[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 90 (Thursday, June 30, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5483-H5514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2006

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 342 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. 3058.

                              {time}  1017


                     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. 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, with Mr. 
McHugh in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday June 
29, 2005, the amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) had 
been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 194, line 7.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the bill through page 210, line 18, be considered as read, 
printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill through page 210, line 18, is 
as follows:

             TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS, GOVERNMENT-WIDE

                Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

       Sec. 901. Funds appropriated in this or any other Act may 
     be used to pay travel to the United States for the immediate 
     family of employees serving abroad in cases of death or life 
     threatening illness of said employee.
       Sec. 902. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 2006 shall obligate or expend any 
     such funds, unless such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from the illegal use, possession, 
     or distribution of controlled substances (as defined in the 
     Controlled Substances Act) by the officers and employees of 
     such department, agency, or instrumentality.
       Sec. 903. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the 
     maximum amount allowable during the current fiscal year in 
     accordance with section 16 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (60 
     Stat. 810), for the purchase of any passenger motor vehicle 
     (exclusive of buses, ambulances, law enforcement, and 
     undercover surveillance vehicles), is hereby fixed at $8,100 
     except station wagons for which the maximum shall be $9,100: 
     Provided, That these limits may be exceeded by not to exceed 
     $3,700 for police-type vehicles, and by not to exceed $4,000 
     for special heavy-duty vehicles: Provided further, That the 
     limits set forth in this section may not be exceeded by more 
     than 5 percent for electric or hybrid vehicles purchased for 
     demonstration under the provisions of the Electric and Hybrid 
     Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976: 
     Provided further, That the limits set forth in this section 
     may be exceeded by the incremental cost of clean alternative 
     fuels vehicles acquired pursuant to Public Law 101-549 over 
     the cost of comparable conventionally fueled vehicles.
       Sec. 904. Appropriations of the executive departments and 
     independent establishments for the current fiscal year 
     available for expenses of travel, or for the expenses of the 
     activity concerned, are hereby made available for quarters 
     allowances and cost-of-living allowances, in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 5922-5924.
       Sec. 905. Unless otherwise specified during the current 
     fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     or any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any 
     officer or employee of the Government of the United States 
     (including any agency the majority of the stock of which is 
     owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of 
     duty is in the continental United States unless such person: 
     (1) is a citizen of the United States; (2) is a person in the 
     service of the United States on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act who, being eligible for citizenship, has filed a 
     declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
     States prior to such date and is actually residing in the 
     United States; (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the 
     United States; (4) is an alien from Cuba, Poland, South 
     Vietnam, the countries of the former Soviet Union, or the 
     Baltic countries lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence; (5) is a South Vietnamese, Cambodian, or 
     Laotian refugee paroled in the United States after January 1, 
     1975; or (6) is a national of the People's Republic of China 
     who qualifies for adjustment of status pursuant to the 
     Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992: Provided, That for 
     the purpose of this section, an affidavit signed by any such 
     person shall be considered prima facie evidence that the 
     requirements of this section with respect to his or her 
     status have been complied with: Provided further, That any 
     person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony, 
     and, upon conviction, shall be fined no more than $4,000 or 
     imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both: Provided 
     further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to, 
     and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing 
     law: Provided further, That any payment made to any officer 
     or employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall 
     be recoverable in action by the Federal Government. This 
     section shall not apply to citizens of Ireland, Israel, or 
     the Republic of the Philippines, or to nationals of those 
     countries allied with the United States in a current defense 
     effort, or to international broadcasters employed by the 
     United States Information Agency, or to temporary employment 
     of translators, or to temporary employment in the field 
     service (not to exceed 60 days) as a result of emergencies.
       Sec. 906. Appropriations available to any department or 
     agency during the current fiscal year for necessary expenses, 
     including maintenance or operating expenses, shall also be 
     available for payment to the General Services Administration 
     for charges for space and services and those expenses of 
     renovation and alteration of buildings and facilities which 
     constitute public improvements performed in accordance with 
     the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 749), the Public 
     Buildings Amendments of 1972 (87 Stat. 216), or other 
     applicable law.
       Sec. 907. In addition to funds provided in this or any 
     other Act, all Federal agencies are authorized to receive and 
     use funds resulting from the sale of materials, including 
     Federal records disposed of pursuant to a records schedule 
     recovered through recycling or waste prevention programs. 
     Such funds shall be available until expended for the 
     following purposes:
       (1) Acquisition, waste reduction and prevention, and 
     recycling programs as described in Executive Order No. 13101 
     (September 14, 1998), including any such programs adopted 
     prior to the effective date of the Executive order.
       (2) Other Federal agency environmental management programs, 
     including, but not limited to, the development and 
     implementation of hazardous waste management and pollution 
     prevention programs.
       (3) Other employee programs as authorized by law or as 
     deemed appropriate by the head of the Federal agency.
       Sec. 908. Funds made available by this or any other Act for 
     administrative expenses in the current fiscal year of the 
     corporations and agencies subject to chapter 91 of title 31, 
     United States Code, shall be available, in addition to 
     objects for which such funds are otherwise available, for 
     rent in the District of Columbia; services in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; and the objects specified under this head, all 
     the provisions of which shall be applicable to the 
     expenditure of such funds unless otherwise specified in the 
     Act by which they are made available: Provided, That in the 
     event any functions budgeted as administrative expenses are 
     subsequently transferred to or paid from other funds, the 
     limitations on administrative expenses shall be 
     correspondingly reduced.
       Sec. 909. No part of any appropriation for the current 
     fiscal year contained in this or any other Act shall be paid 
     to any person for the filling of any position for which he or 
     she has been nominated after the Senate has voted not to 
     approve the nomination of said person.
       Sec. 910. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be available for interagency financing of 
     boards (except Federal Executive Boards), commissions, 
     councils, committees, or similar groups (whether or not they 
     are interagency entities) which do not have a prior and 
     specific statutory approval to receive financial support from 
     more than one agency or instrumentality.
       Sec. 911. Funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the Postal Service Fund (39 U.S.C. 2003) shall be available 
     for employment of guards for all buildings and areas owned or 
     occupied by the Postal Service or under the charge and 
     control of the Postal Service. The Postal Service may give 
     such guards with respect to such property, any of the powers 
     of special policemen provided under 40 U.S.C. 1315. The 
     Postmaster General, or his designee, may take any action that 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security may take under such 
     section with respect to that property.
       Sec. 912. None of the funds made available pursuant to the 
     provisions of this Act shall be used to implement, 
     administer, or enforce any regulation which has been 
     disapproved pursuant to a joint resolution duly adopted in 
     accordance with the applicable law of the United States.
       Sec. 913. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     and except as otherwise provided in this section, no part of 
     any of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2006, by this 
     or any other Act, may be used to pay any prevailing rate 
     employee described in

[[Page H5484]]

     section 5342(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code--
       (1) during the period from the date of expiration of the 
     limitation imposed by the comparable section for previous 
     fiscal years until the normal effective date of the 
     applicable wage survey adjustment that is to take effect in 
     fiscal year 2006, in an amount that exceeds the rate payable 
     for the applicable grade and step of the applicable wage 
     schedule in accordance with such section; and
       (2) during the period consisting of the remainder of fiscal 
     year 2006, in an amount that exceeds, as a result of a wage 
     survey adjustment, the rate payable under paragraph (1) by 
     more than the sum of--
       (A) the percentage adjustment taking effect in fiscal year 
     2006 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, in 
     the rates of pay under the General Schedule; and
       (B) the difference between the overall average percentage 
     of the locality-based comparability payments taking effect in 
     fiscal year 2006 under section 5304 of such title (whether by 
     adjustment or otherwise), and the overall average percentage 
     of such payments which was effective in the previous fiscal 
     year under such section.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     prevailing rate employee described in subparagraph (B) or (C) 
     of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, and no 
     employee covered by section 5348 of such title, may be paid 
     during the periods for which subsection (a) is in effect at a 
     rate that exceeds the rates that would be payable under 
     subsection (a) were subsection (a) applicable to such 
     employee.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the rates payable to 
     an employee who is covered by this section and who is paid 
     from a schedule not in existence on September 30, 2005, shall 
     be determined under regulations prescribed by the Office of 
     Personnel Management.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rates of 
     premium pay for employees subject to this section may not be 
     changed from the rates in effect on September 30, 2005, 
     except to the extent determined by the Office of Personnel 
     Management to be consistent with the purpose of this section.
       (e) This section shall apply with respect to pay for 
     service performed after September 30, 2005.
       (f) For the purpose of administering any provision of law 
     (including any rule or regulation that provides premium pay, 
     retirement, life insurance, or any other employee benefit) 
     that requires any deduction or contribution, or that imposes 
     any requirement or limitation on the basis of a rate of 
     salary or basic pay, the rate of salary or basic pay payable 
     after the application of this section shall be treated as the 
     rate of salary or basic pay.
       (g) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit 
     or require the payment to any employee covered by this 
     section at a rate in excess of the rate that would be payable 
     were this section not in effect.
       (h) The Office of Personnel Management may provide for 
     exceptions to the limitations imposed by this section if the 
     Office determines that such exceptions are necessary to 
     ensure the recruitment or retention of qualified employees.
       Sec. 914. During the period in which the head of any 
     department or agency, or any other officer or civilian 
     employee of the Government appointed by the President of the 
     United States, holds office, no funds may be obligated or 
     expended in excess of $5,000 to furnish or redecorate the 
     office of such department head, agency head, officer, or 
     employee, or to purchase furniture or make improvements for 
     any such office, unless advance notice of such furnishing or 
     redecoration is expressly approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations. For the purposes of this section, the term 
     ``office'' shall include the entire suite of offices assigned 
     to the individual, as well as any other space used primarily 
     by the individual or the use of which is directly controlled 
     by the individual.
       Sec. 915. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States Code, or section 910 of this Act, funds made available 
     for the current fiscal year by this or any other Act shall be 
     available for the interagency funding of national security 
     and emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives 
     which benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or 
     entities, as provided by Executive Order No. 12472 (April 3, 
     1984).
       Sec. 916. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be obligated or expended by any Federal 
     department, agency, or other instrumentality for the salaries 
     or expenses of any employee appointed to a position of a 
     confidential or policy-determining character excepted from 
     the competitive service pursuant to section 3302 of title 5, 
     United States Code, without a certification to the Office of 
     Personnel Management from the head of the Federal department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality employing the Schedule C 
     appointee that the Schedule C position was not created solely 
     or primarily in order to detail the employee to the White 
     House.
       (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to 
     Federal employees or members of the armed services detailed 
     to or from--
       (1) the Central Intelligence Agency;
       (2) the National Security Agency;
       (3) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
       (4) the offices within the Department of Defense for the 
     collection of specialized national foreign intelligence 
     through reconnaissance programs;
       (5) the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the 
     Department of State;
       (6) any agency, office, or unit of the Army, Navy, Air 
     Force, and Marine Corps, the Department of Homeland Security, 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration of the Department of Justice, the Department 
     of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, and the 
     Department of Energy performing intelligence functions; and
       (7) the Director of National Intelligence or the Office of 
     the Director of National Intelligence.
       Sec. 917. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for the current fiscal year shall obligate or 
     expend any such funds, unless such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual 
     harassment and that all of its workplaces are not in 
     violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 
     amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 
     and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       Sec. 918. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be available for the payment of the 
     salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     who--
       (1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to 
     prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government from having any direct oral or written 
     communication or contact with any Member, committee, or 
     subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter 
     pertaining to the employment of such other officer or 
     employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such 
     other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether 
     such communication or contact is at the initiative of such 
     other officer or employee or in response to the request or 
     inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee; or
       (2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, 
     reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance of 
     efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns, 
     transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any 
     employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or 
     condition of employment of, any other officer or employee of 
     the Federal Government, or attempts or threatens to commit 
     any of the foregoing actions with respect to such other 
     officer or employee, by reason of any communication or 
     contact of such other officer or employee with any Member, 
     committee, or subcommittee of the Congress as described in 
     paragraph (1).
       Sec. 919. (a) None of the funds made available in this or 
     any other Act may be obligated or expended for any employee 
     training that--
       (1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills, 
     and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of 
     official duties;
       (2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of 
     emotional response or psychological stress in some 
     participants;
       (3) does not require prior employee notification of the 
     content and methods to be used in the training and written 
     end of course evaluation;
       (4) contains any methods or content associated with 
     religious or quasi-religious belief systems or ``new age'' 
     belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988; or
       (5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants' 
     personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or 
     otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties.
       Sec. 920. No funds appropriated in this or any other Act 
     may be used to implement or enforce the agreements in 
     Standard Forms 312 and 4414 of the Government or any other 
     nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such policy, 
     form, or agreement does not contain the following provisions: 
     ``These restrictions are consistent with and do not 
     supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee 
     obligations, rights, or liabilities created by Executive 
     Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United States Code 
     (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 of title 
     10, United States Code, as amended by the Military 
     Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to 
     Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of 
     title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower 
     Protection Act (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, 
     fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats); the 
     Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 
     et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose 
     confidential Government agents); and the statutes which 
     protect against disclosure that may compromise the national 
     security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of 
     title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the 
     Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The 
     definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, 
     and liabilities created by said Executive order and listed 
     statutes are incorporated into this agreement and are 
     controlling.'': Provided, That notwithstanding the preceding 
     paragraph, a nondisclosure policy form or agreement that is 
     to be executed by a person connected with

[[Page H5485]]

     the conduct of an intelligence or intelligence-related 
     activity, other than an employee or officer of the United 
     States Government, may contain provisions appropriate to the 
     particular activity for which such document is to be used. 
     Such form or agreement shall, at a minimum, require that the 
     person will not disclose any classified information received 
     in the course of such activity unless specifically authorized 
     to do so by the United States Government. Such nondisclosure 
     forms shall also make it clear that they do not bar 
     disclosures to Congress or to an authorized official of an 
     executive agency or the Department of Justice that are 
     essential to reporting a substantial violation of law.
       Sec. 921. No part of any funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, 
     other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for 
     the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, 
     booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation 
     designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the 
     Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.
       Sec. 922. None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be used by an agency to provide a Federal 
     employee's home address to any labor organization except when 
     the employee has authorized such disclosure or when such 
     disclosure has been ordered by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction.
       Sec. 923. None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     any other Act may be used to provide any non-public 
     information such as mailing or telephone lists to any person 
     or any organization outside of the Federal Government without 
     the approval of the Committees on Appropriations.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

  Mr. HINCHEY. 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. Hinchey:
       Page 210, line 20, after ``used'' insert ``directly or 
     indirectly, including by private contractor,''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, clarifies that the existing anti-
propaganda section of the bill also includes contracting out for these 
services to publicity experts and others. Its intent is to simply 
prevent contracts with journalists and other publicity experts without 
authorization by the Congress, and it will prevent additional 
embarrassing reports in the future because it will prohibit these bogus 
news reports, generated by contracts between the government and those 
willing to take the money and spin the information.
  Examples of administrative propaganda are numerous. Last month, The 
Washington Post reported that the National Resource Conservation 
Service paid a freelance writer at least $7,500 to write articles 
touting so-called Federal conservation programs and placed them in 
outdoors magazines. These articles were placed and not one of them 
disclosed the fact that the writer was under Federal contract and that 
these were not objective articles.
  Last year, the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams was paid 
$241,000 by the Education Department to promote the administration's 
education policy. And columnist Maggie Gallagher received $21,500 from 
the Department of Health and Human Services to work on the 
administration's marriage initiative. Again, neither of these 
individuals informed the public that they were working for the 
government and that they were not writing objective articles.
  Finally, it has recently surfaced that a semi-invisible PR group had 
received $200 million of taxpayers' dollars to spread anti-Saddam 
Hussein propaganda prior to the Iraq war. In fact, soon after the 
attacks on our country on September 11, 2001, the company received a 
$100,000-a-month contract from the Pentagon to offer media strategy 
advice. This was part of the misinformation campaign that led to the 
war in Iraq; and the result of that misinformation was that two-thirds 
of the American people thought that Saddam Hussein was actually behind 
the 9/11 attacks. We know, of course, that that was not the case. And 
eight out of ten Americans thought that Iraq had nuclear weapons 
because they were afflicted with this misinformation campaign.
  While the administration has been embarrassed by their contracts, at 
least the ones that have been made public, the agencies knew what they 
were doing when they hired these people to promote these misinformation 
campaigns. Many have questioned the legality of all of these contracts. 
The GAO, in fact, is looking into the legality of Armstrong Williams 
and the Gallagher case, and that ought to determine whether or not the 
administration violated the ban on covert propaganda.
  It is obvious, however, Mr. Chairman, that we need to make this 
statement with greater clarity and define more clearly what cannot be 
done by this or future administrations to misinform and mislead the 
American people by contracting out and engaging in a propaganda 
campaign using taxpayer dollars to misinform the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but we 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, is there an opposing argument to the 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan claimed the time in 
opposition, and he has reserved his time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire, does the gentleman 
have any time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from New York has inquired if 
there are Members who wish to be heard in opposition. The gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) controls the time in opposition.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to note that there are no Members here that are in opposition, 
and I have no position on this matter except to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
I thank the gentleman for accepting 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 New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 924. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda 
     purposes within the United States not heretofor authorized by 
     the Congress.
       Sec. 925. (a) In this section the term ``agency''--
       (1) means an Executive agency as defined under section 105 
     of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) includes a military department as defined under section 
     102 of such title, the Postal Service, and the Postal Rate 
     Commission; and
       (3) shall not include the Government Accountability Office.
       (b) Unless authorized in accordance with law or regulations 
     to use such time for other purposes, an employee of an agency 
     shall use official time in an honest effort to perform 
     official duties. An employee not under a leave system, 
     including a Presidential appointee exempted under section 
     6301(2) of title 5, United States Code, has an obligation to 
     expend an honest effort and a reasonable proportion of such 
     employee's time in the performance of official duties.
       Sec. 926. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 910 of 
     this Act, funds made available for the current fiscal year by 
     this or any other Act to any department or agency, which is a 
     member of the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program 
     (JFMIP), shall be available to finance an appropriate share 
     of JFMIP administrative costs, as determined by the JFMIP, 
     but not to exceed a total of $800,000 including the salary of 
     the Executive Director and staff support.
       Sec. 927. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 910 of 
     this Act, the head of each Executive department and agency is 
     hereby authorized to transfer to or reimburse ``General 
     Services Administration, Government-wide Policy'' with the 
     approval of the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, funds made available for the current fiscal year by 
     this or any other Act, including rebates from charge card and 
     other contracts: Provided, That these funds shall be 
     administered by the Administrator of General Services to 
     support Government-wide financial, information technology, 
     procurement, and

[[Page H5486]]

     other management innovations, initiatives, and activities, as 
     approved by the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, in consultation with the appropriate interagency 
     groups designated by the Director (including the Chief 
     Financial Officers Council and the Joint Financial Management 
     Improvement Program for financial management initiatives, the 
     Chief Information Officers Council for information technology 
     initiatives, the Chief Human Capital Officers Council for 
     human capital initiatives, and the Federal Acquisition 
     Council for procurement initiatives). The total funds 
     transferred or reimbursed shall not exceed $10,000,000. Such 
     transfers or reimbursements may only be made 15 days 
     following notification of the Committees on Appropriations by 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       Sec. 928. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used by the Office of Personnel Management 
     or any other department or agency of the Federal Government 
     to prohibit any agency from using appropriated funds as they 
     see fit to independently contract with private companies to 
     provide online employment applications and processing 
     services.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 928. 
This provision violates clause 2 of House rule XXI. It proposes to 
change existing law within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Government Reform and, therefore, constitutes legislation on an 
appropriations bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order? 
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section addresses funds in other acts. This 
section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and this section is stricken 
from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 929. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     woman may breastfeed her child at any location in a Federal 
     building or on Federal property, if the woman and her child 
     are otherwise authorized to be present at the location.
       Sec. 930. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States 945./Code, or section 910 of this Act, funds made 
     available for the current fiscal year by this or any other 
     Act shall be available for the interagency funding of 
     specific projects, workshops, studies, and similar efforts to 
     carry out the purposes of the National Science and Technology 
     Council (authorized by Executive Order No. 12881), which 
     benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or entities: 
     Provided, That the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     provide a report describing the budget of and resources 
     connected with the National Science and Technology Council to 
     the Committees on Appropriations, the House Committee on 
     Science; and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation 90 days after enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 931. Any request for proposals, solicitation, grant 
     application, form, notification, press release, or other 
     publications involving the distribution of Federal funds 
     shall indicate the agency providing the funds, the Catalog of 
     Federal Domestic Assistance Number, as applicable, and the 
     amount provided: Provided, That this provision shall apply to 
     direct payments, formula funds, and grants received by a 
     State receiving Federal funds.
       Sec. 932. Subsection (f) of section 403 of Public Law 103-
     356 (31 U.S.C. 501 note), as amended, is further amended by 
     striking ``October 1, 2005'' and inserting ``October 1, 
     2006''.
       Sec. 933. (a) Prohibition of Federal Agency Monitoring of 
     Individuals' Internet Use.--None of the funds made available 
     in this or any other Act may be used by any Federal agency--
       (1) to collect, review, or create any aggregation of data, 
     derived from any means, that includes any personally 
     identifiable information relating to an individual's access 
     to or use of any Federal Government Internet site of the 
     agency; or
       (2) to enter into any agreement with a third party 
     (including another government agency) to collect, review, or 
     obtain any aggregation of data, derived from any means, that 
     includes any personally identifiable information relating to 
     an individual's access to or use of any nongovernmental 
     Internet site.
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitations established in subsection 
     (a) shall not apply to--
       (1) any record of aggregate data that does not identify 
     particular persons;
       (2) any voluntary submission of personally identifiable 
     information;
       (3) any action taken for law enforcement, regulatory, or 
     supervisory purposes, in accordance with applicable law; or
       (4) any action described in subsection (a)(1) that is a 
     system security action taken by the operator of an Internet 
     site and is necessarily incident to the rendition of the 
     Internet site services or to the protection of the rights or 
     property of the provider of the Internet site.
       (c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``regulatory'' means agency actions to 
     implement, interpret or enforce authorities provided in law.
       (2) The term ``supervisory'' means examinations of the 
     agency's supervised institutions, including assessing safety 
     and soundness, overall financial condition, management 
     practices and policies and compliance with applicable 
     standards as provided in law.
       Sec. 934. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used to enter into or renew a contract which includes 
     a provision providing prescription drug coverage, except 
     where the contract also includes a provision for 
     contraceptive coverage.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract 
     with--
       (1) any of the following religious plans:
       (A) Personal Care's HMO; and
       (B) OSF HealthPlans, Inc.; and
       (2) any existing or future plan, if the carrier for the 
     plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious 
     beliefs.
       (c) In implementing this section, any plan that enters into 
     or renews a contract under this section may not subject any 
     individual to discrimination on the basis that the individual 
     refuses to prescribe or otherwise provide for contraceptives 
     because such activities would be contrary to the individual's 
     religious beliefs or moral convictions.
       (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
     coverage of abortion or abortion-related services.
       Sec. 935. The Congress of the United States recognizes the 
     United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) as the official 
     anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic 
     sport in the United States.
       Sec. 936. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated for official travel by Federal departments and 
     agencies may be used by such departments and agencies, if 
     consistent with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
     126 regarding official travel for Government personnel, to 
     participate in the fractional aircraft ownership pilot 
     program.
       Sec. 937. None of the funds made available under this or 
     any other Act for fiscal year 2006 and each fiscal year 
     thereafter shall be expended for the purchase of a product or 
     service offered by Federal Prison Industries, Inc., unless 
     the agency making such purchase determines that such offered 
     product or service provides the best value to the buying 
     agency pursuant to governmentwide procurement regulations, 
     issued pursuant to section 25(c)(1) of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c)(1)) that impose procedures, 
     standards, and limitations of section 2410n of title 10, 
     United States Code.
       Sec. 938. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds appropriated or made available under this Act or 
     any other appropriations Act may be used to implement or 
     enforce restrictions or limitations on the Coast Guard 
     Congressional Fellowship Program, or to implement the 
     proposed regulations of the Office of Personnel Management to 
     add sections 300.311 through 300.316 to part 300 of title 5 
     of the Code of Federal Regulations, published in the Federal 
     Register, volume 68, number 174, on September 9, 2003 
     (relating to the detail of executive branch employees to the 
     legislative branch).
       Sec. 939. Each Executive department and agency shall 
     evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing 
     the individual a government travel charge card. The 
     department or agency may not issue a government travel charge 
     card to an individual that either lacks a credit history or 
     is found to have an unsatisfactory credit history as a result 
     of this evaluation: Provided, That this restriction shall not 
     preclude issuance of a restricted-use charge, debit, or 
     stored value card made in accordance with agency procedures 
     to: (1) an individual with an unsatisfactory credit history 
     where such card is used to pay travel expenses and the agency 
     determines there is no suitable alternative payment mechanism 
     available before issuing the card; or (2) an individual who 
     lacks a credit history. Each Executive department and agency 
     shall establish guidelines and procedures for disciplinary 
     actions to be taken against agency personnel for improper, 
     fraudulent, or abusive use of government charge cards, which 
     shall include appropriate disciplinary actions for use of 
     charge cards for purposes, and at establishments, that are 
     inconsistent with the official business of the Department or 
     agency or with applicable standards of conduct.
       Sec. 940. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     executive branch agency shall purchase, construct, and/or 
     lease any additional facilities, except within or contiguous 
     to existing locations, to be used for the purpose of 
     conducting Federal law enforcement training without advance 
     approval of the Committees on Appropriations, except that the 
     Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is authorized to 
     obtain the temporary use of additional facilities by lease, 
     contract, or other agreement for training which cannot be 
     accommodated in existing Center facilities.
       Sec. 941. From funds made available in this or any other 
     Act under the headings ``The White House'', ``Special 
     Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of 
     Residence of the Vice President'', ``Council on Environmental 
     Quality and Office of Environmental Quality'', ``Office of 
     Science and Technology Policy'', and ``Office of the United 
     States Trade Representative'', the

[[Page H5487]]

     Director of the Office of Management and Budget (or such 
     other officer as the President may designate in writing) may, 
     15 days after giving notice to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, transfer not to exceed 10 percent of any 
     such appropriation to any other such appropriation, to be 
     merged with and available for the same time and for the same 
     purposes as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided, 
     That the amount of an appropriation shall not be increased by 
     more than 50 percent by such transfers: Provided further, 
     That no amount shall be transferred from the heading 
     ``Special Assistance to the President and the Official 
     Residence of the Vice President'' without approval of the 
     Vice President.
       Sec. 942. Section 4(b) of the Federal Activities Inventory 
     Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-270) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Executive agencies with fewer than 100 full-time 
     employees as of the first day of the fiscal year. However, 
     such an agency shall be subject to section 2 to the extent it 
     plans to conduct a public-private competition for the 
     performance of an activity that is not inherently 
     governmental.''.
       Sec. 943. (a) No funds shall be available for transfers or 
     reimbursements to the E-Government Initiatives sponsored by 
     the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prior to 15 days 
     following submission of a report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations by the Director of the Office of Management 
     and Budget or receipt of approval to transfer funds by the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
       (b) The report in (a) shall detail:
       (1) the amount proposed for transfer for any department and 
     agency by program office, bureau, or activity, as 
     appropriate;
       (2) the specific use of funds;
       (3) the relevance of that use to that department or agency 
     and each bureau or office within, which is contributing 
     funds; and
       (4) a description on any such activities for which funds 
     were appropriated that will not be implemented or partially 
     implemented by the department or agency as a result of the 
     transfer.
       Sec. 944. (a) The adjustment in rates of basic pay for 
     employees under the statutory pay systems that takes effect 
     in fiscal year 2006 under sections 5303 and 5304 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall be an increase of 3.1 percent, and 
     this adjustment shall apply to civilian employees in the 
     Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security 
     and such adjustments shall be effective as of the first day 
     of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 
     January 1, 2006.
       (b) Notwithstanding section 913 of this Act, the adjustment 
     in rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems that take 
     place in fiscal year 2006 under sections 5344 and 5348 of 
     title 5, United States Code, shall be no less than the 
     percentage in paragraph (a) as employees in the same location 
     whose rates of basic pay are adjusted pursuant to the 
     statutory pay systems under section 5303 and 5304 of title 5, 
     United States Code. Prevailing rate employees at locations 
     where there are no employees whose pay is increased pursuant 
     to sections 5303 and 5304 of title 5 and prevailing rate 
     employees described in section 5343(a)(5) of title 5 shall be 
     considered to be located in the pay locality designated as 
     ``Rest of US'' pursuant to section 5304 of title 5 for 
     purposes of this paragraph.
       (c) Funds used to carry out this section shall be paid from 
     appropriations, which are made to each applicable department 
     or agency for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2006.
       Sec. 945. (a) In General.--Section 604(d) of the Fair 
     Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b(d)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(d) Limitation on Use of Consumer Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--A credit card issuer may not use any 
     negative information contained in a consumer report to 
     increase any annual percentage rate applicable to a credit 
     card account, or to remove or increase any introductory 
     annual percentage rate of interest applicable to such 
     account, for any reason other than an action or omission of 
     the card holder that is directly related to such account.
       ``(2) Notice to consumer.--The limitation under paragraph 
     (1) on the use by a credit card issuer of information in a 
     consumer report shall be clearly and conspicuously described 
     to the consumer by the credit card issuer in any disclosure 
     or statement required to be made to the consumer under this 
     title.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section 
     604(a)(3)(F)(ii) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 
     1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``subject to 
     subsection (d),'' before ``to review''.

                              {time}  1030


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) 
will state his point of order.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that 
section 945 of H.R. 3058 is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  That rule precludes changes in existing law from being report in a 
general appropriation bill. The section directly amends the Fair Credit 
Reporting Act, an Act within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Financial Services regarding the use of credit reports.
  The section beginning on page 222, line 23, through 223, line 20, 
clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.
  I would note further that House Resolution 342, the rule providing 
for consideration of the bill, did not waive points of order under 
clause 2 rule XXI against this section.
  I would urge the Chair to sustain the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to be heard on the point of order.
  Section 945 to which the gentleman objects is in this bill for the 
purpose of ending a practice under which a credit card company can jack 
up a cardholder's interest rates to the default rate which can be as 
high as 30 percent. Even if that person has never missed a payment and 
never been a day late on any payment to that credit card company, that 
interest rate can be jacked up if that consumer was 1 day late in the 
payment of some other bill and that was reported on a credit report.
  This language is in here to correct a glaring and obscene omission in 
legislation which was passed by the House several weeks ago, the 
infamous bankruptcy bill.
  As I understand the rules, the gentleman is objecting to this 
language because it is legislation on an appropriation bill and falls 
under the jurisdiction of another committee. As I understand the rules, 
while the Rules Committee did not protect this section in the rule 
under which the bill is being debated, this section could be passed by 
the House if no Member chooses to object to it.
  I would respectfully suggest to the gentleman, in the interest of 
protecting consumers in this country from these bloodsuckers, I would 
suggest that the gentleman would do the country a great service if he 
would withdraw his point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this issue has been 
debated at length by the House. There was a similar amendment that was 
debated at length. It was rejected by the membership of this House by a 
significant vote. In this case today on an appropriations bill, 
legislating this issue, that has been debated and rejected in an 
appropriate forum, this is not clearly an appropriate forum. I 
reiterate my point of order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would have to reluctantly concede because 
of the warped rules which the majority party passed out of the 
Committee on Rules, which protected countless other provisions from 
points of order, but neglected to protect this section so that some of 
the biggest banks in the country can rip-off Americans, I would have to 
confess that under that myopic and misguided rule, I would have to 
concede the point of order.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must first dispose of the point of order. 
Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I will wait until the point of order has 
been disposed of and then claim my 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. The 
section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the section is stricken from the 
bill.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to repeat some remarks that I made on the 
floor the other day. I happen to have a Visa card. I have had it for 
years.
  The other day I received in the mail a notification that this Visa 
card had been transferred to another bank. If you take a look at the 
fine print on the notice that accompanies that transfer, the fine print 
makes clear that the following can occur.
  Let us say that for 10 years the gentleman from Florida who just 
lodged

[[Page H5488]]

the point of order, let us say for 10 years that gentleman has held 
this same Visa card, and that for that 10-year period he has not been 
late a single day in any payment to this credit card company. 
Nonetheless, the gentleman from Florida, or any other citizen of 
America, can have the interest rate on this card raised to the default 
rate if, for instance, that person had gone on vacation and while on 
vacation that person's wife, let us say, had broken her arm. And let us 
say she was responsible for writing the checks each month and because 
she was hurt she could not write the checks for a couple of weeks. And 
if that late payment because of that injury--to another company on 
another account--wound up in a credit report totally unrelated to your 
performance on the initial card, nonetheless, that credit card company 
claims the right to jack up interest rates to 30 percent.
  In my view, that is nothing but blood-sucking usury, and I find it 
incredible that the majority party in this House finds ways time and 
time and time again to genuflect to the special interests like these 
credit card companies and to use the technicalities of the rules of 
this House to deny the average American citizen the protection that 
they ought to have a right to expect from representatives of this body 
who are supposed to represent the general interests rather than the 
special interests of these credit card companies.
  It is an outrage that this body would allow this kind of a practice 
to continue. It is an outrage that the well-connected shysters who 
engage in this practice are not stood up to unanimously by 435 people 
in this House.
  So all I can say is if the majority wants to hide behind the 
technicalities to protect yet another well-paying special interest, I 
cannot do a whole lot about it except raise my voice, and that is what 
I am doing today.
  I would hope that the American consumers would take notice who it is 
that decides that the technicalities of the rules are more important 
than giving the consuming public a fair shake.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. As the designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, last week the full Committee on 
Appropriations voted 33 to 25 to accept this provision that prevents 
credit card issuers from using totally unrelated consumer information 
to raise the annual percentage rates on cardholders. The provision 
could have been protected by the Committee on Rules. It was not. 
Therefore, the point of order was possible. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has accepted the point of order reluctantly.
  But this provision in no way prevents companies from raising interest 
rates, but simply states that banks can only base that decision on the 
interest rate on information that is relevant to the account that they 
issue. This provision would make sure that people who pay their credit 
card account on time and remain within their credit limit do not have 
their annual percentage rates increased.
  The practice of using unrelated information to increase those rates 
is not allowed when lenders issue home mortgages, and it simply should 
not be allowed when they issue credit cards. It is outrageous that this 
practice is legal.
  I hope that the discussion here, since the issue has been ruled out 
of order, will be the impetus for the Committee on Financial Services, 
which has raised the point of order, it will be the impetus to get rid 
of this practice.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I find this inexplicable. This is the 
House of Representatives. We are here purposefully to protect the 
interests of the American people. There is no situation in which it is 
more clear as to where the interest of the American people lie than in 
the context of this amendment that has been offered today by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I assume that is why it passed the 
Committee on Appropriations by such a strong vote.
  But for political reasons, the Committee on Rules has decided not to 
protect the amendment, not to allow it to come out here and not be 
subject to the kind of opposition it received a moment ago from the 
gentleman from Florida.
  This issue should be debated on the floor of this House. This 
amendment should be passed. Why? Because the credit card companies are 
increasingly putting American families deeper and deeper and deeper in 
debt. The average debt now, according to the Federal Reserve, the 
average debt of the average American family is 115 percent of income 
and the main reason for that is credit card debt.
  The credit card companies attract consumers, often attracting them in 
at relatively reasonable interest rates, and then very rapidly for 
extraneous reasons and circumstances, increase those rates. And the 
debt that people owe to credit card companies is going up and up and 
up.
  That is one of the reasons why this House of Representatives passed 
that atrocious bankruptcy bill not long ago, a bankruptcy bill which, 
in effect, in large part was influenced strongly by the credit card 
companies. What have we become? This House, which is supposed to 
represent the interests of the American people, the average American, 
the average American family, has fallen now to represent narrower and 
narrower special interests, and the obvious special interest in this 
case are the credit card companies which has become the fastest growing 
and one of the most lucrative businesses in America. And why? Because 
we are not doing our job. This House of Representatives is not doing 
what it is supposed to do: Protect the interest of the average family 
and not allow usurious interest rates to take place here over and over 
and over again.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the practical result of the point of order 
lodged by the gentleman from Florida is to make the credit card 
companies the only people in America who can raise the price of 
something you bought after you bought it. If people are comfortable 
putting themselves in that supine position, I cannot do anything about 
it. But I find it interesting that the gentleman is a member of the 
Rules Committee, which cleverly left this measure exposed and then 
exploited that failure on the part of the Rules Committee in order to 
knock this language out of the bill. That is a nice sleight of hand 
operation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 946. Unless otherwise authorized by existing law, none 
     of the funds provided in this Act or any other Act may be 
     used by an executive branch agency to produce any prepackaged 
     news story intended for broadcast or distribution in the 
     United States, unless the story includes a clear notification 
     within the text or audio of the prepackaged news story that 
     the prepackaged news story was prepared or funded by that 
     executive branch agency.
       Sec. 947. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to administer, implement, or enforce the amendment 
     made to section 515.533 of title 31, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, that was published in the Federal Register on 
     February 25, 2005.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Simmons

  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Simmons:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds 
     made available in this Act may be used to enter into, 
     implement, or provide oversight of contracts between the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee, and private 
     collection agencies. Notwithstanding this provision, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee, may continue to 
     utilize any private collection contract authority in effect 
     prior to October 22, 2004. Nothing in this provision shall 
     impact the administration of any tax or tariff.
       (b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise 
     provided by this Act for ``internal revenue service-business 
     systems modernization'' is hereby reduced by $5,000,000.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.

[[Page H5489]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment is very straightforward. It simply requires that the 
collection of Federal taxes will continue to be done by officials of 
the IRS and not by private contractors. This amendment is similar to 
one that was introduced by the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. 
Capito) last year and passed by voice vote, although it was ultimately 
taken out of the bill in conference.
  I think all of us, Mr. Chairman, want a Federal system that 
efficiently collects taxes, but we cannot do it at the expense of 
taxpayers' rights or privacy. If the IRS is allowed to go forward with 
the outsourcing of tax collection, millions of taxpayer files will be 
made available to private debt collection companies. These companies, 
in turn, will collect up to a 25 percent fee for any collections from 
American taxpayers.
  This type of incentive system on the part of collectors is ripe for 
abuse and ripe for harassment, which is why the IRS specifically 
prohibits its own employees from being engaged in a quota system with 
regard to tax collection.
  Mr. Chairman, each year millions of Americans voluntarily disclose 
sensitive personal information to the IRS with the expectation that it 
will be handled with the utmost discretion and care, that it will be 
protected from erroneous or deliberate disclosure outside the IRS. Yet 
current law allows the IRS to disclose this information to third-party 
contractors. This cannot be allowed to stand.
  Do we really want to release commission-hungry tax collection agents 
on the American public? Is this really good public policy?
  Mr. Chairman, at a time when we are concerned about identity theft, 
we should not be in the business of putting sensitive information into 
the hands of private contractors. Just today, the Washington Post did 
an editorial, Have You Been Stolen? And it says, ``Once your name, date 
of birth, address and Social Security number go astray, you are 
permanently at risk.''
  Yet, if we do not pass this amendment that I have offered here today, 
millions of American taxpayers will be permanently at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleague 
from Connecticut in offering this amendment to ensure the fair 
treatment of the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, it was just back in 1998 that, in response to overly 
aggressive IRS collection tactics, the Congress passed the IRS 
Restructuring and Reform Act. That act specifically prevented IRS 
agents and their supervisors from being evaluated based on how much 
taxes they collected. They couldn't get a bonus based on how much tax 
they collected. The reason was pretty simple. We wanted to make sure 
that the IRS agents had an objective approach, that they weren't 
harassing taxpayers for their own personal benefit.
  That brings us to why we are offering this amendment here today. The 
provision that was included last year in the FSC corporate tax bill 
reversed that policy. In fact, even worse, it said that private 
collection agencies could go out and collect these taxes and that they 
would get a 25 percent bonus if they collected those taxes. In other 
words, they were on a commission, based on how much they collected, 
which creates exactly the wrong incentive, an incentive that we tried 
to address back in 1998 when we passed that earlier legislation.
  Furthermore, it hurts the American taxpayer in another way. Right 
now, when the IRS agent goes out and collects taxes, 100 percent of 
those taxes go to the public Treasury to be spent on education and 
health care and other things that this Congress may decide to invest in 
for the American people. Under the existing special interest provision 
that got stuck into the law last year, 25 percent of those moneys are 
now going to go, not to the Federal Treasury for public purposes, but 
they are going to be pocketed by these private bounty hunters, 
essentially, debt collectors who are out there, who have an incentive 
to be overly aggressive with the taxpayer, have an incentive not to 
look at the issue fairly; and at the end of the day, they pocket 25 
percent instead of those funds going to the benefit of the American 
taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment and 
I urge its adoption.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time I have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, in those 30 seconds I would like to say 
that taxes today are complicated. Senior citizens have problems with 
them. Single moms have problems with them. Small business owners have 
problems with them. Mistakes can be made. But the collection should not 
be turned over to commission-based bounty hunters. We should not adopt 
a policy that turns these people loose on our citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be 
withdrawn, as I understand that there is a point of order against it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman's amendment is 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do understand that the point of order lies, and I 
understand why my chairman has raised the point of order. I just want 
to make something clear on the record, however, that I believe that 
collection of tax is an inherent role of government, and if the point 
of order had not lay against the provision, I would have supported the 
amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Given the ongoing reports of identity theft and lost data these days, 
I have come to abhor the very idea of putting private and sensitive 
information in the hands of debt collectors. It seems to me, as I have 
already pointed out, it is an inherent role of government to collect 
taxes. It is a fundamental responsibility of government. We shouldn't 
privatize this activity, particularly when it will cost taxpayers more 
money than collecting the owed taxes by Federal employees.
  For that reason, I would have supported the amendment, but I do 
understand the point of order as my chairman has raised it.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the 
     amendments made to section 515.561 of title 31, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, as published in the Federal Register on 
     June 16, 2004, with respect to any Member of the United 
     States Armed Forces.
       (b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     implementation, administration, or enforcement of section 
     515.560(c)(3) of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
of order on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the house of June 29, 2005, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
had assumed that a point of order would be raised. I know that those 
opposing this amendment don't want to talk about this amendment, and I 
can understand why.
  Carlos Lazo escaped from Cuba in the late 1980s. He hopped a raft, 
but unfortunately he was caught; he was caught by Castro's forces. He 
was taken back to Cuba where he spent 1 year in Castro's prisons.
  A little later he decided that the pull from freedom was strong 
enough that

[[Page H5490]]

he would try again, and he did. He got on another raft and this time he 
made it. He made it and he became an American. Not only did he become 
an American, he became a soldier. Not only that, he went over to Iraq 
and served us proudly. In fact, Sergeant Lazo was recently awarded the 
Bronze Star for bravery in action in Iraq.
  Last June, when he came home from Iraq, he wanted to visit his two 
sons who are still in Cuba. He is divorced. They and their mother live 
in Cuba. He tried to do so. He went to the Miami Airport only to find 
that since he had been in Cuba once in the past 3 years, he couldn't go 
again for another 3 years. He was prevented from going to see his 
family.
  Here we are, our government, telling one of its finest, a soldier who 
put his life on the line in Iraq, a soldier that we trust in Iraq, but 
don't trust to be able to go and see his family more than once out of 
every 3 years. We acknowledge that he should be able to go see his 
family, but only once every 3 years.
  What kind of a policy is that for us to have? And who would object to 
that? How hard-hearted do you have to be to say a soldier serving his 
country cannot go home and see his two kids?
  Those on the other side might say, well, why don't we just bring his 
family over here? And he says, well, I have a good relationship with 
their mother and she wants them to stay there, and who am I to say any 
different? He also would like to see his grandmother and relatives 
while he is over there, that couldn't come here.
  The notion that we should tell him what is best for him is at the 
root of this whole policy of denying Cuban-American families the right 
to see their families. If this amendment is indeed ruled out of order 
and we are unable to decide the fate of Sergeant Lazo, the only 
alternative is to vote for the Davis amendment that will be offered 
shortly.


                             Point of order

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Is debate supposed to be on the 
point of order?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserved a point of order. 
The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Arizona for 5 minutes on 
his amendment pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me point out again, this is another 
thing that the other side doesn't want you to hear. That is why I was 
just interrupted.

                              {time}  1100

  The only way we can allow Sergeant Lazo to see his family is to vote 
for the Davis amendment, which will allow him and other Cuban American 
families to go see their families better than once every 3 years.
  I think Sergeant Lazo says it best. He says, Cubans pray every day 
that their parents die 3 years apart if their parents are in Cuba, so 
they are able to go see them.
  Who are we? Who are we as Americans to tell other Americans that they 
should only be able to go and see their family, their mother, their 
father, or their kids in this case once every 3 years? What kind of 
policy is that?
  Again, I am not able to offer this amendment. It is going to be ruled 
out of order. So the only way we can allow Sergeant Lazo or other Cuban 
Americans or others to see their families more than once every 3 years 
is to vote for the Davis amendment that will be offered shortly.
  Again, Cuban Americans are only allowed once every 3 years. If they 
have a mother in Cuba and she dies and they decide to attend her 
funeral, if their father's dies 2 years later, they cannot go to his 
under this policy unless we vote for the Davis amendment.
  I ask my colleagues to please look at their hearts here, see if this 
is what they want to do as an American to deny another American the 
right to see their family in Cuba. That is what this amendment is all 
about. Because we are unable to offer this one, that is what the Davis 
amendment will be about.
  When we are debating the Davis amendment, I suppose we will hear on 
the other side, as we have heard in the past, hey, we oppose this, we 
live in a Cuban American community, we know that they do not want to go 
see their families. Perhaps the people they know feel that way, but I 
can tell my colleagues, I represent some Cuban Americans as well. 
People do all over.
  Sergeant Lazo comes from the State of Washington, and they would like 
to go. And who are we, who is anyone to tell others that they cannot go 
there?
  At the root of what we are trying to do is to give people the freedom 
to make that choice themselves rather than imposing that choice upon 
them, a choice whether to go see their families, to be able to visit 
their kids, as a soldier. And there are other soldiers as well; he is 
not the only one.
  I would ask Members to please vote for the Davis amendment if we are 
unable to vote for this one.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the hypocrisy of this Administration is 
stunning. Sergeant Lazo was sent by his commander in chief to fight in 
a war that President Bush has claimed is a ``fight for freedom.''
  Yet this same Sergeant Lazo, an American citizen, has been told by 
the Government he serves that he is forbidden from seeing his children 
simply because they live in Cuba.
  This tragedy is an extension of the administration's idiotic policy 
to restrict travel to Cuba.
  This myopic policy is anti-family, anti-democratic values and it must 
be repealed.
  I have been a strong supporter of lifting the travel ban and embargo; 
there is no better way to spread democracy and improve relations 
between Cuba and the United States then by allowing for people-to-
people exchanges and unlimited family travel and promoting trade 
between our two countries.
  But because of the restrictive travel policies implemented by this 
administration, each and every U.S. citizen should be very concerned 
that fellow American citizens do not enjoy the same rights and freedoms 
that each one of us has.
  Sargeant Lazo is a tragic victim of a flawed 40-year-old policy. It 
is time for change. Support the Flake amendment and allow Sargeant Lazo 
to visit his children.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of 
order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law 
and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.'' The amendment at hand requires a new 
determination. And so I make the point of order against this amendment.
  We will have discussion today, Mr. Chairman, on the right of all the 
people of Cuba to be free and the right for them not to have families 
divided. They pray every day for freedom, and they work for it. We will 
have that debate. But not on amendments that violate the rules of this 
House.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Hearing none, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination by Federal officials to discern whether a person is a 
member of the Armed Forces. The amendment therefore constitutes 
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe what has just happened on the floor of 
this House. In effect, what has happened is that some of these same 
people who tried to stick their noses into the question of how the 
Schiavo family should deal with an end-of-life issue at a time of great 
pain for that family, some of the people in this House who felt 
compelled to stick their noses into that case are now trying to stick 
their noses into the question of how often someone who is wearing the 
uniform of the United States can see their family.
  I am getting awfully tired of having people on this floor bleat about 
family values and then take actions which keep families apart. I am 
awfully tired of hearing people, in effect, suggest that because we 
dislike Mr. Castro so much that the only way someone wearing the 
uniform of the United States is going to be able to see his family in 
Cuba is only if they are lucky enough to see Castro go.
  What happens in the meantime? Where are these vaunted family values?

[[Page H5491]]

  I will tell the Members where they are. When they get in the way of 
people's political ideology or family squabbles in Cuba, they get 
tossed out the window. What a pitiful joke.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Davis of Florida

  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Davis of Florida:
       Page 224, insert the following after line 8:
       Sec. 948. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the 
     amendments made to section 515.560 or 515.561 of title 31, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (relating to travel-related 
     transactions incident to travel to Cuba and visiting 
     relatives in Cuba), as published in the Federal Register on 
     June 16, 2004.
       (b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     implementation, administration, or enforcement of section 
     515.560(c)(3) of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I first ask, as a matter of 
procedure, who will be claiming time on the other side?
  The CHAIRMAN. Time has not yet been claimed.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\3/4\ minutes.
  Today I am offering an amendment to repeal the administration's rules 
restricting family travel to Cuba. I offered this same amendment last 
September. It passed by a vote of 225 to 174. Unfortunately, the 
amendment was not included in the conference report. I am asking my 
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join me again today in 
correcting this cruel injustice.
  As was just described in the prior amendment, the Department of 
Treasury introduced rules in June of 2004 that limit to once every 3 
years the opportunity of anybody in my home State of Florida of the 
United States to visit their own flesh and blood, their family, in Cuba 
regardless of the circumstances.
  Furthermore, the policy that I seek to repeal through this amendment 
is an unforgivable policy that redefines the family to exclude aunts, 
uncles, and cousins. And I ask anybody on the floor of the House today 
to stand up and defend this indefensible aspect of the policy.
  A vote for my amendment is to reinstate the prior rule that allowed 
people here in the United States to visit their own family once a year 
and to apply for a specific license if there were an emergency: a 
birth, a death, or someone who is very sick and might die.
  I represent hundreds of people in the Tampa Bay area, like many 
Americans, who simply would like to be with their family in these 
tragic times. This policy prohibits it.
  Let me be clear. My amendment does not address the broader issue of 
the embargo or unfettered travel to Cuba. That is a debate for another 
day. This is simply about families. This Congress, this country should 
be in the benefit of supporting families, not undermining them, not 
separating. This policy punishes Cubans on both sides of the straits, 
and it has no positive impact on the embargo issue. I represent many 
people who are trying to reach out to their families at a time they 
have little hope, little support, under this oppressive regime in Cuba 
I have seen with my own eyes.
  As was mentioned earlier, Sergeant Lazo was good enough to be sent to 
Iraq to defend our country as part of the Washington National Guard. He 
has two sons in Cuba, one of whom, I understand, is in the hospital. He 
is not allowed to go visit his own son because he was in Cuba 2 years 
ago.
  A deputy assistant secretary of the United States State Department 
summed this up last year. He said, an individual can decide whether 
they want to visit Cuba once every 3 years and the decision is up to 
them, and if they have a dying relative, they have to figure out the 
best time to travel. These are words that no one would dare speak on 
the floor of this House of the United States of Representatives. How 
outrageous.
  This Chamber is constantly taking steps to defend and support 
families: tax relief, marriage penalty relief, child tax credits. 
Everyone on the floor of this House of Representatives talks about 
family values here and at home. This is a chance to act on family 
values. We have an opportunity today to support families who may be 
divided in geography, but they are not divided in flesh and blood and 
commitment to each other.
  I hope this body, which is divided on the embargo, will come 
together, support families, and adopt the Davis amendment.
  Today I am offering this amendment to repeal the administration's 
rules restricting family travel to Cuba.
  As you may remember, I offered this same amendment last September. 
The House of Representatives recognized this injustice and passed my 
amendment by a bipartisan vote of 225 to 174. Unfortunately, my 
amendment was not included in the conference report. I call on my 
colleagues to pass this amendment once again.
  On June 30, 2004, the Department of Treasury implemented new 
restrictions on family travel to Cuba. Cuban Americans are now limited 
to one 14-day visit with their Cuban relatives every 3 years.
  The administration has also attempted to redefine the Cuban family. 
Cuban-Americans are no longer permitted to visit their aunts, uncles or 
cousins in Cuba.
  My amendment would prohibit funds in this bill from being used to 
implement, administer or enforce the changes made to family travel.
  A vote in favor of my amendment is a vote to reinstate the previous 
policy, which allowed Cuban-Americans one trip per year under a general 
license, allowed for additional emergency visits under a specific 
license and kept aunts, uncles and cousins where they belong--as part 
of the family.
  Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. This amendment deals exclusively with 
keeping families together and would not permit unfettered travel.
  But the United States should not be in the business of separating 
families. The new family travel rules undermine families, punish Cubans 
on both sides of the Florida straits and have minimal effect on the 
Government of Cuba.
  The Cuban people are talented and ambitious, but under Castro's 
oppressive rule, they are left with little hope. For many, their only 
lifeline is the emotional and financial support they receive from 
relatives in America.
  Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with numerous Cuban Americans in my 
district of Tampa Bay and across Florida who were heartbroken by these 
regulations. And, most recently, I met with SGT Carlos Lazo, a Cuban 
American who bravely served our country in Iraq. He is not even 
permitted to visit his two sons in Cuba.
  In fact, last year, a deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Sate 
Department summed up the outrageous insensitivity of these rules when 
he was quoted by Reuters as saying, ``An individual can decide when 
they want to travel once every three years and the decision is up to 
them. So if they have a dying relative they have to figure out when 
they want to travel.''
  Mr. Chairman, this chamber is constantly celebrating and supporting 
America's families. We've passed marriage penalty relief and child tax 
credits. But these sweeping changes on family travel to Cuba were 
enacted without so much as one hearing in Congress.
  Again, we have an opportunity to right this wrong. We have an 
opportunity to celebrate the positive relationships between the United 
States and Cuba. We have the opportunity to support families who may be 
divided in geography, but not in flesh and blood and certainly not in 
love.
  This body may be divided on whether the United States should allow 
travel to Cuba for tourism or business reasons, but I hope that today 
we can unite in support of families. I urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the Davis amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the 
time 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 3 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman 
from Florida's amendment.

[[Page H5492]]

  A year ago I too had concerns about the changes in the regulations on 
family travel when they were first introduced, and I voted with the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) because I believed that Cuban 
Americans had virtually no notice that the regulations were about to be 
changed and they could not plan their travel to Cuba accordingly. But a 
year later my view of these concerns no longer applies.
  So now the question becomes the focus on the impact of travel to 
Cuba, and I would like to share with Members of the House a letter that 
many of us recently received from the leading Cuban opposition leaders: 
Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello, Rene de Jesus Gomez Manzano, Felix 
Antonio Bonne Carcasses. These are the same opposition leaders who, on 
May 20 of this year, organized an historic Assembly to Promote Civil 
Society on the 103rd anniversary of Cuban independence.
  This event brought many civil society organizations together for the 
first time to discuss democracy in Cuba. And as we learned in a hearing 
earlier this year in the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, of 
which I am the ranking Democrat, the organizers and the participants in 
this event risked their personal freedom for the freedom of the Cuban 
people. In fact, these leaders have already suffered in Castro's jails 
for speaking out on behalf of the Cuban people. And it is the same 
group of leaders who risked their lives for democracy in Cuba, not 
those here in the diaspora, but those who are inside of Castro's Cuba, 
who ask this Congress in their letter not to adopt any changes, any 
changes, which would either partially or totally change the nature of 
the embargo.
  In fact, they clearly state that any such change would be interpreted 
as a new policy of compromise with the Castro regime and cite that 
nothing has been done by the regime to move forward to an accommodation 
with that element of civil society that ultimately seeks to change the 
fundamental basics of human rights that we seek to promote throughout 
the world. And I think we have to heed the warning that they are 
sending, and we must send a clear message to the Castro regime that we 
will not compromise when it comes to human rights, freedom, and 
democracy in Cuba; that we will not dilute the embargo in any way and 
that we must respect the voices of those very same Cubans who suffer 
under the regime.
  And, finally, let me just say that one cannot seek political asylum 
from a country and then constantly travel back to it. One is either a 
political asylee or one is not. One cannot keep traveling back to a 
country from which they are a political asylee.
  And, lastly, we all know the great difficulties, those of us who are 
not only Cuban Americans but who represent 99 percent of all Cuban 
Americans in the country; and they have one voice, and that voice is to 
do everything we can to end the suffering of the Cuban people.
  We hear those voices from Cuba. We should listen to them.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, some may ask why the Cuban American community 
overwhelmingly not only supports these measures to limit resources to 
the terrorist regime, but elects Members, each and every Member, Cuban 
American Member whether they are Republicans or Democrats, who also 
agree with the overwhelming majority of the Cuban American community on 
measures to limit resources to the terrorist regime.
  Among the reasons for that, obviously, it is because it is a 
terrorist regime, an anti-American terrorist regime, that oppresses the 
Cuban people and has done so for 46 years; but also because Cuban 
Americans know that freedom never comes free. The only country in the 
world that has the benefit of a law here in the United States that says 
one reaches soil in the United States and they are treated like a 
political asylee are Cubans. And with those great privileges, the great 
privilege of the Cuban Adjustment Act, come responsibilities.
  If one is from any other country in the world, as the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) said, and they are a political asylee, they 
cannot go back once every 3 years. They cannot go back, period, until 
the political situation changes in the country they have left. But 
Cubans not only are treated, and rightfully so, because they are 
fleeing a Communist tyranny in this hemisphere, as though they were 
jumping over the Berlin Wall, they are treated as political asylees, 
but they can go back and visit family every 3 years; whereas from any 
other country in the world, political asylees cannot.

                              {time}  1115

  So, at this point, I would say this is a very serious issue, but 
suffice it to say that it is not by chance that all the Cuban American 
Members of this House and the overwhelming majority of the community 
support all of these measures to limit resources from the terrorist 
regime.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The argument has been made that this debate is about limiting 
resources. Does anyone want to stand on the floor of this House of 
Representatives and tell anyone that they cannot go visit a dying 
member of their family because that is an appropriate limitation on 
resources?
  I have been down to Cuba and seen with my own eyes the suffering and 
injustice and misery under this oppressive regime. This government is 
treating their people terribly. One of the few things they have left in 
life, apart from their own faith and pride, is the support of our own 
family. No one, no one dares stand on the floor of this House today and 
answer the question, what do you tell somebody I represent or you 
represent when someone in their family is having a baby, is approaching 
death or may die and cannot go down to visit their own family because 
they were just there 2\1/2\ years ago. That is indefensible. It is 
unforgivable. This is not a debate about the embargo. This is a debate 
about whether we are going to stand on the floor of the House of 
Representatives and support families and support family values.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance 
of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the 
distinguished leader and Member from the International Relations 
Committee.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, when we eliminate all the emotional 
rhetoric here on the floor, what we get to is this amendment. This 
amendment provides an economic lifeline to the dictatorship. By 
prohibiting OFAC from enforcing U.S. laws and regulations, this 
amendment removes those safeguards and it provides the Castro regime 
with the much needed currency to continue its reign of terror.
  Prisoners of conscience are languishing in squalid cells in Cuba, and 
yet, what are we doing? We are going to bestow this pariah state 
another victory. Castro is very happy when we do these amendments. 
Former political prisoners in my Congressional district who endured the 
most inhumane treatment are the first ones to oppose any weakening of 
these restrictions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Davis amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to anyone who 
opposes this amendment, that wants to defend a policy that says that 
your family or mine or anybody's family cannot include aunts, uncles or 
cousins.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the reason that 
President Bush implemented these regs, the reason we have an embargo is 
because we want the political prisoners freed, because we want 
political parties legalized, labor unions legalized, the press 
legalized, and elections scheduled, and we want to retain the leverage 
of those billions of dollars in travel until the dictatorship releases 
political prisoners. And you know something, yes, there is pain 
involved in the Cuban tragedy. But the pain comes from the tragedy of 
the dictatorship and not because of our policies.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the silence 
is

[[Page H5493]]

deafening here. With all due respect to my colleague, with whom I agree 
on many Cuba policies and respect, no one dares stand on the floor of 
the House of Representatives and answer the question why we are 
supporting a policy that says that your uncle, aunt or cousin is not a 
member of your own family, your own flesh and blood.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Did the gentleman not hear when I 
spoke 10 seconds ago?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is not a 
debate about the embargo. This is a debate about who is considered a 
member of the family. No one dares stand on the floor of the House of 
Representatives today and answer the question why we are going to deny 
to an individual the right to visit a member of their own family who 
may be having a child, who may be dying. I represent people who every 
day are facing the cruel injustice of this policy. For them it is not 
about a message. It is not about rhetoric. It is about the facts. The 
fact is we are denying Sergeant Lazo, who was good enough to represent 
our country and our families, including our aunts, uncles and cousins 
in Iraq, the ability to visit his own sons in Cuba, including one who 
in the hospital. This is an unforgivable indefensible policy.
  I would urge Democrats and Republicans to once again adopt the 
amendment.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the author and proponents of this amendment, 
which would lift the longstanding prohibition on American travel in 
Cuba, support it for perfectly valid motives. They believe the infusion 
of both American money and American culture--however limited--will be a 
net positive for Cuba's struggling economy. And if, in fact, Cuba's 
economy was simply struggling, I would whole-heartedly support this 
amendment. But Cuba's economy is not struggling--it is strangled. It is 
dominated, oppressed, and leeched by Fidel Castro's terrorist regime in 
Havana.
  Cuba has no economy, not in the way we understand the term; it merely 
has economic extensions of Castro's tyranny. In Castro's Cuba, any 
money taken in from tourists is pilfered by the government and used to 
fund its decades-old machinery of oppression. There is no free market; 
just a command economy. There are no small businessmen; just Castro's 
button-men. There is no service industry; just a giant money-laundering 
apparatus for a murderous tyrant. Proponents of this amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, would have us believe Cuba could become America's playground 
if only the economic sanctions were lifted--that once Cuba's economy 
and culture were exposed to American dollars and sensibilities, we 
would have a tropical paradise, an exotic vacation Mecca, right around 
the corner.
  But Mr. Chairman, the difference between Cuba and Bermuda is not the 
absence of tourists in the former but the absence of secret police in 
the latter! The money Americans would spend in Cuba under this 
amendment would directly--not indirectly, but directly--benefit Fidel 
Castro's dictatorship, his aiding and abetting of international 
terrorism, his oppression of the Cuban people, and his hijacking of 
Cuban history. The only solution is to not spend that money in the 
first place.
  President Bush is right, as he has been for four years, to promise to 
veto any legislation that enriches Fidel Castro or benefits his regime. 
The president is right. I stand with him, and I urge all my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, these cruel anti-family restrictions need 
to be reversed. They have already caused too much human pain and 
suffering.
  Nelson Diaz arrived in the U.S. in 1981, leaving his father, brothers 
and extended family in Cuba. He visited his family in May 2004--and is 
now not eligible to return until May 2007. His father is 87 years old 
and in failing health. If he is forced to wait the full three years, 
Diaz will not see his father alive again.
  Waldo Parravicini left his family behind in 1958 when he came to the 
U.S. Until last June, he saw them on a regular basis, delivering vital 
medicines to his aging father. Under the new restrictions, Waldo has 
missed the deaths of his father and grandfather, aunts, uncles, cousins 
and friends, as well as the births and baptisms of nieces and nephews. 
If Waldo and his 93-year-old mother have to wait two more years, she 
may never see her oldest daughter and grandchildren again. Regarding 
the new limits on family travel, Waldo says they are ``not worthy of 
any nation that truly values family and God.''
  Ana Karim, a pastor with the Richmond Mennonite Fellowship in 
Richmond, Virginia, has family throughout Cuba, who she visited 
regularly until last year. She brought medicine, clothing and food to 
her two uncles, one suffering from cancer and the other from 
Parkinson's disease. Now Ana cannot visit any of her family in Cuba 
because the new law declares that her uncles, aunts and cousins are not 
immediate family.
  Mr. Chairman, who in this Chamber can possibly, in good conscience, 
support a policy that deliberately creates such family pain and 
suffering?
  We're supposed to be the good guys.
  Stop punishing these innocent families.
  Support the Davis amendment.

      Profiles of Cuban-Americans Harmed by the New Family Travel 
                          Restrictions on Cuba


                            Marisela Romero

       Marisela Romero is a 56-year-old Cuban-American woman who 
     lives in Miami. Her only sister and her mother had died in 
     Cuba several years ago, leaving her to manage the care of her 
     elderly and demented father who lived in a small coastal town 
     on the island. Prior to last summer she had traveled every 
     two to three months to visit him. She sent him medicines, 
     diapers, and other supplies to make his life easier, and 
     hired several Cubans who provided him with the round-the-
     clock care that allowed him to stay in his own home. Then, in 
     2004 our government dramatically restricted Cuban-Americans 
     in terms of both traveling to Cuba and sending material aid. 
     She was forbidden to send money to those who were caring for 
     him. She was forbidden to visit him more often than once 
     every three years. She was even forbidden to send him the 
     diapers he needed because they were not deemed to be 
     ``medicine.'' After several months of not seeing his only 
     living child, he died. Both he and his daughter suffered 
     irreparable harm because of the new regulations. It is 
     unacceptable to treat either American families or Cuban 
     families with such cruelty.
                                  ____



                              Nelson Diaz

       Nelson Diaz arrived in the United States in 1981, leaving 
     his father, brothers, and extended family in Cuba. He was 
     able to visit the island in May 2004 and is not eligible to 
     return until May 2007. However, his father is 87 years old 
     and in failing health. Diaz fears that if he is forced to 
     wait the full three years that he will not see his father 
     alive again. He also worries about his limited ability to 
     send money and goods to the rest of his family. Despite 
     having built a successful life in the United States, 
     according to Diaz, ``I cannot be completely happy if my 
     family and friends in Cuba are in need and I cannot help 
     them.''
                                  ____



                           waldo parravicini

       Leaving behind his family in Cuba, Waldo Parravicini came 
     to the United States in 1958 to attend college after Batista 
     shut down the University of Havana. Until last June when the 
     regulations governing family travel to Cuba changed and 
     restricted visits to once every three years, Parravicini 
     visited his family on a regular basis, delivering vital 
     medicines to his aging father during his long battle with 
     illness.
       Referring to the travel restrictions, Parravicini says, 
     ``its hypocrisy and double standard are incredible . . . and 
     not worthy of any nation that truly values family and God.''
       Because of the limitations on travel to Cuba, Waldo has 
     missed important family events including the deaths of his 
     father and grandfather, aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends; 
     and the births and baptisms of nieces and nephews. If Waldo 
     and his 93-year-old mother have to wait two more years to 
     visit Cuba, his mother may not be able to see her oldest 
     daughter and grandchildren again.
                                  ____



                               ana karim

       Ana has family throughout Cuba and has made a habit of 
     visiting them at least once a year. On her visits to Cuba, 
     Ana brings medicines, clothing, and food. These gifts are 
     particularly helpful to her two uncles, one suffering from 
     cancer and the other from Parkinson's disease.
       While her uncles have received free medical treatment from 
     the Cuban government, they face a drastic shortage of 
     medicine, particularly ibuprofen. When Ana visited last May, 
     she took several bottles of the pain medicine with her; a 
     gift which was immensely appreciated.
       Under new travel restrictions, effective June 30th, Ana is 
     no longer able to visit her family in Cuba. The new law 
     dictates that aunts, uncles, and cousins are not in one's 
     ``immediate family'' and Cuban Americans cannot legally visit 
     those relatives.
       Ana works as a pastor with the Richmond Mennonite 
     Fellowship in Richmond, VA. She has traveled to Cuba in this 
     capacity as well leading two-week seminars in Cuba that 
     fulfill a class requirement for students at Baptist 
     Theological Seminary at Richmond. The new restrictions now 
     prohibit any programs lasting shorter than 10 weeks, severing 
     this opportunity from her as well.

  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Davis 
amendment to the Treasury Transportation bill.
  Our foreign policy should reflect our Democratic values. The 
Administration claims that family values are the bedrock of our 
society,

[[Page H5494]]

yet this same Administration has instituted one of the most anti-family 
policies in US history.
  In June 2004 the Office of Foreign Assets Control issued regulations 
that only permit Cuban-Americans to visit their immediate family 
members in Cuba every three years.
  Are any of us willing to trade places with Cuban-Americans living in 
the United States who are denied the opportunity to visit freely with 
their family members . . . because of geography? I think not.
  What does such a restrictive policy say about American values to 
Cuban Americans? What does such a restrictive policy say about American 
values to the rest of the world? What does such a policy say about the 
civil rights of Cuban Americans living in the United States?
  It is akin to a ``separate but equal'' policy since Cuban Americans, 
who should enjoy the same civil liberties that all other Americans 
enjoy, cannot freely visit their families in Cuba.
  As this Nation prepares to celebrate its 229th birthday on July 4, I 
urge my colleagues to remember the democratic principles our Founding 
Fathers enshrined in the Constitution. Don't treat Cuban Americans as 
``separate but equal.''
  Overturn the ban on travel to Cuba and support the Davis amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, none of us come here to defend the Cuban 
Government or its historically poor human rights record and repressive 
system of government. But 46 years of the same failed policy have 
accomplished nothing. And the more we normalize relations with Cuba, 
the faster Fidel Castro will lose his grip on the Cuban people. This is 
why we should be making it easier for Americans to go to Cuba.
  Yet we seem to be going in the opposite direction. Rather than being 
committed to political openness and the free exchange of goods and 
ideas--powerful forces--we are clamping down on our own citizens--in 
the process, preventing any liberalization of the Castro regime and 
penalizing law-abiding Americans.
  Last week, I met with U.S. Army Sgt. Carlos Lazo, who has two sons in 
Cuba, one critically ill. This is a man who won the Bronze Star for 
fighting in Iraq, but our government will not let him visit his own 
son. Why? Because he traveled to Cuba last year. Even the Cuban 
government has said Sgt. Lazo's son can come here to visit his father.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of human rights and economic 
freedom. Limiting the rights of Americans to travel back to Cuba, or to 
send money home to their families is no way to bring change to Cuba.
  In committee, we already acknowledged as much from the business end. 
There, we recognized how much progress we have made in the last few 
years on the economic front, with agriculture sales growing to almost 
$400 million from almost nothing 4 years earlier. That is why the 
committee unanimously agreed to loosen traveling restrictions to Cuba 
with respect to agribusiness.
  There is no reason we should not do the same for these families. Now 
is a time for compassion. Particularly when we are talking about men 
and women in the United States military uniform, who are defending our 
freedom overseas, we should show them that their Congress recognizes 
that freedom begins at home. Support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. 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 Florida (Mr. Davis) will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
       Page 224, insert the following after line 8:
       Sec. 948. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to amend section 515.566 of title 31, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (relating to religious activities in Cuba), as in 
     effect on June 29, 2005.

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point 
of order on Mr. Flake's amendments. He has got, I believe, eight of 
them, and I am not sure if all of them are consistent with the rules of 
the House. So what I would like to do because I do know that some at 
least or at least another one is not, I reserve a point of order on Mr. 
Flake's amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would rather respond to the questions on this. What 
this amendment simply does, those who are opposed to change in Cuba 
have said let us keep the current regulations. Let us keep the current 
exemptions that we have. Let us keep it all the same. The gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) just stood and said the dissidents are 
saying that, let us keep it exactly the same.
  This amendment, with regard to the religious exemption that exists, 
says keep it the same. That is what we are doing with this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again, I was not 
aware of which of the multiple amendments that the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake) has filed he was going to bring up at this time. My 
understanding is that this particular amendment, of the many that he 
has filed, is in order. So I look forward to the debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw his reservation of the 
point of order?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the 
reservation of the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  My understanding of this, of the many amendments that Mr. Flake has 
filed with regard to matters that would increase currency to the 
regime, this amendment states that he wants to tie the President's 
hands from issuing any further regulations that could have the effect 
of changing the current regulation that does permit religious travel to 
Cuba. So I want it to be clear, there is currently a category in U.S. 
law that permits travel for religious purposes to Cuba.
  What the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is saying is, well, I do 
not know if in the future the President could do something that I 
disagree with, and so I want to prohibit something the President may do 
in the future with this amendment. For example, the regime, colleagues, 
I am sure are aware of the fact, has had about 15 spies arrested in the 
United States in the last 3 or 4 years. If the administration should 
find that the religious travel category were being utilized to either 
train spies or intensify the efforts of Cuban state security against 
the United States, this amendment would prohibit the President from 
issuing, in effect, further regulations on that.
  Religious travel is legal. That is not being debated at this time. 
What the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is saying is that he wants 
to tie the hands of the President in the future with regard to one of 
the six remaining terrorist states in the world. It is wrong. We should 
not tie the President's hands, and so I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I offered this 
amendment to see what the other side would do on this, and just to let 
this body know how far we are going here. They claim to respect 
religious liberties and to allow religious visits to Cuba. Yet, when I 
say let us protect that current exemption that exists, they say we 
might want to go further. We might want to apply a religious test and, 
in fact, it is happening right now in Miami. There are groups that are 
going down under a certain religion, and now we have our own Department 
of Treasury and the Congress apparently saying we are not sure you are 
really that religion, we are not sure you really believe that. And so 
we might restrict that further.
  In fact, regulations were just issued a few months ago to say that, 
you know, we think, and this is without approval of Congress, just new 
regulations saying it ought to only be 25 people that could go at one 
time. Anything else is unreligious apparently. That is where we are 
going. It just baffles me to see where we are going here.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute

[[Page H5495]]

to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Arizona's 
amendment is very dangerous. Let me tell you why. Read the amendment. 
It says none of the funds made available in this Act can be used to 
amend this section relating to religious activities. If the 
administration or any future administration, if this amendment were 
adopted, wanted to increase the flow of religious activity into Cuba, 
which is permitted under existing law by license, is permitted under 
existing law by license, if there came a point in time in which the 
floodgates wanted to be open, the gentleman from Arizona's amendment 
would prohibit the Federal Government from doing so.
  That is a prohibition that is not in the national interest, security 
or in the foreign policy of the United States, and it is very clear 
that religious institutions right now have all the wherewithal and have 
been traveling to Cuba.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, 
believe me, given the history of this issue, the last thing any of us 
worry about is for those who oppose changes on the Cuba issue to 
liberalize or to allow more religion and more religious travel, because 
every effort is to restrict, is to tell people we know better than you. 
We apparently can define whether you are really religious or not or 
whether you really believe in that faith. That is what this is about. 
We are simply trying to protect it.
  I would love the President to say, hey, let us open it and I would 
sponsor legislation to do that certainly. I have. But the last thing we 
are worried about here is for religion to be opened up because every 
effort by those who oppose the freedom to travel to Cuba has been to 
restrict people's freedoms and rights and religion.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance 
of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is prospective. It seeks to prohibit the 
use of funds on something that may or may not happen, may be looser, 
may be stricter, legislating on hypotheticals. And once again, U.S. law 
already allows individual members of religious organizations to travel 
to Cuba for religious purposes. The only requirement is that they have 
a specific license. That is a safeguard in U.S. law to ensure that 
travel is in fact for the stated purposes, and not for the purposes of 
tourism.

                              {time}  1130

  The regulations ensure that financial donations are not provided to 
the regime under the guise of religious activity. Current law seeks to 
prevent the manipulation of legitimate activities to practice or share 
as one believes about the Cuban people.
  The practice of religion should be reaching out, in solidarity, in 
total respect for the fundamental rights of each and every human being. 
But what happens in Cuba? The Cuban people continue to live mired in 
misery and oppression. In Cuba, people are denied their freedom of 
conscience, their freedom of belief, their freedom of religion. They 
are persecuted, prosecuted for those beliefs because they run contrary 
to the Communist doctrine.
  Proponents of this amendment and others seeking to revoke U.S. policy 
toward the Castro dictatorship argue that they are doing it to help the 
Cuban people. But when we speak of helping the Cuban people, Mr. 
Chairman, we need to focus on the freedom of the Cuban people. Help is 
liberty. Help is helping to ensure that every Cuban can speak their 
minds, not be imprisoned or threatened or beaten to death for it. Help 
is ensuring that the Cuban people are permitted to practice their 
religion in true freedom. That is not taking place in Cuba right now.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. This amendment 
will just free, open so much of the lawlessness that is going on with 
the permitting process. It promotes lawlessness because it states we 
are not going to regulate it in the future. We do not know what will 
happen.
  Reject this amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment to allow people to see what 
this is all about. And the notion that what the other side wants to 
defeat this amendment for, because they might allow more religious 
travel, is pretty much laid bare by opposition to the other amendments 
that have been offered, allowing family members to travel or military 
members to travel, or support for regulations in the past to restrict 
religious freedom; to say, hey, if you are of a certain religion, then 
we at the Department of Treasury, we are going to decide how many are 
really in your congregation, what kind of religion you have or whether 
it is really a religion at all. That is what this is about.
  But I am cognizant of the fact that if this is twisted, like many of 
the amendments offered on Cuba are, and people misunderstand it as this 
is something to lift the whole embargo, in fact, the talking points 
just read refer to a different amendment because it talked about 
lessening.
  I am talking about keeping. I am cognizant that if this were to go 
down, that would embolden this side to restrict religion even further, 
saying we have license. The House has said, let us restrict religion 
even further.
  That is the last thing I want, and I will not be party to that.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arizona?
  There was no objection.


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

  Ms. LEE. 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 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. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed will 
each 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, this amendment is very simple and, hopefully, should be 
very noncontroversial. It passed this body last year by voice vote, and 
I am asking for support again this year. This amendment is good for 
education, the budget, and our national security concerns and it 
supports our students. It is good for the spread of democracy. Let me 
explain why I say that.
  This amendment prohibits funds in this bill from being used to 
enforce new regulations, promulgated in June of 2004, that severely 
restrict and in many cases eliminate opportunities for United States 
students to study abroad in Cuba.
  The revised travel regulations take our policy towards Cuba in 
exactly the wrong direction. These regulations are plain punitive and 
undemocratic. They simply do not make sense for Americans. Regulations 
that have already denied 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.
  This is an issue of freedom for our students to travel and gain 
invaluable experience and educational opportunities that only 
international study abroad programs can provide.
  After the House passed this amendment last year, students and 
institutions from across the country were

[[Page H5496]]

very relieved. They want the opportunities to conduct their studies, 
learn about other cultures, and make independent judgments for 
themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply moves students closer to what 
they really deserve. And make no mistake, isolating Cuba and preventing 
these important contacts between students and Cuba will not change the 
Government of Cuba.
  In 1963, let me remind you that Attorney General Robert Kennedy 
sought to lift the entire U.S. travel ban to Cuba. He believed that the 
travel ban was inconsistent with our views, our views of a free 
society. More than 40 years later we are still debating an outdated 
policy from a bygone era, but this is just a very simple amendment that 
will speak right to our American students. We need this policy to allow 
our young people to change ideas, values and experiences.
  These types of exchanges are what will truly bring change to Cuba. 
Our students are the best ambassadors for democracy. Also, Mr. 
Chairman, money spent enforcing these regulations, I think this money 
would be better spent tracking down terrorist finances.
  Before the new regulations were enacted, the Miami Herald reported 
that the Office of Foreign Assets, which, of course, is the department 
responsible for tracking the finances of terrorists, international 
narcotics, and weapons of mass destruction, has six more times 
personnel, I could not believe this, six more times personnel working 
on Cuba licensing than tracking bin Laden.
  Now, OFA officials are tracking students and Cuban American families 
instead of focusing on terrorists.
  Today, I stand against squandering our resources to enforce these 
ineffective, outdated policies as they relate to our students and to 
our 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 the themselves.
  American students are allowed to visit and participate in educational 
opportunities and programs in China and in other countries which we may 
or may not agree with, and so I believe that our own young people 
deserve this right. It is basic to their educational desires if they 
choose to do this.
  Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that last year the State 
Department and the 9/11 Commission both underscored the importance of 
our youth in 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, she said, 
One of our greatest assets in public diplomacy is the American people 
themselves. Programs, she said, that which bring Americans and foreign 
citizens in direct contact, can and do have tremendous positive impact.
  The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report stated 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 interest to allow our youth to spread the message of 
American values and hope so that people can see for themselves who 
America is and what we stand for.
  This amendment is straightforward, Mr. Chairman, and should not be 
controversial. We are talking about mainstream family values, 
education, freedom to learn and the freedom to export our American 
principles.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Lee amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the 
time in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is interesting how amendments make themselves to the 
floor, find their way to the floor with regard to the Cuban terrorist 
dictatorship, with language of freedom, talking about education, 
talking about reunification, talking about students.
  Over 100 pro-democracy activists, leaders in Cuba met last month at 
great risk to their lives and to their families' lives, and they met 
publicly for the first time in 46 years. They held a convention. Many 
of them were not permitted to arrive. State security kept them in their 
homes, threw them in prison, but over 100 did arrive at the convention.
  They met there and for the first time in 46 years they had elections 
and they elected leaders of the prodemocracy movement. They issued 
positions calling for the release of political prisoners and democracy, 
free elections. And they sent us a letter, Mr. Chairman, signed June 
24, the three leaders of the Assembly to Promotes Civil Society.
  They asked us in this letter with great respect for the decisions of 
a sovereign Congress, to reject each and every amendment that was going 
to be presented this week, either completely or partially eliminating 
sanctions against the dictatorship. And the dictator, Mr. Chairman, has 
gone on his state television, obviously, the only channel that belongs 
to him, and has said, ``A severe response'' awaits those mercenaries.
  The omnipotent, totalitarian dictator, Mr. Chairman, until one day, 
omnipotent, goes on television and says ``a severe response'' awaits. 
The Cuban people know what that means. At any moment these leaders or 
their families will be thrown in dungeons and subjected to the torture 
that thousands of political prisoners are subjected to in Cuba each day 
and hundreds of thousands have been subjected to for 46 years.
  Now, this letter, should we give it the credence and authority and 
respect that its courage, its heroism demands? I believe we should. 
This is a very serious issue. We have a policy to help the Cuban people 
and not the jailers of the Cuban people, not the oppressors of the 
Cuban people.
  Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) 
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, let me comment with regard to the gentleman's presentation, 
and I thank the gentleman for calling to our attention the letter. But 
I am opposing U.S. foreign policy. And it is my contention that we 
should not allow letters from foreign citizens to dictate those types 
of foreign policy measures that the United States of America should be 
making in terms of our educational programs for our American students.
  This is about American students and their right to participate in 
educational programs. It has nothing to do with any of the issues that 
this letter addresses.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, with over 160,000 American students 
studying abroad each year, the United States acknowledges the potential 
contribution of true educational exchanges, and Cuba is no exception.
  Under current law, educational activities by American students in 
Cuba are permitted. In fact, under current law, these activities are 
enhanced by regulating the manner in which students may fulfill these 
study semesters abroad. Therefore, if it is truly the opportunity for 
education that the Lee amendment attempts to preserve, then I would 
like to respectfully remind my colleagues here today that American 
students are afforded this opportunity through the implementation of 
current regulations.
  The regulations in place merely serve to ensure that those students 
traveling for educational purposes are doing just that. Current law 
establishes that specific licenses for educational activities be 
preserved for undergraduate and graduate institutions. These measures 
were enacted and must been enforced to prevent the abuse of educational 
activities such as spring break getaways and island shopping sprees.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' for the Lee 
amendment because educational travel is already permitted.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) 
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute

[[Page H5497]]

to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening 
to this debate, and one of the things that was said today is that we 
should not accept letters from even freedom fighters, heroes who are 
suffering under Castro's oppression.
  If we should not listen to them, maybe we should listen to what the 
dictator himself has said about amendments such as this in the past. 
When an amendment such as this passed a couple years ago, he said, 
``The House of Representatives voted with determination and courage for 
amendments that bring glory to that institution. We should always be 
grateful for that gesture.''
  That is the dictator himself, grateful for amendments like this. 
Should we be on the side of the Cuban people or should we be taking 
actions that the dictator himself calls glorious?

                              {time}  1145

  I think that is something that clearly this body needs to take in 
consideration.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
remaining time.
  I would ask all of colleagues who may be watching this debate to 
realize this is a very serious issue, that the policy of the United 
States is a well-thought through policy. It permits travel for 
educational reasons, humanitarian reasons, family reasons. There are 13 
categories of legal travel.
  Remember, it is terrorist state that has shot down Americans just 
years ago, that has the head of its air force indicted for murder of 
American citizens, shot down over the straits of Florida. It has the 
head of its navy indicted for drug trafficking. It is a terrorist 
state, one of six remaining states.
  So these are serious issues. We must keep this policy to deny hard 
currency to the regime while permitting the 13 categories of legal 
travel.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE. 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 California (Ms. Lee) 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

  Mr. SANDERS. 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. Sanders:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following: ``None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide for the competitive sourcing of flight 
     service stations.''

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This tripartisan amendment is being cosponsored by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. 
Herseth), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), 
and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). It also has the 
strong support of the AFL-CIO, representing 13 million American 
workers, the Transportation Trades Department, the Professional Airway 
Systems Specialists and the National Association of Air Traffic 
Specialists.
  Mr. Chairman, on February 1, 2005, the FAA awarded a $1.9 billion 
contract to Lockheed Martin to close 38 out of 61 automated flight 
service stations across the country and privatize 20 others. This 
contract is not scheduled to go into effect until October 1, 2005.
  If this contract is implemented, over 1,000 highly trained air 
traffic control specialists will be in danger of losing their jobs, and 
the retirement benefits of some 2,500 Federal aviation workers will 
also be in jeopardy.
  Mr. Chairman, this privatization scheme is a bad idea, a wrong idea 
for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the question of air 
safety, something that is on the mind of every Member of Congress and 
every American person who flies.
  Flight service stations are crucial to the safety and security of our 
Nation's air space. They provide a host of critical services to more 
than 600,000 general aviation pilots, as well as providing assistance 
to military and commercial pilots.
  Air traffic control specialists advise pilots on such information as 
terrain, pre-flight and in-flight weather information, suggested routes 
of flight, altitudes and indications of turbulence or icing. As a 
matter of fact, when this country was attacked on September 11, 2001, 
the key national security function of air traffic control specialists 
was on full display. During that national tragedy, air traffic control 
specialists communicated crucial information to planes in the air and 
on the ground and were responsible for restarting air traffic in the 
days following. In addition, Mr. Chairman, keeping airplanes out of 
restricted air space is the responsibility of air traffic control 
specialists.
  Further, air traffic control specialists are critical to protect our 
airways during a natural disaster. When hurricanes hit the southeast 
last year, flight service stations remained open, and air traffic 
control specialists remained working to ensure the safety of airline 
passengers, even though other FAA facilities were shut down.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my very strong opinion that we should not be 
compromising air safety by privatizing air traffic control specialists 
to a corporation, Lockheed Martin, whose main function in life is 
making a profit. When passengers get on a plane, when passengers take 
off and land at an airport, they want to know that everything possible 
is being done to protect the safety of those flights and not that 
operations have been turned out to the lowest possible bidder.
  Interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, Congress has already passed a 
provision prohibiting three flight service stations in Alaska from 
being privatized, and that provision has been signed into law by the 
President. Mr. Chairman, I support that law and believe that what is 
good for Alaska, a State highly dependent on air travel, should be good 
for the rest of the country and that we should prevent flight service 
stations across the country from closing, which is exactly what this 
amendment will do.
  Mr. Chairman, the second important reason that we should pass this 
amendment is that at a time when millions of American workers are 
worried that the pensions that have been promised to them will not be 
there when they retire, we must show that Congress will not be 
complicit in that process and that we will stand up for them when their 
pensions are going to be slashed.
  Mr. Chairman, if this amendment fails, not only will 1,000 highly 
trained air traffic control specialists be in danger of losing their 
jobs, but the retirement benefits of some 2,500 Federal aviation 
workers, most of whom are over the age of 40, will be in jeopardy. That 
is wrong.
  The Federal Government must set an example to the private sector. 
When we promise a Federal employee that he or she will get a pension, 
that promise must be kept. If we do not keep our promises regarding 
pensions to Federal employees, how can we expect that United Airlines 
or other major corporations will keep their promises?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me respond to the Sanders amendment, which I am opposed to. It is 
a transparent attempt to void a contract that would deliver tremendous 
benefits to the general aviation community and save the FAA $2.2 
billion over the next 10 years.
  It also could result in up to $350 million in additional costs to the 
FAA in the form of termination penalties.
  There is no erosion of safety associated with contracting out flight 
service stations. Simply put, flight service stations do not control 
air traffic. Flight service stations receive and file flight

[[Page H5498]]

planes and provide pilot weather briefings, en route communications, 
and search and rescue services to general aviation pilots.
  The contract will enhance all of these services to the general 
aviation community. It has strong support from private pilots because 
they know that better services will result in a safer system.
  This contract will have little or no impact on commercial or military 
pilots who get these services from different sources.
  It also protects existing flight service station employees. Lockheed 
Martin will offer jobs to all incumbent employees. Salaries will be 
matched, including locality pay. Lockheed Martin will provide a sign-on 
bonus, as well as a retention bonus for many positions, as well as up 
to $50,000 for relocation allowances. Additionally, Lockheed Martin 
will offer a 401(k) savings plan, income protection plan and 
performance bonuses.
  The contract was fairly bid, and the flight service station employees 
competed in the offering.
  This contract has been years in the making. Congress should not step 
in after the fact to stop this contract and deny better services to 
more than 600,000 private pilots.
  Let me turn to some of the pilot private pilots on this. This is a 
quote: ``After spending 90 minutes getting an advance look at a 21st 
century flight service station and asking hard questions, all I can say 
is, Wow! On the basis of what the contractor will deliver under the 
contract, pilots are going to be much better served and much safer.''
  Another: ``For the first time in history, pilots are going to get a 
contractual guarantee that a live briefer will answer their phone calls 
within 20 seconds and acknowledge their radio calls within 5 seconds. 
Flight plans will be filed within 3 minutes. It's in the contract.''
  Then: ``And as any pilot who has been stuck on hold for 20 minutes 
trying to get a weather briefing can tell you, the system is overloaded 
and frequently non-responsive.''
  These are all quotes from people who actually are involved in this 
process. So I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), of which 
I am a cosponsor.
  It is very important that we pass this amendment to protect aviation 
security and safety. The service provided by the flight service station 
specialists is an inherently governmental function. It is important to 
the community of McAlester, Oklahoma, in my district where we have 
many, many people employed and not only to McAlester, Oklahoma, but to 
our Nation because flight service stations across the country are a 
critical component of our air traffic system.
  At a time when we all agree it is critical to strengthen aviation 
security and safety, privatizing these jobs is the wrong way to go. 
While there is a role for the private sector to competitively provide 
certain government services, this is not one of those services.
  It is imperative they not be turned over to a for-profit company. We 
should not outsource our Nation's air traffic control functions. The 
safety of the flying public should not be offered to the lowest bidder, 
and these highly trained and experienced specialists should continue to 
provide their critical service to keep our Nation's air space safe and 
secure.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I rise in very strong opposition to the Sanders amendment.
  I chair the Subcommittee on Aviation, and I can say that we have been 
involved for a number of years. We have had a comprehensive 3-year 
study by the Federal Aviation Administration, and in February of 2005, 
we awarded a contract to provide automated flight services for the next 
10 years by a competent contractor.
  This competitive sourcing process was supported by the aircraft 
owners and pilots association. They are the primary organization that 
represents many of the 600,000 pilots that we heard the sponsor of the 
amendment refer to. They are the main users of flight service stations, 
private pilots.
  Flight service stations do not control air traffic. Flight service 
stations receive and file flight plans and provide pilot weather 
briefings, en route communications, and search and rescue services to 
the general aviation pilots.
  According to their pilots, again AOPA, and this is Phil Boyer, he 
said this is the way the current system works for the safety of our 
pilots and so-called security in the air: ``Any pilot who has been 
stuck on hold for 20 minutes trying to get a weather briefing can tell 
you, the system is overloaded and frequently non-responsive. The system 
had to change, and this is a change for the better.'' He also said, 
``Pilots are going to be much better served and much safer.''

                              {time}  1200

  Now, private pilots do recognize that the current system that we have 
in place is antiquated and it is costing us more than $600 million a 
year. So the worst part about this is we are paying more and getting 
bad service, or no service, as the head of the Aircraft Pilots 
Association has said.
  So this contract is estimated to save the taxpayers about $2 billion 
over the next 10 years and provide dramatically improved service. If 
this amendment passes, in fact, there will be no transition money; and 
on top of that, there will be a $350 million penalty for termination of 
the contract.
  Under the FAA reform plan, $2.2 billion in taxpayers' dollars will be 
saved, and again we will have new technology to make the airspace for 
our general aviation pilots safer, with the best, most efficient, cost 
effective technology and, at the same time, we protect the employees 
that are in place.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to consider this amendment and defeat 
it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to 
protect hard working Federal employees in my district from having their 
jobs transferred to the private sector and ultimately lost.
  The Federal Aviation Administration recently awarded to Lockheed 
Martin to run the Flight Service option of air traffic controller. The 
AFSS facilities in Cleveland, Ohio, will be closed down in the next 
year or 2, and approximately 32 jobs will be lost.
  The only winner here is the contractor, Lockheed Martin, who will 
certainly profit handsomely. From my past experiences with the A76 
process, I can predict with certainty that the Federal Government will 
lose money, many jobs will be lost, and the essential services of air 
traffic control will suffer. Privatization of essential government jobs 
is dangerous and unnecessary.
  The FAA has steadfastly refused to answer several questions I and 
several other Members of Congress have asked about this privatization 
effort. We asked questions about the process of this privatization 
effort, employee transfers, the retirement options, opportunities to 
challenge the privatization, and future health care benefits. These are 
the sort of questions that employees should have had answers to months 
ago but still lack today.
  We raised concerns as Members of Congress about how the vendor bids 
were evaluated, how risk was assigned to these bids and how the 
priority of the relationship between the FAA and the winning vendor was 
justified. We asked for copies of various vendor bids to make sure the 
process was fair. To date, the FAA has not responded to any letters 
that Members of Congress who are concerned about this have sent. This 
is outrageous and evidence that FAA privatization is faulty.
  If the FAA cannot even respond to simple Congressional inquires, I 
question their ability to perform a fair process. Employees deserve 
better. Support the Sanders amendment and stand up for Federal 
employees.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).

[[Page H5499]]

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the gentleman from Vermont 
for bringing this issue before us today.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a station in my district that would be impacted 
by this; hard working people who work to protect all of the general 
pilots that come into that area, the City of Hawthorne, will lose their 
jobs. I do not understand why somehow the Alaska Flight Service 
Stations are protected from this privatization effort but all of the 
other stations are not, and they are going to consolidate and basically 
close down most of these 61 Flight Service Stations in the United 
States that service the needs of general aviation pilots, but not the 
Alaskan service stations.
  In addition to that, I do not know what pilots the gentleman is 
referring to who have gotten behind consolidation and closing down 
these stations. It is not true of the pilots who call me. They do not 
like the privatization. They want to do away with it. They support the 
amendment of the gentleman from Vermont that we have before us, and I 
would ask the Members of this Congress to stand behind this amendment.
  Save these Federal jobs and keep the protection that we have with 
these very caring Federal employees who do not want to be placed in a 
situation of unemployment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, pardon me, but what is the time 
allotment on the other side and here?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 30 seconds 
remaining and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how many more speakers 
the gentleman from Michigan has?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I have no speakers left, but I reserve the right to 
close, so I want to continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue here is a simple one: We cannot compromise 
the air safety of the United States of America to the lowest bidder, 
whose main function in life is profiteering rather than protecting the 
needs of American air travelers.
  Equally important, we cannot turn our backs on the promises made to 
2,500 Federal employees in terms of their pensions. If we turn our 
backs on them, we are turning our backs on millions of American workers 
whose pensions can also be slashed. Let us protect Federal employees. 
Let us pass this amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me close with just a few points, Mr. Chairman. To summarize: 
Contracting out Flight Service Stations will result in no erosion in 
safety. It is a safer system and 600,000 general aviation pilots will 
get better service. The contract will save taxpayers money. Not a bad 
idea. Employees will be protected. This, in my judgment, is a no-
brainer.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment very strongly and 
urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it for several reasons.
  This amendment would prevent the FAA from privatizing the critical 
flight safety functions that are currently performed by highly trained 
flight service professionals. Some government functions, like ensuring 
safe airspace for the flying public, play such a significant role in 
protecting public safety and enhancing homeland security, that we must 
insist that they remain government functions. Privatization, when used 
selectively, can deliver savings and efficiency, but not all functions 
are good candidates for privatization. Flight service falls into this 
category.
  We have a flight service facility in Huron, South Dakota, that 
employs specialists who live in the community, and many of them are 
pilots themselves. The decision by the FAA to close Automated Flight 
Service Stations across the country would include the Huron station. 
Its functions are set to be delegated to facilities hundreds of miles 
away in other States. Taking this step would greatly strain the 
national capacity of the flight service and reduce pilots' access to 
the localized knowledge of weather and topography that the Huron 
station currently provides.
  Of even more concern, this decision also could mean the elimination 
of virtually all of the flight service stations across the Northern 
Plains; an area of the country that relies on general aviation much 
more than the more densely populated regions of the country.
  Finally, this step will not only weaken our Nation's air safety 
system, it will unfairly treat thousands of dedicated flight service 
employees that would be affected. While I agree that we cannot oppose 
privatization proposals solely because some Federal employees might 
lose their jobs, we also have an obligation to treat our dedicated 
public servants fairly. Most of the professionals that would be 
affected by this change, including many at the Huron flight service 
facility, have given many years of their professional lives to the 
Federal flight service. Many are within years or even months of 
qualifying for their Federal Government pensions. This policy would 
have the effect of unfairly slashing the retirement benefits that they 
have earned, and it is another reason why we should delay this action 
for a year and devise a more reasonable approach.
  This amendment will give us time to devise a plan to ensure that 
vital aviation safety functions are provided by a well-trained and 
highly qualified workforce, and it would enable us to treat fairly 
those that have worked for many years to provide this important 
service. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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 Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.


                    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:
       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 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 June 29, 2005, 
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. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, right now in the Committee on Ways and 
Means there is a lot of discussion going on in reporting out a Central 
American Free Trade Agreement, which includes the Dominican Republic. 
This is part of an effort on the part of our great country to try to 
open up the doors and to make certain we give an opportunity to people 
throughout the world, but especially those in our own hemisphere to 
have an opportunity for a better quality of life.
  This concept has been extended to Communist China, to North Korea, 
and to other countries. But here, we believe, in Cuba, it has nothing 
to do with anything except politics. It has nothing to do with the 
economy. It has everything to do with a small group of people in 
Florida. With all due respect to their strong feelings against Castro, 
it would seem to many of us that the best way to get rid of a dictator 
is to really open up the country; to be able to go to send remittances 
to families; to be able to travel; but certainly to be able to have an 
exchange of commodities between their country and ours.
  It seems to me that American businesses are losing billions of 
dollars by not being able to trade. And who is being hurt? It is 
certainly not Castro. It is the poor people in the country. And if we 
cannot believe or bring ourselves to see that this policy for over 45 
years has cost us in prestige around the world that respects 
international trade agreements; that has cost us in money; but I really 
believe it has cost us by allowing Castro to tell the people in Cuba 
that every economic crisis that

[[Page H5500]]

they have is based on the United States' embargo.
  As an American, if every country in the world has recognized this 
man, why can we not say that we recognize the Cuban people? Why can we 
not allow our business people to establish a relationship so that we 
are not blamed for what is happening in Cuba?
  We have tried to do this before. The United Nations believes that we 
are in violation of international law. The CARICOM nations in the 
Caribbean believe that we are violating the law. The World Trade 
Organization certainly cannot support what we are doing. In many areas 
it is considered an act of war to surround a nation and not allow ships 
to go in or to penalize a country.
  Most importantly, however, this is an un-American concept. We should 
not be afraid that any small island nation can take away from the 
strong deep-seated principles of democracy that we enjoy here.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rangel amendment. 
The current policy of trying to starve Castro out of Cuba by imposing 
travel bans and embargoes was put in place in 1960. Since then, Castro 
has outlasted nine Presidents, from Eisenhower to Clinton, and he may 
outlast a 10th.
  It does not seem like this policy has been very successful. It has 
not driven Castro from power. It has not caused him to improve his 
human rights' record. It has not prevented him from oppressing his 
people. In the meantime, the power of American economy and culture has 
brought about changes in terrible and despotic regimes in various 
corners of the world.
  This amendment, and others like it, simply recognizes the truth about 
the situation; that our current policy is a failure and needs to be 
replaced by something that has demonstrated success. By easing travel 
restrictions and the economic embargo we have a chance to overwhelm 
Castro with America's culture of freedom, democracy, and free markets. 
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Rangel amendment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in 
opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, just 2 years ago three young men, three young black 
Cubans, tried to leave Cuba to come to the United States for a better 
life; obviously fleeing the oppression of the totalitarian regime. They 
were captured by the dictatorship and, under orders of the dictator, 
they were summarily executed.
  The distinguished gentleman from New York at that time stated, and I 
saw his quote in a New York newspaper, La Prenza, ``I am shocked,'' he 
said. ``There is nothing that the Cuban government could tell me that 
would interest me. 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 there could have been.''
  Now, that was 2 years ago. What we have seen in the interim, further 
repression, further torture of political prisoners, and, just in the 
last 2 months, more than 500 young men, over 90 percent of them black, 
have been rounded up by the dictatorship in Cuba and thrown in prison 
under what is known as preventive, preventive detention. And they are 
thrown in the most brutal of gulags under the concept of preventive 
detention.
  That is what is new since the author stated that he was shocked. Also 
what is new, what is current, is that there are indictments at this 
time against the head of the Air Force of the Cuban dictatorship for 
murder of American citizens, indictments at this time for drug 
trafficking against the head of the navy of the Cuban dictatorship; 
that 15 spies of the dictatorship have been sent to prison in the 
United States in the last year alone for spying against American 
interests. That is what is new. What would be rewarded, in effect, Mr. 
Chairman, by the amendment if it were to pass.
  This is a normalization of relations amendment that would reward the 
most brutal conduct by the only dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere. 
I ask our colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, in the Committee on Ways and Means we are 
debating CAFTA, and market analysts estimate the U.S. economy is losing 
up to $1.24 billion annually in agricultural exports alone because of 
the Cuban embargo.
  According to the USTR, CAFTA would bring $1.5 billion in agricultural 
trade. Six countries, $1.5 billion; one country, $1.24 billion in 
trade.
  The administration says CAFTA is a way for America to support freedom 
and democracy and economic reform in our hemisphere, yet the Cuban 
embargo they say is also a way to support freedom, democracy and 
economic reform to developing Cuba.
  The consistency in your trade policy would bring a smile to George 
Orwell's face.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).
  Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment 
and would start off with the simple question: Do we want to reward the 
most notorious human rights abuser in our hemisphere with American 
trade, American travel, and American currency? Does this House want to 
appease the only state sponsor of terrorism in this hemisphere? I think 
the answer to that is no.
  This is a call to conscience in this body. Do we stand for freedom, 
or do we stand with tyrants? The choice today could not be more black 
and white. Either you stand for freedom, or you stand with Fidel.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. There 
have been many examples where Fidel Castro has abused any kind of 
trade, any kind of currency that is brought to his country, where he 
has done so only for himself, always looking to oppress and to hold 
down the wishes and hopes of others.
  I today stand with the Cuban people, not with a dictator who only 
seeks harm.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel) for his leadership and for helping us correct a failed 40-year 
policy which does not work.
  This is about the right of American businesses, the right of 
Americans to travel, to create jobs, to create a level playing field 
for our country and the world economy.
  Let me just respond to the gentleman from Florida. I think what the 
gentleman just talked about in terms of Cuba's black population, I need 
to remind the gentleman of the prison population here in America of 
African Americans. Look at the health disparities and look at the 
unemployment rates.
  I think we need to understand that we who are supporting this 
amendment are talking about the right of Americans to travel, to create 
businesses, to create business opportunities and jobs. This is about 
giving Americans the opportunity to develop their own perspectives and 
own opinions. It has nothing to do with incarceration rates, and it has 
nothing to do with our own incarceration rates in America.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what was pointed out by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). I have no idea why the gentleman 
from Florida would refer to the victim of this atrocity that was 
committed in Cuba as being black. I do not see what that adds to the 
discussion as to whether or not as a free country we should not 
continue to respect international trade. I think that is what we are 
trying to do.
  We are trying to say the best way to get after dictators is to make 
certain that we have communication between nations. The best way to 
have people to understand what democracy is all about is to demonstrate 
what democracy is about by allowing Americans to

[[Page H5501]]

go where they want to go when they want to go, to allow Americans to 
send money to whomever they want to send money to in Cuba.
  I truly believe all of the things that have been said, we would all 
agree. I believe that Saddam Hussein was a terrible man; but I do not 
believe we had a right to have a preemptive strike against a country. 
What we are trying to talk about is the value of trade, the value of 
countries communicating with each other.
  Who is being penalized? No embargo works when only one country is 
perpetrating the embargo. If all of the countries in the world are 
trading with Cuba, the best we do is lose money and restrict ourselves 
from showing that when it comes to competition, quality goods, farm 
goods, that America is the best. But when people say they do not want 
to offend a handful of people in Cuba, and therefore we put an embargo 
against an independent country, it is not the democratic, American 
thing to do.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply add to the gentleman's thoughts this 
point. I find it quaint, indeed, that this House would appear to want 
to try to promote the freedom of Cubans by denying freedom to 
Americans. That makes no sense to me.
  The last time I looked at it, we are supposed to be representing 
Americans; and the people I represent ought to have a right to travel 
anywhere they choose so long as they are citizens of what is supposed 
to be the greatest, freest democracy in the world. I wish everyone in 
this Chamber would have a better understanding of that than they seem 
to have. I thank the gentleman for his efforts.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the previous 
speaker asked as to the relevance of the fact that the dictator had 
summarily executed three young black Cubans 2 years ago. It is quite 
relevant and it is quite consistent with the fact that the dictator has 
consistently embarked on policies of hatred against the Cuban people, 
especially the black people of Cuba, which should not surprise anyone, 
because at the end of the 19th century, his father was sent to Cuba as 
a member of the Spanish Army that was fighting against Cuba. He is, in 
effect, the historical revenge of Spanish colonialism.
  And, yes, the prisons are full of young men and women, especially 
young black men, that he summarily rounds up and puts under preventive 
detention. This is a very relevant issue, Mr. Chairman. It is very 
relevant. The oppression of the Cuban people and the hatred of the 
dictator against the Cuban people, especially the black people, it is 
very relevant.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, we have had sanctions in different parts 
of the world: Jackson-Vanik with Soviet Jewry, disinvestment in South 
Africa. There are those who would seek disinvestment and sanctions in 
the Sudan and many other parts of the world, so we understand that 
these are ways that we can ultimately bring the end of totalitarian 
regimes and democracies to those people, yet we hear no voices in 
opposition to that.
  After 2 million people visit Cuba every year, spending $2.3 billion, 
this regime has become more repressive, not less repressive. Let us not 
add to that repression.
  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.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Souder

  Mr. SOUDER. 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. Souder:
       Page 224, insert after line 8 the following:

                          TITLE X--LIMITATION

       Sec. 1001. None of the funds contained in this Act may be 
     used to enforce section 702 of the Firearms Control 
     Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7--2507.02, D.C. Official 
     Code).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an extremely simple, commonsense 
amendment that is a first step towards restoring the rights of self-
protection, a right guaranteed under the second amendment to the 
citizens of the District of Columbia.
  My amendment would restrict funds from being used to enforce section 
703 of the D.C. Firearms Control Act. This section requires that every 
registered gun owner ``shall keep any firearm in his possession 
unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device 
unless such firearm is kept at his place of business or while being 
used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of 
Columbia.''
  This amendment does not legalize anything that cannot be legally 
owned now: No machine gun, sawed-off shotguns, AK-47s, or Uzis. All it 
does is let people keep the handguns purchased before 1976, shotguns, 
or rifles unlocked or loaded that they already have registered in their 
homes.
  My amendment gives D.C. citizens the same rights at home as they have 
at work. Under the current law, a legal gun owner who owns a business 
in the District of Columbia can register a gun at their place of 
business to defend their business against criminals. The same person 
cannot use a legally registered gun to protect his or her life or 
family at home.
  Over the past 30 years, there have been too many times where staffers 
or residents who live and work right here on the Hill have been at home 
and have come under attack from dangerous criminals. The way the 
current law is set up, these law-abiding citizens are forbidden from 
using a legally registered gun in defense of his or her home or family. 
I believe the good people of D.C. deserve the recognition of this basic 
civil right.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) has pulled back from total repeal of our gun safety laws. I 
wish I could thank him, but I do not think Mayor Williams or Chief 
Ramsey would yet be ready to do so. Our moderate, even-tempered Mayor, 
who has worked so well with this Congress and the administration, is 
much praised in this Congress, is really beside himself when at a time 
crime is at a 20-year low, here comes the Congress to do what he and 
the police chief say will surely increase crime.
  Disassembled weapons, yes, citizens may have them in their house. 
Look what this does: loaded shotguns, loaded handguns, as long as 
citizens had them before 1976, in your home or in your place of 
business. Let me say that the Board of Trade does not want them in our 
places of business. They came to testify in total support of the laws 
as they are. The businesses of the District of Columbia have petitioned 
the Congress to keep our laws exactly as they are. Businesses say the 
last thing they want is the kind of liability and responsibility they 
would have for keeping a gun in the place of business, so they do not 
do it.
  Post-9/11, do Members really want to legalize shotguns, handguns 
grandfathered in the District of Columbia at a time when we are still 
stopping people at checkpoints to see whether they are terrorists? Do 
Members know what can happen here? Someone can take one of these rifles 
or shotguns to the roof of an apartment or office building, aim it at 
foreign visitors, tourists, Members of Congress or their families, not 
to mention residents of the District of Columbia. I am particularly 
worried about children, teens.
  Imagine big long guns, now loaded. Some people would call that an 
attractive nuisance. That is a term of art in the law. Parents, I 
think, would call it an unattractive, deadly, very lethal weapon. That 
is who is most likely to be attracted by this new set of gear that you 
can have loaded in your home.

[[Page H5502]]

  There must be countless handguns that have been disassembled that 
were held before 1976. Now just load them up. So the same kids who knew 
they were unloaded before, do not know perhaps that now the guns are 
loaded, and here we have kids among the thousands who die every year in 
play from guns.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, no Member of Congress has the right to usurp our right 
to protect ourselves and our kids as we see fit. That is a basic right 
of self-defense of every jurisdiction.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. She serves on 
my subcommittee. We work together on many issues and we have a deep 
disagreement on this one. I believe a constitutional right to bear arms 
supersedes local authority.
  A couple of facts here are very stubborn things: One is that as far 
as accidents, the total rate of firearm accidents from 1981 to 2002 in 
the District of Columbia was 2.5 times higher than across the border in 
Maryland which does not have a storage law. The fact is that it has not 
reduced accidents. It is a nice thought to talk about that, but the 
facts don't bear that out. Secondly, this has nothing to do with 
businesses. This is about self-protection in your home. If a rapist is 
breaking into your house or a murderer is coming after you and your 
children and you are struggling to find the key to the lock and then 
have to get your gun out and put it together, odds are pretty good you 
are not going to make it. And under current D.C. law, if you find the 
lock and get your gun out and get your gun put back together and defend 
yourself, you can be prosecuted. What in the world is going on?
  We heard that the crime rate has dropped in the District of Columbia. 
For 15 of the last 16 years, the District of Columbia has been the 
murder capital of the United States. In the last statistics, they were 
again for the fourth year in a row. How can it get worse than that? 
Former Mayor Barry has one of my favorite quotes: Outside of the 
killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in America.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe in gun control laws. I think in most 
instances they don't work and I think lots of times they are designed 
by people who would not know one end of a gun from the other. But 
having said that, there is something that bugs me about this amendment, 
and that is that I did not come here to be a city councilman for the 
District of Columbia. I represent the people of my congressional 
district. The other thing that bugs me is that the citizens of the 
District of Columbia have no vote in this body, and in my view, as long 
as the citizens of the District of Columbia have no vote in this body, 
this body has no business telling the District of Columbia what their 
municipal laws ought to be.
  Now, I have an amendment that I am going to offer if this amendment 
passes and that amendment reads as follows: ``The salary for individual 
Members of Congress shall be paid out of the funds provided in this 
bill for the District of Columbia and shall be limited to $92,500.'' 
That is the salary of a District of Columbia city councilman. If the 
people of this House want to act like you are a D.C. city councilman, 
then you ought to get paid like you are a D.C. city councilman, which 
means you can take about a $70,000 pay cut and I think that would be 
fitting.
  I do not have the slightest idea what kind of laws the District of 
Columbia ought to have with respect to guns, but I do know one thing. I 
very often simply vote ``present'' whenever any matter affecting the 
District of Columbia comes up on this floor, because I think we have no 
business trying to interfere with what the city does on any subject so 
long as that city and its citizens do not have a vote in this Chamber. 
The gentlewoman from the District can speak, but when it comes to 
voting, she is out in the hall, just like anybody else who is not a 
Member of Congress.
  So what you are saying is that you are going to take advantage of the 
fact that she has no ability to defend her district by voting in this 
place and you are going to say, ``Well, that's tough, but we're going 
to impose our judgment.'' If you want to tell the District of Columbia 
what their laws ought to be, run for the city council. This is not the 
city council. We look ridiculous and abusive when we try to act as 
though we are.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman talked about somebody breaking into your house. What 
his amendment does is to legalize shotguns, rifles. Already it seems to 
us insane that you would have a handgun at the ready when somebody 
broke in. And, remember, handguns grandfathered before 1976 would be 
legal. But imagine somebody breaks in and you go get a long rifle or a 
shotgun. This isn't about self-defense. This is about pressing forward 
the gentleman's preferences on the District of Columbia where 
unanimously every mayor of the city of D.C., every city council member 
overwhelmingly, all the residents have voted ``no.''
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. No 
Member of Congress has the right to encourage guns in homes where the 
overwhelming evidence is that they are mostly used for suicides and in 
domestic quarrels, and please do not do that here in the District of 
Columbia because that is the most likely use of such guns in homes. The 
most bankrupt rationale offered for this outrageous interference in a 
local jurisdiction is that we already have gun violence in the District 
of Columbia. Let me hear the cosponsors argue with a straight face that 
allowing guns in people's homes will reduce rather than increase the 
gun violence in the District of Columbia.
  The most deeply held principle of the Founders was local control. 
First local from England, and then because they were so deeply 
principled, they denied to the national government that they themselves 
created any control of the local jurisdiction. The Congress gave us 
this control in the Home Rule Act. I ask the Congress of the United 
States to respect the mayor, the council and the residents of the 
District of Columbia by in fact defeating this amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Do I have the right to close at this point?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does have the right to close, and 
the time of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has expired.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the ranking 
member from Massachusetts, and I also want to associate myself with the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin and his remarks. We have no 
right to overturn a law that has been on the books for three decades. 
The gentleman from Indiana, I know, believes in democratic governance. 
But he wasn't elected by D.C. residents. He was elected by his 
constituents in Indiana. What right does he have to overturn D.C.'s law 
particularly in this situation that puts D.C. residents at such serious 
risk? If the Souder amendment were made law, it would allow anyone who 
owns a firearm to carry it loaded and without a trigger lock on city 
streets throughout the District of Columbia. How does that make sense 
from a homeland security perspective? We have spent hundreds of 
millions of dollars to secure our Nation's Capital from terrorists and 
now we are going to turn around and make it okay to carry a loaded AK-
47 or a .50-caliber sniper rifle down Independence Avenue? Are we 
serious? That is perhaps the unintended effect, but it is clearly the 
effect of this legislation.
  In 2003, the police confiscated 1,982 firearms from criminal 
suspects. They would not be able to do that if this amendment passes. 
They confiscated almost 2,000 last year. This overturns their ability 
to do that. This amendment is an affront to the concept of

[[Page H5503]]

home rule, my colleagues, a slap in the face to the people of the 
District of Columbia. It gives a new meaning to hypocrisy when we talk 
about fighting so hard to achieve democracy in Iraq. We have an 
insurgency raging in another part of the world. We are committing lives 
and billions of dollars to achieving that objective of a democracy, of 
giving people the right to represent their own interests, to have the 
people they elect making the laws that govern them. Yet we would 
consider an amendment that opens another front on the city streets of 
our Nation's Capital? This is unbelievable that we would even be 
considering such an amendment.
  I strongly urge a negative vote against this outrageous amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. 
Carson).
  Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, certainly no disrespect is intended to my 
colleague from Indiana (Mr. Souder). I have come to this microphone 
before this year criticizing Congress for meddling. I think this is 
another clear example of how Congress meddles in areas in which he or 
she has no business. I was reminded of a story in my district where a 
lady came home with her baby from the hospital, her 2-year-old was 
playing at her feet, went on the couch and got a gun, shot it, a 2-
year-old, mind you, and killed the mother and the newborn baby. If the 
gun had been protected, that tragedy would have never existed.
  Homicides remain unabated, especially among kids from 14 to 18. A lot 
of those guns are stolen from people's homes. If we had a mechanism 
that would prevent those kind of incidents, perhaps all of society 
would be better. I would encourage you to vote down this amendment with 
no deference to the author.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform which is 
the committee of jurisdiction for our Capital City.
  (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of 
points. My friend from Indiana with whom I have worked on so many 
issues, I tend to agree with him on the substance of the issue, an 
individual being able to keep a weapon in their own home to defend 
themselves, but the issue here is larger than that. It really goes to 
the question of respecting the rights of the District of Columbia to 
make their own laws and the mayor and the council have spoken on this 
innumerable times. They seem to have the support of the vast majority 
of the city.
  Our committee held a lengthy hearing on this, hearing from all sides 
just 2 days ago. It was an illuminating hearing that I think 
highlighted both sides very, very well. But to me the issue comes down 
to one of home rule. Are we going to allow cities and States to make 
these jurisdictions or are we going to try to federalize everything out 
of Washington? I would just caution my colleagues that once we start 
doing everything out of Washington, it may be on your side, but 
tomorrow it could go the other way. We have to respect the Federal 
system that was set up.
  This does not affect the workings of government, so in my judgment, 
Congress really should not be intervening in this matter although we 
have the legal right to do so.
  I also want to note that there is pending the case of Parker v. 
District of Columbia that offers the opportunity for second amendment 
advocates to answer with finality the question of does this violate the 
second amendment. Passing this amendment today could possibly moot that 
decision which is currently on appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals. 
This is one opportunity because the court has looked for ways out of 
deciding this decision. This is a way we may be able to speak with 
clarity and finality. If this amendment passes, we won't have that. It 
is a very two-edged sword, and I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the D.C. Personal 
Protection Amendment. Let me say that I respect my colleague from 
Indiana's perspective on this issue. There is room in the Congress for 
debate on the merits of some of our nation's gun laws. My opposition is 
based on the legislation's blatant and potentially dangerous assault on 
home rule in the District of Columbia.
  The Committee on Government Reform held a hearing this week on this 
very issue. We heard compelling stories from Mayor Tony Williams, Chief 
Charles Ramsey, and an array of witnesses, including residents of the 
District of Columbia and representatives from national think tanks and 
community organizations on both sides of the debate. I was disappointed 
that my friend from Indiana, the author of this amendment, was not able 
to attend the hearing to hear these views himself.
  I am a strong supporter of Home Rule. For our system of federalism 
and democracy to work, states and localities need to be able to make 
their own decisions on these sorts of matters--even if some of us think 
they're bad ones.
  There is an appropriate place for a debate on D.C.'s gun laws--and 
that place is the chambers of the District of Columbia Council, not the 
floor of the House of Representatives.
  Proponents of this bill want to frame this debate in terms of the 
Constitutionality of the District's law. Various lawsuits have been 
filed in recent years questioning the constitutionality of the D.C. gun 
law under the Second Amendment. There's a case pending on appeal right 
now, Parker v. District of Columbia, that offers the opportunity for 
the Second Amendment challenge to be answered with finality. Proponents 
of this amendment have the opportunity for the courts to declare that 
the D.C. ban violates the Second Amendment. So what's the rush? What 
are they afraid of? We (and for that matter, the City Council) can 
consider the gun ban in light of the result of that case. In fact, if 
this Amendment becomes law, it could moot the ability of the Court of 
Appeals to address this critical 2d Amendment with finality. We are 
only here today because of Congress' plenary power over the District. 
This is a constitutional authority that is, unfortunately, occasionally 
abused, as is the case with this legislation. D.C. leaders have enacted 
gun laws that reflect their constituents' view that any increase in the 
number of guns in the District increases the odds that crimes will be 
committed with those guns. That's their view, and it should be 
respected.
  I'm not saying I agree with the District's gun ban. Frankly, I don't. 
But I strongly oppose this amendment because I have a profound respect 
for Home Rule, for the right of local jurisdictions to craft their own 
local laws--even laws some of us don't agree with. This District law 
has no bearing on Congress and no bearing on the ability of the federal 
government to conduct its business. That should be the litmus test for 
federal involvement in the District.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First, I want to say again for the record this only applies to one's 
home. It does not also apply to Uzis. It applies to already registered 
legal guns that one is forced to put under lock and key and separate; 
and if a criminal breaks into their house, unlike a business, they have 
to find their key, unlock the box, put the gun together to defend 
themselves, and if they defend themselves, they can be prosecuted.
  This is a straight second amendment vote. If Members believe in the 
right to bear arms, if Members believe in the second amendment, it is 
not a question of home rule. Home rule does not cover the right to 
abrogate constitutional rights. It does not give the right to abolish 
free speech. It does not give the right to abolish freedom of religion, 
and it does not give the right to abolish the right to bear arms.
  Last year on a broader vote, we had 250 votes in this House. We had 
230 cosponsors of this bill. We have 210 this year. This is a much 
narrower amendment. But I would urge my colleagues who support the 
second amendment, who believe that the Constitution overrides local 
laws, to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the Souder Amendment that would prevent the use of funds in the bill to 
enforce the District of Columbia's laws prohibiting the possession of a 
firearm or ammunition, as well as laws relating to keeping a firearm or 
a pistol. It is the apex of hypocrisy to defend the right of local 
communities to govern themselves free from the burden of needless 
federal interference, but deny that very right to the citizens of our 
Nation's capital. I encourage members of this body to agree that we 
need not agree on the merits of the District's gun safety laws to 
respect home rule for the District of Columbia.
  Since the passage of the District of Columbia Self-Government and 
Governmental Reorganization Act or Home Rule Act in 1973, the District 
has utilized its authority to not only

[[Page H5504]]

elect a Mayor and a City Council, but also to regulate firearms. In 
1976, the District of Columbia Council passed the Firearms Control 
Regulations Act, establishing one of the most robust limitations on gun 
ownership in the nation with the intention of and protecting public 
safety.
  Specifically, this gun safety law required all firearms in the 
District be registered, restricted the classes of individuals who can 
register a firearm, and generally banned the registration of all 
handguns. Despite the suggestion by my colleagues on the other side 
that all firearms are banned in the District, it must be noted, 
however, that since 1976, 100,000 firearms have been lawfully 
registered.
  Although Mayor Williams and Metropolitan Police Department Chief 
Ramsey testified just yesterday before the Committee on Government 
Reform that they passionately support the District's gun safety laws, 
this amendment would undermine their efforts to safeguard their city 
from the ravaging effects of gun violence.
  In evaluating the District's limitations on firearm possession, one 
is compelled to ask two central questions: one, are the District's gun 
safety laws effective; and two, are they constitutional? In short, the 
answers to both those questions seem to be yes. The District's gun 
safety laws are effective at discouraging gun violence by making 
firearms less widespread throughout the city and assisting law 
enforcement efforts in recovering unlawful firearms that endanger the 
lives of police officers and law-abiding citizens. What is most tragic 
is the fact that some in Congress would seek to undermine or repeal the 
District's gun safety laws at a time when the District's homicide rate 
is the lowest it has been since 1986.
  Secondly, the two lawsuits challenging that the District's gun laws 
are a violation of the Second Amendment rights, failed to overturn 
these laws on constitutional grounds. Specifically, the judges in both 
cases ruled that the District's gun safety laws were constitutional 
declaring that the Second Amendment does not confer a protected right 
of private gun ownership, rather the Second Amendment applies solely to 
State militias.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems wise to move forward guided by the principle 
that democracy often functions best when those closest to an issue are 
empowered to address it. The residents of the District of Columbia 
speak through their elected Mayor and City Council that their existing 
approach to gun safety is best for their community.
  If the residents of the District want to repeal their gun safety 
laws, then we should let democracy work and permit them to elect those 
leaders who will ease the existing restrictions on firearms within the 
city. Until then, let us embrace the constitutional principle from 
whence our great Nation was born--the right of self-determination--and 
let the District of Columbia manage this matter how best it sees fit. 
When the sun rises tomorrow, let it rise upon a city where the right of 
self-determination is not subject to the interest of the NRA or a 
congressional veto.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Souder) will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Obey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.    . The salary for individual Members of Congress 
     shall be paid out of funds provided in this bill for the 
     District of Columbia and shall be limited to $92,500.

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 
2005, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is simple. I happen to 
agree with the gentleman from Indiana that I think that the provision 
in D.C. law that he referred to on guns is a dumb law, and I would hope 
that it would be overturned by the city council. But what I resent is 
year after year after year having to vote on issues that belong in the 
backyard of the D.C. City Council, not the House of Representatives.
  I have taken this position for a good long time. The second term I 
was here, I organized the effort that eventually freed up the money for 
the D.C. subway, when our distinguished friend Bill Natcher decided to 
hold up that money until the District of Columbia was forced to proceed 
with building the Three Sisters Bridge. Thankfully, that bridge was 
never built, and the Congress did not dictate to the District that they 
do so.
  But the purpose of this amendment is simply to illustrate the fact 
that the Congress is acting like it is the city council for the 
District of Columbia; and as long as it is acting that way, that is the 
way it ought to be paid.
  I do not object to any Member of Congress having any view he wants 
with respect to the District of Columbia, but I feel strongly that it 
is wrong for this Congress to dictate to the District what any of their 
local laws are so long as their representative does not have a vote. 
That is the point that I am trying to make to the gentleman from 
Indiana. The problem is not that Congress has opinions about the 
District. The problem is that the District of Columbia has no way to 
express their own views on their own issues through their own elected 
representative because their elected representative does not have a 
vote in this Chamber. Until she does, I think the Congress ought to 
stay out of these issues.
  Much though I agree with the gentleman from Indiana on the substance, 
in this case it seems to me that democratic processes are much more 
important than my individual opinion on any subject matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, a point of order has been 
reserved, and I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and 
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has made a 
point of order. I am simply offering the amendment to make a point.
  I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the 
amendment is not in order.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. 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. Garrett of New Jersey:
       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 enforce the judgment of the United States Supreme 
     Court in the case of Kelo v. New London, decided June 23, 
     2005.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  I rise today to offer an amendment to help protect one of America's 
most cherished rights of an American, to own their own home, to own 
their own property.
  Last week the U.S. Supreme Court, by the slimmest of margins, ruled 
that

[[Page H5505]]

a local government can come in and seize people's homes, seize their 
small businesses against their will for other private economic 
development. This decision now will allow cities to come in and 
bulldoze their house, bulldoze their business, tear it all down just so 
that they can build a shopping center owned by somebody else.
  The Garrett-Kennedy amendment seeks to prohibit any funds made 
available under this act from being used to enforce the judgment of the 
U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. New London.
  The practical effect of this will mean that we will prohibit Federal 
dollars from going out to be used for support purposes, infrastructure 
and the like, so that a private developer will benefit from the loss of 
these people's homes. It will mean that a bus stop will not be able to 
be built on what was once their home in order that a commercial 
building can be built there instead. It will prohibit Federal dollars 
from building a new entrance ramp or an exit ramp in partnership with 
that developer so that that developer can build a strip mall there 
instead.
  I believe that if a private developer is going to push someone off 
their land, out of their house, and destroy that house or small 
business, then he should foot the bill for any infrastructure that he 
is going to build. I want to ensure that the Federal Government does 
not contribute in any way financially to this terrible Supreme Court 
decision.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, America has enjoyed the oldest and the most successful 
democracy in the history of the world. I think this amendment puts us 
on a very slippery slope. This amendment places our greatest document, 
the Constitution of this country, which gives us three co-equal 
branches with a separation of powers among those branches and a whole 
host of checks and balances set up within that Constitution, it puts 
the whole Constitution under attack. When the Supreme Court of the U.S. 
gives final adjudication, that is the law of the land, whether it is a 
9-0 or a 7-2 or a 5-4 decision.
  Let me just mention a few of the 5-4 decisions that I believe I am 
correct on: one of them was Chief Justice Marshall's 5-4 decision 
against a government policy to remove American Indians west of the 
Mississippi River. Then President Andrew Jackson was quoted roughly, 
and I am perhaps not being precise in this quote: Judge Marshall has 
spoken, or has ruled, I guess was probably the word he used, now let 
them enforce it. And there resulted the complete removal of American 
Indians west of the Mississippi River, which was one of the blackest 
blots on our history.
  Brown v. Board of Education, if I remember correctly, was a 5-4 vote. 
With an amendment of this nature, we would still have segregated 
schools. And then there was a 5-4 vote that assured one person, one 
vote. It was called ``one man, one vote'' at that time, which has 
assured each and every citizen that their vote would be of about the 
same value. That decision was not enjoyed by a sizable number of 
people.
  I think this amendment leaves us with serious problems, and I urge 
the Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment as well. The Supreme Court has 
ruled on the matter of eminent domain and its constitutionality. 
Yesterday, we debated for quite some time the issue of eminent domain, 
for 45 minutes I would suggest. We voted and we overwhelmingly 
rejected, by a margin of 42 to 374, the 374 opposing, obviously, the 
amendment, which I thought was a very punitive amendment, to cut funds 
from the Court because of its ruling.
  This amendment, I am afraid to say, sets a more dangerous precedent. 
It would allow the legislative branch to override the independent 
decisions of the Court. If this passes, then what will be the next 
Supreme Court decision that will be effectively overturned? While we 
may not agree with the Court's ruling, and I understand the gentleman 
has a right to believe what he wants, if we do not agree on the Court's 
ruling, we must respect it.
  For this reason and for those that have already been mentioned, I ask 
all Members to vote ``no'' against the Garrett amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been reminded that the Brown v. Board of 
Education was actually a unanimous vote, and I just want to say that 
regardless of whether it was unanimous or a 5-4, it is the Court's 
decision to make, not ours, and one where the separation of powers and 
the checks and balances should be upheld.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stand with 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) because I am deeply 
concerned about the potential effects of the recent Supreme Court 
decision in Kelo v. The City of New London.
  The fifth amendment of the Constitution provides that private 
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. 
The language is meant to prohibit government, not give a grant of power 
to government. However, on June 23, the Supreme Court handed down this 
decision under which any private property may now be taken from its 
owner for the benefit of another private property.

                              {time}  1300

  The Court held in this decision that even the possibility of positive 
economic effects to the city was sufficient public purpose to justify 
the taking of one's properties. Under this standard, the seizure of 
virtually any private property for almost any purpose would be 
allowable.
  Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the grave effects this 
decision will have on property owners. Because of this decision, State 
and local governments now have the power to determine that a property 
owner is not sufficiently using his or her own property. I urge my 
colleagues to think about how this decision will disproportionately 
affect the poor, the elderly, and minorities. Cities may choose to take 
a person's property for anything they believe will increase their tax 
base. Certainly, those with less political power and less resources 
will make for the easiest targets.
  As Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissenting opinion: ``Nothing is 
to prevent the State from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, any 
home with a shopping mall, or a farm with a factory.''
  The fifth amendment was supposed to stop that, Mr. Chairman. That is 
why this decision was opposed by such groups as the NAACP, the AARP, in 
addition to the National Taxpayers Union, the Americans for Tax Reform, 
the Institute for Justice, the NFIB, the National Association of 
Homebuilders, and the list goes on.
  Mr. Chairman, property rights are fundamental freedom. There is an 
opportunity for every American to control their own destiny. They serve 
as our fundamental protection from the utter destruction of government. 
Congress must take action to protect property owners in the aftermath 
of this flawed decision.
  I encourage all Members to stand with the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett) and me on this important amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I will just close by addressing the comment by the chairman, and I 
appreciate the chairman's remarks.
  This decision of the Supreme Court will continue to be respected by 
this House and by the people of New London, Connecticut and the State 
of Connecticut as well. This legislation simply sees to it that the 
taxpayers of that community and the taxpayers and the citizens of the 
United States of America will not subsidize those private developers in 
that instance.

[[Page H5506]]

  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, you might as well tear up the 
Constitution and toss it in the ash basket. That is what this amendment 
does.
  I happen to think that the Supreme Court decision that came down last 
week was nutty, and I agree with the gentleman on the substance. But if 
we disagree with court decisions, folks who are a heck of a lot smarter 
than we are, the Founding Fathers, spelled out a way to deal with that. 
It is called passing a law.
  All we have to do if we do not like the Supreme Court decision is to 
bring legislation into this House, take it before the proper committee, 
have the committee have sensible hearings so that all points of view 
can be heard, and then bring to the floor either a piece of legislation 
or a constitutional amendment, whichever you want.
  But the idea that this House, every time we do not like a court 
decision, should decide that we are not going to allow Federal money to 
be used to enforce that court decision is as nutty as the original 
court decision in the first place.
  So I would hope that we would recognize that the Founding Fathers 
created the system of separation of powers; they created three 
independent branches of government for a purpose.
  I would not ordinarily rise to oppose an amendment like this, because 
it is so ridiculous on its face, but it follows in a long line of 
actions that I have seen coming from that side of the aisle since the 
beginning of the year.
  First, you called the Congress back in order to try to pass 
legislation saying that you knew better than the Florida courts in the 
Schiavo case. Then we had another attack launched on independent judges 
in the form of speeches given by your majority leader and others, and 
then we have seen various other activities; in fact, I listened to the 
majority leader himself in a conversation the other day tell some 
Supreme Court Justices that they were way out of line, and that if they 
wanted to understand American public opinion, they needed to go through 
the United States Congress.
  Well, God help us if the Supreme Court ever starts going through the 
United States Congress for its advice on every subject under the sun. 
They are supposed to use their own independent judgment and, once in a 
while, they may make a screwy decision, and I think they did last week. 
But that does not mean that we ought to act in a way which is just as 
screwy as the original Court decision.
  I would urge that we vote down this ridiculous amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. 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 Jersey will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. 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 Ms. DeLauro:
       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 enter into any contract with an incorporated 
     entity where such entity's sealed bid or competitive proposal 
     shows that such entity is incorporated or chartered in 
     Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua, or Panama.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  This amendment would prevent the Departments and agencies under this 
bill from using any funds to contract with American companies which 
have created shell corporations in tax-haven countries in order to 
reduce their U.S. taxes. The Department of Homeland Security is 
operating under a similar contracting ban.
  Recent data shows that despite costing our government $5 billion in 
lost revenue, corporate expatriates reaped $1.4 billion in Federal 
contracts in 2002 alone. This in the middle of a budget crisis. In 
every appropriations bill we have considered this year, we have heard 
the same refrain: we have done the best we could under the 
circumstances. But this budget crisis did not create itself; it is a 
direct result of the budget and tax choices of this Congress; and as a 
result, this bill lacks sufficient funding for public transit, Amtrak, 
housing. Perhaps if we did more to discourage companies from setting up 
post offices overseas to reduce their tax burden here, we would have 
more funding available for these critical investments.
  Four of our top 100 Federal contractors have incorporated in tax-
haven countries. One of them actually holds a contract with the IRS. 
The agency charged with collecting taxes willingly contracted with a 
company that is determined to avoid paying them.
  These companies are not overtaxed. In fact, effective corporate tax 
rates have fallen by 20 percent since 2001, even as pretax profits 
jumped 26 percent. Between 2001 and 2003, our 275 largest companies 
paid taxes totaling about half of the 35 percent corporate tax rate.
  I should emphasize that this amendment will not affect existing 
contracts. It will not affect existing contracts. It simply ensures 
that in the future, we will favor good corporate citizens with 
government contracts, rather than rewarding companies for moving 
overseas and putting tax-paying American companies at a permanent 
competitive disadvantage. Corporate expatriate companies have made a 
clear choice: leave the country and not pay their taxes. It is up to us 
to make the choice and set a standard. If they are going to manipulate 
loopholes in our Tax Code, they should no longer be able to reap the 
benefit of current government contracts.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment and 
also to manage the time on this side of the issue, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress addressed the issue of corporate inversions in 
the JOBS Act, the Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The JOBS Act added a new 
section to the Tax Code, section 7874, which treats U.S. companies that 
complete a corporate inversion transaction after March 4, 2003, as 
domestic U.S. corporations for tax purposes.
  Congress also addressed the issue of corporate inversions by enacting 
a contracting ban. Section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
does prohibit the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security from 
entering into contracts with companies that have completed corporate 
inversions as defined by the act. Congress revisited the issue in the 
2005 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act where Congress 
expanded the scope of section 835.
  Critics may argue that companies that have engaged in corporate 
inversions prior to March 4, 2003, should be covered by the JOBS Act. 
However, Congress should not bar companies from competing for 
government contracts because of legal transactions that they performed 
more than 2 years ago. Companies that qualify for government contracts 
and successfully fulfill their responsibilities should not be barred 
from future contracts because of retroactive legislation.
  The rules for competing for Federal contracting should not be changed 
in midstream.
  Retroactively imposing a contracting ban on companies would be 
severely punitive, particularly if a company's incorporation was 
conducted in compliance with existing law.
  I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5507]]

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
  Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for 
yielding me this time. She has provided great leadership on this 
matter, and I think it is the right thing to do.
  This amendment very simply would prohibit companies that have 
renounced their American citizenship in an effort to avoid their 
responsibilities as American citizens from taking part in getting 
contracts where they would be paid with taxpayers' dollars.
  At a time when we have men and women on the battlefield and they have 
to pay taxes on the monies that they receive for their families; at the 
time when they are on the battlefield to protect this country in the 
most unselfish way you can imagine, we are going to say, if you 
renounce your American citizenship and avoid taxes and get an 
advantage, then come and bid on our contracts and take taxpayers' 
dollars. That makes me want a dip of snuff.
  I cannot imagine why anybody would do anything like that. I cannot 
imagine why this government would do it. I know the gentleman that 
opposes this. I know several of them. They are good people. They have 
good sense. I do not understand why we cannot as a body deal with this 
issue and stop people from getting good hard-earned taxpayers' dollars 
when they have renounced their United States citizenship. If they do 
not want to be citizens of the United States, as far as I am concerned, 
good riddance. Let them go. Excenture can go to Bermuda or wherever in 
the Sam Hill they want to go. And I say, good, let us be rid of them, 
but do not give them U.S. contracts in the government. Do not give them 
government contracts. That is all we are talking about doing here.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to hold these people accountable, and it is 
time for us to be responsible to our men and women on the battlefield.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. First of all, we should understand that 
the companies that are at issue here pay American taxes. They pay taxes 
on all of the income that is derived from Federal contracts that they 
are performing and on work done in the United States. Many of these 
companies are multinational corporations, and they may be headquartered 
in Panama or Bermuda for other reasons, and maybe how they treat their 
global income, but their American income is all fully taxed.
  We should not force companies to reincorporate in the United States; 
and, in the case of a company just mentioned here, it was never 
incorporated in the United States. They just happened, as a 
multinational partnership, when they decided to go as a corporation, to 
locate their headquarters outside the United States, but they employ 
tens of thousands of Americans who are paying taxes every day. Why do 
you want to put them out of business, particularly if they are 
providing a service to the American Government that is the best value 
for the American taxpayers?
  Why, if a company provides the best body armor or provides the best 
mechanics or the best service, are we excluding them and making the 
American taxpayer pay a higher rate for the same service that may be 
inferior? That is what this does.

                              {time}  1315

  Our procurement system should be based on getting the best value for 
the American taxpayer. If you do not like the tax system, let us go 
back to the Tax Code. And as the chairman said, Congress addressed this 
issue of corporate inversion in the JOBS Act. The JOBS Act added a new 
section to the Tax Code which treats U.S. companies that complete 
inversion transactions as domestic, U.S. corporations for tax purposes.
  This amendment is not going to produce any more jobs, but it will 
produce higher costs for American taxpayers that buy goods and 
services. It will produce less of a marketplace that we can go out and 
shop and get the best value for our troops in the field and for 
government services. And for that reason it ought to be voted down. 
This is outdated in a global economy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment does not affect existing contracts. That is something 
people would like to portend to our colleagues, but it is not the fact. 
And later in the conversation, I will talk about dispelling some of the 
inaccuracies that have been talked about this afternoon.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter).
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me. And frankly, if this business had been taken care of in the 
JOBS Act we would not be here today trying to pass this amendment.
  And no corporation just happens to go to Bermuda to incorporate. They 
go so that they can avoid paying taxes. You know, let us be realistic 
about it.
  I want to support this amendment because new contracts would have to 
go to companies that pay taxes and operate in America. Corporations who 
set up the offshore tax havens cost us approximately $5 billion a year 
in tax revenue. And of course, as you say, the employees that they have 
here pay taxes. But all of us pay more taxes when corporations get out 
from under their tax liability. These companies received $1.4 billion 
in Federal contracts in 2002 alone.
  Now, corporations located in the United States that conduct their 
business in the United States and employ most of their workforce in the 
United States should not skirt their tax obligations by opening a Post 
Office box in Bermuda. And it is unconscionable that we would reward 
these corporate tax cheats with millions of dollars in taxpayer funded 
Federal contracts. The corporate expatriates hurt the other U.S. 
taxpayers by shifting more of the tax burden on to their shoulders. 
This is a point that somehow we fail to grasp here. When other people 
get out of the burden of paying taxes the taxes do not go away. They 
are simply shifted to the rest of us. They drain funds from this budget 
that are desperately needed here in America for essential services, 
Medicaid, Social Security, health care for veterans from Iraq. You have 
heard already that that is underfunded by $2 billion. For education, 
housing, child care, transportation programs, that just names a few.
  This government needs a stronger safeguard to ensure that we are not 
pumping hardened American tax dollars into the coffers of the same 
corporations that maneuver and scheme to exploit tax loopholes. This is 
a pro business amendment that ensures that only the responsible U.S. 
companies can benefit from Federal contracts.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the 
chairman of the appropriation subcommittee for yielding me the time.
  Notwithstanding what my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro) said, this really goes back to a contract that was issued 
more than a couple of years ago. It was as a result of very competitive 
bidding and the winning contractor is required to pay U.S. taxes on 
every dollar earned in the United States. Every employee employed has 
to pay U.S. income taxes on the revenue they earn.
  Now, if the gentlewoman wants to suggest that there are any contracts 
where money is not being paid in taxes for revenue earned in the United 
States, I would agree with her, or if there are employees working in 
the United States not paying taxes I wholly agree we should collect 
from them.
  But also bear in mind when we do these things, they often come back 
to haunt us. Trying to change the Tax Code in an appropriations 
committee is generally not the most effective or appropriate place to 
make tax law. It can come back to haunt us because we have got so many 
other corporations that are doing business in other parts of the world 
and we do not want to be suggesting to them that they ought to shut off 
that business. What goes around, though, generally comes around. The 
revenue earned overseas does generate tax revenue into our government 
here. But it won't if foreign countries decide to punish American

[[Page H5508]]

corporations who might win bids on European or Asian or Latin American 
government contracts.
  Like it or not we must compete in a global economy. We have got to be 
very careful with the precedent that we set. The contract that was 
issued was competitive. It is a Homeland Security contract. And from 
everything I understand, they are doing good work and paying 100 
percent of the taxes due.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Let me just try to correct some inaccuracies. First of all, once 
again, this amendment does not deal with existing contracts. It is 
contracts in the future. We are not discussing the Homeland Security 
bill. We are discussing the Transportation Treasury bill, so this does 
not affect what happened with Homeland Security.
  I might also add under the Homeland Security bill, this ban is in 
place and we voted on it in this institution.
  Secondly, my colleagues have talked about the JOBS Act. Very quickly, 
the JOBS Act does not solve the existing problem that we have here 
today. Corporations who are paying their taxes in the U.S. to the full 
amount. Let us take a look at what Accenture is doing. Accenture earned 
$503 million in the United States in 2004, up from $243 million in 
2002. They reduced their tax liability to $135.5 million from $241 
million. Their tax burden is going down because they have set up very 
intricate and elaborate structures in order to reduce the amount of 
taxes owed in the United States. That is what this is about. They are 
free to go to tax haven. They should not get any contracts because they 
are lowering their tax obligation to the United States at a time of a 
budget crisis and a time of war.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it is rare that I find myself in 
opposition to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut. But I 
thought that we had settled this the last time around. And this is an 
example of why it is so difficult to legislate tax matters on an 
appropriations bill.
  The company in question did not flee the United States and create an 
elaborate tax structure. I went back and checked this because it came 
up prior. And the fact is, my research indicated this company had never 
been incorporated in the United States. It is international in scope, 
although it employs tens of thousands of Americans, and the information 
I put in the record last time indicated that their tax rate was 
actually above the effective corporate tax rate at that time. And I 
looked at more recent information. But the point is, they are paying 
taxes. They have never been incorporated in the United States. We want 
to make sure that we are sending the right signals at the right time. 
And I could not agree with the gentleman from Virginia more.
  I am going back at the break to Oregon. I am setting up meetings with 
Oregon companies that are practiced in sustainable development, in land 
use planning, in environmental technology. I am working with them so 
that they can be more effective marketing their goods around the world, 
in China, in India, in Japan, in Singapore.
  And for us to sit here and say we are not going to permit 
opportunities for people who are incorporated in targeted companies is 
undercutting a message I am taking back home. But as I say, I really 
think we have solved this before and I have not heard anything new that 
makes me think that this amendment is good policy.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
  I think the points that have been made by the several individuals who 
have spoken out against this amendment pretty much says it all. I just 
would follow by saying I urge strongly a no vote on this amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  You know, of all the many, many injustices for which this House 
Republican leadership is responsible, surely there are few that are 
less defensible than their defense of corporations that flee America. 
And how appropriate that we bring to the House this amendment at this 
time as we approach our Nation's Independence Day on July the 4th, 
because a few corporations have declared their independence from 
America when it comes to paying their taxes. They formally fled our 
shores. They dodge their taxes by reincorporating in some tax haven, 
buying a mailbox and having a beach-side board meeting.
  To add insult to injury, the same corporations that renounce America 
stretch their hand out to all of us who are paying our fair share, 
businesses and individuals, and say ``can we have some of your tax 
money?'' They ask to be given the opportunity to bid on government 
contracts that they are not contributing to pay for. That is right. An 
outrage that exists that has been defended by this Republican 
leadership. Why do we do this in an appropriations bill? Because the 
House Ways and Means Committee, on which I serve, has, under the 
Republican leadership, as its primary responsibility to protect 
corporations just like those that flee and then ask to do government 
business.
  What about this argument that these corporations are paying taxes on 
their government business? Well, frankly, it is a half truth. Let me 
tell you, these corporations do not go to Bermuda for the shorts. They 
do not go there for the suntan. They go there to dodge taxes. And the 
way they do that, as in the case of Accenture, one company that has 
been mentioned, is to strip away earnings and have them taxed there--at 
non tax rates really--in Bermuda. For example, the name Accenture did 
not exist a few years ago.
  And so Accenture used its American presence to advertise and build up 
the value of the name. And so when they come to their name being owned 
by a foreign corporation, when they come to calculate any taxes they 
owe in the United States, they deduct all the royalties that they pay 
to that foreign corporation. So they may be paying a certain tax rate 
on their income, but they do not include all their income because they 
have stripped it and sent it abroad.
  What of the argument that we will lose the opportunity for the best 
contract? We are not saying that Accenture or any other company cannot 
contract for business. Just pay your fair share of taxes like every 
other American is all that we say through this amendment.
  And what makes the opposition to this amendment particularly shameful 
at this time is that wealthy tax-dodging corporations are not 
sacrificing at all, while we call on some young Americans to give their 
all and sacrifice for America. Middle-class Americans are paying 
hundreds of billions of dollars for this adventure abroad, while tax 
dodgers and tax cheats avoid paying their fair share. It is wrong. We 
ought to correct it with approval of this amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me just first say once again, and I will say it as many times as 
we have to. This does not affect existing contracts. It does not affect 
existing contracts.
  Second, the Department of Homeland Security is operating under a 
similar contracting ban now. We are not talking solely about one 
company. There are some 25 or 26 companies who, in fact, have 
reincorporated in tax haven countries in order to be able to diminish 
their tax obligation to the United States. Accenture, in fact, has its 
roots back to 1953, as part of the Illinois-based Arthur Andersen 
Company. It incorporated in Bermuda in 2001. Their CEO was based in 
Dallas. And the fact of the matter is that they are now having it both 
ways.

                              {time}  1330

  I would make the point that this comes down to a question of values. 
Do you stand with corporations who have abandoned our country in a time 
of war, who have gone through these elaborate contortions to reduce 
their U.S. tax burdens, or do you stand with the companies who, in 
fact, have been good corporate citizens? They are paying their taxes, 
they are employing Americans, and they are living up to their 
obligations of their country.
  Now, as it has been said by my colleagues, these companies can go and 
do

[[Page H5509]]

what it is that they would like. And if they want to diminish their tax 
burden here, we should not allow it, but we do at the moment. But the 
fact is, should we then add insult to injury to other American 
corporations and to American citizens by allowing these companies to 
get billions of dollars in Federal contracts? Again, it does not affect 
existing contracts.
  We have a historic low in Federal corporate income taxes. The fact is 
these folks set up these mailboxes overseas. That they are overtaxed is 
not, in fact, the case. It is time we tell these corporate expatriates 
the free ride is over. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. DeLAURO. 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 Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 948. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 552a of title 5, United 
     States Code (popularly known as the Privacy Act) or of 
     section 552.224 of title 48 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 
2005, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just briefly explain the intent of this 
amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to accept the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. If I may explain what the amendment is before the 
gentleman accepts it?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. We know what it is; but if the gentleman wants to 
take a moment or two, yes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Reclaiming my time, I will take just a moment.
  There has been a recent wave of massive privacy breaches that has 
highlighted the need to reaffirm the principles of the Privacy Act. 
This week the IRS announced that they are going to have a $20 million 
contract with ChoicePoint, the same company involved in a massive 
privacy breach in its operations in February of 2005. This reminder of 
the potential compromise of information is, of course, very necessary 
if the IRS is going to contract with ChoicePoint, with the very 
sensitive information of Americans.
  So this amendment restates the importance of the Privacy Act being 
implemented. I ask the House to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The Acting 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: amendment No. 4 by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Davis), amendment by the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee), amendment by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), 
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), amendment by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), amendment by the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Davis of Florida

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Davis) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208, 
noes 211, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 345]

                               AYES--208

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--211

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Case
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo

[[Page H5510]]


     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bachus
     Bishop (GA)
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Everett
     Kingston
     Moore (WI)
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1357

  Messrs. BARRETT of South Carolina, JONES of North Carolina, UPTON, 
DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, and BAKER changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HIGGINS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I was unavoidably detained and missed the 
vote on this amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                          personal explanation

  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 345 I am recorded as having 
voted ``aye.'' I intended to vote ``no,'' and ask that the Record 
reflect this.


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) 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 Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 233, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 346]

                               AYES--187

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--233

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bachus
     Bishop (GA)
     Boozman
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Everett
     Kingston
     Peterson (PA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Westmoreland


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are 
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1405

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 
346. I intended to vote ``aye'' on rollcall No. 346.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 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.

[[Page H5511]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 177, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 347]

                               AYES--238

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (MI)
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--177

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bachus
     Barrow
     Bishop (GA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Everett
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kingston
     Ortiz
     Peterson (PA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Stearns
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1412

  Mr. NUSSLE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 347, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                    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 CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 250, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 348]

                               AYES--169

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--250

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)

[[Page H5512]]


     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Bachus
     Bishop (GA)
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Evans
     Everett
     Kingston
     Peterson (PA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Shadegg
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1421

  Mr. DICKS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Souder

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) 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 259, 
noes 161, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 349]

                               AYES--259

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--161

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Obey
       

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachus
     Bishop (GA)
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Everett
     Kingston
     Peterson (PA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. MEEK of Florida and Mr. SMITH of Texas changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) 
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 231, 
noes 189, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 350]

                               AYES--231

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)

[[Page H5513]]


     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Pallone
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--189

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Cleaver
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Granger
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bachus
     Bishop (GA)
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Everett
     Kingston
     Peterson (PA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Tiahrt
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1438

  Ms. DeLAURO and Mr. RYAN of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. BOREN, LINDER, and CONYERS, and Mrs. MUSGRAVE and Ms. LORETTA 
SANCHEZ of California changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 350 I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will 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 190, 
noes 231, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 351]

                               AYES--190

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--231

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof

[[Page H5514]]


     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachus
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Everett
     Gillmor
     Kingston
     Peterson (PA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1448

  Mr. JEFFERSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri) assumed the chair.

                          ____________________