[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 90 (Thursday, June 30, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5514-H5557]
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 Committee resumed its sitting.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced 
     in the amount of $669,350,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I have learned to do these pretty fast, and I do not think there is 
anyone here in doubt as to what it is.
  I rise today to cut the level of funding in this appropriation bill 
by approximately 1 percent. This equals approximately $670 million. The 
bill is 6 percent over last year.
  It seems to me that when we do not have the money, we do not spend 
over last year, or should not. I will emphasize again this is not an 
across-the-board cut; this is an off-the-bottom-line. They can make a 
choice of where it comes from.
  This is the seventh time that I have offered an amendment of this 
type this year; and had those amendments been adopted, we would have 
saved $3.3 billion out of our spending for this year. Now, $3.3 billion 
sounds like a lot of money to most of us, but it is not in comparison 
with the overall budget we have for the United States Government; but, 
still, it is a tremendous step in the right way.
  It is important to remember that we do not have this money. This 
money is debt we are burdening our children and grandchildren with to 
pay back someday.
  I would like to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member and 
the committee on addressing an issue I followed in the spending bill 
for years. While I would have preferred not to spend a dime on Amtrak, 
the committee has dramatically reduced the spending in the bill, and 
that would go a long way towards forcing Amtrak to change its ways. 
Now, I know there was a vote to reverse that last night, but I trust 
that this battle is not over, and I hope it is not over.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado, has 
offered this any number of times; and I am not counting, but I know he 
has done this before. He is getting very good at it.
  With all due respect to the gentleman from Colorado, I believe this 
to be an unnecessary amendment. The Congress cannot and should not 
abdicate its responsibility to review individual programs and make 
individual recommendations based on that review. The desire to hold 
spending in check should be based on congressional oversight of 
specific programs. We should not take a meat-ax approach, and we should 
not yield our power to the executive.
  I ask, therefore, that this amendment be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say to the gentleman, who is a dear friend and for whom 
I have the highest respect, we should not, he is absolutely right, we 
should not abdicate our responsibility to the executive branch; but 
sometimes around here what should be done and what is reality are two 
different things. I know what it is to get bills out of committee. The 
gentleman and I worked on the subcommittee on military construction for 
years together, the gentleman on appropriations and me on the 
authorizing, and we know what it takes to get bills out of committee 
sometimes. Sometimes this may be the only way to do it to get a hold on 
spending.
  But anyway, Mr. Chairman, I encourage an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H5515]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
will be postponed.


            Amendment Offered by Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan

  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. 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. Kilpatrick of Michigan:
       Page 224, insert the following after line 8:
       Sec. 948. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of the Treasury may be used to recommend 
     approval of the sale of Unocal Corporation to CNOOC Ltd. of 
     China.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I rise to prohibit the sale of an American oil company to the Chinese 
National Offshore Oil Corporation, recommending in this bill that 
Treasury not be allowed to make a favorable recommendation that our 
ninth largest oil company should be sold to the Chinese.
  Some people say, why is the gentlewoman from Michigan interested in 
this amendment? We are interested because we believe that Americans 
ought to be able to have and hold and own American companies. Did my 
colleagues know that 53 percent of the privately held debt of this 
country is held by private investors, private countries? Japan being 
first, China being second. This is not the time to now sell our ninth 
largest oil refinery to a Chinese company.
  Our trade deficit with China is $160 billion. We buy $160 billion 
more from China that they buy from the United States. This is not the 
time, if there ever is. Our national security, which is what the CFIUS 
committee will look at, that is the Committee on Federal Investments in 
the United States chaired by Secretary of the Treasury Snow, also on 
that panel is the Defense Secretary as well as the Secretary of State; 
we believe that this is not right for our country, it is not right for 
our economic security.
  We must also look at, and CFIUS right now only looks at national 
security, and probably that ought to be amended. CFIUS was established 
in 1988, a 12-member committee. They should probably also look at 
economic security, and we are looking at offering an amendment to amend 
that legislation as well.
  China is an economic and military power. They are one of our largest 
competitors. In my own district, General Motors put $2 billion into 
China last year and just 2 months ago said that they closed 30 plants, 
they closed 30 General Motors plants in America and laid off thousands 
of workers.
  Should we work with China? Yes, we should. Should we turn over our 
government business to China? No, we should not. This amendment that I 
am offering would not allow the Treasury Department to issue a 
favorable recommendation to the President of a China company, Chinese 
National Offshore Oil, to sell our own, very own Unocal company.
  So I am hoping that as we go through this debate and as we come to 
talk about this issue, we take care of Americans first.
  I was just in a meeting this morning where we talked about the loss 
of our American jobs. We hope, Mr. Chairman, that as we have this 
debate, we will continue and make sure that we maintain American 
ownership of American corporations. Fifty-three percent of the 
privately held debt in America today, the bulk of it is held by Japan 
first, as I mentioned, and also then China. Intellectual property 
rights, the Chinese have no respect for our intellectual property 
rights. In the auto industry right now, China also abuses our parts and 
uses our technology.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I am asking that this amendment be accepted by our 
entire body, that we make sure that American companies stay in America, 
and that we continue to employ, that we continue to train and educate 
our children so that your grandchildren and mine will have an America 
that is strong.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to first yield to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  We have done this to ourselves. We are $9 trillion in debt. We cannot 
purchase all this debt. We rely upon other countries throughout the 
world, whoever is willing to, to purchase our debt. The highest 
proportionate increase is attributable to China. China is buying up our 
debt faster than anyone else.
  Now, what do we think they are going to do with it? If they choose to 
dump it on the world financial markets, we go into a depression, I say 
to my colleagues. It is a financial guillotine they are holding over 
our neck. Far better that they use these financial assets to purchase 
American corporate assets in the same way that Japan did several years 
ago. If you do not want China purchasing our assets, then do not put us 
into the kind of deficit situation that we have created.
  It is far better that China diversify their holdings. If they do not 
buy American oil companies or Western oil companies, since they 
desperately are in need of energy to sustain their economy, where are 
they going to go? They are going to go to Iran, they are going to go to 
other countries that are not in our interests, and we are going to 
start contributing to a bipolar world again. We just got through a Cold 
War with the Soviet Union. If we act in this way, and I know the 
domestic politics of it, but if we start doing things like this, we are 
going to contribute to another bipolarity, another Cold War here, which 
is not in our interest We have American oil companies who own drilling 
rights and oil resources off China's shore.

                              {time}  1500

  It is in our interest to start balancing the budget and issue less 
debt. But it is not in our interest to forbid China from purchasing 
assets, even within the United States with that cash and U.S. debt 
securities that they own. They need to do that. We need to be serious 
about this and levelheaded. And so I would oppose the amendment.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and 
for her leadership on this important subject. As a distinguished member 
of the Appropriations Committee, she has been a voice for strong 
national security in our country, including this initiative today.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that the comments of the previous speaker 
speak eloquently to the need for us to get our fiscal House in order 
because we are seeing the consequences of going so deeply in debt to 
other countries where we are really held hostage in terms of our own 
decision making because they own our debt.
  Mr. Chairman, the Chinese National Overseas Oil Company's bid to 
acquire UNOCAL Corporation is a graphic example of America's energy 
vulnerability. President Bush should refuse to prove the acquisition 
and Congress should indicate its disapproval as well.
  I urge my colleagues to support the gentlewoman from Michigan's 
amendment. And again I thank her for her leadership on this issue.
  The Chinese bid for UNOCAL is compelling evidence of America's 
strategic energy vulnerability. China has clearly decided to meet its 
growing demand by obtaining control of energy assets around the world.
  I would say to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), it is true, 
China will turn to Iran and Sudan and other countries. In fact, they 
already have. Arrangements have been made in Iran, Sudan, Venezuela and 
other places that illustrate their strategy. With the UNOCAL bill the 
Chinese plan reaches our doorstep. The Chinese government's control of 
CNOOC made the bid possible, not the free market.
  My Republican colleagues and Democratic colleagues who are all 
dedicated

[[Page H5516]]

to the free market system should understand that this is not a free 
market transaction. Government-provided low interest loans allow the 
company to bid at rates not otherwise available. And if acquisition of 
UNOCAL is critical to the Chinese, they would probably allow the bid to 
be increased to any level needed to seal the deal.
  Control of energy assets by China means China controls where those 
assets go and when. That raises serious national security concerns for 
the United States. Among those other serious national security concerns 
are the transfer of technology associated with the UNOCAL acquisition. 
It is reported that China could assume ownership of the cavitation 
technology with applications. Cavitation is a process which UNOCAL uses 
to go into deep water drilling for oil. That same technology can be 
used by the Chinese to do nuclear tests underground and to mask them so 
we would not ever be able to detect them. It would also have 
applications again for locating matter in deep water.
  Given China's commitment to improving its military capabilities, why 
would the United States permit the sale of this kind of technology? 
Left on its own, we probably would not. But as part of the UNOCAL deal, 
it is being pulled through with this Trojan horse.
  The reason the Chinese believed a bid for UNOCAL could succeed, as 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) mentioned in his support, no, 
his opposition to our position, the reason the Chinese believe a bid 
for UNOCAL could succeed lies in our dependence on them to finance a 
significant portion of our massive budget deficit. Our reliance on the 
Chinese to finance our debt gives them far too much leverage over our 
decision making process.
  I go back, you know, 15 years now, our arguments that expanded trade 
with China would result in increased freedom for the Chinese people. We 
were proved wrong long ago. At that time just before Tiananmen Square, 
our trade deficit with China was $3.5 billion a year. And we thought, 
with that huge trade deficit that it would give us leverage for 
improving China's human rights record, for improving their behavior in 
terms of fair trade and for stopping China's proliferation of weapons 
of mass destruction. We failed in persuading Congress to do that, and 
today the trade deficit with China, not $3.5 billion a year, has grown 
to $3.5 billion a week. $3.5 billion a week. With all that capital 
China is able to purchase our debt, have leverage over us so that now 
we have to, hopefully not, but some believe, agree to their buying a 
strategic asset which UNOCAL represents. Our reliance on China to 
finance our debt weakens our ability to influence China on human 
rights, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, North Korea, you 
name it.
  This is the price we pay for failing to live within our means, and it 
is long past time we recognize that danger and addressed it. On that, 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and I agree. Let us heed the 
wake up call provided by the Chinese bid for UNOCAL. Let us get serious 
on both issues, reducing risk in energy by adopting an innovative 
energy policy for the 21st century and getting our fiscal House in 
order.
  And again, I caution our colleagues that a serious transfer of 
technology that would be contained in this purchase of UNOCAL and urge 
our colleagues to support the Kilpatrick amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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 Michigan (Ms. 
Kilpatrick) will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. 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. Obey:
       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 in contravention of that portion of OMB Circular No. 
     A-11, section 22.2, entitled ``Congressional testimony and 
     communications'' that states that in testimony before 
     Congressional committees and communication with Members of 
     Congress, witnesses will give frank and complete answers to 
     all questions.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous content that the Clerk read 
the amendment in its entirety.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  The 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 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The OMB circular which was just read reads, or which was just 
referred to in the amendment reads as follows: ``When testifying before 
any congressional committee or communicating with Members of Congress, 
witnesses will give frank and complete answers to all questions.'' The 
purpose of this amendment is simply to make certain that none of the 
funds in this bill may be used to, in any way, assist in any 
communication from the Executive Branch of government, which is not 
frank and complete and truthful.
  Now, that may seem like an odd thing to ask, but let me point out 
recent years are replete with examples of how the executive branch, 
including this administration, have grossly misled Congress on matters 
of national importance. Example, the Department of Veterans Affairs 
deliberately withheld information related to the cost of veterans 
medical care that was needed during consideration of the fiscal year 
2005 supplemental, which they now admit has resulted in a $1 billion 
shortfall in veterans health care. In fact, they have stonewalled us 
over the past 3 years in terms of being frank about the needs of 
veterans health care.
  This administration has consistently and repeatedly declined to 
provide a full accounting of anticipated cost for the Iraq war. 
Previous OMB Director Mitch Daniels once said that because of oil 
revenues, the war would be ``affordable,'' and probably would only cost 
the U.S. 50 to $60 billion.
  Instead, the President continues to request funding for the war, and 
yet when you ask everyone from the Secretary of Defense on down, they 
are steadily refusing to give us real figures about the anticipated 
cost of that war.
  We will all recall that just a year ago a Federal Medicare actuary 
was threatened with dismissal by a high administration official for 
disclosing the exact cost of the Medicare prescription drug benefit 
before Congress voted on the measure. And we will all remember, no 
doubt, former economic advisor Larry Lindsey, who was criticized by his 
colleagues and eventually fired for correctly predicting an Iraq war 
that would cost the U.S. at least $200 billion. At the time his 
prediction was termed outlandish by higher officials in the government.
  The former Chief of Police at the National Park Service was fired for 
publicly discussing budget shortfalls that she argued threatened the 
safety of her police force and hindered their ability to protect 
national park lands.
  And former Member of Congress, Mike Parker, who once served in this 
very institution was fired for speaking candidly about the budget 
request of the Army Corps of Engineers.
  And I must say that I had the unpleasant experience in the 10 years 
that I chaired the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee of 
having well-known administration witnesses purposely mislead our 
subcommittee about the Iran-Contra issue. And several of those 
officials who were much less than candid at the time are now serving in 
this administration. So unfortunately, I think there is a long track 
record, not just with this administration, but with many, of misleading 
the Congress, of telling us half truths, of telling us no truths at 
all. And I do not know how you can change human nature to insist that 
the persons testifying before our committees be more forthcoming. But 
at least you can have the Congress spell out, through a vote, the fact 
that each and every Member of this Congress expects the administration 
to allow its witnesses to tell the truth.

[[Page H5517]]

  We should not have to, as Senator Specter was forced to do last year, 
we should not have to change the law to require that officials from the 
National Institute of Health or anyone else can answer Members' 
questions without referring to higher-ups in the administration to get 
a politically correct answer.
  So that is the purpose of this amendment. And I would hope it would 
be adopted by this House.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. Does the gentleman move to 
strike the last word?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 20 
minutes and reserves the balance of his time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me this time, and I acknowledge the great leadership of the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) as the chair of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee.
  I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), every chance I get 
I want to salute his leadership, his championing the rights of 
America's families and now today something that should be very clear 
and obvious, but having to make the point that we should have truth and 
honesty in our dealings with the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Obey amendment.

                              {time}  1515

  It is ridiculous that we are debating on the floor of the people's 
House the need for truth. The need for truths is self-evident.
  The truth and trust are fundamental to a democracy. We owe every 
American the truth in our dealings here. All Americans, as I say, 
deserve the truth. But our veterans deserve it even more. They are 
willing to make the supreme sacrifice for us. They are courageous, they 
are patriotic. They have given us the opportunity to have peace on 
Earth, good will to men over generations, and now they are not being 
dealt with honestly.
  The need for truth is made painfully clear in the current crisis we 
are facing on veterans health care funding shortfalls. On April 5, 
Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson said, ``I can 
assure you the VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY 2005 
to continue to provide timely quality service.''
  Last week, less than 3 months later, Secretary Nicholson and the Bush 
administration finally acknowledged their failed budgetary policies and 
misplaced priorities and owned up to the shortfall in veterans funding. 
In the meantime, the supplemental bill passed the Congress, went to the 
President's desk without covering that shortfall because of the 
misrepresentations that were made by the Secretary to the Congress.
  This should come as no surprise to anyone. Over the past 2 years, 
Democrats have stood shoulder to shoulder with veteran service 
organizations calling for adequate funding for the VA. Time after time, 
Democrats have put forward proposals to increase funding for our 
veterans, and time after time Republicans have voted them down. We have 
had straight party line votes. There have been some moments of clarity 
and truth from Republicans in this fight.
  In February 2004, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi 
acknowledged the inadequacy of President Bush's FY 2005 budget for the 
VA. He said, ``I asked OMB for $1.2 billion more than I received.'' It 
was his professional judgment that that $1.2 billion was needed a year 
and a half ago for fiscal year 2005 and here we are today still without 
it. Secretary Principi knew then that the Bush budget was inadequate.
  The Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), knew that the Bush budget was inadequate. That is 
why he joined the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), a champion for 
veterans, in calling for additional funds for the VA.
  The result? Not increasing funding for veterans but ousting the 
chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), for daring to 
stand up to the Republican leadership and a new VA Secretary who hides 
the truth so that he can be in lockstep with the failed budgetary 
policies and misplaced priorities of this administration.
  How can we even face our veterans when we as a Congress say to them, 
and as a country, including the President, it is more important to us, 
we place a higher value in giving the people who make over a million 
dollars a year, $140,000 in tax cuts, but we are not giving you the 
health benefits that you earned, that you deserve, and that you were 
promised.
  Democrats are united on this issue. Every single Democrat joined me 
yesterday in writing to President Bush calling for an emergency 
supplemental to fund veterans health care. This should not be partisan 
and I hope that later today we will right this wrong. But even if we 
pass a bill on the floor today, we will go into the Fourth of July 
weekend without correcting the situation, because it would have to come 
back after the recess, go into conference, et cetera, pass the Senate 
with which there is no guarantee.
  Our veterans deserve nothing less than our honoring our commitment to 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, in time of war, the military says we will leave no 
soldier behind on the battlefield. When they come home we must leave no 
veteran behind when it comes to delivering our promises to them.
  Our Founding Fathers, over 200 years ago, declared independence with 
their wisdom, their enlightenment, their courage, and their willingness 
to sacrifice, they launched what would become the United States of 
America, a free and independent country. Our veterans have kept us that 
way. We honor our Founding Fathers' vision and we honor the sacrifice 
of our veterans, our men and women in uniform, when we keep our 
promises to them. We owe them nothing less. I support the Obey 
amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Walsh).
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me time.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment. But first on the merits of 
this discussion about the veterans budget, we held a subcommittee 
hearing, an oversight hearing on Tuesday with the Secretary of 
Veterans' Affairs. The gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Buyer) held a 
hearing this morning with the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs to try to 
sort this shortfall out and that is exactly what it is. It is a 
shortfall.
  I do not believe that there is any intent to mislead or deceive the 
Congress. And if this amendment is an attempt to belie the confidence 
of the American public in the process that we have, I think it is a 
mistake.
  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and his administration made a 
mistake. They made an estimate as to what the costs would be for 2005. 
Now we have 3 months left in 2005. They have completed their mid-year 
review and they have found that there was an error in their 
assumptions. Now, this is a 30-plus billion dollar budget. So a 3 
percent mistake, which is what this was, they were off by 3 percent, 
that is a billion dollars.
  Now, I cannot speak for any other Member of Congress, but I suspect 
there have been times when my office budget has been either 
overestimated or underestimated by 3 percent. It is a small percentage, 
but when you are talking huge amounts of money like we are talking 
about here, it comes out to be a very large number, a billion dollars. 
But I believe that they made an error. They made a mistake. I do not 
think they tried to deceive us or mislead us.
  Let us be honest. The appropriations process moved very quickly this 
year. Their mid-year review came after we completed most of the 
deliberations in our hearings on this bill. So we are going to fix 
that. I mean, if the idea here is to get at the problem we have, we 
found the problem. By the way, it was oversight by the Committee on

[[Page H5518]]

Veterans' Affairs that discovered this in consultation with the 
Veterans Affairs Administration. So we are sorting it out. And I think 
we have done the responsible thing.
  We have identified what that shortfall is. Somewhere in the 
neighborhood, plus or minus $5 million, of about $975 million. It is a 
lot of money, but we fortunately will be able to remedy that today. The 
last bill, I believe, that we work on tonight will be a supplemental 
bill to provide those funds to make sure that we keep the Veterans 
Health Administration whole.
  They planned to work around the solution. They were going to use 
capital funds. They were going to take from their own hide, basically 
the capital account of $600 million and they had a reserve plan for 
$375 million. We want them to have that reserve. We want them to have 
those capital expenditures. We do not want them to defer maintenance 
and repair and purchases of computers and MRIs and other medical 
equipment. We want no diminution, no reduction in the quality of 
service our veterans have, especially in this time of war.
  So we are moving. We are moving at a pace, and we will have this 
resolved at least on the House side this evening.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 10 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has 16 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Does the gentleman have any other speakers besides himself?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I do.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I do not find myself always 
happy with what witnesses before our committees have to say. Just 
because I disagree with them does not mean they are not being as 
complete as they would choose to be.
  I do not always have witnesses provide me with the answers that are 
my answers. But I do remember early on in my career here, it was my 
second term, I was a new member of the Committee on Appropriations. In 
those days the issues swirled around what was going on in Central 
America. There was a divide in the House it seemed. Most of the people 
on that side were very much concerned about changes in Central America. 
I remember the debates about the Sandinistas and there was discussion 
that maybe the witnesses were not being totally open and fair and 
straightforward.
  It is convenient to point a finger and suggest one administration's 
witnesses is not being straight, another one is answering questions 
fully. The fact is that it is pretty obvious we expect people to be 
straightforward with us.
  I would suggest if the gentleman really has a problem in some of his 
committees, he might want to urge that people take the oath everywhere. 
I do not tend to follow that pattern in my own committees. But indeed 
it is important to recognize that people in public service, whether 
they are working for the administration, maybe working for the State 
Department or otherwise, do come to us generally and try to do as full 
a service as they possibly can.
  I must say that I sense a pattern here where issues are being raised 
in this fashion because perhaps some people have ambitions to do 
something else with their life besides just sitting in a committee. But 
indeed, it is important that we not distort our process to the point 
where public affairs becomes a political battle, a partisan 
confrontation at every turn.
  If there have been partisan votes on the floor, let me submit the 
vast percentage of those have come that way because there was a 
direction from the Democratic side that we are going to be together and 
be opposed to whatever those Republicans are doing.
  That is not a healthy way to carry forward public affairs. I am very 
concerned about the pattern. I do not believe I will carry my 
discussion about this much further than I am today but I may because it 
is very disturbing to this Member of Congress.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, if I understood the 
chronology correctly, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) was 
pointing out that there were Reagan administration witnesses, of which 
people had similar complaints. And I would stipulate to that. But this 
is not a question of just one administration or another. It is a 
disturbing failure of this House to carry out its constitutional 
responsibilities for independence.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman yielding because, 
indeed, that was the Reagan administration. And during that time the 
Democrats were supporting the Sandinistas and we were fighting for 
freedom.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, first of all, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) got here and I do not think most 
people understood that he was talking about the Reagan administration. 
He talked somewhat vaguely about a previous administration, as if we 
were somehow being partisan, and he cited the Reagan administration did 
the same thing.
  Then he follows that up with this outrageous comment that we were 
supporting the Sandinistas and they were supporting freedom. If that is 
the gentleman's example of how not to be partisan, than I do not think 
the gentleman is going to be finding many people follow his example.
  The problem we have here is a failure of this House to fulfill its 
constitutional responsibilities.

                              {time}  1530

  You say, oh, nobody was trying to be dishonest. Have people forgotten 
so soon the prescription drug issue? When the Department of Health and 
Human Services responsible officials refused to let one of their 
officials tell the truth, threatened their officials with retaliation, 
that was not an honest error. That was a deliberate pattern of 
suppression.
  I mean, what we have here is a degree of submissiveness on the part 
of the Republican majority and the executive branch that I believe is 
unprecedented in American history.
  You want an example of it? I believe the Republican membership has 
over the years become more afraid of its own leadership than of 
anything else, including terrorism. And you want the proof?
  We had a very prolonged rollcall yesterday which had to be 
interrupted because we had a potential terrorist problem. The rollcall 
that was extended, because we had to evacuate and deal with the 
terrorist threat, took a lot less time than the rollcall that you used 
to pass the prescription drug bill. You were more afraid on your side 
of retribution from your leadership if you did not get that bill passed 
than you were of a terrorist threat.
  I remember when the Clinton administration was new and the Democrats 
were in power. I served on the Committee on the Judiciary that had a 
very tough oversight hearing on Waco, called Janet Reno up and was very 
tough on her. I served on the Committee on Banking that had hearings on 
Whitewater.
  Oversight has disappeared; and when we do have conscious and 
deliberate lies and we know the Health and Human Services 
misrepresented the cost of the prescription drug bill, they knew one 
thing and they threatened with retribution somebody who might have told 
the truth, and there was not any complaint from the Republican side.
  As to the veterans budget, I do not think it is accidental that the 
underestimate came. It was not an overestimate, and it was not just an 
arithmetic error. There were people saying you do not have enough, you 
do not have enough. We remember. The gentleman from Wisconsin reminded 
me when the veterans affairs people sent out a notice telling their own 
people not to try to do outreach, do not bring us more people, and the 
gentleman from New York said it is going to be fixed. Well, at the 
cause of some disruption. Having the heads of the Department have to

[[Page H5519]]

stop and say, well, we will take some capital funds, that is not a 
useful way to run things.
  So there has been a deliberate pattern here of a failure to oversee, 
and that is what the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment seeks to 
remedy.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Hunter), chairman of the defense authorizing 
committee.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I think most of my colleagues know that we had a hearing 2 days ago 
on something that is not an easy subject, that is, Guantanamo, the 
treatment of the detainees, many of whom were picked up on terrorist 
battlefields around the world, including the 20th hijacker, the 
bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and an institution which is at the focal 
point of a great deal of public discussion.
  We had Brigadier General Hood, the commander of Guantanamo; Sergeant 
Major Menendez; and Lieutenant Commander Ostergaard, who runs the 
medical facilities. They gave us straight ahead, candid, absolutely 
truthful answers, and every member of the committee, Democrat and 
Republican, had a chance to ask them questions, cross-examine them. I 
would just ask my colleagues to look at the statements that came from 
Democrats and Republicans regarding the quality of the testimony.
  Now, each year, we put together a $400 billion-plus defense budget. 
That requires candid, up-front testimony from the people that wear the 
uniform of the United States and the civilian officials that oversee 
the Pentagon.
  In addition to that budget, we bolt on and bolted on this year a $50 
billion bridge appropriations; and to do that, we had to ask of the 
services and of our military leadership, and we drilled down right to 
the platoon level; we had to ask them for unfunded requirements, that 
is, we said what did you need that was not in the budget but in your 
estimation, in your candid opinion, General, Captain, Lieutenant, 
Sergeant, what do you think we need for the Armed Forces of the United 
States.
  They answered us candidly; and because of that, we were able to put 
together a complete and robust statement of the requirements that we 
had, and we were able to meet those with the $50 billion bridge fund 
that we then bolted on to the defense authorization bill.
  Our process has been one that has been marked by candor, by truthful 
testimony, and I think by respect from Republicans and Democrats for 
the process.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining on both 
sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has 11 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, in 13 years I have seen a lot of amendments 
in subcommittee and in full committee and on the House floor. This one 
is a bit peculiar. I do not even, frankly, know what the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is trying to say. I think it is perhaps being used 
just so he can come to the floor and speak, I suppose.
  No moneys can be used in contravention of the OMB circular that 
states that in testimony before congressional committee and committee 
before Members of Congress the witnesses give frank and complete 
answers to all questions. Man, blow me away today.
  I want to share with my colleagues with regard to the Veterans 
Administration. Let me give a record as I understand it from testimony 
and actions that have occurred with reference to the 2005 budget.
  On April 5 of 2005, a letter to Senator Hutchison, the chairman of 
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and 
Veterans Affairs, stating that the VA, as part of good management, 
prudently uses reserve funding whenever trends indicate the need to 
refocus priorities, and the Secretary before the full committee on the 
House Veterans Affairs testified about that today.
  On April 7 of 2005, Dr. Perlin testified to the Senate Veterans' 
Affairs Committee at his confirmation hearing that reserve funds were 
being used to meet operational needs in 2005.
  On April 12 of 2005, Dr. Perlin sent a letter to the Senate VA 
Committee stating that projected carryover of fiscal year 2006 might be 
diminished to address current operational demands, including care in 
OIF and OEF returning combat veterans noting that ``we do feel 
confident that VHA has sufficient resources for the remainder of 
2005.''
  On April 19 of 2005, VA staff met with both majority and minority 
Members of the House appropriations subcommittee. During the meeting, 
management decisions to reallocate capital funds for direct patient 
care in 2005 was discussed.
  On June 3 of 2005, a meeting with the House and Senate majority staff 
at the request of the staff detailing the modeling differences between 
the independent budget and the VA's annual budget process.
  On June 9, a meeting with Secretary Nicholson and the general counsel 
regarding the budget shortfall and the extent to which reprogramming 
had already taken place.
  On June 21, a meeting with Secretary Nicholson regarding the upcoming 
hearing on budget modeling.
  On June 22, a meeting with Dr. Perlin, Under Secretary for Health, 
regarding the mid-year review and the reprogramming of capital assets 
and rollover accounts into medical services.
  I am going down this entire list. I should have opened with a March 
24 letter that Secretary Nicholson had sent to the appropriators, in 
particular to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and 
Related Agencies, along with the very same letter that I have here in 
hand that was sent to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the 
ranking member of that subcommittee, regarding the reprogramming and 
redirection of funds.
  I do not want to have to repeat that, but I just want to let my 
colleagues know that notice was given with regard to this 
reprogramming. So with regard to this question about hide the ball, 
there was no hiding the ball.
  On June 22, 2005, there is a meeting with Dr. Perlin, the Under 
Secretary for Health, regarding the mid-year review and reprogramming 
of capital asset and rollover accounts into medical services.
  On June 23, there is a hearing before the House Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs investigating the budget modeling process at the VA 
and the independent budget and the private sector, and at this hearing 
is where Dr. Perlin testified with regard to his shortfall of $975 
million. That is when the public became fully aware.
  On June 28, Secretary Nicholson testified before the House Committee 
on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Military Quality of Life and 
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies, regarding the newly identified 
budget shortfalls for 2005 and 2006.
  June 28, 2005, Secretary Nicholson then testified before the Senate 
Veterans' Affairs Committee regarding newly identified budget 
shortfalls for 2005 and 2006.
  June 29, Senator Nicholson joined the House Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs at a press conference to alert everyone that he was going to 
come up with an exact number yesterday and then give testimony before 
the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs regarding that number.
  Today, he came before the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He 
testified with regard to an actual shortfall, made an oral request for 
a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $975 million to cover the 
shortfall.
  I would say everybody's been pretty up front. I am pretty impressed 
on how things have moved in a bipartisan fashion. I want to compliment 
the veterans service organizations. I want to compliment the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards). I want to compliment the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans), because what we have here is we want to move in 
regular order.
  What happened over in the Senate is that they make it as an amendment 
on a 2005 supplemental on an 2006 Interior

[[Page H5520]]

bill. What I am really pleased about is the leadership of the gentleman 
from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from New York 
(Chairman Walsh) that they are going to take appropriate action; they 
are going to act on the Secretary's request for the shortfall.
  Why? Because all of us believe and understand in the fabric of the 
common bond of why we call ourselves American is to care for the men 
and women who wear the uniform; and when they take off the uniform, we 
care for them when they are veterans. If they fall in the service of 
their country, we pick them up and attempt to make them whole. If they 
fall and die, then we make sure that we give them an honorable burial, 
and we take care of their widows and their orphans.
  That is what this is going to do. We are going to take this measure 
up tonight. I applaud the chairman for his immediate action. I want to 
thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for his cooperation in 
making sure this happened tonight; and I know the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has been equally impatient, but we are going to 
make this happen, and we are going to come together to make this 
happen, and I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by the ranking member ought to 
win the support of every single Member of this House.
  Truth should be our expectation. In fact, that proposition is a 
legally binding directive of the Office of Management and Budget.
  I tell my friend from Indiana, the amendment that he seems to feel is 
peculiar simply says to the administration, tell the truth. Is that 
peculiar?
  Yet on one of the most important pieces of legislation that this 
Congress has considered in recent memory, the Medicare prescription 
drug bill, officials in the current administration purposely, 
deliberately, and cynically suppressed the real costs of that bill 
because it did not further their political agenda.
  When that legislation was under consideration in November of 2003, 
the Congress was told that it would cost $395 billion between fiscal 
year 2004 and 2013. Yet just 3 months later, in February 2004, it was 
disclosed that the office of the Medicare actuary actually estimated 
that bill would cost $534 billion. In other words, it was not a 1 or 2 
percent misrepresentation; it was a 95 percent misrepresentation. Then 
we now hear it may cost up to $1.2 trillion.
  So on the prescription drug bill, I tell my friend from New York in 
particular, it was not a 1 or 2 percent mistake. It was a 300 percent 
mistake that was made on the prescription drug bill. That is a 
misrepresentation.
  The truth is, Mr. Chairman, the Members of this Congress, Republicans 
and Democrats alike, purposely had the cost hidden because the 
Republican leadership, in my opinion, knew that the bill would not pass 
if the truth were told.

                              {time}  1545

  That is what this amendment says: tell the truth.
  The chief Medicare actuary, in fact, Richard Foster, told Congress in 
March 2004, that he had consistently estimated that the legislation 
would cost more than $400 billion, and he had prepared dozens of 
analyses that said it would be over $500 billion. But Mr. Foster told 
Congress that he had been ordered by Tom Scully, the head of the 
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in this administration, to 
withhold his cost estimates from Congress.
  The failure to tell the truth is a lie. In fact, the Government 
Accountability Office has found that Mr. Scully violated Federal law 
when he threatened Mr. Foster's job. Now, luckily for him, he was not 
working for the Federal Government then so no sanctions can be taken.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) simply says, tell the truth, 
administration, when you talk to Congress. Mr. Chairman, this sorry 
episode ought to trouble, indeed infuriate, every Member of this House 
and, indeed, every American.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for truthfulness. That is 
all this amendment says. Do not be so defensive on your mistake on the 
veterans' funding. The Democratic budget told you the truth on the 
funding necessary and you simply ignored it. Vote for the truth.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) said he found 
this amendment ``peculiar.'' I do not know what is peculiar about 
simply saying that any witness who appears before Congress ought to 
tell the truth. I find it peculiar that someone thinks that that is 
peculiar.
  Let me also make the point that he is chairman of that committee 
today, the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, because the previous 
committee chairman, Republican chairman, was removed by his party's 
leadership because the previous committee chairman agreed with 
Democrats that the veterans' budget was inadequate. He told the truth 
and he paid a high price for it.
  There is no question that this administration has hidden the cost of 
the Iraqi war. They have revealed the cost on the installment plan, a 
little bit at a time. There is no question that the administration 
threatened the firing of the man who was charged with telling Congress 
what the cost of the new Medicare prescription drug program would be. 
And there is no question that they did fire the National Park Service 
Chief of Police for telling the truth about the safety of her forces. 
And there is no question they did fire former Congressman Mike Parker 
for telling the truth with respect to the Corps of Engineers.
  With respect to the ridiculous contention on the part of the 
gentleman from California that during the Nicaraguan war, Democrats 
were ``for the Sandinistas,'' I would remind the gentleman that we 
signed a letter to the Sandinistas demanding that they listen to the 
Reagan administration's demands for free elections in Nicaragua. I 
would also remind the gentleman that what we were opposed to was the 
illegal arms-for-hostages trade with the Iranians. And I would remind 
him that we were against an illegal, and I emphasize ``illegal,'' war 
in Nicaragua. So so much for the gentleman's ridiculous contention.
  I have a simple suggestion, Mr. Chairman. If the gentlemen on the 
other side of the aisle think that witnesses should not tell the truth 
when they are before the Congress, then, by all means, vote against 
this amendment.
  I remember Lyndon Johnson lied to this country about the war in 
Vietnam, and we paid a high price for it for years. And when he did 
that, I vowed, every day I served in this Congress, that I would see to 
it that whoever testified before us, and whoever talked to us, whether 
it was President or the most lowly administration official, would be 
held to a high standard of truth. Because when they are not, people 
die.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, frankly, I support the words in this 
amendment, but I reject the politics that brings it here. I think this 
House has sunk to a very new low, using veterans and trying to scare 
veterans for political gain.
  It is absolutely amazing to me that because you disagree with 
policies of the administration, you try to lead the Nation to think 
that people are lying. There is no lying here. Questioning the motives 
of military heroes that come to testify before this House and before 
the Senate is a new low. Questioning people's honest, forthright 
presentation of the facts as they know them at the time that they 
testify as lies is a new low. And that is what we have come to. It has 
come to politicizing everything. It does not matter what it is.
  And not only politicizing it, but trying to scare people into 
supporting your position. I remember very distinctly when this issue 
came to us, because the Veterans Administration had done a mid-year 
review and found the problem with the shortfall in veterans health. 
They properly informed the people that should be informed, both 
Democrat as well as Republican. Instead of doing what the responsible

[[Page H5521]]

thing is, which is what our chairmen of the relevant committees did, 
that is, start looking at the problem, making sure we understand the 
problem, and then finding a solution for the problem, what did the 
other side of the aisle do; they immediately ran down here and tried to 
pass an amendment to a bill and throw over $1 billion at a problem they 
did not even understand.
  Why? Why would you do that? Why would you do such an irresponsible 
thing? The only reason you would do it is for politics. They had no 
idea what was required. As mentioned earlier, the Veterans 
Administration had suggested that they just move money around to get us 
through this fiscal year so that we could appropriate the next year. 
That was not a good solution. And the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Buyer) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) understood that and 
worked with the administration, and we are going to pass the solution 
tonight, understanding that we need not only to replace this money that 
is in the shortfall, but to make sure that there is enough money 
forward.
  I mean, in the bill that most of this House voted for that funds 
Veterans' Affairs, this House and our committees knew that there was a 
shortfall in what was presented by the administration, in our opinion. 
Not because we were lied to, but in our opinion. And we put $1.64 
billion more than what was requested by the President, thinking that 
would take care of the problem. And it still may take care of the 
problem next year. And that is what these bills are all about, funding 
next year. We will take care of the problem now.
  And I say to the veterans in this country, you will not miss one day 
of health care that is coming to you. Do not listen to the politics and 
be afraid that you may lose your health care. That is not going to 
happen. We will take care of it, just as we have always taken care of 
it.
  Since the Republicans became the majority in 1995 funding for 
veterans has increased 77 percent. When the Democrats controlled this 
House from 1984 to 1994, spending per veteran rose from $923 to $1,300. 
Yet in the next 10 years, in the years that we have had the majority, 
it rose to $2,773. From $1,300 to $2,700. Funding for the Montgomery GI 
bill rose 35 percent when they were in charge. But since we have been 
in charge the last 10 years, the GI bill funding rose 147 percent. And 
yet we are constantly trying to play politics and cover up the facts.
  The bill that we passed for next year will take care of this. From 
2001 to 2005, the percentage increase in the VA health care funding, 40 
percent, was larger than the Defense Department's increase; 33 percent. 
And this is a time of war. We are providing for the needs of our 
veterans. We are taking care of our veterans.
  Do not let the political rhetoric and the political posturing and the 
demagoguery say otherwise. Because the facts, if you really want the 
truth, the facts say that we are not only taking care of our veterans, 
not only do we understand our responsibilities to our veterans, not 
only do we understand what veterans have contributed to this Nation and 
our welfare and our freedom, we are doing more than talking about it. 
We are taking the responsible way of taking care of our veterans and 
not playing irresponsible politics.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' against this 
cynical, political amendment.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the following article 
in regard to the Obey amendment alleging that the Bush Administration 
and Congress are deliberately mislead on a variety of issues.

               [From the Weekly Standard, Jun. 30, 2005]

A CNN Anchor Gets Iraq and al Qaeda Wrong. But Will the Network Issue a 
                              Correction?

                         (By Stephen F. Hayes)

       ``There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected in 
     any way to al Qaeda.''
       So declared CNN Anchor Carol Costello in an interview 
     yesterday with Representative Robin Hayes (no relation) from 
     North Carolina.
       Hayes politely challenged her claim. ``Ma'am, I'm sorry, 
     but you're mistaken. There's evidence everywhere. We get 
     access to it. Unfortunately, others don't.''
       CNN played the exchange throughout the day. At one point, 
     anchor Daryn Kagan even seemed to correct Rep. Hayes after 
     replaying the clip. ``And according to the record, the 9/11 
     Commission in its final report found no connection between al 
     Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.''
       The CNN claims are wrong. Not a matter of nuance. Not a 
     matter of interpretation. Just plain incorrect. They are so 
     mistaken, in fact, that viewers should demand an on-air 
     correction.
       But such claims are, sadly, representative of the broad 
     media misunderstanding of the relationship between Iraq and 
     al Qaeda. Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post, 
     regularly chides the Bush administration for presenting what 
     he calls fabricated or ``fictive'' links between Iraq and al 
     Qaeda. The editor of the Los Angeles Times scolded the Bush 
     administration for perpetuating the ``myth'' of such links. 
     ``Sixty Minutes'' anchor Lesley Stahl put it bluntly: ``There 
     was no connection.''
       Conveniently, such analyses ignore statements like this one 
     from Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission. ``There 
     was no question in our minds that there was a relationship 
     between Iraq and al Qaeda.'' Hard to believe reporters just 
     missed it--he made the comments at the press conference held 
     to release the commission's final report. And that report 
     detailed several ``friendly contacts'' between Iraq and al 
     Qaeda, and concluded only that there was no proof of Iraqi 
     involvement in al Qaeda terrorist attacks against American 
     interests. Details, details.
       There have been several recent developments. One month ago, 
     Jordan's King Abdullah explained to the Arabic-language 
     newspaper al Hayat that his government had tried before the 
     Iraq war to extradite Abu Musab al Zarqawi from Iraq. ``We 
     had information that he entered Iraq from a neighboring 
     country, where he lived and what he was doing. We informed 
     the Iraqi authorities about all this detailed information we 
     had, but they didn't respond.'' He added:
       ``Since Zarqawi entered Iraq before the fall of the former 
     regime we have been trying to have him deported back to 
     Jordan for trial, but our efforts were in vain.''
       One week later, former Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi 
     told the same newspaper that the new Iraqi government is in 
     possession of documents showing that Ayman al Zawahiri, bin 
     Laden's top deputy, and Zarqawi both entered Iraq in 
     September 1999. (If the documents are authentic, they suggest 
     that Zarqawi may have plotted the Jordanian Millennium 
     attacks from Iraq.)
       Beyond what people are saying about the Iraq-al Qaeda 
     connection, there is the evidence. In 1992 the Iraqi 
     Intelligence services compiled a list of its assets. On page 
     14 of the document, marked ``Top Secret'' and dated March 28, 
     1992, is the name of Osama bin Laden, who is reported to have 
     a ``good relationship'' with the Iraqi intelligence section 
     in Syria. The Defense Intelligence Agency has possession of 
     the document and has assessed that it is accurate. In 1993, 
     Saddam Hussein and bin Laden reached an ``understanding'' 
     that Islamic radicals would refrain from attacking the Iraqi 
     regime in exchange for unspecified assistance, including 
     weapons development. This understanding, which was included 
     in the Clinton administration's indictment of bin Laden in 
     the spring of 1998, has been corroborated by numerous Iraqis 
     and al Qaeda terrorists now in U.S. custody. In 1994, Faruq 
     Hijazi, then deputy director of Iraqi Intelligence, met face-
     to-face with bin Laden. Bin Laden requested anti-ship limpet 
     mines and training camps in Iraq. Hijazi has detailed the 
     meeting in a custodial interview with U.S. interrogators. In 
     1995, according to internal Iraqi intelligence documents 
     first reported by the New York Times on June 25, 2004, a 
     ``former director of operations for Iraqi Intelligence 
     Directorate 4 met with Mr. bin Laden on Feb. 19.'' When bin 
     Laden left Sudan in 1996, the document states, Iraqi 
     intelligence sough ``other channels through which to handle 
     the relationship, in light of his current location.'' That 
     same year, Hussein agreed to a request from bin Laden to 
     broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state television. In 
     1997, al Qaeda sent an emissary with the nom de guerre 
     Abdullah al Iraqi to Iraq for training on weapons of mass 
     destruction. Colin Powell cited this evidence in his 
     presentation at the UN on February 5, 2003. The Senate 
     Intelligence Committee has concluded that Powell's 
     presentation on Iraq and terrorism was ``reasonable.''
       In 1998, according to documents unearthed in Iraq's 
     Intelligence headquarters in April 2003, al Qaeda sent a 
     ``trusted confidante'' of bin Laden to Baghdad for 16 days of 
     meetings beginning March 5. Iraqi intelligence paid for his 
     stay in Room 414 of the Mansur al Melia hotel and expressed 
     hope that the envoy would serve as the liaison between Iraqi 
     intelligence and bin Laden. The DIA has assessed those 
     documents as authentic. In 1999, a CIA Counterterrorism 
     Center analysis reported on April 13 that four intelligence 
     reports indicate Saddam Hussein has given bin Laden a 
     standing offer of safe haven in Iraq. The CTC report is 
     included in the Senate Intelligence Committee's review on 
     prewar intelligence.
       In 2000, Saudi Arabia went on kingdom-wide alert after 
     learning that Iraq had agreed to help al Qaeda attack U.S. 
     and British interests on the peninsula. In 2001, satellite 
     images show large numbers of al Qaeda terrorists displaced 
     after the war in Afghanistan relocating to camps in northern 
     Iraq financed, in part, by the Hussein regime. In 2002, a 
     report from the National Security Agency in October reveals 
     that Iraq agreed to provide safe haven, financing and weapons 
     to al Qaeda members relocating in northern Iraq. In 2003, on 
     February 14, the Philippine

[[Page H5522]]

     government ousted Hisham Hussein, the second secretary of the 
     Iraqi embassy in Manila, for his involvement in al Qaeda-
     related terrorist activities. Andrea Domingo, head of 
     Immigration for the Philippine government, told reporters 
     that ``studying the movements and activities'' of Iraqi 
     intelligence assets in the country, including radical 
     Islamists, revealed an ``established network'' of terrorists 
     headed by Hussein.
       Can CNN stand by its claim that ``there is no evidence that 
     Saddam Hussein was connected in any way to al Qaeda?''

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. 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 Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Tiahrt

  Mr. TIAHRT. 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. Tiahrt:
       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 promulgate regulations without consideration of 
     the effect of such regulations on the competitiveness of 
     American businesses.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved against the amendment.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for 
this opportunity to talk about some issues that I think are very 
important to America and to our current economic and future economic 
environment.
  My amendment is very simple. It says ``none of the funds made 
available in this Act may be used to promulgate regulations without 
consideration of the effect such regulations have on the 
competitiveness of American business.''
  Recently, just about an hour ago, we had an amendment on the floor 
here from the gentlewoman from Michigan expressing her concern about 
the sale of Unocal, an American company, to a Chinese company. Now, I 
too am concerned. But perhaps we should ask the question: How did this 
company get in the situation where they are so susceptible to a hostile 
takeover by a Chinese company?
  Perhaps we can learn a lesson from this situation, with this threat 
of a hostile takeover. The problem that has occurred with many 
businesses, including Unocal, is that they have to face barriers and 
overcome barriers that have been created by Congress over the last 
generation. The barriers have made American companies less competitive 
and more vulnerable.
  The less competitive American companies always will have to struggle 
against having some outside business, especially if it is subsidized by 
a foreign government, taking them over. The barriers that have been 
created by Congress include unbridled rising health care costs. The 
costs have been driven up by Medicaid and Medicare and the government 
bureaucracies that control them.
  It is also litigation abuse that has driven up the cost of insurance. 
In the average settlement, Mr. Chairman, 60 percent of the cost now 
goes to lawyers instead of those who have been taken advantage of.
  Also, we have the regulation costs to comply with, which drive up 
costs for companies complying with confusing red tape.
  We have a tax policy that punishes success. We have an energy policy 
that we have passed five times in the House of Representatives, and yet 
we have not been able to get it into law. And we could be creating 
700,000 jobs and bringing down the cost of energy for our companies.

                              {time}  1600

  We have a trade policy that fails to open up new markets like Central 
America and the Dominican Republic. We have research and development 
that we need to focus on the future economy, and we have lifelong 
learning issues and barriers created by Congress that have failed to 
address the needs of a future economy and provide the engineers and 
scientists and those in math and other areas of technology that will be 
needed in the future economy.
  These policies are preventing the creation of jobs, and the result 
has been the loss of high-quality, high-paying jobs here in America.
  The amendment I have focuses on regulations because regulatory costs 
are killing jobs. Less government regulations will mean granting the 
freedom to allow Americans to pursue their dreams, and it also means 
providing the space for business to thrive and create opportunities.
  Instead, our Federal Government has become a creeping ivy of 
regulations that strangle enterprise. Unrealistic, impractical, 
unnecessary environmental prohibitions, OSHA mandates and the like are 
literally driving our industries and small businesses and our health 
care system to a grinding halt.
  How can we expect our economy to develop and grow when bureaucracy 
prevents business from starting and expanding jobs; when doctors cannot 
even keep up with the ever-changing regulations and codes; when 
teachers are forced to spend more time filling out paperwork than they 
do in the classroom. It is estimated that the total regulatory burden 
as of the year 2000 was $843 billion. That is $8,000 per manufacturing 
worker. The regulatory compliance burden on U.S. manufacturers is 
equivalent to a 12 percent excise tax. It is no wonder we are having 
trouble competing worldwide. It is no wonder our companies are more 
vulnerable to hostile takeovers by foreign companies.
  As we approve spending allocations by the Departments of 
Transportation, Treasury, HUD, and related agencies, including the OMB, 
we need to remind them of the importance of their actions with that 
funding.
  Each and every Federal agency should take into consideration the 
effects of proposed policies on competitiveness of U.S. businesses, and 
they should be held accountable for those effects.
  We should be concerned when a U.S. company is threatened by a hostile 
takeover by a foreign company. We need to change the economic 
environment today so we can look forward and create jobs.
  I intend to withdraw this amendment, but I want to thank the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for looking out for American 
jobs. I am confident we can work together to make this possible to 
bring jobs back into America and to keep and create more jobs by 
changing the economic environment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kansas?
  There was no objection.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. 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. Brown of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Council of Economic Advisers to produce an 
     Economic Report of the President regarding the average cost 
     of developing and introducing a new prescription drug to the 
     market at $800 million or more.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Ferguson) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is coauthored with the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  The Economic Report of the President is supposed to be an educational

[[Page H5523]]

tool, not a drug industry PR piece. On page 167, it asserts: ``On 
average, a new drug takes 12 years to develop and costs $800 million to 
introduce to the market.''
  That cost estimate, by drug industry-backed researcher Dr. Joseph 
DiMasi, is used widely by drug companies to justify the high and 
rapidly rising prices they charge American consumers. But the DiMasi 
estimate is based on a widely disputed methodology that dramatically 
inflates actual R&D costs. The most blatant shortcoming is that the 
DiMasi estimate generalizes from the cost of developing a breakthrough 
product to the cost of developing any new drug. Most new drugs on the 
market are me-too drugs, or second generation products. They are by 
their very nature far less expensive to develop than the original.
  Even more troubling is the accounting gimmick unearthed by Professor 
Donald Light and Associate Professor Joel Lexchin. They write, ``About 
half of the $800 million figure consists of `opportunity costs,' the 
money that would have been made if R&D funds had been invested in 
equities.''
  Treating opportunity costs as actual costs is a good way to inflate 
the R&D estimate, but a bad way to give the public honest data on 
actual R&D spending.
  By such an accounting, the cost of producing a stick of bubble gum 
could include the box office revenue foregone by the manufacturer's 
decision to make gum instead of motion pictures.
  As Light and Lexchin write: ``Minus the built-in profits, R&D costs 
would average about $108 million 93 percent of the time, and $400 
million 7 percent of the time.''
  By that reckoning, the industry estimate overstates the cost of 
developing a new drug by 740 percent. But in his economic report, 
President Bush uses the drug industry's estimate without question, 
without qualification, without even attribution.
  Put simply the Brown-Gutknecht amendment would fix that. It prevents 
the Council of Economic Advisers, which works with the President to 
produce his economic report, from using that bogus estimate next year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the purpose of this 
amendment. It is designed to restrict information used by the 
President's Council of Economic Advisers.
  Just because a Member does not like the findings of an independent 
study does not mean we should be trying to prevent the White House from 
using that information. What kind of precedent would this set? Where 
can Congress stop in restricting the President's Council of Economic 
Advisers and the executive branch from discussing the findings of 
independent studies? What other type of economic data will Members try 
to restrict then?
  The $800 million figure that the gentleman from Ohio cites is from a 
2003 Tufts University study. Is Tufts University no longer able to 
provide information to this government with studies? Which university 
will be next? Harvard University? Are they good enough? Princeton? It 
seems to me Tufts University is a good source of independent 
information.
  This information was put together independently. It was not created 
out of thin air. It was not created by the White House. The fact is 
this amount of money that pharmaceutical companies spend on R&D is 
considerable. They spend enormous resources on research and 
development. In 2003, pharmaceutical companies spent an estimated $33.2 
billion on research and development. In the same year, the budget for 
the entire NIH, the entire budget for the National Institutes of 
Health, their operating budget was $27 billion, less than what the 
industry had spent on R&D alone.
  Over the past 10 years, pharmaceutical research companies, scientists 
and researchers have earned an average of 32 new drug approvals a year. 
In 2003, a total of 35 new drugs, including 21 new molecular entities 
and 14 new biologics, were approved by the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  These were important products. These are products used to prevent or 
treat conditions like Alzheimer's, cancer, HIV infection, asthma, 
pneumonia, psoriasis, and other infectious diseases. The President's 
advisers should not be censored while talking about this world-leading 
American industry and the amount of money that they spend on research 
and development.
  I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), the cosponsor of the amendment.
  (Mr. GUTKNECHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I do not think anyone should be 
censored, but I think having no information can sometimes be better 
than having bad information. And what the Council of Economic Advisers 
did was they took lock, stock, and barrel failed research. Then it gets 
repeated and repeated and repeated, this $800 million figure.
  According to the pharmaceutical company themselves, that $800 million 
figure includes $400 million of opportunity costs. That means they 
could have taken that money and bought Microsoft shares and made more 
money. That is ridiculous.
  Mr. Chairman, just read this report that I will include for the 
Record by Dr. Donald Light. He is from New Jersey. He teaches at a 
little school called Princeton. He also teaches at the Princeton 
medical school. He is the one who went through this. More importantly, 
in this 2-page report there are almost a page of footnotes. They 
document what they do.
  The problem with the Council of Economic Advisers is they just took 
this number and they repeated it. They do not document it. They do not 
ask questions, and so now everyone is running around saying it cost 
$800 million to develop a new drug. That is not true, and it is worse 
than having no information at all.
  This is one way to send a message to the Council of Economic 
Advisers, that if they are going to put out information so policymakers 
at the White House or here on Capitol Hill make decisions based on that 
information, you better make sure you check the numbers and document 
them first because bad information is worse than no information at all.

          [From the American Journal of Bioethics, Jan. 2004]

  Will Lower Drug Prices Jeopardize Drug Research? A Policy Fact Sheet

                   (By Donald Light and Joel Lexchin)

       This documented fact sheet provides evidence that all drug 
     research by large firms, net of taxpayers' subsidies, is paid 
     for out of domestic sales in each country, with profits to 
     spare. Prices can be lower without jeopardizing basic 
     research for new drugs. More exposure to global price 
     competition would encourage more innovative research and less 
     of the derivative me-too research that now dominates.
       In the U.S., the FDA Commissioner, Mark McClellan, and the 
     drug industry are responding to pressures for lower costs by 
     mounting a large campaign to pressure all other affluent 
     countries to raise their prices to U.S. levels. They claim 
     that lower prices do not pay for drug research costs, but we 
     provide evidence that this is untrue. Ultimately, however, 
     such nationalistic arguments are based on regarding basic 
     research and new discoveries, which can happen anywhere, and 
     the cost of trials, which are carried out in the countries 
     deemed most commercially advantageous, as part of national 
     companies and national accounts, when in fact they are part 
     of a global economy for pharmaceutical products.


                               fda myths

       1. FDA Commissioner, Mark McClellan, holds that other 
     affluent countries like Canada and the UK set their prices 
     for patented drugs so low that they do not pay for research 
     and development (R&D) (McClellan 2003). We can find no 
     evidence to support that claim.
       On the contrary, audited financial reports of major drug 
     firms in the UK, show that all research costs are paid, with 
     substantial profits left over, based solely on domestic sales 
     at British prices (Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme 
     2002). Likewise, 79 research drug companies in Canada 
     submitted reports showing their R&D expenditures have risen 
     more than 50% since 1995, all paid for by domestic sales at 
     Canadian prices (Patented Medicine Prices Review Board 2002). 
     Sales to the U.S. and elsewhere are in addition to the 
     positive, domestic balance sheets.
       2. FDA Commissioner McClellan says that European or 
     Canadian prices are ``slowing the process of drug development 
     worldwide'' (McClellan 2003). There is no known verifiable 
     evidence to support this claim. In fact, drug research has 
     been increasing steadily in Europe as well as in the U.S., 
     with some countries having a more rapid increase than the 
     U.S. (Patented Medicine Prices Review Board 2002).
       3. FDA Commissioner McClellan says that ``price controls 
     discourage the R&D needed

[[Page H5524]]

     to develop new products'' (McClellan 2003). But there is no 
     known verifiable evidence to support this claim.
       R&D expenditures have been growing rapidly, though it is 
     becoming more and more difficult to discover breakthrough 
     drugs on targets not already hit (Harris 2003). The truth 
     kept from Americans is that first-line treatment for 96% of 
     all medical problems requires only 320 drugs (Laing et al. 
     2003). In wealthy countries, more drugs might be appropriate 
     to treat people who do not respond to first-line agents.
       4. FDA Commissioner McClellan charges that efforts to 
     negotiate lower prices for patented drugs by other countries 
     (and by major employers, unions and governors in the U.S.) 
     are ``no different than violating the patent directly'' to 
     make cheap copies (McClellan 2003). This charge echoes the 
     drug industry and implies that large buyers seeking better 
     value should be considered a criminal act.
       5. FDA Commissioner McClellan paints a picture of other 
     wealthy countries driving down their prices to marginal 
     costs, but the widening gap between prices for patented drugs 
     in the U.S. and other countries is due to drug companies 
     raising U.S. prices, not other countries lowering theirs 
     (Sager and Socolar 2003; Families USA 2003).
       6. The ``free-rider'' problem that McClellan emphasizes can 
     be solved by U.S. prices coming down to European levels, 
     where they will cover all R&D costs, plus profits that are 
     higher than those in most industries.
       7. Drug company profits, after all R&D costs, have long 
     been more than double the profits of Fortune 500 
     corporations. In recent years they have jumped to triple and 
     even quadruple the profits of other major companies (National 
     Institute for Health Care Management 2000). The global firms 
     spend two and a half to three times more for marketing and 
     administration than for research (Families USA 2001).
       8. Americans pay for more R&D than any other country 
     because the United States accounts for more sales than any 
     other country. But while the U.S. accounts for 51% of world 
     sales, it took 58% of global R&D expenditures invested in the 
     US to discover only 43% of the more important new drugs 
     (NCEs) (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and 
     Associations 2003). This means that other countries are 
     helping to pay for the large, inefficient U.S. R&D 
     enterprise, the opposite of what the editors of Business Week 
     claimed (Business Week editors 2003). William Safire's claim 
     of a ``foreign rip-off'' as Americans pay for the world's R&D 
     is contradicted by the facts above (Safire 2003).


  research is misdirected by the industry, against patients' interests

       9. Most drug innovation provides little or no therapeutic 
     advantage over existing * * *
       Independent review panels plus a major industry review 
     conclude that only 10-15% of ``new'' drugs provide a 
     significant therapeutic breakthrough over existing drugs and 
     involve a new chemical or molecule (Barral 1996; Prescrire 
     International 2003; National Institute for Health Care 
     Management Research and Education Foundation 2002). Other 
     industry-sponsored figures are much higher but not reliable.
       10. The FDA approves drugs that are better than nothing 
     (placebo) but does not test them against the best existing 
     drugs for the same problem. Most research is for ``new'' 
     drugs to treat problems already treated by other drugs.
       11. About 18% ofthe drug industry's research budget goes to 
     basic research for breakthrough drugs. About 82% goes to 
     derivative innovations on existing drugs and to testing.
       The long-standing survey of basic research by the National 
     Science Foundation estimates that basic research has 
     increased to 18% of the total research and development (R&D) 
     budget for the pharmaceutical industry. It used to be less 
     (National Science Foundation 2003). Industry-sponsored 
     figures based on secret unverifiable data are much higher but 
     not reliable (DiMasi, Hansen, and Grabowski 2003). The 85-90% 
     of ``new'' drugs that have little therapeutic gain reflects 
     equal protection from competition for much less investment 
     and risk.
       12. Congress has repeatedly extended patent protection for 
     drugs beyond what other industries enjoy, despite much higher 
     profits year in and year out. Government protection from 
     normal competition is now more than 50% greater for the drug 
     industry than a decade ago (National Institute for Health 
     Care Management 2000). These incentives reward research into 
     derivative large markets, rather than to finding effective 
     treatments for diseases that have none.
       13. These facts constitute the Blockbuster Syndrome: the 
     lure of monopoly pricing and windfall profits for years spurs 
     the relentless pursuit for drugs that might sell more than $1 
     billion a year, regardless of therapeutic need or benefit. 
     Research projects for the disorders of affluent nations 
     proliferate, as do clinical trials. Doctors are paid like 
     bounty hunters to recruit patients for thousands of dollars 
     each. Most patients get the misimpression that the 
     experimental drug will be better than existing ones (Wolpe 
     2003). The corruption of professional judgment, ethics and 
     even medical science follow (Williams 2003; Wazana 2000; 
     Barnett 2003; Lexchin, Bero, Djulbegovic et al. 2003; 
     Bekelman, Mphil, and Gross 2003; Villanueva, Peiro, 
     Librero et al. 2003; Fletcher 2003).


               Drug research costs much less than claimed

       14. Drug companies claim to spend 17% of domestic sales on 
     R&D, but more objective data reports they spend only 10% 
     (National Science Foundation 2003). Thus, only 1.8% of sales 
     goes to research for breakthrough new drugs (18% x 10%) (Love 
     2003).
       15. Taxpayers pay for most research costs, and many 
     clinical trials as well.
       In 2000, for example, industry spent 18% of its $13 billion 
     for R&D on basic research, or $2.3 billion in gross costs 
     (National Science Foundation 2003). All of that money was 
     subsidized by taxpayers through deductions and tax credits. 
     Taxpayers also paid for all $18 billion in NIH funds, as well 
     as for R&D funds in the Department of Defense and other 
     public budgets. Most of that money went for basic research to 
     discover breakthrough drugs, and public money also supports 
     more than 5000 clinical trials (Bassand, Martin, Ryden et al. 
     2002). Taxpayer contributions are similar in more recent 
     years, only larger.
       16. The average amount of research funds the drug industry 
     needs to recover appears to be much less than the industry's 
     figure of $800 million per new drug approved (NDA).
       The $800 million figure is based on the small 
     unrepresentative subsample of all new drugs. It excludes the 
     majority of ``new'' drugs that are extensions or new 
     administrations of existing drugs, as well as all drugs 
     developed by NIH, universities, foundations, foreign teams, 
     or others that have been licensed in or bought. Variations on 
     existing drugs probably cost much less because so much of the 
     work has already been done and trials are simpler.
       About half of the $800 million figure consists of 
     ``opportunity costs'', the money that would have been made if 
     the R&D funds had been invested in equities, in effect a 
     presumed profit built in and compounded every year and then 
     called a ``cost.'' Drug companies then expect to make a 
     profit on this compounded profit, as well as on their actual 
     costs. Minus the built-in profits, R&D costs would average 
     about $108 million 93% of the time and $400 million 7% of the 
     time.
       The $800 million estimate also does not include taxpayers' 
     subsidies via deductions and credits and untaxed profits 
     (DiMasi, Hansen, and Grabowski 2003; DiMasi, Hansen, 
     Grabowski et al. 1991). Net R&D costs are then still lower.
       Contrary to some press reports from the industry, screening 
     for new compounds is becoming faster and more efficient and 
     the time from initial testing to approval has shortened 
     substantially (Kaitin and Healy 2000). The large size of 
     trials seems more due to signing up specialists to lock in 
     substantial market share. Advertising firms are now running 
     clinical trials (Bassand, Martin, Ryden et al. 2002; Peterson 
     2002; Moyers 2002).
       17. Because clinical trials have become a high-profit sub-
     industry, trial ``costs'' appear to be much more than is 
     necessary.
       An international team of experts estimates that clinical 
     trials could be done for about $500 per patient rather than 
     $10,000 per patient, a 95% reduction (Bassand, Martin, Ryden 
     et al. 2002). The most detailed empirical study of trial 
     costs also concludes that costs can be much less than 
     reported (The Global Alliance for TB Drug Development 2001).


                       U.S. drug prices very high

       18. Americans seem unaware how much more they are paying 
     for drugs than other countries, in the name of the ``free 
     market'' where prices are controlled by corporations. So-
     called ``price controls'' abroad are negotiated wholesale 
     prices. Corporate price controls in the U.S. are un-
     negotiated monopoly prices, which then large buyers negotiate 
     down.
       According to a detailed analysis, American employers and 
     health plans pay at wholesale 2.5-3.5 times the prices in 
     Australia and other countries with comparable prices for 
     patented drugs (Productivity Commission of Australia 2001). 
     There is no evidence that these prices do not cover research 
     costs. U.S. generic prices shadow patent drug prices and are 
     also 2.5-3.5 times more.
       19. High American prices are essentially monopoly rents 
     charged to employers in every other industry. They shift 
     profits from other industries to the drug industry.
       20. If American prices were cut in half, research budgets 
     would not have to suffer unless executives decided to cut 
     them in favor of marketing, luxurious managerial allowances 
     or high profits. They probably would not, because R&D gets 
     such favorable tax treatment compared to other expenses. 
     Lower prices would save other Fortune 500 companies billions 
     in drug benefit costs, and drug company profits could come 
     into line with the profits of the companies who pay for their 
     drugs.


              Realign incentives to reward true innovation

       21. Current incentives strongly reward derivative 
     innovation. We get what we reward.
       22. Because the U.S. is by far the biggest spender, it has 
     by far the most R&D and new drugs. Four other industrialized 
     countries, however, devote more of their GDP to R&D for new 
     drugs than the U.S. (Patented Medicine Prices Review Board 
     2002).
       23. Officials of drug companies commonly claim that nearly 
     all new drugs are discovered in the U.S. However, the 
     industry's own studies (and others) show that over the past 
     quarter century, the U.S. has accounted for less than or 
     about the same as its proportionate share of international 
     new drugs, not more and certainly not nearly all (Barral

[[Page H5525]]

     1996; European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and 
     Associations 2000). Until 2002, even the U.S. pharmaceutical 
     industry was investing an increasing percent of its R&D 
     budget in highly productive research teams abroad 
     (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America 2002).
       24. Americans are getting less innovation and paying a lot 
     more. Competing countries profit from these American self-
     delusions by covering their R&D and keeping their own drug 
     prices reasonable, while leaving drug companies to make 
     bonanza profits from the monopoly American market.
       25. Price competition has been the greatest spur to 
     innovation for over 200 years. Price protections reward 
     derivative and me-too innovation as well as excessive costs 
     and a focus on blockbuster marketing. If we want lower prices 
     and more breakthrough innovations, we need to change the 
     incentives to reward those goals (Baker and Chatani 2002).

  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment. The Brown amendment seeks to prevent the President's Council 
of Economic Advisers, a highly reputable group, from referencing an 
independent study that concluded the average new drug or medicine takes 
$800 million to develop in its future economic reports.
  This $800 million figure comes from a 2003 Tufts University study, 
not from the PhRMA, pharmaceutical industry, and not from the 
administration. There is nothing partisan or slanted about its 
findings. To try to block information just because you disagree with it 
is not the way to serve the American people who deserve and expect 
debate on the real costs of researching and developing pharmaceuticals. 
This amendment amounts, basically, to censorship and deserves to be 
defeated.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Cleveland, Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, is the administration manipulating 
information to benefit the pharmaceutical industry? Is the economic 
report of the President? And in that economic report, the 
administration parrots Big Pharmaceuticals' claims that drug prices 
need to be so high because of the costs of continuing to develop 
innovative life-saving drugs.
  But this assumption is directly at odds with the assumption the 
administration made in its cost estimate of the new Medicare drug 
benefit. CMS assumed that escalating drug costs would slow because drug 
companies will be churning out fewer innovative drugs. Which is it?
  If the drug industry is spending big on the next generation of 
innovative drugs, then projected costs of the Medicare drug benefit 
will be higher than the administration estimates. Then again, if the 
drug industry is not, in fact, spending big on innovative research, 
then the high prices charged by Big PhRMA amount to price gouging, 
plain and simple. I urge support for the Brown amendment.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I will take just a few moments to rise 
in opposition to this amendment which attempts to use the 
appropriations process to control the content of information about our 
economy, which I think is a wrong thing to do. I believe the committee 
is about learning facts, not ignoring them or being denied them.
  Moreover, the proposed amendment does not change the 2005 economic 
report of the President which discusses the average cost of developing 
and introducing a new prescription drug, as has been mentioned, a new 
drug to the market at $800 million or more. I have been informed that 
the administration strongly objects to the proposed Brown amendment. 
Preventing any discussion on the factors that contribute to 
pharmaceutical pricing or in fact any other topic that might be 
controversial would compromise the credibility of the future economic 
reports of the President.
  So I join my colleagues in opposing the Brown amendment and urge that 
it be defeated.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I hear my friend from New Jersey, 
well, all of my friends from New Jersey. They are arguing on behalf of 
the drug industry. Here is what this is all about, as the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) said.
  The drug industry funds a study. They do it through Tufts University. 
They find a professor at Tufts. This Dr. DiMasi has been doing these 
studies for the drug industry for several years. This is, I believe, 
his third study. After the study is done saying it costs $800 million, 
numbers just pulled from all over the place as the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) proved in his comments, they get that study 
in a government report, and then that number gets all over the place to 
try to justify continued high drug prices, the kind of prices that the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and others on this floor have 
tried to do something about for several years.
  So when the industry does a study, then you put it in a government 
report, it simply does not make sense to do that for the public 
interest.

                              {time}  1615

  There is a lot at stake here. The industry uses that fabricated cost 
estimate to justify charging our constituents the highest prices in the 
world. Two, three, four times Americans pay what Canadians or French or 
Germans or Israelis or Japanese pay; prices that force way too many 
American seniors to choose between their medicine and food; prices that 
drive up employer-sponsored health care costs, making American 
companies less competitive. Look at the problems at GM that my State 
faces. Prices that drive up tax bills by exploding the cost of Medicaid 
and Medicare and other public health programs.
  With that much at stake, the very least we should do is make sure we 
get the numbers right. This will be the first step in debunking this 
$800 million myth. This will be the first step in getting the numbers 
right so that we can get on in dealing with real prescription drug 
legislation in the future.
  I ask support for the Brown-Gutknecht amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I just want to come back to one point 
because I think a lot of people may not have been paying attention. 
This study that we are talking about where we got the $800 million 
figure originally started with a study that was funded by 
pharmaceutical companies. That number then gets repeated by the 
President's Council of Economic Advisers, and we all believe that it is 
true. We have an independent research that was not financed by PhRMA. 
That was done by a professor who was at Princeton from New Jersey. More 
importantly, he was an adviser to this President on health policy. Let 
me add one other thing: He is a Republican.
  Now, this is, I think, far more credible than that number that keeps 
getting bantered around and bantered around. Bad numbers are worse than 
no numbers at all. This is the one way to say to the Council of 
Economic Advisers to the President of the United States they ought to 
be ashamed.
  Whether or not this amendment passes, the point, I think, is made: 
that if they are going to put information out to the President, out to 
the public, out to policymakers about important issues like this, they 
had better make sure that the facts are correct.
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, it seems that the sponsors of this amendment are intent 
on impugning the integrity of Tufts University, and that is 
unfortunate. And they are also intent on censoring the White House and 
the Council of Economic Advisers of what they can say. Does the 
gentleman believe that we should apply this message to a President from 
his party as well? Should the President be unable to reference 
independent studies on global warming or international labor issues or 
the minimum wage, or is this really just partisan censorship?
  The gentleman uses rhetoric and figures that I may not agree with, 
but I certainly do not disagree with his right to say it.

[[Page H5526]]

  This is a bad amendment. I urge its defeat.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. 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 Ohio (Mr. Brown) will be 
postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Knollenberg

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. 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. Knollenberg:
       Sec. __. The amount otherwise provided under the heading 
     ``Management and Administration--Working Capital Fund'', in 
     title III is hereby increased by $22,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is a very simple amendment. It would simply partially restore 
funds to HUD's Working Capital Fund that were cut by an amendment 
adopted yesterday. This amendment has been cleared with the minority, 
and I urge its adoption.
  If I were to just briefly talk about it, this is not just a random 
pot of money. The Working Capital Fund pays the cost of all computers 
and phones at HUD, which is a huge expenditure. So, briefly, that is 
the essence of it.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment.
  I just want to point out that we had quite a number of different 
places from which money was taken as a result of the amendments. During 
the course of the debate yesterday, very sizable money was taken from 
the GSA accounts, the building account, that is to say, the building 
fund in the GSA; and also from the Secretary of Transportation's 
budget; as well from, as the amendment here suggests, the Working 
Capital Fund within HUD. There is also money taken from the Air 
Transportation Stabilization Fund.
  And if I could remember off the top of my head, I would probably be 
able to come up with about six other places where money was taken from 
from last year's. But I think what the chairman has proposed is to put 
this back in the Management and Administration Working Capital Fund of 
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and this one is as 
difficult a spot. So I have no objection to having that done in that 
place.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for his comments.
  Briefly, we have had, what is it, over the last 15 hours, some 
interesting conversations about money, and we have drawn money from a 
number of sources and, frankly, not too many sources, and some of that 
does create pain. In the case of this particular situation, these 
moneys are needed now. So I very much appreciate the gentleman's 
agreeing with me that this money should go to that particular source.
  So I am content to accept his approval and move forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as we are coming now close to the very end of this bill 
and as it would appear there are about three or four other people from, 
in fact, both sides of the aisle who have indicated that they wish to 
propose amendments, I want to take a couple of minutes to allow for the 
possibility that they may, in fact, come in defense of their positions 
and the amendments that they had, and to again commend the staff for 
the great work that they have done on this committee.
  The people on both the minority and majority side, the majority 
clerk, Dena Baron, and the other members of her staff; and on the 
minority side, Mike Malone and Michelle Burkett, who are seated next to 
me and have done a yeoman's service in providing assistance to the 
minority and the minority members, the minority members of the 
subcommittee and the general minority members in the preparation of 
this legislation.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) has been an 
entirely fair chairman for this subcommittee. It is the first time that 
he is dealing with this newly expanded subcommittee. It is actually, of 
course, the first time that I have served as ranking member of the 
expanded Transportation, Treasury, HUD, The Judiciary, District of 
Columbia, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee, now covering a good 
many more agencies than it did before. And I found that it is very easy 
to work with the chairman. I appreciate very much the kind of 
relationship that we have been able to have. He has been very 
accessible and very kind in his consideration of all of the amendments 
and positions that I have brought forward to end on my own part and on 
the part of members of the subcommittee and, at the same time, for 
members of the minority that are not on the subcommittee that may be on 
the full committee or not on the Committee on Appropriations at all.
  And I know that he has listened very carefully to the concerns of 
people from all of those categories within the House of 
Representatives, those that I have mentioned.
  In particular, I want to thank him at this time for having listened, 
at a late stage in the preparation of the legislation, to the concerns 
that I had about the funding for the accounts for tax law compliance in 
the IRS, for the development and the funding for YouthBuild, which we 
actually chose a very creative way to allow for the funding of 
YouthBuild by giving some additional money which was needed back to the 
account for the Community Development Block Grant and then speaking 
here on the floor about the use of that money for the continuation of 
YouthBuild.
  I would hope that, in fact, by the time we get to a conference 
committee, we may have well have had a reauthorization of YouthBuild in 
a different place. And if that is the case, then that money will be 
available for Community Development Block Grant purposes without the 
consideration of use for YouthBuild, but it then serves as a 
possibility of dealing in either place of working in either location, 
and I am very grateful for him to do that.
  Earlier in the process, the chairman was very responsive to the 
request to provide funds for the Community Development Financial 
Institutions Fund in the Department of the Treasury and funded that 
well for the coming year, the 2006 fiscal year.
  So there were those and a whole number of other occasions when we 
were able to work together well.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Clay

  Mr. CLAY. 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. Clay:
       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 to provide mortgage insurance under the National 
     Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) for any mortgage or loan 
     made by a lender that has been determined, by the Secretary 
     of Housing and Urban Development, under the Home Mortgage 
     Disclosure Act of 1975 (12 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.) to have 
     engaged in lending practices that are not prudent.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H5527]]

  The amendment seeks to prohibit funds available in this Act for the 
provision of mortgage insurance under the National Housing Act to 
lenders who engage in lending practices that are not prudent as 
referenced in the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and the FDIC Improvement 
Act.

                              {time}  1630

  Given the chairman's willingness and commitment to collaborate with 
the ranking member from Massachusetts, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) and I seek to engage the conferees to include language 
that speaks to the issue referenced in this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  Specifically, the amendment seeks to prohibit funds in this act for 
the provision of mortgage insurance under the National Housing Act to 
lenders who engage in lending practices that are not prudent, as 
referenced in the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act and FDIC Improvement 
Act.
  The gist of this amendment is to stop predatory lending. I want to 
pay tribute to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and the 
hearing that was just held with the members of the Committee on 
Financial Services, including the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), that presented this report from the 
National Community Reinvestment Coalition that indicated minorities, 
women, and low- and moderate-income borrowers across the United States 
of America receive a disproportionate amount of high-cost loans.
  It also says that the Community Reinvestment Act has been 
unsuccessful, for example, in examining subprime lenders. So they have 
not been able to weed out those who might raise the interest rates so 
high that minorities and women and others are impacted negatively.
  In order to improve the housing market and to give access to better 
interest loans, we believe that there should be greater oversight. So 
this amendment was constructed to provide greater oversight.
  I am delighted to be able to join the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Clay) on this amendment, but I hope that we will have the opportunity 
to work with our colleagues and really be able to provide an answer to 
this report, the ``2004 Fair Lending Disparities: Stubborn and 
Persistent.''
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman 
for her willingness to cosponsor the amendment. I also thank the 
chairman for his willingness to talk to us about this amendment, and I 
appreciate this opportunity.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate and share the concern 
that my colleagues have about abusive lending practices and the need to 
eliminate predatory lending by financial institutions. I also recognize 
that HUD has been working on a regulation for more than 3 years to 
address the problem, the very problem my colleague mentioned.
  I commit to my colleagues that, as this bill moves forward, I will 
work with my colleagues to include report language which helps to 
evaluate and accelerate a solution to what is a national problem.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. I 
also wanted to make him aware that there is legislation being crafted 
by our colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), as well as the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt), to address this issue and it is winding its way through the 
Committee on Financial Services.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that we 
acknowledge and yield to the ranking member and thank him for his 
interest in this area and, of course, to be able to work with him 
during conference on this very important issue of trying to stop 
predatory lending.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleagues for bringing this 
matter before the House, as I agree that predatory lending is a well-
recognized problem in many jurisdictions around the Nation. I will be 
happy to work with the chairman, as he has already indicated, to work 
with our colleagues as we go on through this process to conference in 
bringing this legislation to fruition, which will be some months from 
now.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from 
Missouri will continue to yield, I want to thank the chairman very 
much. I did not hear the conclusion; I do not know if the gentleman 
from Michigan concludes after we conclude, with respect to report 
language, but I assume that is what we might be able to work with the 
chairman on.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
cooperation of all sides on this issue. The chairman has given a 
commitment to work with us, and at this point I thank also the 
gentlewoman for her willingness to cosponsor the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Missouri?
  There was no objection.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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. Velazquez:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the General Services Administration to carry out 
     the eTravel Service program.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, small businesses still struggle to participate in the 
Federal marketplace. For the past 4 years, the Federal Government has 
not met its small business contracting goal, costing entrepreneurs 
billions of dollars in lost opportunities.
  By failing to take advantage of their exceptional quality and 
reasonable prices, the Federal Government is losing out on the best 
value for taxpayers' dollars.
  One of the primary reasons the Federal Government has failed is 
because of contract bundling. These megacontracts have been responsible 
for a 56 percent drop in available contracts to small businesses in 9 
years. After all this time, we have yet to see one dime in savings of 
taxpayers' dollars.
  The latest chapter in small business lost opportunity comes from the 
General Services Administration. GSA is moving forward with an ill-
conceived megacontract called e-travel. With this contract, GSA is 
poised to eliminate a whole sector of the small business community, 
travel agents, from working with the government. This is an industry 
small businesses dominate, as 99 percent of its firms have 30 employees 
or less.
  This move is despite the President's small business agenda and his 
repeated statements that contracts should be broken into smaller 
pieces. Completely ignoring this, GSA is cutting small businesses out, 
all in the name of streamlining, which they cannot even prove.
  It is not a new issue. In fact, recognizing the potential harmful 
impact that this contract will have for small businesses and local 
economies, the conference report for the fiscal year 2004 omnibus 
appropriation took the

[[Page H5528]]

extraordinary step of telling GSA it needs to preserve these contracts 
for small businesses.
  Despite this mandate, GSA did just the opposite, and made the e-
travel project mandatory barely 1 month after the conference report. 
This means that no local or Federal office can use their neighborhood 
travel agency, even if they already have for years.
  The results of GSA's actions are massive losses which industry 
estimates project costing small travel agencies at least $100 million 
in contracting opportunities, and possibly more. With only 78,000 jobs 
being created last month, can we afford to lose out on more opportunity 
in areas of the country that so desperately need jobs?
  GSA is ignoring the President's small business agenda designed to 
increase contracting opportunities. They are ignoring the will of 
Congress. They care nothing about saving taxpayers' dollars. The 
amendment I am offering today will make sure they listen and stop 
pushing small businesses out of the Federal marketplace.
  Let us not forget the important role small travel agencies have 
played. On September 11, when thousands of people were stranded in 
airports, they took as long as was necessary to figure out ways to get 
people home. When people stopped traveling out of fear, they got them 
going again. The thanks they got from the airline industry was a loss 
of booking fees and direct competition. The airline industry decided it 
could do their job.
  Now the Federal Government is telling them that their services are no 
longer needed. This is not only shortsighted, but it fails to recognize 
the value that these companies add.
  My amendment will balance contracting opportunities in the travel 
industry, much like the previous system. It would allow large providers 
to perform on the national contracts, but it would not prevent a 
Federal agency from using a local travel agent if that is what they 
prefer to do.
  Let me make one thing clear. If this amendment is not adopted, not 
one single small business travel agent will be able to do business with 
Federal agencies, and this is outrageous. These megacontracts have 
clearly gone too far; and it is time that we say enough is enough.
  This amendment has received the support of the Society of Government 
Travel Professionals, as well as the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce. 
I am urging my colleagues today to protect small business contracting 
by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) has expired.
  Does any Member seek to claim time in opposition?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I oppose this amendment because it will shut down the GSA e-travel 
program.
  In 1996, GAO recommended that travel management should be 
consolidated government-wide; and in 2001, they found that 
decentralized travel operations at the agency level resulted in the 
following: inconsistent and/or duplicative travel processes and 
procedures. It is costly to maintain these multiple, redundant systems 
on a stand-alone basis and with an inability to effectively monitor and 
manage the travel function at the agency level.
  Further, many agencies were developing expensive in-house custom 
systems. These ``boutique'' systems, if you will, were not connected, 
causing a heavy burden on the traveler. OMB recommended that a common 
government-wide travel management service would significantly improve 
the traveler's experience and save the government money. Government-
wide e-travel is projected to save approximately $450 million over the 
10-year cycle. It is expected to achieve a 15 percent savings in 
transactional costs over status quo in the base period of the contract, 
and 20 percent in outlying years.
  So I do not believe that this is the answer that the gentlewoman is 
seeking, which brings forward the shutdown, entire shutdown of the e-
travel program. So I would suggest that we all unite and vote against 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the amendment that has been 
offered by the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business; and 
for the reason, I will just cover it simply, for the reason that in the 
conference report for the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriation 
covering GSA, concern was expressed about the mandatory nature of the 
e-travel service.
  In fact, the report states, and I am quoting from the report: ``The 
conferees agree that GSA has been responsive to the House's concerns 
that e-travel initiatives should not involve mandatory participation by 
Federal agencies. Furthermore, the conferees agree that in its 
management of e-travel prime contractors, GSA should seek to preserve 
that portion of the Federal travel agent business that is currently 
served by small businesses and local entrepreneurs.''
  Now, not to demand that there be a particular portion or whatever 
that goes to those Federal travel agent businesses that are currently 
served by small businesses and local entrepreneurs but, rather, to 
point out that the vast majority, probably over 90 percent of travel 
agencies have fewer than 30 employees, and are, therefore, categorized 
as small businesses.
  While I recognize what the chairman has said, that sometimes by a 
very large economy-of-scale kind of contract you give everything to 
one, you can then wipe out the small businesses from being able to 
compete in that process, I think that, as I have quoted from the 
conference report for the 2004 appropriations act concerning GSA, there 
was the sense of the Congress that we did not want that to happen, that 
we wanted some of this business to remain with the local and small 
business entrepreneurs.
  So I support the amendment.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to respond for the 
record to a statement made by the chairman that the e-travel will save 
taxpayers' money. Let me just say that an industry review of the 
booking fees listed on the Federal Supply Schedule, it appears that 
GSA's figures on travel booking fees may have been estimated too high 
by as much as $20 per transaction, and these are the big industries, 
the big travel agencies, not the small businesses.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me say this about the amendment. What the amendment would do, it 
would shut down E-travel, just shut it down. The E-travel system saves 
money, saves taxpayers money and is easier to navigate for travel. The 
answer to the question that she has does not involve shutting down E-
travel.
  I would simply urge a no vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. 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 New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Wynn

  Mr. WYNN. 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. Wynn:
         At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
         Sec. 948. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to pay a Federal contractor with respect to a 
     contract if the contractor--
         (1) fails to enter into a subcontract with a small 
     business in accordance with the contractor's subcontracting 
     plan (under section 8(d) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 
     637(d)) for the contract, unless the contractor provides 
     written justification; or

[[Page H5529]]

         (2) was not in compliance under a previous Federal 
     contract with the contract clause required by section 8(d)(2) 
     of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C 637(d)(2)) with respect 
     to timely payment, as found by the awarding agency, and is 
     the subject of litigation or an administrative claim relating 
     to a late payment to a subcontractor by the contractor.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) and a member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In this House, we frequently proclaim the importance of helping small 
businesses. Consider, in fact, that the Small Business Act states, in 
part, it is the policy of the United States that small business 
concerns shall have the maximum practical opportunity to participate in 
the performance of contracts let by any Federal agency, including 
subcontracts.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses two issues that are, in fact, 
already part of the Small Business Act but continue to be problems for 
the small business community. First, under current law, proclaimed by 
the Small Business Act, it is required that the successful bidder shall 
have a subcontracting plan included in the contract, and that prior 
compliance of the bidder with other subcontracting plans shall be 
considered by the Federal agency to determine if the bidder is 
responsible in the award of the contract.
  However, the fact is that, in far too many cases, the subcontractors 
that are listed on the subcontracting plan of the bidder that wins the 
contract are never used to perform the contract work. As a result, 
small businesses, women-owned businesses, African American businesses, 
other ethnic minority businesses who, we are told, are being included 
in Federal contracting are, in fact, often excluded. They are not 
allowed to perform the work. This practice constitutes fraud and 
undermines small businesses, and we need to put a stop to it.
  My amendment penalizes Federal contractors that fail to subcontract 
with small businesses as submitted in their subcontracting plan. Should 
the contractor not use the subcontractor laid out in their plan, the 
amendment requires that the contractor provide written justification or 
lose the award. Small business contractors deserve adequate protection 
from dishonest contractors.
  The second issue raised in this amendment is a problem that, in many 
cases, after a subcontractor successfully performs the work they are 
not being paid in a timely manner to allow them to meet their 
obligations. Again, the Small Business Act currently addresses this 
issue. It says that the policy of the United States is that prime 
contractors establish procedures to ensure the timely payment of 
amounts due pursuant to the terms of their contracts with small 
businesses.
  Unfortunately, all too often this does not happen. It is hard enough 
to survive in business without the added burden of late payments 
affecting cash flow and growth potential. Small businesses cannot 
afford to wait long periods of time to be paid after completing a job, 
especially a small business contracting on a government contract.
  A growing number of small businesses have complained to me about the 
threat to their survival as a result of having late payments or having 
to pursue claims through litigation or administrative procedures in 
order to get paid. This problem has caused me to introduce prompt 
payment legislation in the last few Congresses. This amendment 
addresses the problem by providing that when a prime contractor has 
been found to be out of compliance with prompt payment provisions, or 
are the subject of administrative claims or litigation, they should be 
denied the ability to be awarded Federal contracts.
  My amendment addresses the problem of subcontractors not receiving 
payment for services to a prime contract in a timely manner. We need to 
stop paying lip service to the small business community and roll up our 
sleeves and address the specific problems they confront. They confront 
the problem of being listed in Federal contracts but never used, and 
they confront the problem of not being paid on time and having to 
pursue litigation remedies. This amendment will address both of these 
issues. I believe it is, in fact, germane to the bill that no money 
shall be used to pay contractors who violate these two provisions, 
accurate subcontracting and prompt payment.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. 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. That rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general 
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. This 
amendment requires a new determination, and I insist on the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would just add that this bill does not 
change existing law. If you will note, I actually read into the Record 
the status of existing law regarding the requirement to list your 
subcontractors and the requirement for prompt payment. This bill merely 
adds the provision to enforce existing law.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland would require a 
new determination by the relevant executive branch official. 
Specifically, the amendment would require a determination of whether a 
contractor has a history of late payments or is the subject of 
litigation. 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.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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. Van Hollen:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement the revision to Office of Management and 
     Budget Circular A-76 made on May 29, 2003.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, 
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with the process that we now have 
in place in the Federal Government for contracting out work that is 
performed by Federal employees around the country, in other words, what 
process is in place for privatizing certain Federal Government jobs. 
That process, which is known by the Office of Management and Budget, A-
76 process, is a broken process. In fact, both Federal Government 
employees and private contractors have serious legitimate concerns and 
complaints about the existing competitive sourcing process. This 
amendment would, in fact, encourage OMB to go back to the drawing board 
and develop a competitive sourcing process that addresses everybody's 
concerns. And it is an amendment that is identical, word for word, to 
an amendment that has passed the House on this appropriations bill in 
the last 2 years.
  And we have passed this bill for the past 2 years for a very simple 
reason. We recognize that the existing contracting out process is 
unfair and that it needs to be fixed. And that has not changed from 
last year to this year. In fact, already this year the Appropriations 
Committee and this House have recognized the fact that the existing 
contracting out process is broken because we have passed a number of 
bills to change that on an ad hoc basis. For example, the Defense 
appropriations bill, which has already passed this House, changed the 
A-76 contracting

[[Page H5530]]

out rules for Department of Defense Federal employees in a number of 
ways. It insured, first of all, that Federal employees of the 
Department of Defense would always have the opportunity to compete to 
keep their jobs through forming what is known as the most efficient 
organization. The Defense appropriations bill also required that when a 
private contractor is trying to take over work it demonstrates that it 
can provide some minimal level of savings to the taxpayer. After all, 
that is what competition should be about.
  That is something the GAO has recommended, and it is something the 
Appropriations Committee put in the Defense appropriations bill but it 
is not part of the normal contracting out process. The Defense 
appropriation bill also prevents private contractors from gaining an 
advantage by providing less health benefits to their employees. We as a 
Federal Government should be setting an example to the public, not 
trying to encourage people to dump health coverage for their employees. 
And so the appropriations for defense did that.
  There are also things we did with respect to the authorization bill 
for the Defense Department that changed the contracting out rules. For 
example, we made sure that during the appeals process, that the appeals 
rights of Federal employees would be the same as appeal rights for 
private contractors. That seems to make sense. That is only fair.
  In fact, if you look at different appropriations bills that have come 
out, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, the Interior 
appropriations bill, the Agriculture appropriations bill, all of those 
bills had changes to this contracting out process.
  So the question arises if the Appropriations Committee itself has 
changed the contracting out rules in all these other bills, does it not 
make sense to ask the Office of Management and Budget to go back and 
get it right, come up with a uniform policy that applies 
governmentwide, rather than have five different tests in different 
appropriations bills.
  That is what this amendment is all about. It does not get rid of the 
competitive sourcing rules. It would say to OMB, go back to the rules 
that were in place before May 2003 until you fashion a new set of rules 
that make sense for everybody.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The Van Hollen amendment harms taxpayers, in my judgment, by 
preventing agencies from conducting public private competitions under 
OMB's revised circular A-76. By forcing agencies to return to the rules 
of the old circular world, the old circular world would disadvantage, 
Number 1, Federal employees by allowing much of their work to be 
directly converted to private sector performance without even 
considering in-house capabilities or the cost implications of 
outsourcing. It will also harm taxpayers by making them bear the cost 
of processes that are outdated, inefficient and not results oriented. 
The advantages of the revised circular are that they were developed 
with broad input, broad input from the public to ensure competition is 
used in a fair manner that accommodates the diverse needs of our 
citizens. And it focuses on achieving the best results for the taxpayer 
by requiring agencies to evaluate cost and permitting agencies to also 
consider the quality of the service provided such as technology support 
and security.
  I would just stop there, but suggest to the gentleman from Virginia 
that this is not a friendly amendment in regard to the taxpayer. It 
truly is not. The committee opposes it and certainly I oppose it, and I 
would ask or urge for a no vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I would just pose the question to the subcommittee chairman, I thank 
him for those remarks, but if the current A-76 contracting out process 
works so well, if that is the ideal that we want to have, why has the 
Appropriations Committee, on five different bills that it has reported 
out, changed those rules with respect to several agencies?
  With the Interior appropriations bill there was a rider that came out 
that passed the House that limited the amount of money that may be used 
for privatization review by the Department of the Interior and for the 
Forest Service specifically.
  On the Homeland Security appropriations bill, you prevented the 
Department of the Interior from reviewing for privatization work 
performed by three different categories of employees who serve on the 
front lines of the war against terrorism.
  On the Agriculture appropriations bill, the Appropriations Committee 
in this House included provisions that prevented the Department of 
Agriculture from reviewing for privatization any employees involved in 
rural development or farm loan programs.

                              {time}  1700

  So I would just say to my colleagues, if the existing system works so 
well, why has the Committee on Appropriations in this House this year 
already voted to change it in so many ways? Let us have a uniform 
policy that applies equally across Federal agencies.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman's comments. Those 
appropriations bills, I believe there were five, it was different in 
each one of them because it was applied specifically, tailored to that 
particular bill and the operation of that bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
time. I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) coming 
forth and asking questions which are very important, and I believe the 
chairman talked about that, and that is that where we believe 
appropriate that the government be involved in inherently government 
operations, the government should be. However, we know that this 
government is huge and has many areas in which they are not only behind 
in their ability to be prepared technologically-wise but also to meet 
the demands and needs of taxpayers and people out in this country who 
need to make sure that this government works and works properly.
  I would like to remind the gentleman that this is part of the 
President's management agenda, part of the management agenda where he 
has talked very clearly to the American public and to Congress about 
things where we need to change, to change and incorporate changes so 
that taxpayers and people in need are able to get better benefits and 
better services.
  What the gentleman is doing today says, we are going to wipe out the 
President's management agenda. We are not going to allow competitive 
outsourcing and then come to the floor and say, look, you have done it 
five times. Is that not an indication that this is a broken system?
  It is not. It is a system that will continue to be reformed. What the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) has done is to say very 
clearly where reform is necessary, we will do it; but the taxpayers and 
people who need the things which government or government money does to 
implement change within our system is very important.
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell you, I oppose the Van Hollen amendment and 
the taxpayers would too. I hope that our colleagues all hear this 
debate because it is important not only for taxpayers but for 
government efficiency.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not about getting rid of the competitive 
sourcing program. There always has been competitive sourcing in the 
government, and there will continue to be. The issue is what rules 
apply. I would suggest to my colleagues that the defense appropriations 
bill rider that was attached said when you have these competitions, you 
should at least demonstrate that the taxpayers would be saved some 
money. A minimum of at least 10 percent of the funds was a good idea. 
That was required by this House. That is not required by the current A-
76 process. We should make that. That should not just apply to the 
Defense Department that we get a good deal for the taxpayer. That 
should apply.
  The provision of health benefits, let us do what the House has 
already done

[[Page H5531]]

two times, which is adopt this exact language. We did it last year on 
this bill. We did it the year before. I urge my colleagues to do it 
again this year.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of taking 5 minutes. I just want to 
point out since my friend, the chairman, has the chance to close, I 
just want to point out that this amendment has been passed each of the 
last 2 years in the House by fairly strong bipartisan votes. And it has 
then gone to conference committee and never reappeared from the 
conference committee in either of those years.
  It suggests that there is no intention on the part of the majority of 
adhering to the will of the House which ought to carry at least as much 
weight as the President's management agenda, so-called, and so I am 
going to just urge that we again pass this and give the conference one 
more chance to reject the will of the House, which seems to be its full 
intent year after year to do and thereby show its total contempt for 
the will of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing very quickly, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) 
referenced the fact that his idea actually was passed last year, 
included in the bill and there was a threat of a veto then, and so it 
was removed from the bill. And this administration is prepared to do 
the very same thing this year. So I would suggest to him that it is 
enough of a problem or an annoyance to them that it will be something 
that will be subject to a veto threat and perhaps go through the same 
process again.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Van Hollen 
amendment to H.R. 3058, the Transportation, Treasury and HUD 
Appropriations bill for FY 2006.
  Representative Van Hollen's amendment would prevent the 
Administration from using federal funds to conduct public-private 
competitions under the new A-76 process announced in May of 2003. The 
amendment stops the Administration from playing politics with the civil 
service system and it deserves your strong support.
  The independent think tank, the Brookings Institution, and others 
explain that the true size of the federal government includes the 
``shadow workforce'' of private contractors. Brookings has found that 
the private contractor workforce of the federal government is now 16.7 
million. That is almost 10 times the size of the federal civil service.
  The rush to privatize the civil service system is dangerous, because 
when the government turns to poorly supervised private contractors, the 
potential for waste, fraud, and abuse soars.
  This is not my assessment. GAO has issued countless reports on 
contractor abuses and inadequate contract management by federal 
agencies. The problem is so bad that contract management at DOD, the 
Energy Department, and NASA--the three agencies that most heavily rely 
on contractors--has been on GAO's list of ``high risk'' federal 
programs for years. And to make matters worse, agencies, particularly 
DOD, have cut the number of acquisition personnel in a misguided 
attempt to save money. That means that there are not enough people to 
conduct adequate contract oversight.
  The Van Hollen amendment prohibits public-private competitions from 
being conducted under revised rules that give an unfair advantage to 
private contractors. It's passage would provide Congress and the 
Administration the opportunity to address several critical matters, 
including: creating a reliable way to keep track of the costs of 
service contractors, guaranteeing federal employees the right to 
compete fairly for their jobs before they are privatized, and ensuring 
a level playing field by giving federal employees the same legal rights 
as contractors enjoy.
  The Washington Monthly has written that, ``even the federal payroll 
can become a source of patronage. . . . And while doing so may or may 
not save taxpayers much money, it will divert taxpayer money out of the 
public sector and into private sector firms, where the GOP has a chance 
to steer contracts towards politically connected firms.''
  We must stop the destructive and misguided effort to send federal 
jobs to private contractors at any cost. Vote ``yes'' on the Van Hollen 
amendment and stop this Administration's war on federal employees.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Terry). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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 Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen) will be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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 Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       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 to implement section 12(c) of the United States 
     Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437j(c)).

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 
2005, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I discuss this amendment to help educate my colleagues 
and to remind them that this amendment was passed in previous 
Congresses and the work of many of my colleagues, including the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), has been ongoing to try to bring 
fairness to this process.
  I would first like to say that none of us disagree with the idea of 
volunteer service. But my amendment simply says that it prohibits the 
use of funds in this act to implement the community service requirement 
for public housing tenants.
  This proposal has a long history, and of course the reason is because 
this is a difficult provision to enforce. Part of the enforcement in 
this time of decreasing public housing is to evict individuals from 
public housing, the individuals who are most vulnerable, the 
individuals who are most needy, and the individuals who may be least 
able because of their physical condition to perform community service.
  I have a letter here from the National Association of Housing and 
Redevelopment Officials which indicates: ``Dear Representative Jackson-
Lee: I write on behalf of the National Association of Housing 
Redevelopment Officials to support your amendment to halt the 
implementation of the public housing community service requirement. 
This organization is the Nation's oldest and largest association of 
housing community development professionals and the leading advocate 
for adequate and affordable housing and strong, viable communities for 
all Americans, particularly those with low and moderate incomes. Our 
21,000 agency and individual members help millions of families 
nationwide find safe and affordable housing.
  ``This organization has been opposed to the community service 
requirement since its enactment in 1998. Although a limited percentage 
of families nationwide meet the criteria for being subject to the 
community service requirement, all families must be screened and 
tracked for compliance. This requirement is an unfunded mandate that 
public housing can ill afford. In time of scarce resources, we believe 
that Federal funds could be better focused on maintaining safe, decent 
housing for 12 million low-income families.''
  In essence, they are committed to providing this service themselves.
  In fact, they say, ``many agencies partner with local service 
organizations to assist in case management and provide services. Other 
communities find it is necessary to augment local resources with 
programs and services that are easily accessible by public housing 
communities. The community is in the best position to make this 
decision.''
  This amendment is a clean-up amendment. It allows the local 
authorities to provide the opportunities for community service, but it 
does not burden those public housing entities by

[[Page H5532]]

using Federal funds to require the oversight and then to evict those 
most needy for public housing.
  I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

                                   National Association of Housing


                                  and Redevelopment Officials,

                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 2005.
     Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
      Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Jackson-Lee: I write on behalf of the 
     National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials 
     (NAHRO) to support your amendment to halt the implementation 
     of the public housing community service requirement under 
     Section 12(c) of the US Housing Act of 1937. NAHRO is the 
     nation's oldest and largest association of housing and 
     community development professionals and the leading advocate 
     for adequate and affordable housing and strong, viable 
     communities for all Americans--particularly those with low- 
     and moderate-incomes. Our 21,000 agency and individual 
     members help millions of families nationwide find safe, 
     affordable housing and economic opportunities through a 
     variety of local, state, and federal programs, such as Public 
     Housing, Section 8 Housing Vouchers, Community Development 
     Block Grants, HOME and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit.
       NAHRO has been opposed to the community service requirement 
     since its enactment in 1998. Although a limited percentage of 
     families nationwide meet the criteria for being subject to 
     the community service requirement, all families must be 
     screened and tracked for compliance. This requirement is an 
     unfunded mandate that public housing can ill afford. In a 
     time of scarce resources, we believe that federal funds could 
     be better focused on maintaining safe, decent housing for 1.2 
     million low-income families, 47 percent of which are headed 
     by the elderly or persons with disabilities, and supporting 
     self-sufficiency programs that get real results.
       Total funding for public housing has declined steadily in 
     recent years. The President's FY 2006 budget requested 20 
     percent less funding for public housing than Congress 
     provided in 2001. A Harvard Operating Cost study found that 
     public housing has traditionally been underfunded compared 
     with all other assisted housing. At the same time, basic 
     housing operating costs have increased exponentially due to 
     factors beyond local agencies' control, including employee 
     health care costs, energy and utility costs, and public 
     facilities insurance increases following 9/11. The cumulative 
     effect of several years of this funding crunch has been to 
     undermine local agencies' ability to provide basic services 
     and maintain our country's $90 billion investment in 
     affordable public housing.
       We are pleased that Subcommittee Chairman Knollenberg and 
     Ranking Member Olver have been able to improve upon the 
     President's requested funding levels for Public Housing 
     Capital and Operating Funds in HR 3058. Despite their efforts 
     in this area, however, public housing is far from fully 
     funded. With so many stresses on our public housing, the 
     unfunded mandate of the community service requirement is 
     simply a drain on local agencies' ability to meet the core 
     mission of providing housing and meaningful support for 
     families seeking a better life.
       Thank you for your efforts to remove this unfunded mandate 
     and pennit local housing agencies to focus on our core 
     mission of assisting families and preserving the country's 
     investment in affordable housing.
           Sincerely,
                                             Saul N. Ramirez, Jr.,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1998 the last time the Congress authorized the 
public housing and section 8 programs, they established this policy 
that tenants of public housing should undertake two responsibilities: 
number one, they should do some community service. The act requires 
that individuals in public housing do 8 hours of public service each 
month. There are numerous exemptions from their requirements for those 
that cannot do even the most minimal amount of service. The act also 
requires tenants to be part of the self-sufficiency program, a program 
designed to help tenants get jobs, keep jobs, and move off and out of 
public housing so other people may benefit.
  My own view is that this was a sound policy then, and it is a sound 
policy now. Neither appears to be a huge burden and the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development has not indicated any large-scale 
problems with the provision that would need this type of action.
  This is clearly an amendment that should be taken to the authorizers, 
and they are, by the way, right now reviewing all public housing 
assistance programs. So until Congress changes the policy, I believe 
that the policy should remain in force.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, many of these residents are not able-bodied; and as 
indicated by the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment 
Officials, it is best utilized at the local levels. They have been 
partnering with local organizations to try to work through service. We 
all believe in service.
  This is an unfunded mandate. It is a burden on those who are most 
vulnerable in housing that cannot, either because of their physical or 
mental condition, perform this service and they are vulnerable to 
conviction.
  I would suggest to my colleagues it is worthy of eliminating.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that I believe it is an unfunded 
mandate; but more particularly I hope that we will get to a point, if 
this amendment is not accepted by my colleagues, that we can come 
together and work for what is best for those most vulnerable. That is 
what public housing is for.
  When it was passed in 1998, there were many good intentions. It was 
in the climate of welfare reform. But it is an unfunded mandate. It is 
burdensome. And it is disrespectful to suggest that those who are poor 
are not desirous of public service. It is discriminatory and it is 
unfair, patently so.
  I hope that my colleagues will work together with many of us who 
believe that we can ensure good citizenship by those in public housing; 
at the same time we can be fair by making sure that they do not get the 
ultimate penalty which is eviction and force unfunded mandates and 
public housing authorities who can least afford this in this time of 
declining funds.
  This is a burden. And I would ask that they go in any neighborhood of 
homeowners and ask the homeowners association whether or not to stay in 
your house, other than keeping your own house in a good condition, 
whether you are demanded to perform public service. Public service 
should be voluntary, and it should be out of your heart. I can assure 
you that poor people believe in public service. This is high-handed, 
up-handed, if you will, and elitist; and we know that it is a problem. 
And I would hope that my colleagues would vote for my amendment.
  In the option they do not, we will keep working because we believe in 
fairness to all who are deserving of public housing and who need public 
housing and are the most vulnerable.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I just reiterate what I said. I am in opposition to the amendment, 
and I urge everyone to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was rejected.

                              {time}  1715


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Pickering

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pickering:
       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 the Individuals With Disabilities Parking 
     Reform Amendment Act of 2000 (D.C. Law 13--279).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 
2005,

[[Page H5533]]

the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today with an amendment at the desk. I want to thank the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations subcommittee for his work 
on this. I want to thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) for her attention and help. I also want to thank the 
responsiveness of the Mayor's office and the city council.
  I will submit into the Record at this point letters from the Mayor's 
office and from Carol Schwartz, council member on the District of 
Columbia council.
  Quickly, let me tell my colleagues the issue that was brought to my 
attention by one of my constituents in the last week, and as we come to 
the 4th of July, when millions will come to the District, when 
thousands of veterans, many of whom are disabled, will be visiting our 
Nation's capital and going to our monuments, what was brought to my 
attention by Viola Cupit from Bogue Chitto, Mississippi, who called my 
office last week.
  She had come to our Nation's capital. She happens to be disabled. She 
has a disabled license plate from the State of Mississippi. She parked 
on Constitution Avenue. The parking sign says disabled, 4 hours free 
parking. She thought that she was correctly parked and would not face 
any fine or ticket.
  She returned to discover that it is free for D.C. residents, but not 
free for those who travel to our Nation from other States. If you are 
from Mississippi or from Tennessee or from California, if you were to 
come to the District, you are disabled and you were to park, you would 
either have to pay or go to the DMV, which can be a long, difficult and 
frustrating process in the District of Columbia to get a District 
disabled placard card.
  Now, we know in our Nation's capital that we want equal treatment. We 
do not want discriminatory treatment, especially for our disabled 
citizens and veterans. We do not want to see them differently. I do not 
think it was the intent of the District of Columbia and their 
regulations to have this unequal, discriminatory treatment; but it 
nonetheless is.
  I think the intent of the letters of the Mayor and the city council 
member indicate that they want to correct this inequity.
  I also want to submit for the Record a letter from the Paralyzed 
Veterans of America who have also asked that this discriminatory 
practice cease, and they stand willing and ready to work with the 
District of Columbia to have a fair policy.
  I will insert the letters that I have referred to into the Record at 
this point.


                                Paralyzed Veterans of America,

                                    Washington, DC, June 29, 2005.
     Hon. Charles W. Pickering, Jr.,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Pickering: Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America (PVA) is pleased to support your efforts to correct a 
     policy of the District of Columbia to charge people with out 
     of state placards for accessible parking. PVA expressed our 
     concerns to the D.C. government before this policy went into 
     effect. We oppose paying for accessible parking when in fact 
     the parking is provided on a discriminatory basis. While we 
     understand the need to curb abuse, we do not believe that the 
     city made sufficient parking truly accessible or gives 
     adequate notice to those who need it.
       The current policy is confusing and discriminatory. 
     Disabled drivers with D.C. placards or plates are allowed 
     four hours of free parking. Drivers with a valid placard from 
     any other jurisdiction must pay, but the only notice of the 
     requirement to pay is on the sidewalk side of each meter. 
     Simply finding that notice may require the person to get out 
     of the car, wheel through traffic to a curb cut (assuming 
     there is one), then wheel back on the sidewalk to the meter. 
     At that point, the visitor can only hope that the meter 
     itself is accessible.
       PVA believes the District's policy violates the 
     ``reciprocal agreements'' under Public Law 100-641 (23 CFR 
     1235). The law established guidelines for states and 
     jurisdictions to follow in designing accessible parking 
     spaces, placards and license plates and urged reciprocity in 
     enforcement and parking privileges granted by other 
     jurisdictions.
       Again, thank you for your leadership on this issue. PVA is 
     ready to work with you to ensure accessible parking 
     privileges in the District of Columbia are equally available 
     to all disabled drivers, regardless of jurisdiction.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Lee Page,
     Associate Advocacy Director.
                                  ____



                          Council of the District of Columbia,

                                    Washington, DC, June 30, 2005.
     Hon. Chip Pickering,
     Congressman, Third District, Mississippi,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Pickering: I appreciated the opportunity 
     to speak with you at length this morning about the District's 
     enforcement of the ``Individuals with Disabilities Parking 
     Reform Amendment Act of 2000.'' I am committed to revisiting 
     the law to ensure that all disabled persons, regardless of 
     where they live, are treated equally. This was always our 
     intent, but I also recognize that there may have been some 
     unintended consequences.
       As I said in our conversation, I will work with the Mayor 
     to develop satisfactory solutions to the problems we 
     discussed, and I appreciate the opportunity to address your 
     concerns.
       I am available at your convenience to discuss the matter 
     further if necessary, and may be reached in my office at 
     (202) 724-8105.
           Sincerely,
     Carol Schwartz,
       Councilmember, At-Large, Chair, Committee on Public Works 
     and the Environment.
                                  ____

         Government of the District of Columbia, Executive Office 
           of the Mayor,
                                                    June 30, 2005.
     Hon. Charles Pickering,
     Congressman, Third Districts, Mississippi, Cannon House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Pickering: On behalf of the Mayor, who is 
     traveling out of town, I want to give you our 
     administration's assurance and commitment to review the 
     Individuals With Disabilities Parking Reform Amendment Act of 
     2000 to assure that it meets our intention that disabled 
     visitors to our city enjoy equal treatment. We were seeking 
     to curb abuses, not to create difficulties for disabled 
     visitors to our city. We are especially proud to be an 
     important tourist destination receiving 20 million visitors 
     annually. We also take pride in our policies regarding equal 
     treatment for disabled people. I would very much appreciate 
     your courtesy in giving me the opportunity to work with 
     Public Works and the Environment Committee Chair Carol 
     Schwartz and our City Council to correct the flaws you have 
     found in this statute. I appreciate your bringing this matter 
     to our attention. I would be pleased to discuss this matter 
     with you, or have the appropriate staff answer any questions 
     you or your staff may have.
       Thank you again for your attention to this important issue 
     and for respecting our right to self-government by calling 
     the matter to our attention.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                      Robert Bobb,
                                               City Administrator.

  What I would like to do at this point is enter into a colloquy with 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) as to the 
steps that we hope will be taken to rectify this.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PICKERING. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for doing so.
  I rise to claim my time in opposition, but I do not intend to oppose 
because I believe when we are finished with this colloquy that the 
amendment will be withdrawn because of assurances from me and from the 
responsible officials in the District of Columbia.
  If I may, I want to thank the gentleman for the way in which he 
handled this matter. First, I want everyone to know that the gentleman 
did not come to the floor first. The gentleman called the District of 
Columbia, and I want to apologize to the gentleman that the staff who 
handled this did not tell me that a Member of Congress had done them 
the courtesy of calling about a matter so that I might have become a 
part of this beforehand because the gentleman did exactly the right 
thing.
  The gentleman from Mississippi went to the source of the problem to 
see if he was really reading correctly that disabled people who came 
here, for example in a wheelchair, might have to go to the DMV in order 
to take advantage of the same free parking that someone in a wheelchair 
here would have.
  The staff involved simply told him the reason for the policy. The 
reason

[[Page H5534]]

for the policy is sometimes rather flagrant abuses by residents and 
nonresidents. Usually, the nonresidents live a whole lot closer to us, 
I say to the gentleman, than his own constituent from Mississippi, and 
as a result, this matter was not resolved, and the Member did what one 
might expect. This was the chance then that he had to do it. It came to 
my attention only last night.
  At that point, I thought I ought to go upstairs and talk to not the 
staff who apparently had been involved but to the Mayor, the chair of 
the City Council and the chair of the committee that has jurisdiction.
  The Mayor was getting on a plane. I did not have time to talk to him 
in depth, but he said something to the effect, you know, Eleanor, this 
is the mecca of equal opportunity; I cannot imagine how we can have 
unequal treatment of that kind. I told him about the DMV, and he is 
famous for jokes about the DMV.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Mississippi's time has 
expired.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, if I could strike the last word.
  Ms. NORTON. I have time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not permitted under the 
unanimous consent agreement to strike the last word.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will in a moment yield to the gentleman from Mississippi for him to 
respond. I just wanted to explain myself because frankly I am 
embarrassed by the fact that the gentleman had to call our officials.
  Needless to say, everyone has gone out of their way to assure the 
gentleman from Mississippi and to thank him frankly for bringing the 
matter to our attention. I just want to read one part of the letter on 
behalf of the Mayor from the city administrator, the top person under 
the Mayor.
  ``We were seeking to curb abuses, not create difficulties for 
disabled visitors to our city. We are especially proud to be an 
important tourist destination receiving 20 million visitors annually. 
We also take pride in our policies regarding equal treatment for 
disabled people. I would very much appreciate your courtesy in giving 
me the opportunity to work with Public Works and the Environment 
Committee Chair Carol Schwartz and our City Council to correct the 
flaws you have found in this statute.''
  Ms. Schwartz, who is the committee chair, by the way the only 
Republican on the City Council, wrote, and she said that, ``this was 
always our intent, but I also recognize that there may have been some 
unintended consequences.'' She has spoken directly to the gentleman 
from Mississippi, and I am grateful that she herself spoke with him.
  Again, could I invite all Members, when you see something like this, 
maybe we can get it done, maybe we cannot, but if you would follow the 
example of the gentleman from Mississippi and go directly to the 
source, but by the way, always tell me so I can hammer them, too; then 
we will try to correct such matters, to keep them from taking up the 
time of the House.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding, based on our 
conversations, that the gentlewoman would encourage the city to do 
something similar to what they did when the World War II memorial was 
opened, and that is, to grant an emergency status to make sure that the 
disabled had free parking in the district. Is it the gentlewoman's 
intention to do so, and during the interim, until they are able to 
clarify the regulations, that no one would be ticketed that is disabled 
from out of the District who would come to visit our Nation's capital?
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman that they 
have represented to me, and I believe that they are sincere, that they 
meant no discrimination between the disabled out of state and the 
disabled here. Therefore, citing the precedent the gentleman himself 
has indicated, I will represent to him that there will be no disabled 
out-of-state tickets given during the time that this matter is being 
straightened out.
  Let me also represent to the gentleman, because Members are 
accustomed to coming to me about tickets that should not have been 
issued, Members under certain circumstances may not get tickets in the 
District of Columbia. They sure know how to find me. I want my 
colleagues to know if they have any constituent who is ticketed during 
this interim period, they should find the Congresswoman from the 
District of Columbia so she can see that those tickets are not 
outstanding, and I represent that to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would further yield, 
I want to thank the gentlewoman from the District for her very 
effective representation, her advocacy for her constituents. All 
politics is local. Nothing is more local than parking tickets; and as 
we go into the 4th of July, I thank the gentlewoman for her help for 
those who are disabled, especially our disabled veterans, to make sure 
that they do not face unequal or discriminatory treatment as they find 
their place to park on Constitution Avenue or by our monuments or 
wherever it may be.
  Again, I thank the gentlewoman for the spirit in which we have worked 
together and look forward to other opportunities in the future.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, again, for the way 
in which he has handled this matter, and may I say as well that I thank 
him for bringing it to our attention. This is a tourist destination and 
is frankly embarrassing that this matter was not taken care of 
beforehand.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I hope for the last time I move to strike 
the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
yielding to me.
  I want to thank the ranking member for doing that, and I rise to 
speak about the issue of the FAA and school soundproofing funding.
  I recently heard from a school in my district, the Lexington School 
in Queens, that was awarded Federal funding for soundproofing from the 
FAA, and I thank the gentleman for the time for a colloquy between 
himself and the ranking member and the chairman.
  They have completed all of the initial investigations and are 
finalizing the specs as mandated by the FAA, and they anticipate 
obtaining bids by the end of this year. The school is now awaiting 
their promised soundproofing funds, which are now mysteriously being 
held up by the FAA because the school does not have bids in this fiscal 
year.
  This certainly appears to be contradictory to the intent of Vision 
100 legislation and FAA's own guidance on priorities for issuing 
discretionary funds which recognizes that a project is considered 
started if bids are received in the fiscal year or within 6 months from 
the end of the fiscal year.
  I am concerned that other schools may also be waiting for delayed 
funding.
  These soundproofing funds are vital for schools, and this money must 
be forthcoming.
  I ask the chairman and ranking member if they will work with me to 
look into this concern with respect to the FAA funding for 
soundproofing.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising his 
concerns on this matter. If there has been a slow-down in the release 
of Federal soundproofing dollars from the FAA, we do need to know. We 
appreciate the gentleman bringing this to the floor. I thank the 
gentleman for his comments and pledge to work with him on this issue.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
raising the issue. I, too, am concerned about the reported slow-down in 
this release of funds for an obviously good cause, the release of 
soundproofing funds to eligible recipients, in this particular case, 
the Lexington School in Queens.

[[Page H5535]]

  Though I do not know whether it is very close to La Guardia Airport 
or to Kennedy Airport, I, too, pledge to work with the gentleman from 
New York on this issue to ensure the early release of these funds.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Ranking Member Olver), for their commitment to helping me find a 
solution to this FAA funding as it pertains to soundproofing.
  For the record, the Lexington School is about anywhere between a 
quarter mile or half a mile as the crow flies from La Guardia Airport, 
so it is very proximate, very close; and on behalf of my constituents, 
I thank both gentlemen for their assistance in this.
  Mr. OLVER. I did not want to put it in the flight path of La Guardia 
Airport, so I brought in Kennedy Airport as well.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair reminds those that cell phone use on 
the floor is prohibited.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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 Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for 
     ``Department of Transportation-Surface Transportation Board-
     Salaries and Expenses'', and increasing the amount made 
     available for ``Federal Aviation-Operations'' derived from 
     the General Fund, by $5,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 
2005, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan reserves a point of 
order.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 
minutes.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to take this opportunity to discuss what I think is a very 
important issue.
  While recognizing that this committee, the chairman and the ranking 
member, funded the air traffic controllers at the rate that the 
President asked for, at 595; and recognizing as well that there had 
been additional dollars placed in FAA for additional services which 
might be used for air traffic controllers, and I hope that will be the 
case, as recently acquiring Houston Intercontinental Airport in my 
Congressional district, and let me also say that I support the previous 
colloquy of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) on the dollars 
for soundproofing because all who live in the area are well aware of 
that need, but I wanted to quote for my colleagues the news report of 
the incident of yesterday: Stray Plane Sets Off Evacuation At Capitol. 
The last paragraph in the article in The Washington Post says ``A 
Federal official said radio communications between the pilot and the 
authorities indicated the pilot ended up in a restricted area while 
trying to avoid bad weather.''
  I can only say, since it does not designate who the authorities were, 
that we know air traffic controllers are enormously busy. We are 
looking at increasingly congested skies and we are looking at 
overburdened and overworked air traffic controllers. In fact, in one 
airport in Texas, it was found that at this particular airport air 
traffic controllers and managers routinely covered up serious 
operational errors and deviations, including aircraft, for the last 7 
years. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel said the controllers had 
allowed airplanes to fly too close to each other near the airport, and 
that supervisors either failed to investigate or did not report the 
incidents to the FAA headquarters as required. The independent Federal 
agency said the cover-up of controller mistakes have been jeopardizing 
air traffic safety.
  We need more air traffic controllers, because 595, in my view, is 
certainly not enough. So my amendment was to offer $5 million that was 
offset by the Department of Transportation's Surface Transportation 
Board salaries and expenses.
  This amendment is about establishing priorities. And even though the 
amount of monies is capped off and no more monies can be allowed in 
that particular account, I think that is an important issue. And I hope 
my colleagues, as they move into the next year and the next session in 
this appropriations process, they will recognize that our skies are 
getting busier and busier, our air traffic controllers are getting 
tireder and tireder, and they need increased training and they need 
relief.
  I want to applaud our air traffic controllers. This is a very, very, 
very, very serious business. It requires great attention to detail. It 
requires nerves of steel, and we understand that. But the key is that 
there is a great need for more than 595.
  Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the Record, at the appropriate time, 
this letter that I will read: ``I write this letter to support your 
amendment to H.R. 3058, to increase the amount made available for the 
Department of Transportation with respect to air traffic controllers. 
In these times of shortages of personnel and training, this amendment 
would provide much-needed relief to continued budgetary shortfalls. 
Please accept our a gratitude for your efforts.'' This is the National 
Association of Air Traffic Specialists.
  So I am hoping we will have an opportunity to work on this. The point 
of order, of course, refers to the capping of this particular account, 
and I recognize the hard work of this committee, but I think in all 
seriousness, besides the danger that was proposed yesterday, we do know 
our skies are busy with small and large planes.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment seeks to increase the ``Federal Aviation 
Administration Operations'' account on page 6 by $5 million and would 
offset this amount from the ``Department of Transportation-Surface 
Transportation Board-Salaries and Expenses'' account in Title I.
  This amendment is about establishing priorities. While the salaries 
of the staff within the Department of Transportation is of enormous 
concern, I would think that my colleagues would agree with me that 
providing funds to help navigate the ever-increasing air traffic is of 
a higher priority, especially given our new utilization of equipment 
such as we find at the Boston Terminal Radar Approach Control 
(TRACON)--which is America's newest FAA consolidated facility.
  New technology requires adequate staffing. Therefore, my amendment 
would provide the necessary funds to make new employee recruitment and 
training possible. Problems exist within our Federal Aviation 
Administration, Mr. Chairman. I cite the June 24, 2005 article in the 
Dallas Morning News (page 1A) entitled ``Agency: Air traffic errors 
covered up Controller at D/FW spurs inquiry into unreported close 
calls'':

       The U.S. Office of Special Counsel said the controllers had 
     allowed airplanes to fly too close to each other near Dallas/
     Fort Worth International Airport and that supervisors either 
     failed to investigate or didn't report the incidents to 
     Federal Aviation Administration headquarters as required.
       The independent federal agency said the cover-up of 
     controller mistakes had been ``jeopardizing air traffic 
     safety.''
       ``This was a substantial and specific danger to public 
     safety,'' it said.
       [Furthermore,] a number of corrective actions' were taken 
     after a March report from the Department of Transportation's 
     Office of Inspector General substantiated . . . allegations.
       Specifically, the D/FW Terminal Radar Approach Control, or 
     TRACON, was placed on probation for two years, the center's 
     quality assurance manager was reassigned, and one air traffic 
     controller was decertified.
       In addition, the FAA placed the facility manager, 
     operations managers, supervisors and other controllers on 
     probation.

  This citation alone underscores major problems in the system. In 
addition, it highlights the fact that the jobs should not be 
outsourced, an issue that my colleague Mr. Sanders has championed.
  The key national security function of Air Traffic Control Specialists 
was evident during and immediately after the horrific 9/11 attacks. 
During this national tragedy, Air Traffic Control Specialists 
communicated crucial instructions

[[Page H5536]]

to planes in the air and on the ground, and were responsible for re-
starting air traffic in the days afterward. Air Traffic Control 
Specialists also play a vital role in keeping commercial and general 
aviation airplanes out of restricted airspace, including the restricted 
airspace around the White House. And, Air Traffic Control Specialists 
are critical during a natural disaster. For example, when hurricanes 
hit the Southeast last year, the FAA closed air traffic facilities in 
the region, but kept Flight Service Stations open and Air Traffic 
Control Specialists working to ensure the safety of airline passengers.
  We should be strengthening, not weakening air traffic safety. In the 
1980s we had 315 Flight Service Stations across the country. Today, we 
only have 61, and if the FAA gets its way there will only be 23 Flight 
Service Stations left in this country responsible for protecting over 
600,000 general aviation pilots, as well as military and commercial 
pilots. This could only make our Nation's airspace less secure.
  Mr. Chairman, we must support our Air Traffic Controllers by 
providing them with the support they need. I ask that my colleagues 
support this amendment.

                                           National Association of


                                      Air Traffic Specialists,

                                 Wheaton, Maryland, June 30, 2005.
     Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Jackson Lee: I write this letter to 
     support your amendment to H.R. 3058 to increase the amount 
     made available for ``Department of Transportation--Surface 
     Transportation Board Salaries and Expense Federal Aviation 
     Operations Derived from the General Fund by $5,000,000. In 
     these times of shortages of personnel and training this 
     amendment would provide much needed relief to continuing 
     budgetary shortfalls.
       Please accept our gratitude for your efforts in this regard 
     and let me know if I can be of any help in securing this 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Kate Breen,
                                                        President.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order, and I 
would like to respond in this fashion.
  I raise a point of order against the amendment. The amendment 
proposes to increase an appropriation not authorized by law and, 
therefore, is in violation of clause 2(a) of rule XXI.
  Although the original account funding for FAA operations is 
unauthorized, it was permitted to remain in the bill pursuant to the 
provisions of the rule that provided for the consideration of this 
bill. When an authorized appropriation is permitted to remain in a 
general appropriations bill, an amendment merely changing that amount 
is in order; but the rules of the House apply a ``merely perfecting 
standard'' to the items permitted to remain and do not allow the 
insertion of a new paragraph, not part of the original text permitted 
to remain, to increase a figure permitted to remain.
  The amendment cannot be construed as merely perfecting and, 
therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Chair rule the amendment out of 
order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does anyone wish to speak on the point of order?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I do, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that I have 
acknowledged the point of order by the fact that the account itself is 
capped and, as was indicated, the issue regarding the authorization. 
But I raised this amendment, and I intend to withdraw this amendment, 
but I raised it because the discussion and the dollars are clearly 
needed.
  I am hoping my colleagues will see that 595 air traffic controllers 
are not enough for the increasingly busy skies over the United States 
of America. I have cited in one airport the incident of air traffic 
controllers being cited for routinely covering up serious operational 
errors and deviations involving aircraft; I have cited, of course, the 
support by the National Association of Air Traffic Specialists.
  I think that the difficulty is that we have a cap. We have $25 
million for 595. I think we could use 1,000. Because of the budget 
shortfall, and because we do not have the money, we are faced with this 
dilemma. I happen to think the safety and security of Americans 
warrants increased dollars and an increased number of air traffic 
controllers.
  I know that the busy airport I represent, Houston Intercontinental 
Airport, could stand additional well-trained air traffic controllers, 
the opportunity to give relief to air traffic controllers who, in fact, 
are working very hard. I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that we will have an 
opportunity to work on this issue and recognize the dire needs and the 
crisis that we face if we do not continue to grow air traffic 
controllers, to train them and provide them the kind of support 
services necessary to protect the Nation's skies.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw 
my amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman not already 
do that before?
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, yes, I have done this before. In fact, I was 
going to apologize to the staff and the chairman of the subcommittee 
for destroying the good working relationship that we have had over 
time, and that I complimented them so broadly about earlier, by 
actually offering this motion to strike the last word at a point when I 
really was not expecting to do so.
  I do know that this may have lasting implications, given the work 
that has been done by Dena Baron, Cheryle Tucker, Dave Gibbons, Steve 
Crane, Tammy, Hughes, Kristen Jones, and David Napoliello, all of whom 
would dearly love to get off this floor and on to the votes that we 
have coming before us.
  This bill has been a long slog year, and I have heard some people on 
the other side have had low-level headaches. There have been times 
here, as the afternoon has worn on, that I have nearly sunk under the 
table when amendments came, as long as the amendments we have had here 
today and yesterday, and with the votes on the rule on the day before, 
I think, though I may have lost a day in this process, so that there 
comes a point where I would be surprised if the chairman or I actually 
were able to remember our names. And it has been just suggested that I 
could also thank David Pomerantz of our staff, which is probably the 
only person I have not previously thanked.
  And with that, Mr. Chairman, I do, in fact, apologize to the chairman 
and all of the staff, not only the majority staff but the minority 
staff as well, because the ranking member has concluded that he does 
not wish to speak.


          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 offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown), amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez), amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hefley

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Hefley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 88, 
noes 338, not voting 7, as follows:

[[Page H5537]]

                             [Roll No. 352]

                                AYES--88

     Akin
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cox
     Cubin
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gohmert
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Inglis (SC)
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McHenry
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--338

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Everett
     Harman
     Kingston
     Peterson (PA)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Waters


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1805

  Messrs. BECERRA, SPRATT, ISRAEL, BERMAN, and ABERCROMBIE changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. MYRICK and Messrs. COBLE, POE, and SESSIONS changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment Offered by Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Ms. Kilpatrick) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes 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 333, 
noes 92, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 353]

                               AYES--333

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kline
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders

[[Page H5538]]


     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--92

     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Burgess
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Delahunt
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Farr
     Flake
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McMorris
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Neugebauer
     Oxley
     Paul
     Petri
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stark
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Upton
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cox
     Everett
     Harman
     Kingston
     Peterson (PA)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Waters


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

                              {time}  1814

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut and Miss McMORRIS changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina and Mr. WELLER 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. Obey

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) 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 208, 
noes 215, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 354]

                               AYES--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     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
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--215

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     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.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Everett
     Harman
     Kingston
     Peterson (PA)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Sullivan
     Waters

                              {time}  1822

  Mr. WAXMAN 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. Brown of Ohio

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) 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 141, 
noes 284, not voting 8, as follows:

[[Page H5539]]

                             [Roll No. 355]

                               AYES--141

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Gibbons
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Otter
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Serrano
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--284

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeGette
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kind
     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
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Everett
     Harman
     Kingston
     Obey
     Peterson (PA)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Waters

                              {time}  1829

  Messrs. WAXMAN, SMITH of Washington, MARKEY and McGOVERN changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Velazquez

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Velazquez) 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 233, 
noes 192, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 356]

                               AYES--233

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayworth
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pickering
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--192

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake

[[Page H5540]]


     Foley
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Boozman
     Everett
     Harman
     Kingston
     Peterson (PA)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Waters

                              {time}  1837

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


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen) 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 222, 
noes 203, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 357]

                               AYES--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     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)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rogers (AL)
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--203

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     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)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cox
     Everett
     Harman
     Kingston
     Peterson (PA)
     Ross
     Schiff
     Waters

                              {time}  1844

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last four lines of the bill.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Transportation, Treasury, 
     Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of 
     Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2006''.

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record:

[[Page H5541]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.001



[[Page H5542]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.002



[[Page H5543]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.003



[[Page H5544]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.004



[[Page H5545]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.005



[[Page H5546]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.006



[[Page H5547]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.007



[[Page H5548]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.008



[[Page H5549]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.009



[[Page H5550]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.010



[[Page H5551]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.011



[[Page H5552]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.012



[[Page H5553]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH30JN05.013



[[Page H5554]]

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make my colleagues aware of the 
failure of this bill to provide funding for a critically important 
economic development program. The Round II Empowerment Zone initiative 
provides Federal assistance to support the comprehensive revitalization 
of designated communities across the country. It is a 10-year program 
that targets Federal grants to distressed communities for social 
services and community redevelopment and provides tax and regulatory 
relief to attract and retain businesses.
  In my district, the Cumberland County Empowerment Zone is a 
successful collaborative revitalization effort among the communities of 
Bridgeton, Millville, Vineland and Port Norris. Cumberland has 
committed nearly 100 percent of the $25 million that has been made 
available by HUD so far. Over 1,400 jobs have been created to date and 
over 166 housing units have been renovated, rehabilitated, constructed 
or purchased in EZ neighborhoods. Cumberland County has funded over 120 
initiatives through the EZ program and has established a $4 million 
loan pool available to be reinvested back into the targeted 
communities. These projects are estimated to leverage a total of over 
$238 million in private, public and tax exempt bond financing. Put 
plainly, the Cumberland EZ has leveraged nearly $12 in private 
investment for every $1 of public funding, a remarkable achievement 
that demonstrates the success and promise of the Zone.
  While I am very proud of the accomplishments of the Cumberland EZ, I 
recognize the reluctance of the subcommittee to provide funding for the 
program. As the subcommittee has noted before, the IG, and HUD itself, 
have found too many of the other Zones have had problems spending grant 
funds, accounting for expenditures and spending funds consistent with 
their strategic plans. I further recognize the reluctance of the 
subcommittee to continue to provide funds for the program when the 
Senate has sought to eliminate this program for the past 2 years.
  While I main tremendously disappointed this bill fails to fund the 
Round II Empowerment Zone program, I will reluctantly vote for it. I do 
so with the hope that the Senate will find funding for this program, 
and that if that should happen, I will have the opportunity to work the 
subcommittee to restore funding for this critical program.
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, as we consider the FY06 Transportation, 
Treasury, HOD, Judiciary, and District of Columbia Appropriations Act 
today, I would like to take this opportunity to express my opposition 
to the proposed Runway 17-35 expansion at the Philadelphia 
International Airport. Over the past several months, I have strongly 
urged the FAA to investigate and pursue the construction of a new 
parallel runway, rather than continuing with its endorsement of Build 
Alternative 1, which is an ineffective use of taxpayer dollars.
  The information presented in the final Environmental Impact 
Statement, EIS, indicates that there will be minimal gains in airport 
efficiency with the extension of Runway 17-35. The projected average 
delay per operation in 2007 is 15.3 minutes under the No-Action 
Alternative. The EIS indicated that Alternative 1 would cost the 
taxpayers approximately $36 million, yet would only result in an 84-
second delay reduction. While this alternative purports a slightly 
greater reduction in the 2015 projected delays, the EIS indicated only 
a 6.5-minute delay reduction, which is less than the 7.5-minute delay 
reduction that was projected in the Draft EIS, DEIS. I think it would 
be a much better use of taxpayer funds to evaluate the potential 
installation of a new parallel runway rather than extending Runway 17-
35; it makes no sense to spend $36 million with no real ensuing 
benefits. The FAA still has not released the underlying data used to 
calculate projected delay reductions.
  It greatly concerns me that the FAA has indicated that it does not 
have data indicating what percentage of delays at the Philadelphia 
International Airport are a direct result of airport runway problems, 
as opposed to other causes. Common sense would indicate that this 
information is necessary in order to determine that the proposed runway 
extension would be effective in increasing airport efficiency, 
particularly when the projected delay reduction achieved by this 
project was decreased by more than 13 percent between the time the DEIS 
was issued on October 15, 2004, and the issuance of the EIS on March 
11, 2005.
  The Record of Decision, ROD, indicates that Alternative 1 will have 
no significant noise impacts on the surrounding communities, which 
defies logic. The proposed runway extension would allow more and larger 
aircraft to utilize the runway, and common sense dictates that this 
would result in a substantial appreciation in noise levels for the 
southern New Jersey communities within the flight paths and directly 
across the Delaware River from the Philadelphia International Airport.
  Again, I strongly urge the FAA to explore a parallel runway option so 
that all interested parties can evaluate the relevant facts and form a 
judgment on the potential benefit a new parallel runway would have to 
the entire Philadelphia region.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I was heartened by the way Members from 
both sides of the aisle worked together to produce an appropriations 
bill that truly reflects the will of Congress. While initially deeply 
flawed, the House was able to work together and pass amendments that 
restore funding to essential transportation and housing programs.
  I was particularly pleased by the passage of an amendment offered by 
Representatives LaTourette and Oberstar that restored Amtrak funding to 
approximately $1.2 billion. Public support of transportation modes is 
both necessary and desirable. Our past investments have made our 
country stronger and more secure.
  I was also happy to see the passage of amendments that restored 
funding to important housing programs that aid in community and 
economic development and provide housing opportunities for the least 
well off in our society. I was particularly pleased to see the 
restoration of HOPE VI funding. A 2001 HOPE VI revitalization grant is 
enabling the Housing Authority of Portland to revitalize Columbia 
Villa, a dilapidated World War II era housing cluster, into a vibrant, 
mixed use, mixed income neighborhood, improving the livability of the 
surrounding region.
  I am hopeful that the improvements that were adopted by the House 
during floor consideration of the bill will be preserved throughout the 
appropriations process and will not be swept under the rug during 
conference committee.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise against H.R. 3058, the 
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, 
the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 
2006, because it shortchanges critical needs of the most vulnerable 
Americans while continuing to make room for tax breaks for millionaires 
and our unwinnable quagmire in Iraq.
  This bill eliminates funding for the Housing and Urban Development 
Brownfields program and Youthbuild. It cuts funding for the successful 
HOPE VI public housing redevelopment program by over $80 million and 
for Community Development grants by $250 million.
  The Brownfields program helps cities redevelop abandoned and 
underused industrial sites. Youthbuild allows unemployed young people 
aged 16 to 24 to work toward their high school diploma while building 
housing for low-income people and the homeless.
  All of these programs could have been fully funded for $430 million 
more, or about the cost of 3 days of the Iraq occupation. I will not 
vote to deny a high school diploma to an underprivileged youth who's 
willing to build housing so that Halliburton can waste more than $1 
billion, including charges for 10,000 meals never served, $152,000 in 
``movie library costs,'' and $1.5 million for tailoring.
  A Democratic colleague of mine wrote an amendment to reverse these 
cuts by reducing the 2006 tax break for individuals making more than $1 
million by a mere $9,000. But the Republican majority would not even 
allow a vote on the issue. Perhaps a direct vote on their morally 
bankrupt priorities would have proved too uncomfortable.
  Finally, this bill continues the Republican majority's pursuit of its 
right-wing social agenda against the citizens of the District of 
Columbia who have no voting representation in the Federal Government. 
The bill bars the District from using any Federal or local funds for 
needle exchange programs, which are proven effective in reducing the 
spread of HIV. It overturns the city's ban on handguns, blocks 
implementation of a medical marijuana program, prevents DC from forcing 
all insurers to offer full contraceptive coverage, and limits a woman's 
right to choose. Ironically, it also prevents the District Government 
from lobbying for voting representation so it can avoid suffering the 
social experiments of the modern day Pharisees.
  While the bill could have been worse and funds some important 
programs, I cannot in good conscience support its misplaced priorities, 
and therefore I vote ``no.''
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition 
to the Republican Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. This 
legislation clearly illustrates the Republican party's values. The cuts 
to education, job training and health care in this bill are necessary 
because the majority's top priority is tax breaks for corporations and 
those making more than $1 million a year. This bill is the consequence 
of the irresponsible Republican budget resolution passed earlier this 
year, and the American people will pay the price.
  This bill provides $1.6 billion less than the amount necessary to 
maintain current services and among its many mistakes, contains three 
major flaws: painful cuts in education, health

[[Page H5555]]

care, and job training. Republicans have cut No Child Left Behind and 
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, reducing funds for 
students and schools already struggling with Federal testing mandates. 
It slashes funding for health care training programs while we face a 
shortage of health care workers and the Preventive Health Block grant, 
which in Minnesota is used to address health care disparities. This 
bill cuts funding for job training, while we continue to have a 
faltering economy in which 7.6 million Americans are out of work.
  The Republicans claim to have provided an increase for the National 
Institutes of Health, NIH. However, this paltry increase of 0.5 percent 
is far less than the NIH needs to keep up with current research costs. 
This disinvestment threatens future life-saving breakthroughs which 
have the possibility of improving the health of our country and saving 
limited health care dollars.
  The Republican bill takes particular aim at the most vulnerable in 
our communities. Even with gas prices skyrocketing, this bill cuts 
funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It 
essentially freezes funding for Head Start and the Child Care Block 
Grant, and provides only a 1 percent increase for senior nutrition 
programs.
  Our priority as members of Congress should be the well-being of 
American families. We are not prioritizing children when we decrease 
the ability of schools to provide a quality education for all. We Are 
not putting families first when we reduce the access to health care. 
And we are not on the side of the working men and women when we limit 
opportunities to provide for their families.
  I support the Democratic alternative offered by Ranking Member Obey. 
This amendment reflects the values of Minnesotans by investing in the 
American people's education, health and future. For example, the 
Democratic alternative would have increased funding for Pell grants to 
improve access to higher education, increased the Federal Government's 
contribution to special education, provided additional funding for 
reading and math for 1 million more students, funded community health 
centers and invested in biomedical research. My constituents know that 
our competitiveness, quality of life, and the health of our communities 
are at risk under the Republican plan. I will continue to fight to put 
families, and our future, first.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my extreme 
disappointment that the fiscal year 2006 Housing and Urban Development 
Appropriations bill again reduces Federal support for Native American 
housing. The current bill shrinks the Native American Housing Block 
Grant, NAHBG, from $622 million in 2005 to only $555 million in 2006. 
Earlier this year, I requested that funding for NAHBG be increased to 
$1 billion for fiscal year 2006.
  Many tribal areas face severe housing shortages, leading to 
overcrowding and homelessness. On South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian 
Reservation, it is not uncommon to find 25 individuals or more living 
in one housing unit. This problem is not localized to any one area and 
similar hardship can be found on reservations across the United States.
  The historic underfunding of Native American housing programs has 
created a desperate need for housing in Indian Country. This year's HUD 
appropriations bill marks the second consecutive year of NAHBG decrease 
compounding the problem many tribes face in providing for the most 
basic housing needs of their members. Even level funding would have 
perpetuated the problem; but another decrease in Federal support is 
egregious and irresponsible.
  The Federal Government has a responsibility to meet its obligations 
to tribal governments. It is unfortunate that when we should be 
responding to the serious housing needs in Indian country, the House 
has again cut funding for this most fundamental program.
  I sincerely hope our colleagues in the Senate will be more responsive 
to the housing situation facing tribal leaders and members across the 
United States.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, today the House debates funding 
important to all of our constituents who use our Nation's highways and 
transit systems, fly for business or pleasure, and who are concerned 
about the safety of our Nation's roadways.
   Mr. Chairman, Americans are spending more time in traffic today than 
they ever have before. They're commuting hours to work, missing their 
children's soccer games, and losing their precious free time to 
traffic.
  Commuters in my district in San Francisco's Bay Area are suffering in 
the second worst city in America for gridlock. They're losing a total 
of over $2 million in wasted fuel and several hours each week, away 
from their offices and their families.
  This week, the House will have to take up an eighth temporary 
extension of highway transit and highway safety programs. I have said 
time and time again, Mr. Chairman, that we must get our work done on 
the highway bill if we are to ensure increased investment in our 
Nation's transportation infrastructure. And yet, time and time again, 
this Congress has delayed action on the legislation.
  While I am disturbed by our inability to finish the highway bill, I 
am pleased that the House will today adopt an appropriations bill which 
will continue to ensure that, while limited, federal investment is 
available for our Nation's transportation infrastructure.
   Mr. Chairman, this bill  however, is far from perfect. Shockingly, 
the legislation came to the Floor of the House with a funding level 
which would all but assure the end of Amtrak service in this Nation as 
we know it. The end of Amtrak would be devastating to the continued 
operation of inter-city rail throughout California and especially the 
Capitol Corridor line along the I-80 corridor in Northern California.
  In 2004, over one million commuters used the Capitol Corridor and 
directly benefited from the fixed-price operating agreement between 
Amtrak and the Capitol Corridor. Because of this agreement, the Capitol 
Corridor is able to stabilize operating costs and reinvest revenues 
above business plan projections--or any other cost savings--into 
service enhancements. Without Amtrak's existence, these savings which 
have been realized year after year, would no longer exist.
  I am pleased that the House adopted an amendment to adequately fund 
Amtrak and I hope that this funding will ensure the continued success 
of the inter-city passenger rail service in my district and throughout 
our Nation.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to voice my continued 
displeasure with the FAA's management of the Standard Terminal 
Automation Replacement (STARS) program.
  As laid out in the latest Department of Transportation's Inspector 
General's report, the STARS program is 194% over-budget and delayed by 
seven years. A program which was first estimated to cost the FAA $940 
million has ballooned to a whopping $2.7 billion. And yet, with 
ballooning costs, the FAA has failed to provide Congress with any 
analysis on the efficacy of continuing to move forward with the STARS 
program or how the agency plans on completing this program.
  I was pleased to see that the House Report to H.R. 3058 echoes my 
concerns and I will continue to demand that the FAA provide Congress 
with a plan to address the overruns associated with the STARS program.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in the way 
this bill has been considered.
  Our colleague from Utah, Mr. Matheson, wanted to offer an amendment 
that would have canceled the next scheduled cost-of-living increase in 
our salaries.
  I would have voted for that amendment--but under the restrictive 
procedure under which the bill was considered, it could not even be 
offered.
  In my opinion, it is a serious error for the Republican leadership to 
prevent the House from even debating and voting on that proposal--
especially now, in wartime and a time of serious budget deficits caused 
by the recent recession, the costs of responding to terrorism and 
increasing homeland security, and the excessive and unbalanced tax cuts 
the Bush Administration has pushed through Congress.
  That is why I voted to allow the amendment to be considered. 
Unfortunately, I was in the minority on that vote.
  However, despite that, I think the bill itself, while far from 
perfect, is worth supporting.
  The bill provides important resources to help support our Nation's 
infrastructure, community development, and courts. Examples of this 
include the $37.0 billion for federal highway programs and $8.5 billion 
for federal transit programs, which is an increase above the Fiscal 
Year 2005 allocation and the request made by the Bush Administration.
  Further, thanks to adoption of several important amendments, the bill 
provides much more of the needed funding for Amtrak than the 
appropriations committee had originally allocated. This is important 
for Colorado, including many communities in my district as well as 
other parts of the state.
  Additionally, I am pleased the legislation rejects the Bush 
Administration's ``Strengthening America's Communities Initiative'' 
that would consolidate a number of quality programs in Department of 
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) including the Community Development 
Block Grant (CDBG) which provide decent housing and expands economic 
opportunities to cities and towns throughout Colorado.
  Of course, I do not agree with all its priorities included in the 
legislation. I supported a number of amendments to improve the 
legislation, and am glad that at least some were adopted, including an 
increase in the Section 8 Tenant-Based assistance.
  I also voted against some amendments, for various reasons.
  I voted against an amendment to block enforcement of part of a local 
law adopted by the District of Columbia City Council dealing with 
firearms.

[[Page H5556]]

  I did so because I think its enactment would be an abuse of our 
authority as Members of Congress and would reduce the right of self-
government for one group of Americans--those  who reside in Washington, 
D.C. 
  It's true the Constitution gives Congress the power ``to exercise 
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of 
Columbia--even though the residents of the district are not fully 
represented in either the House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate. 
But Congress, through the Home Rule Act, has authorized the district's 
residents to elect a city council and mayor with immediate 
responsibility for governing the city.
  I am convinced this was the right thing to do. I support home rule 
for Washington, D.C. because I think Americans who live in the district 
deserve to be able to govern themselves as much as possible consistent 
with the necessary functioning of the federal government. And this 
amendment flew in the face of that principle.
  There is plenty of room to debate whether this D.C. law is good 
public policy, but I think that debate should not take place in 
Congress. The law the amendment would override was duly adopted by the 
elected government of the district and has not interfered with the 
orderly functioning of the federal government. So, in my opinion, 
decisions about retaining, amending, or repealing it should be made by 
the City Council, which is elected by and accountable to the people who 
are subject to it.
  The effect of the amendment would be to substitute the judgment of 
Congress for that of the local elected government--in effect denying 
their constituents the right to govern themselves on this subject. We 
cannot--and we should not--do that to the residents of Colorado or any 
other state. I do not think we should do it to the people who live here 
in Washington, D.C. We may not think this local law is well-designed. 
But I think we should allow those covered by the law to decide that for 
themselves.
  I also voted against an amendment to block funding to enforce a 
recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the scope of a 
local government's authority to condemn private property.
  I have serious concerns about that decision, but I voted against the 
amendment because I thought the amendment's approach was not an 
appropriate way to express those concerns.
  If Members of Congress disagree with the Supreme Court's 
interpretation of a law or of the Constitution, that disagreement can 
be expressed in a resolution such as the one (H. Res. 340) dealing 
specifically with the eminent-domain decision. And if a Member thinks 
stronger action is required, he or she can seek to change the law or 
amend the Constitution.
  But in the absence of such a change in the law or the Constitution, a 
court's decision--unless and until reversed--is settled law that must 
be respected, and Congress should not attempt to undermine it or 
attempt to use the power of the purse to influence the outcome of 
future cases.
  Both those amendments were adopted, to my regret. I think the bill 
would have been better if they had been rejected. However, on balance, 
while the bill is not all that I had hoped for I think it deserves 
approval and I will vote for it.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise 
and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Putnam) having assumed the chair, Mr. McHugh, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, had directed him to report the bill back to the 
House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the 
amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 342, the 
previous question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 405, 
nays 18, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 358]

                               YEAS--405

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page H5557]]



                                NAYS--18

     Baldwin
     Carson
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hefley
     Jones (NC)
     Kind
     Matheson
     Miller (FL)
     Obey
     Otter
     Paul
     Sensenbrenner
     Stark
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Boustany
     Everett
     Harman
     Kingston
     McCrery
     Peterson (PA)
     Rangel
     Ross
     Schiff
     Waters


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1902

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 358 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________