Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 90 (Thursday, June 30, 2005)

[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

[[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

[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

[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.''

____________________