[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 28, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5275-H5281]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3058, TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, 
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 
           AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 342 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 342

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3058) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and 
     Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and 
     independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2006, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived except as follows: beginning with the comma on page 5, 
     line 25, through ``and'' on line 26; beginning with ``for'' 
     on page 11, line 22, through the first comma on page 12, line 
     1; beginning with the colon on page 12, line 12, through 
     ``Program'' on line 17; beginning with ``Notwithstanding'' on 
     page 16, line 8, through the comma on line 8; sections 110, 
     112 and 130; beginning with the colon on page 32, line 25, 
     through ``Congress'' on page 33, line 3; beginning with 
     ``Notwithstanding'' on page 34, line 4, through the comma on 
     line 4; and sections 151, 218, 808, 928, and 945. Where 
     points of order are waived against part of a paragraph or 
     section, points of order against a provision in another part 
     of such paragraph or section may be made only against such 
     provision and not against the entire paragraph or section. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the rule provides 1 
hour of general debate, evenly divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. It 
provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  I would like to take a moment to reiterate that we bring this rule 
forward under an open rule. Obviously, historically, appropriations 
bills have come to the House floor with open rules; and we continue to 
do so in order to allow every Member in this House the opportunity to 
submit amendments for consideration, obviously as long as they are 
germane.
  This is the last rule bringing forth an appropriations bill for the 
fiscal year 2006, Mr. Speaker; and I think that it speaks very highly 
of the Committee on Appropriations. Obviously, the chairman and the 
ranking member have had much to do with that, as well as all of the 
members of the Committee on Appropriations who have worked very hard in 
bringing forth all of these appropriations bills in such a timely 
fashion.
  The bill that we are bringing forward today appropriates over $66 
billion for the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, Housing and 
Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and 
independent agencies, an increase of 6 percent over last year. The bill 
is fiscally sound. It represents our commitment to provide necessary 
resources for programs and projects throughout the Nation, ranging from 
transportation, to housing, the Judiciary, the Executive Office of the 
President, the District of Columbia.
  As all Members of this House know, the transportation infrastructure 
of the country is really the backbone of the economy, and its continued 
strength is essential to foster economic growth. The underlying 
legislation brought forth today goes far in ensuring that we have a 
reliable and stable transportation infrastructure to continue to help 
the economy grow.
  The bill includes $37 billion in funds for the highway system, 
representing an increase of almost $2 billion. H.R. 3058 includes $14.5 
billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, an increase of $887 
million. Included in that amount is $25 million to hire and train 595 
new air traffic controllers. I think it is vitally important as air 
traffic controllers retire and air traffic continues to grow. This is 
really essential to so many of our districts.
  In my district, home to Miami International Airport, the third 
largest international airport in the country, without an increase in 
the number of air traffic controllers, MIA would not be able to 
continue its projected growth and continue to serve really as the hub 
of the Americas.
  The Department of Housing and Urban Development is funded at $37.5 
billion, an increase of $1.5 billion. These funds will permit the 
Department to administer programs that assist the public with housing 
needs, economic and community development, and fair housing 
opportunities. These funds will also empower low- and moderate-income 
residents towards self-sufficiency.
  Under HUD, the bill includes funding for such important programs as 
Tenant Based Rental Assistance, also known as section 8; and Project 
Based Rental Assistance. These two programs serve almost 3.5 million 
households with vouchers and project-based housing. The bill includes 
$20.63 billion in funds for the program, an increase of almost $1 
billion. In Miami-Dade County alone, which I am honored to represent, 
the housing authority uses the funds provided through these programs to 
house over 30,000 residents and for payment vouchers for 16,000 units.
  H.R. 3058 provides $5.8 billion for the judiciary, an increase of 6 
percent over the current fiscal year. This will fully fund the courts' 
revised requests for security improvements at Federal judicial 
facilities and enable the courts to effectively process the priority 
criminal, civil, and bankruptcy cases.
  This legislation was introduced by the chairman of the subcommittee, 
who has done a tremendous job, the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman 
Knollenberg), and reported out of the Committee on Appropriations on 
June 21 by voice vote. It is good legislation. It is essential to our 
continued commitment to the security and safety of all in the United 
States, and we bring it forth under a fair and open rule.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), for 
their leadership on this important piece of legislation. I urge my 
colleagues to support both the rule and underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the bill. 
Simply put, this bill significantly and irresponsibly shortchanges key 
funding for Amtrak and several programs in the Housing and Urban 
Development Department. While this bill provides slight funding 
increases for highways, transit and aviation programs, it slashes 
Amtrak to the point of extinction and eliminates important HUD programs 
like Brown-fnl;fields and Youthbuild.

[[Page H5276]]

  This bill provides $550 million for Amtrak, an amount that places the 
future of national passenger rail in jeopardy. This $657 million cut 
will not only terminate all intercity passenger rail service, but will 
also cause a massive disruption of the commuter and freight rail system 
across the country. Quite literally, this allocation is a death 
sentence for Amtrak.
  Ironically, the amount provided in this bill is a whopping $1.25 
billion below the level that President Bush's appointed Amtrak Board of 
Directors recommended. President Bush and the Republican leadership 
believe that starving Amtrak will save it. The administration and the 
Republican leadership believe that a forced bankruptcy upon Amtrak will 
bring about a change for the better, that it will create a more 
efficient system.
  Mr. Speaker, this just does not make any sense. You do not save 
starving children by denying them food, and I cannot understand how the 
President believes Amtrak can be saved by slashing its funding. I guess 
by ``better,'' Amtrak opponents mean no intercity rail service 
anywhere, and by ``more efficient,'' apparently these same opponents 
mean costs of upwards of $900 million for severance payments and 
mandatory debt service and labor payments. All in all, the closure of 
routes will result in layoffs of thousands of workers, which in turn 
creates hundreds of millions of dollars of immediate debt.
  Mr. Speaker, this backward argument that squeezing the life out of 
Amtrak will save it is unacceptable and irresponsible. The only thing 
that starving Amtrak will do is destroy it.
  On top of making Amtrak extinct, this bill eliminates several 
critical programs within HUD. Programs like brownfield cleanup, 
Empowerment Zones, section 108 loan guarantees and La Raza activities 
have all been eliminated. Every single one of these programs has 
contributed to the overall improvement of our communities, and it is 
shameful that Congress is turning its back on our neediest communities.
  In my home State of Massachusetts, brownfields cleanup has proven to 
be a highly successful, efficient tool for cleaning up the environment 
and revitalizing a community. In the 2005 annual report of the 
Massachusetts Brownfields Redevelopment Fund, it is noted that 4,500 
new housing units and 3,250 new jobs have been created by the 
Brownfields program. Because redevelopment is concentrated in areas 
that are already in use, brownfield cleanup preserves open space, 
bringing opportunity to economically distressed parts of a community. 
Zeroing out Brownfields is a bad move, and I encourage my colleagues to 
offer any amendments that could provide for its funding.
  Another important program that has been placed on the chopping board 
is Youthbuild. Youthbuild is a nonprofit program which pays at-risk 
youth to build houses in low-income neighborhoods. This community 
development program offers job training, education, counseling, and 
leadership opportunities to unemployed and out-of-school young adults 
ages 16 through 24. These at-risk youth build and rehabilitate 
affordable housing in their own communities, garnering life skills and 
adding to revitalization in their own backyards.
  Mr. Speaker, how can such a thoughtful program that is full of 
incentives be eliminated? There are 226 Youthbuild programs in 44 
States across the country, attracting 7,000 young adults. In 2004 
alone, 10,000 young men and women had to be turned down for the program 
due solely to the lack of funding. The demand is high and the need is 
even greater for programs like Youthbuild. We should not turn our backs 
on the youth of America.
  It is clear that the Republican leadership is doing its best to 
protect tax cuts for the wealthiest in this country while eliminating 
programs that benefit the neediest. At the same time, the Republican 
leadership hides behind a veil of fiscal discipline.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, that argument just does not cut it, and the 
American people know it. These programs are being starved simply 
because the Republican leadership in the House and the Senate refuse to 
acknowledge their mistakes. Their tax cuts have drained the Federal 
surplus. Their policies continue to drive this Nation further into 
debt.
  This is an important bill. We have a responsibility to fund Amtrak, 
to fund Brownfields and Youthbuild, and we have the means to do it if 
the Republican leadership would just acknowledge their mistakes.
  My friend from Massachusetts, the ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), offered an amendment in the Committee 
on Rules yesterday that would have restored $1.2 billion of funding to 
Amtrak, as well as funding to Brownfields and Youthbuild. This funding 
would have been paid for by a slight reduction in the tax breaks given 
to millionaires.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership once again proved that 
protecting millionaires' tax breaks is more important than keeping 
Amtrak trains running, and they denied the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Olver) the opportunity to have his amendment voted on.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a fully funded, nationwide 
intercity rail system that services the entire country. They deserve 
effective housing programs. They deserve Brownfields funding and 
Youthbuild, which revitalize our communities and improves the quality 
of life.
  I will vote ``no'' on the rule and vote against this bill because the 
American people deserve better than this.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, who, along with the chairman of the full 
committee, have done tremendous work in bringing forth these pieces of 
legislation, including the one on the floor today.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me time and for bringing the rule to the floor on H.R. 3058. 
It is a bill making appropriations for, as has been mentioned, 
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, 
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies, and that is why we call 
it TTHUD.

                              {time}  1245

  This is a good rule for a really good bill. We have tried diligently 
to work with the many authorizing committees of jurisdiction on the 
various provisions of our bill, and I think we have come to a great 
deal of agreement on those provisions. I thank my colleagues for 
working with us in such good faith, and I appreciate their help in 
bringing this bill to the floor tomorrow.
  This bill fully funds surface transportation programs as authorized 
by TEA-LU and aviation programs as authorized in VISION-100. I want to 
repeat this; at least I want to say it once and maybe twice: we fully 
fund Section 8 and many other housing and assistance programs under 
HUD. We fully fund Section 8. We have even managed to keep CDBG in HUD. 
Not one dime did we not fund in the request. Did we have to make some 
hard decisions? Yes, we did. But we funded the most important, the most 
beneficial, the most effective programs under our jurisdiction.
  There are some programs, like Hope 6, Youthbuild, and Amtrak, which 
are in desperate need of reform or reauthorization. We felt that rather 
than continuing to throw money at these programs, we would let the 
authorizers have their chance to provide oversight and legislative 
direction. All in all, this is a balanced and good bill that we will 
consider tomorrow.
  I thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the 
Committee on Rules, particularly the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) here today, for their work, and I urge a ``yes'' 
vote on this rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we have seen repeated appropriation bills 
moved through the House ignoring the priorities of Americans, including 
those residing in my hometown of Sacramento. With each bill, we see the

[[Page H5277]]

negative impact of the Republican-passed budget resolution on the day-
to-day lives of our constituents.
  As we take up the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban 
Development, Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies 
appropriation bill, also known by some as the Throw the Leftovers Into 
One Tupperware Catch-all bill, we, yet again, see the bind the budget 
resolution has placed us in. We see the programs important to all of 
our constituents and our communities forced to compete against each 
other for limited funding, and we see these programs being gutted.
  As it stands, this bill dismantles Amtrak, slashing funding by over 
half, threatening its long-term health. With 9.3 million passengers in 
California, Amtrak is extremely popular, especially in Sacramento. With 
the line closures and funding cuts, it will be impossible for Amtrak to 
continue to operate. After severance obligations and debt service pay, 
nothing would remain to continue running even the lines deemed 
successful. Further complicating the situation, the bill fails to even 
fund the minimum maintenance on tracks and trains necessary to keep the 
thriving lines operational.
  I cannot begin to estimate the negative impact this will have. 
Businesses which rely on the dollars commuters spend in the community 
and the revitalization of the city, a transformation that is not 
exclusive to my hometown, will be affected. Because of Amtrak, 
Sacramentans are rediscovering downtown. And with funding from the 
Community Development Block Grants, the city is able to make needed 
improvements to downtown and the entire city, and that is a benefit to 
businesses and the overall economy of our region and State.
  CDBG supports over two dozen projects improving Sacramento, but CDBG 
is not just throwing money at a city. In addition to improving the 
overall look of a city, it fosters a sense of community.
  Earlier this year, I was home in Sacramento and participated in a 
program which receives money from CDBG called Rebuilding Together, an 
effort to rehabilitate homes for those with low and moderate incomes. 
Hundreds of people came out to give back to their community and 
neighborhood. And, because of their work, local senior citizens, who 
would otherwise find it challenging, received assistance to make the 
enhancements and repairs their homes need.
  Because of funding from CDBG, Sacramento has a program to assist 
first-time home buyers with down payment and closing costs. We all know 
the benefits of homeownership to the community: improved neighborhoods, 
increased civic participation, and to the individual, tax benefits, 
increased wealth, and increased confidence.
  Unfortunately, the misguided priorities of the Republican-passed 
budget mean cuts to funding for worthwhile programs like CDBG and 
Amtrak.
  But this did not have to be the case. I was disappointed that an 
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Olver) was not made in order by the Committee on Rules. It would 
have restored the necessary dollars to fund programs like Amtrak and 
CDBG by reducing the tax benefits of those with incomes over $1 
million. Instead of receiving a tax break of $140,000, they would 
receive $131,000, a $9,000 reduction.
  Because of the need for the Olver amendment and, importantly, the 
need to continue these defective programs, I would urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on the rule governing this bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I think this is a very important piece of legislation that deserves 
our support. And, obviously, the rule bringing forth the underlying 
legislation in an extremely fair manner, with an open rule, deserves 
our support, but also the underlying bill, the underlying 
appropriations bill. It grows, it increases over last year by 
approximately 6 percent. It provides over $66 billion for the 
Departments of Transportation and Treasury and HUD, the Judiciary, and 
Independent Agencies. That is an increase of six percent, Mr. Speaker.
  Now, we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle more 
requests for spending, more and more and more and more. But I think it 
is important to keep in mind that what we are bringing forth, the bill 
that we are bringing forth to the floor increases spending, this bill 
increases spending by 6 percent over the current fiscal year. I think 
sometimes perspective is proper. So I wanted to mention that as I 
reiterate my support for the rule bringing forth this legislation as 
well as the underlying legislation and asking colleagues to support 
them both.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Let me just respond to the gentleman from Florida, my good friend.
  Mr. Speaker, those on the other side keep on talking about the tough 
decisions that have to be made. My question is, why do always the tough 
decisions fall on the backs of middle income families and those who are 
most vulnerable? Why can not, for example, some of the sacrifice be 
made by those who are earning over $1 million? That is what the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) tried to do yesterday in the 
Committee on Rules.
  We disagree with your budget priorities. We disagree that all of this 
money should be going for tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. 
We think that protecting programs like Youthbuild, that protecting 
Amtrak is important.
  This bill, if it passes and the funding for Amtrak is not adjusted, 
is the death knell for Amtrak. It is that simple. There is no way to 
spin your way out of it. For those of us who support a vibrant, strong, 
intercity rail system, this bill, with these numbers right now, is 
unacceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for two reasons. One is 
because of this, a little piece of plastic called a credit card. All 
too often, little cards like this are issued by bloodsuckers. This 
bill, as it went to the Committee on Rules, contained a provision to 
defend average consumers from some of these credit card companies who 
abuse their privileges under the law and wreak havoc on people's 
financial rights.
  Right now, there are a number of credit card companies who feel no 
compunction whatsoever about the idea of changing your interest rate on 
your credit card, even if you have never missed a payment, even if you 
have never been a day late with that company. They still reserve the 
right to jack up your interest rate to the default rate called the 
universal default rate if you have missed some other payment on 
somebody else's bill. Example: if you go on a vacation and you are a 
week late paying a mortgage bill, or you are a week late paying a light 
bill, if that gets reported on somebody else's credit report, a credit 
card company can make you pay 30 percent interest, no questions asked, 
even though you have never been late with a payment for them.
  As Linda Sherry of Consumer Action said, ``It is the only industry in 
the world to reprice something you have already paid for.''
  Now, the bill, as it went to the Committee on Rules, contained an 
amendment which I offered which passed by a 10-vote margin on a 
bipartisan basis in the Committee on Appropriations. Yet, the rule does 
not protect that provision from being stricken on a point of order.
  So under this rule, any one Member out of 435 in this House can come 
to the floor and, for any reason they want, can knock this provision 
out of the bill.
  Now, we will be told by friends on the majority side of the aisle, 
``Well, this provision belongs under the jurisdiction of another 
subcommittee, or another committee.'' There are dozens of provisions in 
the bill before us that require waivers of points of order, but this 
one was singled out to be not protected. It will be very interesting to 
see whether any individual Member has the chutzpah to come on to this 
floor and knock out this provision, which is a protection for consumers 
that is long overdue.
  The second reason that I will vote against this rule is because it 
does not make in order the Olver amendment. The Olver amendment is very 
simple.

[[Page H5278]]

It says that instead of giving people who make a million bucks a year a 
$140,000 tax cut next year, we ought to scale that back to $131,000 so 
you have enough room in this bill to meet our national obligations in 
funding Amtrak and in funding the other high priority plans in this 
bill.
  Now, the Republican majority has steadfastly insisted on hanging on 
to those super-sized tax cuts for the most fortunate people in this 
society. And that is why we had to have a hearing in the Subcommittee 
on Military Construction this morning when we find out that even though 
the Veterans Department is now admitting that they are more than $1 
billion short in veterans health care funding this year and they are 
going to be more than $2.6 billion short next year, even though we face 
those shortages, the majority is insisting that we not treat that 
problem as an emergency because, ``oh, it will put pressure'' on them 
to reduce the size of those tax cuts.
  These are minimal actions that this Congress ought to take to protect 
the public who needs decent transportation, to protect veterans who 
need decent health care, and to protect consumers who are sick and 
tired of being bullied by shysters who take advantage of little print 
on their forms that charge people an arm and a leg on their credit 
cards.

                              {time}  1300

  These three little things the majority could have helped out. They 
have not. Those are three good reasons for voting against this rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am going to surprise my colleague, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and support what he just said, 
part of it, just parts of it. I voted with the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Obey) on the credit card issue in the committee. And I say to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, I do not know where the right place is to do 
this, but just think about the issue itself. Any one of us, our 
children or anybody else can receive a notice, or the credit card 
company can get a notice, maybe you do not cash a check on time and you 
get it there, maybe you miss a payment. That person can notify the 
credit card company, and they can raise your rates by 30 percent. My 
own daughter went through a credit card fraud where there were people 
cashing her credit cards all over the country. And that was hard 
enough.
  But the issue the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is talking 
about is a valid one. And I hope somewhere, someplace, if someone does 
object, I will not. We can resolve that issue because it is a terrible 
issue.
  On the issue of tax breaks for the rich, of course we will arm 
wrestle. Fifty percent of the money that goes to Sub S corporations 
provides about 70 percent of the jobs in this country. And if you take 
a look, the economy is improving. The interest rates are low. Inflation 
is low. The job rate is 5.1 percent, and we are improving a lot because 
of the things that we have done together in many ways to stimulate the 
economy.
  Now, the tax relief. I happen to believe that the death tax is 
absolutely wrong. You work your whole life and pay everything you have 
to build a farm or business, and then the government comes in and wants 
to take a portion of that. I do not care if it is a million dollars or 
a hundred million; it is money, labor that you put in to your 
investment. And many of us feel that that is just wrong. It is not a 
tax break for the rich, and it improves the economy.
  So I do not disagree with my friend on the issue of the credit card. 
But what I would ask my colleagues, every single bill that I have seen 
come forward, it is bashing the administration, it is bashing the 
Republicans. If we take a look and get our arms around this budget and 
balance the budget, there is going to be more money.
  It is like everybody here, you have a checkbook. If you continue to 
spend more money than you take in, and whether it is Big Bird, whether 
it is Amtrak, whether it is other things, most of us support the 
veterans; and hopefully that will come forward in the other body, and 
we will be able to add money to that. But I would sure like to see less 
bashing and us reaching across and trying to work together rather than 
partisan politics. I have a lot of friends on the other side of the 
aisle, and it grieves me over these last bills to see the action on the 
House floor.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) had asked who 
would have the chutzpah to come on the House floor and to object to his 
provision regarding credit cards. I should tell you that last night in 
the Rules Committee, I offered an amendment to protect this language, 
the language that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) championed, 
the language that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) has 
said he agrees with. I offered an amendment to protect this from a 
point of order, and every single Republican on the Rules Committee that 
was present last night had the chutzpah to not protect it, which I 
think is outrageous.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, once again the majority of this House shows its true 
priorities. The resolution that is before us, the rule that governs 
debate on the fiscal year 2006 Transportation, Treasury, Housing and 
Urban Development and Related Agencies bill, does not make in order my 
amendment that reflects important national public priorities. My 
amendment would have added an additional badly needed $2.092 billion to 
the bill.
  Of that $2 billion, $657 million was for Amtrak, bringing funding for 
our national passenger rail system to exactly the present year's level, 
thereby avoiding the shutdown of 18 passenger rail routes and the 
termination of all passenger rail service in 23 States. But rather than 
funding Amtrak to keep passenger rail service available, the majority 
decided that tax cuts for millionaires were more important.
  Of that $2 billion, $180 million was for tax law compliance. But 
rather than making a dent in the over $300 billion of taxes owed under 
the law that goes uncollected annually, tax cuts for the superwealthy 
were more important.
  Of that $2 billion, $143 million was for the Hope VI program for 
revitalization of severely distressed public housing. Over the past 10 
years, Hope VI has replaced thousands of the worst housing units in 
urban communities all over the country. Rather than funding Hope VI, 
which is zeroed out in this bill, tax cuts averaging $140,000 for all 
persons reporting taxable income of more than $1 million were more 
important.
  Of that $2 billion, $250 million was for community development block 
grants, just to bring that appropriation up to the present year's 
appropriation, for a program that affects every State and virtually 
every community over 25,000 people in population, and a great many 
smaller communities as well. Again, tax cuts were more important for 
the superwealthy.
  Of that $2 billion, $800 million was to fund the Help America Vote 
Act, the HAVA Act, and that $800 million which would pay for the 
national voter registration file that is mandated under the HAVA Act by 
the first of January 2006 in time for the 2006 elections, this Congress 
owes that money to the States. It is an unfunded mandate that ought to 
be paid. The majority chose those $140,000 tax cuts for each and every 
millionaire in America. Ninety-five percent of Americans do not have 
that total amount of income for a whole family as would be the amount 
of the tax cut for the few very most fortunate people.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, $62 million was for Youthbuild, a program which 
helps school dropouts gain construction skills and experience while 
building and rehabilitating housing. Rather than funding Youthbuild, 
which has been a proven success over 10 years and is requested by the 
President in his budget proposal, the majority once again believes 
helping the wealthiest Americans with huge tax cuts is more important.
  The cost of this amendment was fully offset by a slight 6.5 percent 
reduction in the tax benefits received by those persons who report an 
annual taxable income of $1 million or more. Instead of receiving an 
average tax break of

[[Page H5279]]

$140,000, they would receive an average of only $131,000 instead. This 
small reduction in tax cuts for the most affluent Americans is a very 
small price to pay for the priorities included in my amendment, which 
was not allowed to even be debated under this rule. And we will not be 
able to debate it tomorrow.
  I do not blame the chairman of the subcommittee for the difficult 
choices in this bill. The President's budget was inadequate in these 
and other respects and left gaps that had to be filled. Under these 
circumstances, the chairman did his best to provide a fair allocation 
of the money within the amount assigned to the committee. Creative ways 
were found to plug some of the holes; however, many problems still 
remain because of the majority party's decision to make huge tax cuts 
for the wealthiest of Americans their number one priority, first and 
foremost, above all else, putting aside human needs, ignoring the 
largest yearly deficits in the history of our Nation, and the national 
debt that has gone up 50 percent in just the last 4 years. The majority 
party would rather help those that do not need it than those that do.
  My amendment would have corrected this imbalance, and I urge all my 
colleagues to put our national public priorities first and oppose this 
rule.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, a couple of points to put the debate back in the 
perspective and the context of what we are doing today. We are debating 
the rule bringing forth the appropriations bill that funds the 
Department of Transportation, Treasury, Housing Urban Development, the 
Judiciary. This bill includes over $66 billion. It provides to those 
Departments being funded an increase of 6 percent over the current 
fiscal year, an increase of 6 percent.
  A number of issues have been brought out, for example, the issue of 
an amendment that was passed in the Appropriations Committee. The 
substance of that amendment was debated September 10 of the year 2003 
here on the floor of this House on an authorizing bill, and again, this 
may sound technical to some folks, especially if they are watching on 
TV, the rules of the House say that appropriations bills should not be 
vehicles for legislating, in other words, for changing the law. Rather, 
they are vehicles to fund, to appropriate the Federal Government.
  Now, on an authorizing bill, which is expected and called for in the 
rules of the House, this credit card issue was brought forth and it was 
debated. Again, September 10, 2003. The amendment by the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on this issue was defeated 272-142. So I think it 
is important to mention that because facts, I think, should be relevant 
to debates.
  And then, Mr. Speaker, again, the issue of tax cuts. We hear time and 
time again, no matter what the issue before us, tax cuts for the 
wealthy, tax cuts for the wealthy. The policies under the leadership of 
President Bush that we have put into law, including tax relief have 
benefited all taxpayers. Every taxpayer, every payer of Federal income 
tax in this country received tax relief. Obviously, if you paid more in 
taxes than someone else, and everybody gets relief, you get more relief 
than if you pay less taxes. But everybody obtained tax relief under our 
policies.
  And I think it is relevant to put in context what has happened to the 
economy ever since we implemented those measures. Ever since we 
provided tax relief to the American taxpayer: 3 million jobs in the 
last 18 months alone, unemployment rate at 5 percent.
  I think it is relevant, Mr. Speaker, when we hear these attacks 
continuously against the policies of the majority, I think it is 
relevant to learn, to note what those policies have accomplished. And 
the creation of over 3 million jobs in 18 months, an unemployment rate 
almost at record lows are something that I think all of us should be 
proud of.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me clear up one fact for my colleagues 
who are listening to this debate. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) just said that the rules of the House prohibit us 
from adding legislation to appropriations bills; that is the rules of 
the House. Well, the majority does that all the time. We routinely 
waive points of order on these appropriations bills. And this bill is 
no exception. We had a supplemental appropriations bill where you added 
the REAL ID legislation to that bill.

                              {time}  1315

  We had just recently a legislative branch appropriations bill where 
you added the continuity of Congress legislation.
  The gentleman talks about how great this economy is. I want to tell 
you, there are a lot of people suffering out there. Poverty has 
increased since you guys took over here, since George Bush became 
President. There are more people that are hungry in this country. These 
jobs that you are talking about being created, a lot of them are jobs 
that provide people with less pay than they were making before.
  Our problem here, and the reason why we want to amend this bill, is 
we think your priorities are wrong. We think it is more important to 
save Amtrak than to give a millionaire or billionaire a tax cut. In 
fact, we are even willing to give millionaires and billionaires a tax 
cut. What the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) was trying to do 
was to reduce the amount of tax cut a millionaire would get from 
$140,000 a year to $131,000 a year. That money saved by doing that 
could have funded Amtrak, could have funded the Hope VI program for the 
revitalization of severely distressed public housing. It could have 
funded more money for community development block grants. It could have 
funded Youthbuild. It could have funded the Help America Vote Act.
  But your priorities are different. You come on to the floor and you 
debate passionately about the need to give those with the most even 
more while you neglect what is happening to those who have the least.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to 
oppose the previous question.
  Our Nation is facing a number of challenges. We are fighting a war 
against terror that will continue to require significant attention and 
resources. We are facing historic budget deficits with a national debt 
of almost $8 trillion.
  Our country has pressing needs in education, health care, veterans 
services and other areas. With all of those challenges before us now, 
now is not the time for Members of the Congress to be voting themselves 
a pay raise. We need to be willing to make sacrifices. We need to 
behave like American families who make tough choices every day. We need 
to budget, live within our means, and make careful spending decisions 
based on our more pressing priorities.
  A no vote on the previous question will allow Members to vote up or 
down on the automatic cost of living pay raise for Members of Congress. 
If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule. My amendment will block the fiscal year 2006 cost of living pay 
raise for Members of Congress. Because this amendment requires a 
waiver, the only way to get to this issue is to defeat the previous 
question. So again, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous 
question.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I wished to do when my good friend from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) had the floor, I wanted to ask him a question. I was 
trying to understand and I was a little confused.
  Does the gentleman admit that 3 million jobs have been created in the 
last 18 months in this economy?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Let me say that thank God there were some jobs added in the 
last few months of the Bush presidency, that made up for the 3\1/2\ 
million jobs that were lost from the first 3 years of his presidency.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. So the gentleman's answer is yes 
or no?

[[Page H5280]]

  Mr. OBEY. You came within 100,000 jobs of being first President since 
Herbert Hoover not to add a single job in his term. It was the most 
anemic job growth of any president since Herbert Hoover.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Maybe the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) could answer. Have 3 million jobs been 
created in the last 18 months, yes or no?
  Mr. OBEY. 3 million jobs that have been destroyed in the first place 
by the policies of the very administration that you are bragging about. 
You destroyed 3 million jobs and then gradually the economy recovered 
and you built back so you came back to about square one. I would not 
brag about having the worst job creation record of any president since 
Herbert Hoover. If you think that is a great achievement, that puts us 
in a different league.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I think, Mr. 
Speaker, what I have heard is yes. And I think that what we have seen 
is remarkable, considering that we had a recession that began toward 
the end of the year 2000 and that was coupled by the unprecedented 
attack on in country, including on our economy and on our way of life 
on September 11, 2001. Despite that unprecedented attack, the policies, 
yes, under the President's leadership that this Congress instituted 
have permitted and have incentivated the creation of 3 million jobs in 
the last 18 months.
  We have a record, almost a record low unemployment rate of 5 percent. 
And I think that despite the static from which I am trying to learn, 
understand the answers of my respectful questions, the answer is yes. 
It is a remarkable achievement.
  And so to keep in mind and in perspective of what we have seen, Mr. 
Speaker, job growth, almost a record low unemployment rate, and with 
regard to what we are doing today, which I think is relevant to 
remember and put in context. What we are doing today is bringing forth 
legislation, the appropriations bill on the funding the Treasury 
Department, Housing and Urban Develop Department, the Department of 
Transportation, that includes a 6 percent growth, 6 percent growth over 
and above the legislation for the current fiscal year.
  I think the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has done a 
great job. I think the Committee on Appropriations has done a great 
job.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The recession began in March 2001 under the watch of President Bush. 
Secondly, poverty in this country has increased dramatically, and for 
anybody to get up here and to try to boast about this President's job 
creation record when he is dead last amongst all Presidents is pretty 
outrageous.
  Go outside the Beltway and talk to some people about how they think 
this economy is going right now. I will tell you, people feel it is not 
going as rosy as you think it is. This President has also accumulated 
the largest debt of any President in history. That is not something we 
should be proud of. That is passing on a credit card bill to our kids 
and our grandkids. That is something you should be ashamed about.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I know there was hard work 
amongst the appropriators and what they had to work with, but I rise 
with a great deal of disappointment because poverty has, in fact, 
increased.
  Just look at the number of homeless persons across America and the 44 
million uninsured. And I would have hoped the Olver amendment could 
have been passed to allow for additional funds to go into Hope 6 
because Hope 6 rebuilds distressed public housing and changes it into 
mixed housing for those individuals who are without housing.
  Right now in my district, there is an application in one of the most 
distressed areas for a youth bill. Does anyone understand that youth 
bill puts inner city youngsters, rural youngsters to work building 
homes in their communities?
  What is going to happen to brownfields in our respective areas, rural 
and inner city areas where we are not cleaning up horribly poisoned 
areas that could, in fact, contribute to the economy?
  In the month of May, the unemployment among African Americans went 
through the roof. There are no jobs being created. And then, of course, 
the community development block grant was saved but those dollars are 
needed, even more dollars are needed to enhance development in our 
cities and in our rural areas.
  It is a shame on America when we do not stand up for our inter city, 
our Amtrak, our rail system, light rail and rail. And I would have 
hoped we would have added more than $25 million for air traffic 
controllers because America's skyways are overcrowded and air traffic 
employees are needed to be retrained as well as additional employees 
are needed. We could have done more if we had cut into that over 
excessive tax cut for millionaires and billionaires. We could have 
provided an environmentally safe America with providing dollars for 
brownfields, a youth bill to ensure that youngsters who are at-risk can 
help build their community; more dollars for community develop; more 
dollars for Hope 6.
  Yes, poverty is raging in America. There are people without jobs, but 
more importantly there are people living earning under $8,000 which is 
extreme poverty. They do not have housing and it is difficult to house 
them. This bill needed to do more.
  I hope my colleagues will go back to the drawing board. I ask my 
colleagues to consider the necessary enhancement of funding in the bill 
to help the most vulnerable.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  I urge my colleagues to support any amendment that will be offered 
today to relax the travel restrictions on Americans to Cuba. I have met 
with Sergeant Lazo, who is a veteran who served in Iraq who, as a 
result of the U.S. law, is unable to visit his own parents in Cuba. 
That is wrong. This man served our country. We should be able to adjust 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
time.
  I want to focus on just one deficiency in this bill. I, too, am sorry 
that the Olver amendment was not made in order.
  I want to focus for a minute on what would have happened with Amtrak. 
It is interesting that we have some in this Chamber who have an almost 
theological zeal to eliminate national rail passenger service in the 
United States, leaving us the only major country in the world, in fact, 
almost all the minor countries have national rail passenger service.
  This is not about cost effectiveness. This is made repeatedly clear 
since I have been in Congress this year. We are going to be giving 
about $14 billion for airport construction, $11 billion for air traffic 
control. We gave $15 billion in the aftermath of 9-11 in grant and 
loans, this to an industry, the air passenger industry, that in its 75-
year history has shown a total net profit of zero. Actually, given the 
performance of the last couple of years, it is less than zero. But 
Congress lavishes support on air traffic but it is not about to help 
rail passenger service.
  That is particularly ironic because rail passenger service is 38 
percent more energy efficient than air travel. It is six to seven times 
cheaper to upgrade track than build new highways. And, in fact, rail 
passenger service provides some competition for hard-to-serve 
communities. This competition holds down the price of airline tickets 
which would skyrocket, if people did not have a rail passenger 
alternative.
  I am pleased that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) of the 
majority and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) are going to 
bring forward an amendment to partially restore funding. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to support it. Instead of dismantling and starving 
Amtrak, we should build on our 150-year rail passenger investment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.

[[Page H5281]]

  Mr. Speaker, I thank all the colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
who have participated in this very interesting debate.
  We are bringing forth the last of the appropriations bills with this 
rule. I think it is a remarkable achievement, and I think the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Lewis) really deserves commendation as do all 
on the Committee on Appropriations. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Knollenberg) has done a great job on this bill.
  This particular bill that we are bringing forth with this rule is the 
Treasury and HUD, Transportation bill. I am not sure if it is the bill 
that increases the most from the current fiscal year, but it certainly 
has to be one of the most significant increases at 6 percent. We hear 
from our friends on the other side of the aisle requests and demands 
for further spending and for further government growth; and obviously, 
that is legitimate, that debate is very legitimate.
  I think it is also important and legitimate to put in context that 
this bill which has caused so much angst in terms of it being 
categorized as insufficient in spending from the other side of the 
aisle includes 6 percent more than the current fiscal year.

                              {time}  1330

  So it not only is an important piece of legislation, but it is 
funded, obviously, at a very high level.
  With regard, again, to points that were made, so many of them were 
made by colleagues who took the floor. It is an undeniable fact, Mr. 
Speaker, that the economic downturn began in the third quarter of the 
year 2000.
  It is an undeniable fact that September 11 of 2001 this country 
suffered a tremendous, unprecedented and horrible criminal attack. That 
obviously contributed to the economic downturn.
  It is also an undeniable fact that due to the policies, certainly it 
is an undeniable fact that there have been 3 million jobs created in 
the last 18 months, that the unemployment rate is about 5 percent, and 
I think we all should be proud of that.
  It is important to put in context, in the context of what has 
happened in the economy, I think, the attacks which we have heard so 
repeatedly, as though we were living in a different reality. The 
reality we are living is one of 3 million jobs being created in the 
last 18 months. The reality we are living is one that reflects one of 
the lowest unemployment rates in history. It is fair to point that out.
  And I think it is fair to point out, yes, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) talked about we will have a debate on the 
Cuban dictatorship. I am sure we will. There is a lot to report in 
terms of the repression and torture and the continuation in the local 
prisons and so much more. So, yes, we will probably see amendments to 
loosen sanctions on that dictatorship, amendments that, if passed and 
if they became law, would see flows of hard currency going to that 
dictatorship. We will have that debate, but at the end of the day, I am 
confident that this Congress will continue to stand with those who 
suffer and those who are repressed and not those who cause the 
repression.
  So, Mr. Speaker, again, support the underlying legislation which I 
think, again, we owe a debt of gratitude to the entire Committee on 
Appropriations not only for having it brought it forth in such a timely 
way but especially the chairman who will now soon take the floor. We 
have much to commend, and I know that we have all of the chairmen we 
see here, the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Kolbe) on the floor as 
well, so many who have worked so hard to make sure that all of these 
bills have come forth in really a remarkably timely way.
  So, again, I am supporting the underlying legislation, as well as 
this very fair rule, which is an open rule and urging support for both 
by all of our colleagues.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________