[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 75 (Tuesday, June 13, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3848-H3849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    LIMITING AMENDMENTS DURING FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5576, 
TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, 
 THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2007

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during 
further consideration of H.R. 5576 in the Committee of the Whole 
pursuant to House Resolution 865, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
XVIII, no further amendment to the bill may be offered except:
  pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the 
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 
or their designees for the purpose of debate;
  an amendment by Ms. Harris or Mr. Davis of Alabama regarding funding 
for Public Housing Capital Fund, which shall be debatable for 20 
minutes;
  an amendment by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts regarding funding 
limitation on tenant-based section 8 vouchers, which shall be debatable 
for 20 minutes;
  an amendment by Mr. Young of Alaska regarding funding for certain 
highway projects in Illinois;
  an amendment by Mr. Young of Alaska regarding funding for certain 
highway projects in Illinois;
  an amendment by Mr. Young of Alaska regarding funding for certain 
highway projects in Illinois;
  an amendment by Mr. Kucinich regarding certain IRS enforcement 
activities;
  an amendment by Mr. Al Green of Texas regarding funding for the HUD-
FHIP program;
  an amendment by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California regarding funding 
for the HUD Community Development Fund;
  an amendment by Mr. Thomas regarding section 209 of this bill;
  an amendment by Mr. Nadler regarding the funding level for tenant-
based section 8 vouchers;
  an amendment by Mr. Inslee regarding funding level for the Public 
Housing Capital Fund;
  an amendment by Mr. Nadler regarding the funding level for the HOPWA 
program;
  an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas to change the funding 
availability for the HOME downpayment assistance program;
  an amendment by Mr. Jindal to make eligible certain individuals for 
HUD project-based rental assistance;
  an amendment by Ms. Harris regarding funding levels for the HUD 
Elderly and Disabled program;
  an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding eligibility for 
HUD elderly housing;
  an amendment by Ms. Slaughter regarding the funding level for HUD 
lead-based paint activities;
  an amendment by Ms. Millender-McDonald regarding Election Assistance 
College Poll Work Program;
  an amendment by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts regarding section 325 of 
this bill;
  an amendment by Ms. Waters regarding funding for HUD section 108 loan 
guarantee program;
  an amendment by Mr. Shays regarding the Privacy and Civil Liberties 
Board;
  an amendment by Mr. Shays regarding the Privacy and Civil Liberties 
Board;
  an amendment by Ms. Hooley regarding funding for HIDTA program;
  an amendment by Mrs. Maloney regarding the Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Board;
  an amendment by Mr. Wynn regarding funding level for OPM 
administrative expense;
  an amendment by Mr. Baird regarding funding limitation on 
transportation projects that fail to comply with section 1928 of 
SAFETEA-LU;
  an amendment by Mr. Bishop of New York regarding the 10th anniversary 
of TWA Flight 800;
  an amendment by Mr. Cleaver regarding item No. 87 of section 1702 of 
SAFETEA-LU;
  an amendment by Mr. Cuellar regarding limitation on obligations;
  an amendment by Ms. DeLauro regarding funding limitation on corporate 
expatriation;
  an amendment by Mr. Doolittle regarding funding limitation on FEC 
certifications;
  an amendment by Mr. Engel regarding funding limitation on purchase of 
alternative fuel vehicles;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on Monterey 
Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail in California;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on Fairfax 
County Virginia Park Authority field improvements in Annandale, 
Virginia;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on Strand 
Theater Arts Center in Plattsburg, New York;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on William 
Faulkner Museum in Oxford, Mississippi;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on 
multipurpose facility in Yucaupa, California;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on renovations 
to a city-owned pool in Banning, California;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on Agricenter 
Interchange in Tulare, California;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on Fairmont 
Gateway Connector System in West Virginia;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on road 
improvements in Monroe County, New York;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on the 
Bakersfield Beltway system in California;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on 
construction on the Spirit of South Carolina in Charleston;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on facilities 
construction in Weirton, West Virginia;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on 
construction of an Audubon Nature Center in Columbus, Ohio;
  an amendment by Mr. Flake regarding funding limitation on religious 
activities in Cuba;
  an amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding travel to 
overseas conferences;
  an amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey regarding a study on State 
transportation funding;
  an amendment by Mr. Gordon regarding funding limitation on energy 
efficiency;
  an amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida regarding TRACON 
consolidation in high-threat urban areas;
  an amendment by Mr. Hefley regarding reduction of funds;
  an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding denial of noise 
mitigation grants;
  an amendment by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas regarding regulations on 
noise mitigation;
  an amendment by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota regarding funding limitation 
on FTA ratings system on the Northstar Corridor Rail project;
  an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding limitation on 
naming of certain public works projects or programs;
  an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding limitation on 
contracting practices based on racial preferences;
  an amendment by Mr. King of Iowa regarding funding limitation on 
construction of a center in Los Angeles;
  an amendment by Mr. Kirk regarding funding limitation on certain 
bridge construction in Alaska;
  an amendment by Ms. Lee regarding funding limitation on restrictions 
on education travel to Cuba;
  an amendment by Mr. Lipinski regarding funding for rail line 
relocation program;
  an amendment by Mr. McHenry regarding funding limitation on an 
interchange located at exit 131 in Catawba County, North Carolina;

[[Page H3849]]

  an amendment by Mr. Moran of Kansas regarding funding limitation on 
restrictions on agricultural trade with Cuba;
  an amendment by Mr. Oberstar regarding funding limitation on 
implementation of a final rule on certain air carriers;
  an amendment by Mr. Rangel regarding funding limitation on 
enforcement of economic embargo of Cuba;
  an amendment by Mr. Tiahrt regarding competitiveness of U.S. 
businesses;
  an amendment by Mr. Tiahrt regarding IRS services; and
  an amendment or amendments by Mr. Knollenberg regarding funding in 
the bill.
  Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this 
request or a designee, or by the Member who caused it to be printed in 
the Record or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be 
subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on 
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, Judiciary, 
District of Columbia, and independent agencies each may offer one pro 
forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to 
a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
of the Whole.
  Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 
10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description 
stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object 
described.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I simply under 
the reservation would like to point out to the House that if this is 
strictly adhered to, there are 67 amendments that are provided for 
under this UC request. It will take approximately 11 hours just for the 
debate time, not allowing for slippage, not allowing for other Members 
yielding or the natural sliding that we have in the House. That means 
that it will take at least 13 to 14 hours to finish these amendments 
plus the time that is needed for voting.
  Assuming that only one-third of these amendments are put to a record 
vote, we could have a total of around 16 to 17 hours before this bill 
is finished. That will certainly take us through tonight, all of 
tomorrow, and well into Friday and perhaps beyond. So I would ask 
Members to again think through whether or not they feel the need to 
offer every one of these amendments. If they are, we will be here for a 
long, long time with other competing business being squeezed to the end 
of the week.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________