescing in the fact that
jurisdictional arguments between committees have resulted in a bill
which has little more than the enacting title, and I do not think that
it does very much credit to the House.
[[Page H7350]]
If you vote for this amendment, you will be voting to resuscitate the
programs that were knocked out because of the willfulness of the
authorizing committee last week, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote for
the proposition.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 5 minutes in his opposition.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the frustration of
the gentleman from Wisconsin, and certainly I have a high level of
frustration, and many people do, because of the things that on
parliamentary procedures were stricken on points of order, because we
have so many programs that have not been reauthorized.
However, there is a much better way to fix the problem, and that is
to finish the process, pass the bill, move it to conference where we
are then able to bring a conference report back before this House that
is not subject to these points of order.
Were we to do what the gentleman from Wisconsin seeks, we would only
repeat the exercise in frustration. He wants us to take the bill back
to committee, reinsert the things that were taken out on points of
order and, while we are at it, put more money in them. Then, if we
brought the bill back to the floor, guess what? Those same points of
order are here on the floor. We go through the exercise again.
Secondly, we have an additional point of order because the
gentleman's request, I believe, would push us above the 302(b)
allocation which is our share of the budget allocation, and there would
be an additional point of order against the bill. We would only repeat
the frustration.
What is worse than being frustrated once? Being frustrated twice.
That is what the motion to recommit would accomplish, but opposing the
motion to recommit and passing the bill moves it into conference. That
is where the problem can and will be fixed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
All of that can be solved by simply having the Committee on Rules
this time do its duty and report out a rule that protects a rational
bill.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and
certainly the Committee on Rules could have done something on the
current bill and could do something on a different bill, but why do we
expect the Committee on Rules would have any different action?
The only sure course of action to get this bill passed to fund the
transportation for every Member of this body for their States and also
to address the desires that different Members have for their different
districts is to pass the bill, move it on to the House-Senate
conference where we bring it back, and all those problems are wiped
clean because now we are under a different parliamentary process that
governs the conference report.
I oppose the motion to recommit. There is no sense in killing the
bill. Let us keep it alive so that we can keep transportation moving in
the country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for the electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 201,
nays 210, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 464]
YEAS--201
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NAYS--210
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Baird
Bishop (GA)
Bonner
Cannon
Foley
Gephardt
Greenwood
Hart
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Kirk
Manzullo
Matsui
McInnis
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Murphy
Shaw
Tauzin
Wexler
Wicker
[[Page H7351]]
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1333
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on passage of
the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 397,
nays 12, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 465]
YEAS--397
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Collins
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Herseth
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--12
Castle
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Hefley
Jones (NC)
Kucinich
Obey
Otter
Paul
Royce
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
NOT VOTING--24
Baird
Bishop (GA)
Bonner
Cannon
Cox
Dunn
Foley
Gephardt
Gillmor
Greenwood
Hart
Hensarling
Hoekstra
Kirk
Manzullo
McInnis
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Murphy
Reynolds
Tauzin
Wexler
Wicker
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1340
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 465, H.R. 5025--
Transportation/Treasury Appropriation bill, I was on legislative
business and arrived after the vote. Had I been here I would have voted
in the affirmative.
____________________