Congressional Record, Volume 152 Issue 76 (Wednesday, June 14, 2006)

[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 76 (Wednesday, June 14, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3914-H3974]
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,
2007

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 865 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 5576.

{time} 1029

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5576) 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, 2007, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Petri (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
June 13, 2006, the amendment by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms.
Hooley) had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page
252, line 5.
Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment
to the

[[Page H3915]]

bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order of the
House of that day, which is at the desk.

1030

amendment no. 1 offered by mr. hefley

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

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Hefley:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Total appropriations made in this Act are hereby
reduced by $678,000,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13,
2006, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding
in this appropriations bill by approximately 1 percent. The amount
equals approximately $678 million.
While the total spending in this bill is significantly less than last
year's bill, and I want to commend the chairman on that, this bill is
still over $250 million more than the President requested.
Let me just give you an example. I mean, Amtrak for instance, we are
going to put $1 billion, more or less, into Amtrak again in this bill.
I do not know when we are going to come to the realization that Amtrak
just is not going to work. It is not going to survive with the present
way we handle it.
We have to draw the line somewhere, and I feel strongly that the
projected deficit for next year is too large. We can do something about
the deficit right now. It will not solve it, but at least symbolically
it says we are interested in trying to get to that goal.
By voting for my amendment, you are stating for the record that the
budget deficit is too large and the American taxpayers should not be
burdened in the future because we cannot control our spending today.
I have no doubt that some of the good programs in this bill will take
a cut. While that is unfortunate, our budget should be no different
from the taxpayers' budget at home. When you have less money, you
simply spend less money. It is really that simple.
Mr. Chairman, I retain the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan rise?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
With all due respect to the gentleman, and I do respect this
gentleman, I believe this is 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 axe''
approach nor should we yield our power to the executive branch, and so,
therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. HEFLEY. 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 ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. 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 Colorado will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. McHenry

Mr. McHENRY. 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. McHenry:
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 demolish or restrict use of the interchange
located at Exit 131 of Interstate Route 40 and State Route 16
in Catawba County, North Carolina.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is very simple. I certainly appreciate Chairman
Knollenberg and his able staff working with me to craft this amendment
and make this possible. I want to commend the chairman for his hard
work and dedication each year on this House floor and in committee to
pass a strong budget that restrains spending but funds our major
priorities. Thank you and your staff.
My amendment is very simple. It prohibits funds from demolishing a
current interchange on interstate I-40. This is something requested by
local officials and by the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
This buys us 1 year.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McHENRY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Lipinski

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

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Lipinski:
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 Treasury--Departmental Offices--Salaries and
Expenses'', by reducing the amount made available for
``Internal Revenue Service--Business Systems Modernization'',
and by increasing the amounts made available for the
Secretary of Transportation, for carrying out the Rail Line
Relocation Projects as authorized by section 9002 of SAFETEA-
LU, by $10,000,000, $20,000,000, and $30,000,000,
respectively.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to provide $30
million in funding for the Rail and Relocation and Improvement Grant
program. With severe budget constraints, I know hard choices had to be
made, and I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Knollenberg and
Ranking Member Olver on this bill.
However, as a Member who represents the rail hub of the country in
Chicago, I understand the critical need to fund rail improvements to
communities across the country. Rail is a vital mode of transportation,
providing numerous public benefits, including efficient freight
shipment, fuel conservation, pollution reduction, traffic congestion
relief and economic development.
Recognizing that we need to invest in our railroads, Congress
authorized $350 million for the rail line improvement program in last
year's SAFETEA-LU transportation bill. Unfortunately, the
administration proposed zero funding. We are asking for $30 million.
This money would be vital in funding projects that will not only help
economic development and create jobs but also alleviate adverse effects
of rail traffic on our communities. This includes enhancing safety and
motor vehicle flow at road crossings and improving the quality of life
in surrounding communities, including quiet zones. All types of rail
lines across the country will be eligible for this funding.
This amendment has broad bipartisan support, including the gentleman

[[Page H3916]]

from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Fossella), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who have all joined me as cosponsors of
this amendment.
I urge my colleagues to join me in their support.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I know the gentleman has an honest appeal here in terms of doing what
is best for his district, but here is the problem, and we are running
into this problem consistently. We ran into it yesterday. More and more
people are looking for a source of money, a piggy bank, if you will,
and the IRS seems to be one of those targets.
What I would say is that with this money that he is choosing to take,
he would subsidize the relocation of rail for private rail companies.
This gentleman's amendment proposes to fund these subsidies by taking
critical funding from the Treasury. As I mentioned, we have been hit
again and again, and it seems as though they are going after the
salaries and expenses side of the budget. Pretty soon, you weaken that
organization to a point that they cannot do their job. We need to
obviously be able to collect and deposit revenues into the Treasury.
That is one of their major roles.
This amendment cuts the Treasury's departmental offices by $10
million. That is salaries, that is people, that is personnel that they
need. This would significantly damage U.S. global economic and national
security interests and cripple the Treasury's ability to fight the
financial war on terror, and some of that money may have come out of
that. We do not need to go there. We do not need to malign the money
that is being used to fight the war on terror.
This amendment also cuts the IRS' business systems modernization
program by $20 million, ``BSM'' as it is commonly called. While it
appears to some that this account is $45 million above the President's
request, it is actually just a restructuring of the IRS accounts. In
fact, BSM is currently funded at the request level, which is already
$30 million below last year's level. Cutting this $20 million will
force IRS to lay off many of the 317 personnel who are currently
working on the BSM project, delaying all work on the modernization of
the IRS legacy systems.
So it may seem harmless to take $20 million here and $10 million
there, but pretty soon, you rob Peter to put something in Paul's lap.
Unfortunately, this leaves us at odds with how we balance the entire
bill in the end. We have to have money for this organization, the IRS,
and the many areas in which they work. The most recent one added was
the involvement in terrorism.
So I would strongly object to the gentleman's amendment on that
basis, I understand this is a program that he is very fond of and
certainly favorable to, and there are a number of people from Illinois
that I believe are on the same side. However, I must object, and I must
oppose the amendment. I just wanted to add one other point.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Fossella).
(Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Lipinski) for yielding, and I also want to compliment the chairman and
the ranking member for crafting a very good bill.
I rise in support of the amendment and to echo Mr. Lipinski. I think
the money in this amendment would actually allow and provide for rail
grants throughout the country. It will provide another needed funding
stream for States and municipalities wishing to alleviate traffic and
improve air quality through rail transportation, whether in Chicago or
my hometown of Staten Island.
We face some of the worst commute times in the Nation. And let me be
fair: A primary reason for their transportation problems lies with the
fact that we have a Metropolitan Transportation Authority which has
neglected our borough for decades. Our sole direct transit link to
Manhattan remains the Staten Island Ferry and limited express bus
routes. The island is also only served with one passenger rail line on
its east shore, the State Island Railway.
This amendment will make much needed funding available to enhance and
expand rail projects like many being considered on Staten Island. We
have been working to reactivate a passenger rail line along the
island's north shore. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
have projected 11,000 to 15,000 passengers would ride this line daily.
This amendment will allow the State or the MTA to apply for money to
complete studies needed to get the project off the ground, building on
money already in this bill for the same purpose.
Other potential projects this amendment could help advance are a
light rail along the island's west shore and improvements on the
existing Staten Island Railway.
While we would like to see the grant program funded at higher levels,
this amendment would be an excellent start in expressing Congress's
commitment to passenger rail, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise, too, in support of this
amendment that provides $30 million for the Capital Grants Railroad
Relocation and Improvement program. Those of us who are in regions who
have ports and who have the propensity to move goods, movement across
our State and across the Nation, understand the importance of this
particular amendment.

{time} 1045

I have the elevator corridor. It is 37 percent capacity. We need to
expand that because of the freight and the goods movement that is
coming in from the ships coming into our ports and across the country.
We cannot do that without an infusion of capital to help with the
security of that cargo as well as the improvement in the quality of
life in our communities.
It has been said that when you have rail lines you can help then to
increase the quality of life, reduce emissions in the air, provide the
type of air quality that is sorely needed, especially in areas like Los
Angeles and Long Beach. So I understand why the gentleman has
introduced this amendment, and I am part of the cadre of Members who
are asking for this to be approved because it is an investment in rail
infrastructure and for economic development reasons. It also enhances
the quality and safety of our communities.
And so I thank the chairman for his comments; however, I would
suggest to him that this really moves rail more efficiently and more
effectively, and I ask for this amendment to be approved.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts, the ranking member (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, at the outset here I want to say that this
is a worthy program. However, the President's request this year for
budgeting under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee was at least $3
billion below the enacted levels for the same functions in the previous
year's bill, in the 2006 bill.
During every stage of this process, I have pointed out that we had
that set of holes, serious holes in the budget that had to be filled,
that we needed to try to fill. There is a further problem that under
the authorizing legislation there are guarantees for funding for
transportation items in highways, in FTA, in FAA, which the President's
request was also below. We had to meet those guarantees in order to be
able to bring the bill to the floor for debate at all. Otherwise, the
point of order would lay against the whole TTHUD bill that we are
debating today.
So here we have an amendment which proposes to put money in an item
in transportation where there are already heavy guarantees that we have

[[Page H3917]]

to meet and proposes to take money from another section of the bill,
one section of the bill which is about one-sixth as large in total as
the transportation portion, and takes money from that where there are
no guarantees whatsoever. This is something which I must oppose.
We cannot have this situation where money is being taken from other
parts of this legislation, making them even worse off than they were
under the President's request and whatever the chairman and his staff
have been able to figure out how, as best they could, to fund the
issue, and to take it for other items in transportation. We cannot do
this at this time in the process, and I must oppose the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, safe and efficient rail lines are necessary for the
continued economic vitality of our Nation, so they require our
investment. This amendment would help fund rail projects that would
boost economic development, create jobs, increase safety, and improve
the quality of life for millions of Americans. That is why this
amendment has broad bipartisan support and support from Members across
the country.
I urge my colleagues to join us in voting for this amendment. While I
appreciate what the chairman and the ranking member have done in
crafting this bill, I do urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment
to make this needed investment in rail which will help in districts all
across the country.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown), who is, by the
way, the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Rail on the authorizing
committee.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it has been over 2 years
since the train bombing in Madrid and almost a year since the rail
bombing in London and we still have our heads in the sand in this
country. We are waiting until another country tries to take over our
ports before we get serious about port security. I pray that it doesn't
take a disaster for us to care about rail security.
We spend billions and billions of dollars on aviation and highways,
but our rail system repeatedly gets short-changed by this Bush
administration and this Congress, even though five times as many people
take trains as planes every day and while freight demand is expected to
double by 2020.
I was recently in several European countries meeting with their
transportation officials about rail security, and I can assure my
colleagues that the United States is way behind all other countries in
rail infrastructure and investment. Every industrialized country in the
world is investing heavily in rail infrastructure because they realize
that this is the future of transportation. But, sadly, as this system
gets bigger and better, our system gets less and less money.
This amendment, which provides just $30 million in the Rail Line
Allocation and Improvement program, is a good start in providing the
money that our rail system must have to meet the needs of an ever
expanding freight and passenger rail system. It is time that we start
investing in improving our rail system in this country, and I encourage
all of my colleagues to support the freight and passenger rail by
supporting this amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I really want to point
out that yesterday we had a huge amendment to add funding to Amtrak, an
amendment that involved over $200 million of additional budget outlay
for Amtrak. I supported that amendment, and I supported that amendment
because in that amendment all of the offsets came out of the
transportation area or other areas that were within the authorizing
committee's jurisdiction. It was the authorizing committee that offered
the amendment, and all of the offsets came out of their jurisdiction.
In this case, this amendment takes money completely outside the
authorizing committee's area. We have now heard from the chairwoman,
and the ranking member of the authorizing subcommittee for rail, and
takes the money out of one of the much smaller segments of this bill.
That is why I oppose the amendment, and I will continue to oppose those
kinds of amendments which take money out of the smaller areas of this
legislation, all of which are equally cut short in a budget which is
well below, at least under the President's recommendations, well below
the present year's enacted legislation.
So I will oppose those kinds of amendments consistently where they
take money out of the smaller areas of the bill to move them to the
area of the legislation, namely transportation, which lives under
guarantees of minimum funding from the authorizing committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. LIPINSKI. 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 Illinois will be
postponed.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
want to commend him for his hard work on this important legislation.
And while I strongly support Chairman Knollenberg's bill, I will be
voting in support of its passage, I am disappointed that this bill does
not provide funding for the Office of Personnel Management's initiative
to modernize the Federal Government's retirement systems.
The current antiquated paper system is in desperate need of
modernization. A failure to provide funding to establish a more
efficient and effective electronic process for handling these
retirement claims, especially after the first three contracts have
already been awarded, represents a significant setback for the
modernization efforts.
While I understand that funds are tight in the current budget
climate, unnecessary delays to the modernization of the Federal
Government's retirement processing will only end up costing us more in
the future, and it will likely lead to additional unnecessary delays
and errors in the processing of retirement benefits under the current
antiquated system.
I would urge the gentleman from Michigan to work with the Government
Reform Committee, the Office of Personnel Management, and other
interested stakeholders to explore in conference ways that funding for
this important initiative might be restored and contracts continue on
track.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's
interest on this and other important issues addressed in the
appropriations bill, and I would be happy to work with the chairman,
Chairman Davis, as this legislation moves on to conference.
As the gentleman noted, funds are tight in the current budget
climate, and we were unable to provide funding for all the new
initiatives proposed this year. But as a Member of Congress and a
Federal employee, I understand the importance of modernizing the
Federal Government's retirement systems and look forward to working
with Chairman Davis as we move forward.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that since these
colloquies, at least when they start over on the other side, remain on
the other side, I would just like to point out that this is an issue
that I have already indicated my very strong interest in. So I would be
very happy to work with my chairman in trying to find the funding to be
able to do what the gentleman wants, because it has been a matter of
very high priority for me and for our side of the aisle as well.

Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

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

Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into any contract with an incorporated
entity where

[[Page H3918]]

such entity's sealed bid or competitive proposal shows that
such entity is incorporated or chartered in Bermuda,
Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua, or Panama.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

{time} 1100

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
This amendment would simply continue current law by extending a
provision that was accepted in conference last year. It would prevent
the Departments and the agencies under this bill from using any funds
to contract with American companies which have incorporated in Bermuda,
Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua, and Panama to reduce their tax
obligation to the United States.
The Homeland Security Department operates under a similar ban. Recent
data shows that despite costing our government $5 billion in lost tax
revenue, corporate expatriates will reap more than $15 billion in
Federal contracts in the coming years. Four of our top 100 Federal
contractors have incorporated in tax-haven countries. One of them
actually holds a contract with the IRS; the agency charged with
collecting taxes is contracting with a company that is determined to
avoid paying them.
Sixty-six percent of the companies that hold government contracts but
are incorporated in an overseas tax haven pay no Federal taxes
whatsoever. These companies have no business being rewarded by getting
new business opportunities with the Federal Government.
The GAO has determined that these companies have an advantage when
they compete for Federal contracts. It found that the contractors who
are corporate expatriates can ``offer a price that wins a contract
based more on tax considerations than on factors such as the quality
and the cost of producing goods and services.'' In essence, the
American people may not be getting the best product possible because of
the loophole.
The amendment will not affect existing contracts, just as it did not
this year. It simply ensures that in the future we will favor good
corporate citizens with contracts instead of companies who put paying
American companies at a competitive disadvantage.
Corporate expatriates have made a clear choice to leave this country
to lower their taxes. It is up to us to say if they are going to
manipulate the loopholes in our Tax Code, then they will no longer be
able to reap the benefit of government contracts. In this amendment, we
ask them to make a different choice.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, let me state that of course I do not condone companies
relocating for tax purposes overseas. But I oppose the gentlewoman's
amendment because I think it is a bad policy, and I will explain.
From a taxation point of view, this language is not necessary.
Congress addressed the issue of corporate inversions in the Jobs
Creation Act of 2004. The JOBS Act added a new section to the Tax Code
which treats U.S. companies that complete a corporate inversion
transaction after March 4, 2003 as domestic U.S. corporations for tax
purposes.
Second, Congress addressed the issue of corporate inversions by
enacting a contracting ban which is still in effect today. Given these
two congressional actions, I don't see the need to further punish the
people who work in the U.S. for these affected companies.
Companies registered offshore employ hundreds of thousands of U.S.
workers, a fact that I believe is lost in these debates. It is easy for
Members to vote for amendments such as these until they realize that
constituents in their own districts are employed by these very firms
and depend upon these firms for a paycheck.
Additionally, I am opposed to the amendment because the U.S.
Government enters into billions of dollars' worth of contracts with
private sector companies each year. As a proponent of good government,
it is essential that competition for these contracts be allowed to go
to the company that is the most effective and the most cost efficient.
Agencies under the jurisdiction of this act that would be affected
include numerous safety agencies related to aviation and
transportation, and they would not have access to many of the best
products available ranging from security software, thermal imaging
devices, handsets and engineer and data services for critical
infrastructure.
This amendment is not necessary. It makes government contracts less
effective by restricting competition, and it hurts U.S. workers. I urge
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Chairman Davis from
Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and
let's make no mistake: Much of the work that is performed under
contracts that would be banned under this amendment are performed in
the United States by American citizens, and we are taking these
people's jobs and eliminating them. It is an ill-considered amendment.
While targeted tax provisions to address the issue of corporate tax
policy is appropriate, penalizing companies by prohibiting them from
participating in Federal Government contracting harms both the United
States Government and its citizens. The government should be able to
purchase the best goods and services of world-class companies wherever
they are located, absent compelling national interests. We should be
able to get the best bulletproof vests, the best body armor, the best
armor for our APCs that are going around, wherever the companies
happened to be headquartered. The prohibition makes no sense.
We are also banning companies from doing business for activities that
were legal at the time they made these corporate decisions. This is
like an ex post facto ban.
Do we want the best technology and premier information technology
service, or don't we? That is the question. This amendment is a
wonderful way to ensure that we don't.
I can understand if this amendment applied to Iran or Syria or North
Korea; but Panama, Bermuda, the Cayman Island, they pose no threat to
the United States.
Preventing successful firms from participating in the Federal
marketplace just because they happen to be incorporated outside the
United States rejects the free market principles underlying our full
and open competitive Federal acquisition system. Obtaining full and
open competition from all firms who wish to participate in our Federal
market is the keystone of our acquisition system, ensuring that
taxpayers get the most value for their tax dollar.
Domestic source restrictions like this are simply counterproductive;
and, I might add, they invite retaliation. Americans are only 4 percent
of the world's consumers. When we start putting bans on countries that
we are not going to contract with, they put up similar bans. The end
result is instead of our ability to expand marketplaces for American
companies and American jobs, we end up restricting it to the 4 percent
of the world's consumers that happen to live in the United States.
Also, the substance of this amendment is not necessary because
Congress addressed the issue of corporate inversion in the JOBS Act,
the Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The JOBS Act added a new section to the
Tax Code, section 7874, which treats U.S. companies that complete a
corporate inversion transaction after March 4, 2002 as domestic U.S.
corporations for tax purposes. So we have addressed this issue. This is
penalizing companies who make decisions prior to that time.
Critics could argue that companies that have engaged in corporate
inversions prior to March 4, 2002 should be covered by the JOBS Act,
but Congress shouldn't ban companies from competing for government
contracts because of legal transactions they performed more than 2
years ago, at the same time denying American servicemen and the
American Government the

[[Page H3919]]

ability to get the best acquisition products that we can for America.
In recent years, the House has consistently rejected contracting ban
amendments. I urge a ``no'' vote on the DeLauro amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts,
and I rise to support the DeLauro amendment.
It is a sad day in America when someone comes to this House floor to
tell us that we have to depend on companies that renounce their
American citizenship to save a few tax dollars to get quality products,
workmanship, or services.
We had a great debate a few months ago about allowing a foreign
company to take over six of our ports. We almost universally agreed
that was a bad idea. It doesn't make any difference, and those
companies hadn't renounced their U.S. citizenship, they were foreign
companies; I didn't think it was a good idea and I don't know anybody
else who did, but I am sure there are those who did. At least the
President thought it was.
But why would we think it was a good idea to turn over the Federal
business, the business of the American people that is paid for by their
tax dollars, to companies that say I don't want to pay my fair share; I
want to go to Bermuda or Panama or the Cayman Islands and I am going to
pull these little slick tricks, and I am basically not going to pay my
fair share, but I want all of the benefits of being an American and all
of the benefits of being an American company. I want to get those
American tax dollars so that my company can profit even more and pay
even less of its fair share. That is what this is all about.
I know a really good attorney. He has got a dog named Loophole. That
is what this business is about. We have already covered this. It was
covered all right, it was covered with a nice big fat loophole that
made it possible for companies that have renounced their American
citizenship just so they didn't have to pay their fair share and could
still come in and rake in the tax dollars in a way that is most unfair
to our own companies.
It gives these foreign companies an advantage over U.S. companies.
This is just simply not right. You don't have to be all broke out in
brilliance to figure this out. It is time that this House acted. We
have done it before, and it is time that we do it again. It is time we
start giving people that value their American citizenship as good a
deal as it is possible to give them. I would urge support of this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to advise the ranking minority member
of the subcommittee that he cannot yield blocks of time under his
request to strike the last word. The gentleman controls the entire 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. I cannot yield any time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman cannot yield blocks of time. The
gentleman may yield to others, but not specific amounts of time to be
enforced by the Chair.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the clarification. I
apologize for being a little bit off base there.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut the remainder of the
time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman had 2 minutes remaining and the
gentlewoman from Connecticut has 3 minutes remaining, so the
gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to lay something out very
clearly here. First of all, the notion that these are folks who are
going to compete equally with other corporations that do not have the
same tax advantage has been decried by the GAO, the Government
Accountability Office. Let me repeat their commentary.
They found that contractors who go overseas for the ostensible
purpose of reducing their tax obligation to the United States, and I
quote, ``They can offer a price that wins a contract based more on tax
considerations than on factors such as the quality and the cost of
producing goods and services.'' They have a tax advantage because they
do not pay what they are supposed to pay in taxes in the United States.
In fact, let me be very clear again. This amendment simply continues
what current law is. It extends the provision that was accepted in
conference last year. These companies have not suffered anything with
regard to their bottom line. As a matter of fact, they are making
profits hand over fist, and they are taking advantage of the tax
loophole. Yes, they make that decision; but the decision is ours as to
whether or not we allow them to come back and to compete for Federal
contracts.
I do not have a preference for what they chose. Under the law, they
can do what they want. But they should not be allowed to pretend to be
an American company when it is time to get contracts but then claim to
be an offshore company when the tax bill comes.
I also want to point out that this does not jeopardize and does not
affect existing contracts, just as it did not this year. This is about
the future.
I also want to make a point that the 2004 tax bill did not apply to
companies who already have moved offshore. There are more than 25 such
companies that currently operate with a tax advantage that their U.S.
counterparts do not enjoy. So do not bring up the 2004 tax bill because
it is not applicable.
Mr. Chairman, what we want to do is have companies be good corporate
citizens. We are asking them to pay their fair share of taxes. That is
what this is all about.
If we did more to discourage companies from setting up just post
offices overseas to reduce their tax burden, we would have more funding
available in this bill for other purposes. The notion that countries
are going to retaliate, it is almost laughable. Barbados is going to
retaliate against the United States, the Cayman Islands, Antigua,
Bermuda? It is truly laughable that that would be a part of this
debate.

{time} 1115

Again, why do we want to encourage companies to go offshore to set up
a post office box and not pay their fair share and their obligation in
taxes to the United States?
So, I would just say to my colleagues, we have an opportunity here
again, and people voted on this last year. I hope those who voted
``yes'' will continue to do so and that some will have a change of
heart, understanding what the nature of this is all about. Let's have
people, if they want to go offshore, that is our system. They can do
that at the moment. We can take a look at closing tax loopholes at
another opportunity. What they can't do is to come back and feed at the
Federal trough and not pay their fair share of taxes like everyone else
in this country is obligated to do.
Let's keep the loophole closed. Let's not reopen it at a time of
record deficits when we can least afford to do it. This is a matter of
patriotism and not profit. You want to do something for our friends and
our troops overseas, close this loophole. Be a patriot and support this
amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to my friend, Chairman Davis.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Well, I think if you are a patriot on this
issue you oppose this amendment. I guess patriotism can be defined in a
number of ways.
First of all, the GAO report that was referred to was a GAO report in
February of 2004 before Congress passed the Jobs Act that deals with
the tax inequities in this particular area. The companies that are at
issue pay full taxes on work and contract work that is performed in the
United States. Basically, their offshore incorporation refers to how
they look at foreign dollars coming through those and how those are
viewed under the Tax Code. But the Jobs Act addressed that, and the GAO
report was prior to that Jobs Act.
And finally, let me just add that retaliation, Bermuda is a
protectorate of the United Kingdom. Panama is a country and an ally,
and this is a very slippery slope once we start getting into which
countries can do what that propose absolutely no risk to the United
States at all. I think it is a bad amendment and I urge my colleagues
to oppose it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the DeLauro-Berry-
Slaughter Amendment. This amendment will prevent new contracts funded
under this bill from being awarded to corporations that set up offshore
tax havens.

[[Page H3920]]

If a corporation is located in the U.S., and conducts most of its
business in the U.S., and employs most of its workforce in the U.S.,
then it should not be allowed to avoid its tax obligations by simply
opening a post office box in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda.
Corporate expatriates cost the United States approximately 5 billion
dollars a year in tax revenue. Yet they are expected to reap 1 billion
dollars annually in federal contracts during each of the next 5 to 10
years.
Mr. Chairman, what kind of message are we sending to Americans that
work hard and pay their taxes when corporate expatriates are rewarded
for their deliberate and shameless tax evasion with millions of dollars
in taxpayer-funded federal contracts?
When we allow corporations to gain an unfair competitive advantage in
the Federal marketplace by relocating overseas to skirt tax
obligations, what are we telling small business owners who play by the
rules?
Corporate expatriates hurt honest U.S. taxpayers by shifting more of
the tax burden onto their shoulders.
And they siphon funds from the Federal budget that are desperately
needed for essential government services.
To put this in perspective, consider that today we will debate an
appropriations bill that slashes funding for affordable housing
programs. Last week, we voted on a bill that cut homeland security
grants. And just a few weeks ago we approved a budget that guts
critical domestic programs, such as education, veterans' health care,
public health, environmental protection, and services for families and
communities--just to name a few recent acts of this House.
We were told these cuts were necessary--that we just didn't have the
money to keep funding these efforts. And yet, at the same time,
billions of dollars are being lost to dishonest corporations.
We must stop hard-earned American tax dollars from lining the pockets
of companies that exploit tax loopholes.
It is time to send the clear message that if you want to do business
with the U.S. Government; you must play by the rules.
This amendment will help guarantee that only responsible companies
can benefit from Federal contracts.
It is pro-business . . . it is pro-consumer . . . and it is pro-
American.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro-Berry-
Slaughter amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 252, insert the following after line 5:
Sec. 945. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to amend section 515.566 of title 31, Code of Federal
Regulations (relating to religious activities in Cuba), as in
effect on June 14, 2006.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, regardless of where any of us stand on the
debate over the broader issue of travel to Cuba, I hope you will agree
that there should be an exemption to the restrictions when it comes to
travelers who wish to travel for a religious purpose.
In fact, there is a current exemption for religious travelers. The
Flake-McGovern-Emerson-Lee amendment would do nothing to weaken or lift
restrictions of any kind of travel, religious or otherwise. In fact, my
amendment would simply prevent any changes from being made to the
exemption as it now exists.
You might wonder, if religious travel is currently permitted by law,
why are we proposing this amendment? Well, let me explain.
In 1999, Congress established by law categories of permissible
travel, including travel for religious exchanges. But over the past
couple of years the Office of Foreign Assets Control, on instruction
from the State Department, has published guidelines to accompany these
regulations and they have in fact imposed new restrictions on religious
travel to Cuba. They have resulted in the denial of travel licenses to
many individuals and churches and synagogues, other religions who until
recently had longstanding licenses.
This type of regulation runs counter to the spirit of the 1999 law
and current administration policy. For example, a woman from Indiana
went with her church group to distribute Bibles and participate in
religious meetings and events. Soon after her arrival home she was
served with a notice of a several thousand dollar fine because she had
been to a beach while she was in Cuba. I spoke to this woman. She had
been to a beach once to a baptism. This is how ridiculous these
restrictions have become.
As a broader example, groups from the Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran,
Presbyterian, Episcopal, United Church of Christ and many other faiths
have been denied license to travel to Cuba although they have traveled
there legally for years. I am afraid we are getting dangerously close
to curbing the free exercise of religion in this context and having
government impose a religious test. Are you truly religious enough to
travel to Cuba? Is this a real religion that you are representing? That
is not the business that this government ought to be in.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the
time in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is one of
various amendments that will be brought forth, I believe, today with
regard to the issue of our policy toward the Communist totalitarianism
in Cuba. In fact, this amendment was brought up by Mr. Flake a year
ago, and it was one of the amendments brought up last year. Since it
was brought to the floor last year, the pro-democracy movement in Cuba,
and I think it is of relevance to point out, had an opportunity,
despite the extraordinary difficulties of speaking out with regard to
issues of public policy, either in Cuba or anywhere else, the pro-
democracy movement had an opportunity to speak with regard to the
amendments that were introduced last year in this Congress. I think it
is of relevance and I would like to make note of their position.
We have a letter from the leaders of the Assembly to Promote Civil
Society. Unbelievably, a year ago they were able to hold a convention
for the first time in totalitarian Cuba. Many of their delegates were
not allowed to arrive at the convention. They were detained. They were
harassed. They were stopped before they left their house. Others were
arrested. The assembly elected leaders, something which is
extraordinary in a totalitarian state, and those leaders signed a
letter which I would like to introduce into the Record, Mr. Chairman,
with regard to the amendments that were brought forth that were made,
that were introduced last year. And I would just like to say that as
those leaders, one of the three, by the way, has since been arrested,
is Mr. Rene Gomez Manzano, who signed this letter, subsequently was
thrown in the gulag where he is today, despite not having been charged
but he is there today in the gulag. And they said, as they expressed
their opposition to the amendments that were filed last year, including
this amendment by Mr. Flake, that the adoption of any unilateral
measure to completely or partially lift the existing sanctions of the
United States could be interpreted by the Cuban regime in Havana, which
has given continuous examples of its absolute immovability and of its
repressive and anti-democratic vocation as a policy of accommodation.
Now, this is the position of the brave pro-democracy movement in Cuba,
which I think it is of relevance to listen to. As I say, one of them
was thrown in the gulag after making known this position with regard to
amendments that were filed last year, including Mr. Flake's.
Another point I would like to bring out which I think of is
relevance, the Flake amendment, he admits that it is legal to travel
for religious purposes to

[[Page H3921]]

Cuba. I want to reiterate that. It is legal. One of the existing
categories for travel to Cuba is religious travel. The administration
does fight fraud and abuse, people who go and say, use even the most
sacred of subterfuges, including the religious travel mantle. The
administration does fight against abuse, and regulations are in place
to make sure that people who are going for religious travel go for
religious purposes.
Now, that must be reiterated, the fact that it is legal to travel for
religious purposes. The Flake amendment says, no funds could be spent
to change the current authorization, regulation that authorizes
religious travel. So if a future administration wished to change the
regulation, make it stricter, make it easier to travel, the regulations
couldn't be changed under Mr. Flake's amendment.
So I simply, as I oppose this amendment, reiterate that it is legal.
One of the 13 categories of travel, legal travel to Communist Cuba is
for religious purposes. The Flake amendment is confusing, contingent,
prospective, and thus difficult really to analyze with regard to its
possible effects on the future.
But, for me, the most important factor in this debate is that the
people who are suffering the repression today and who risk their lives
when they make a statement like Rene Gomez Manzano did a year ago in
opposition of this amendment, they are clear in their opposition. So I
reiterate their position and oppose the Flake amendment.
Havana, June 24, 2005.
Hon. Lincoln Diaz-Balart,
Hon. Mario Diaz-Balart,
Hon. Bob Menendez,
Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
Distinguished Compatriots: We have recently learned that,
at present, the Honorable House of Representatives of which
you are members is considering several proposals--introduced
by various Congressmen--seeking to prevent or hinder the
implementation of diverse measures related to the embargo
decreed by the United States against the totalitarian regime
in Havana.
Of course, we respect any decision that sovereign Congress
takes on this matter.
However, we do not wish that anyone pretend that such
proposals count with the support of the generality of those
who within Cuba oppose the ruling system and who fight
peacefully for change.
As you know, the signatories of this letter form the
Secretariat of the Assembly to Promote Civil Society in Cuba
(a group that on May 20 and 21 successfully held in Havana
the first congress of Cuban democrats and which is comprised
by the majority of the independent entities located in Cuba);
and as such we can assure you--and through you the Congress
of that great nation--that our coalition does not support the
adoption of unilateral measures to completely or partially
lift the existing embargo of the United States, which could
be interpreted by the Cuban regime in Havana (which has given
continuous examples of its absolute immovability, and of its
repressive and antidemocratic vocation) as a policy of
accommodation.
Respectfully,
Felix Antonio Bonne Carcasses.
Rene de Jesus Gomez Manzano.
Martha Roque Cabello.

Mr. FLAKE. Before yielding 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts, let me simply state I have been to Cuba, as have a
number of us. We have met with those who have been in prison for their
activities and others. There is no one group that represents the pro-
democracy movement in Cuba. Many people have encouraged us to do
exactly what we are doing.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment.
As an American, I deeply resent any restriction imposed by my
government or any other government under freedom of churches and
religious organizations to exercise their religion, meet in fellowship
with their counterparts in other countries, worship together,
collaborate on projects of common interest and celebrate their faith
together.
This administration has taken actions contrary to the very soul of
what it means to be an American. It has denied U.S. churches and
religious organizations that have been meeting with their Cuban
counterparts for years, often decades, renewal of their licenses to
travel to Cuba. They have imposed arbitrary restrictions and
definitions on what it means to be a church, a national religious
organization or a religious denomination.
For 5 months a bipartisan group of Members have asked the
decisionmakers at the State and Treasury Departments to meet with us
and U.S. Catholic, Protestant and Jewish religious leaders to discuss
these restrictions, but so far they have refused.
Now they are preparing even more restrictions that will discriminate
among the many religious organizations on the island and pick and
choose who it is okay to break bread with in faith and fellowship. They
will take it upon themselves the right to say what constitutes a church
and who is a legitimate person of faith. The United States of America
does not and must not take such actions against communities of faith. I
urge the people to support the Flake amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs.
Emerson).
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this commonsense
amendment to protect the ability of religious groups to continue their
ministries in Cuba. I am aware that opponents of this amendment will
claim it is misguided and could result in tying the hands of expanded
religious travel to Cuba. But experience tells a different story.
Nothing in our experience of working with the administration on Cuba
policy leads to a conclusion that a liberalization of our Cuba travel
policy is likely. In fact, experience tells a different story, a story
of increased regulations, increased hurdles and increased difficulties
in all forms of travel and trade with one of our closest neighbors.
It is a tribute to the work being accomplished by religious groups
that the religious travel license has received so much support.
However, we, the supporters of the right to conduct nonpolitical
religious work, must remain vigilant in protecting the ability of those
workers to travel to where they are called.

{time} 1130

This amendment will accomplish that goal. Some may call it
prospective. Some may call it misguided. Experience would call it
necessary.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding and
for his leadership and for helping us sort through this very difficult
but important issue.
I am a proud cosponsor of this amendment. I want to thank Mr. Flake,
Mrs. Emerson, and Mr. McGovern for putting this forward because this is
quite sensible. The majority of the American people understand this
policy. It only prohibits funding for the Office of Foreign Assets
Control, OFAC, for the purpose of enforcing restrictions on religious
travel to Cuba.
For years, licensed religious exchanges with Cuban counterparts
existed, upholding our right, mind you, our right to our religious
freedom. However, the State Department recently reinterpreted this
policy, which makes no sense. Consequently, national churches are
severely restricted in carrying on their relationship with Cuban
churches.
Not only does this new policy create inefficient, bureaucratic hoops,
but I am concerned that the administration also cherry-picks when
granting licenses for different religious organizations. Also, OFAC is
being forced to push aside what should be its focus on tracking
terrorists in order to meddle into internal religious matters.
Last year we led about 105 Members of Congress in asking the
administration to resolve that. Since then we have followed up with
meetings and phone calls and letters and still have no answer. This is
unacceptable. That is why this amendment is so important.
Hindering the ability of religious organizations to forge
partnerships with their Cuban counterparts really strikes at the very
heart of our religious identity and our constitutionally enshrined
freedom.
So I urge all of our colleagues to support this amendment and to
stand up for religious freedom and for religious rights.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say, if we are afraid that the
Baptists, the Methodist, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, and

[[Page H3922]]

other faiths that are going to Cuba are somehow propping up the Cuban
regime, then our worries are misplaced. That regime has been there for
47 years, and to deny missionaries and others the opportunity to go
there and convert people to the faith and to work is simply wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

Mr. ENGEL. 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. Engel:
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 section 303 of the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13212).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Once again I am here to offer an amendment to push the Federal
agencies to follow the law and purchase alternative fuel vehicles. I
hope it will be accepted again as it has been accepted under other
appropriations bills.
I believe I am, at the very least, getting the attention from our
colleagues. My office has received more calls about my amendment to
this bill than any other appropriations bill so far. So let me clear up
one concern.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would be happy to accept your amendment.
Mr. ENGEL. Thank you.
Reclaiming my time, let me just say that this is common sense. We all
in a bipartisan fashion would like to see alternative fuels and
alternative fuel vehicles on the road.
Once again I am here to offer an amendment to push the federal
agencies to follow the law and purchase alternative fuel vehicles. I
hope it will be accepted again.
I believe I am at the very least getting the attention of our
colleagues. My office received more calls about my amendment to this
bill than any other bill.
So let me clear up one concern--this amendment does not affect the
purchase of buses or cars or ferries by States and localities or mass
transit agencies.
It does seek to have the federal government provide leadership in
finally ending our nation's addiction to oil by promoting the purchase
of AFVs.
If federal agencies were in compliance with the 1992 Energy Policy
Act, last year the federal government would have put more than 25,000
more AFVs on the road.
For the major agencies funded by this bill, DOT and HUD are failing
to provide the leadership we need. In FY05 almost 75 percent of its
cars were gasoline only. The Department of the Treasury has a sad
record of 96 percent of their purchases being gasoline only.
Mr. Chairman, there is no one solution to our addiction to oil. It
will take steps and efforts from all levels of government, industry and
the public. We know though that small efforts can lead to big changes.
The federal government can provide leadership in this effort--in fact
we must.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
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 by the University of Mississippi in Oxford,
Mississippi, for the construction of the William Faulkner
Museum.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all of
the gentleman's amendments be read.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a series of amendments
on earmark limitations to the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and
Urban Development 2007 appropriation.
While the Appropriations Committee is touting a two-thirds reduction
in earmark spending, the sad news is that even with that decrease, the
bill still contains more than $930 million in pork-barrel spending.
With more than 1,500 earmarks, this bill contains more earmarks than
all of the appropriation bills passed in each of the years 1995, 1996,
or 1997.
This bill provides for new zoo docks, opera houses, bike paths,
hiking trails, and 1,500 other congressional priorities, all paid for
at the expense of the taxpayer.
The most disturbing part of this bill is that these earmarks are paid
for with ``funny money,'' with fictitious offsets that would have never
left the Treasury to begin with. So while you will hear during this
debate many times you are not saving money by getting rid of these
earmarks, all the Appropriations Committee would have to do is to
simply say we are not going to fund earmarks this year. We will take a
lower 302(b) allocation or we will apply it elsewhere instead of
funding these earmarks. So that argument that you will hear again and
again is simply wrong.
We were unable to identify whose earmarks are in this bill many
times, who requested them, or how they were chosen, because we were
simply given the manager's amendment last Wednesday, I believe, with
these 1,500 earmarks. It is very difficult, and you will see with some
of these, they are very vague as to what they are actually funding. So
I would submit that oversight is tremendously difficult when you do not
even know what the earmark is really for.
If it is to fund a facility, a facility could mean a lot of things.
We do not even know anything more than that from the manager's
amendment. We are left with these limitation amendments as the only
means of shining daylight on the process, on these projects and
programs and on this spending, and there is plenty to shine in light of
this transportation bill. I hope that we will take the time today to
actually look at what we are doing.
This first amendment would limit the University of Mississippi in
Oxford from spending $1 million on the new William Faulkner Museum.
This $1 million is part of nearly $12 million that the State of
Mississippi has provided in earmarks in this bill, including nearly $2
million in HUD grant earmarks.
Currently, the University of Mississippi already owns Rowan Oak,
which was a family home of the Faulkners for more than 40 years.
Currently, Rowan Oak nonstudent visitors pay $5 for the tour. According
to the University's Web site, this earmark will go toward building a
new wing in the University museums featuring a biographical timeline
exhibition dedicated to the author who once wrote ``I don't care much
for facts, am not much interested in them . . . ''
I would say that if we are interested in the facts here, we are
spending too much money. We are often told there are criteria when
these earmarks come before the committee, strict criteria that these
earmarks have to pass or they are not funded. I would ask, please,
someone explain what criteria we are using to take money from taxpayers
in California or Arizona or elsewhere to pay for the William Faulkner
Museum in the State of Mississippi. If you can justify this kind of
spending, I would submit you can justify just about anything. If you
can just identify it on economic development grounds, what cannot be
justified on economic development grounds?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.

[[Page H3923]]

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, economic development initiatives, EDI
grants, are targeted grants designed to address local economic
development needs. As representatives of these communities, it is our
responsibility to ensure that these needs when present are addressed.
While I appreciate the gentleman's efforts, I cannot help but feel
they would be better directed at real earmark reform, including
authorizing bills, not the meaningless attack on an individual project.
I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Wicker).
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, perhaps at the end of that 2 minutes, I
might ask the Chair's indulgence for a little more time.
I do appreciate the chairman's opposing the amendment, and I think it
is instructive at this point to talk about the congressional spending
procedures that we have in place. We receive the President's budget,
and the Congress then acts on that budget by the adoption of a
resolution. We decide at that point the level of discretionary spending
this Congress will spend on a variety of issues. It is at that point,
at the point of the budget resolution, that we decide how much we will
spend on domestic discretionary dollars. In other words, upon our
adoption of the budget, the level of spending in the discretionary
category is decided.
Now, we find ourselves today further down the process. We are today
at the appropriations stage. The level has already been decided. Our
decision today is how we allocate the funds we have already decided to
spend through our budget resolution. The funds set aside for this
subcommittee will be spent. That decision has already been made. The
decision that we are going to make today is the question of where those
funds will be spent.
Now, having said that, Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to
explain to my colleagues the nature of this project. And I have often
thought, Mr. Chairman, if I ever had the chance to speak to a national
audience about Rowan Oak and the William Faulkner Museum, I would take
that opportunity. If I ever do get such a chance, I will tell my
colleagues what an absolute jewel is located in my district in the form
of Rowan Oak and the Faulkner legacy.
Of course, William Faulkner is one of the greatest authors in
American history. The recipient of the Nobel Prize for literature, the
recipient of two Pulitzer Prizes. William Faulkner is one of the
preeminent figures in the history of this Nation, and I have in my
congressional district, I am fortunate to say, the home where he not
only lived for 32 years, between 1930 and 1962, when he died, but where
he wrote so many of America's great treasures, including Sanctuary; As
I Lay Dying; Light in August; Absalom, Absalom; A Fable; The
Unvanquished; Go Down, Moses; and the Reivers.
Thousands and thousands of tourists come to Rowan Oak and the
University of Mississippi each year for the express purpose of seeing
the legacy of William Faulkner. Our guests have included Prince Edward
of England, numerous Members of this Congress, foreign
Parliamentarians, and people from all over the world.
I want to congratulate my friend from Arizona, and he is my friend,
for being consistent. If it were up to people like my friend from
Arizona, perhaps we would never spend any money at the Federal level on
higher education. Perhaps no Federal dollars would ever go to a museum
of any type. It is an entirely honorable position to say that no local
economic development project should ever be funded. That is an
honorable viewpoint. I do not think it is the position of the Members
of the House of Representatives, but it is a worthy opinion
nonetheless.
I would simply say that at this point the decision has been made to
allocate the money to the subcommittee. Our decision today is whether
the allocation will be spent on priorities outlined by the elected
representatives of the people or whether these funds will go back to an
agency where a nameless, faceless, bureaucrat will make the decision
about where these funds will be spent.
I urge the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, all I can do in response to that is quote
William Faulkner. Anyone who believes that we cannot save money by
eliminating earmarks does not care much for the facts and is not much
interested in them. The notion that this budget is set and now all we
can do is spend up to the top of it belies the fact that last week we
could have offered a lesser bill, a smaller bill. Earlier in the
process when we established the budget, we could have simply said we
are not going to fund this year.

{time} 1145

Therefore we are going to save billions and billions of dollars. But,
no, we passed a bigger budget and then we come here today and say,
darn, I wish we could have saved money; we just cannot, it is too late.
Mr. Chairman, I would submit that people are getting tired of hearing
that argument. And we simply cannot continue to spend money this way.
So with that, I would urge that we accept this amendment, and at least
start, at least send some signal that we are going to be better
stewards of the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, however well-
intentioned it may be. Mr. Chairman, the amendment strikes one item in
the Economic Development Initiative under Housing and Urban
Development. And I would say that this item is totally consistent with
the purpose of the Economic Development Initiative in the first place.
As the gentleman from Mississippi pointed out, William Faulkner is
one of our preeminent authors, surely one of the 10 most famous authors
of the 20th century here in America. And having William Faulkner's home
and museum in honor of him and showing his legacy is certainly an
enormous boon to tourism and, more broadly, to tourism generally, but
particularly let's say to American authors and English students. People
will flock to that place because of the fame of William Faulkner.
And so I would say that Mr. Wicker, the gentleman from Mississippi,
knows his district very well and also knows what it is that will have a
serious impact on economic impact in his district. And this one is one
of those, as so many of them are under this particular initiative,
which involves a partnership between the Federal Government, in a
relatively small way, very small way in its totality, and the State
Government, and local government, and private investment, private
donations that will go and have gone to the home and the museum.
I oppose this amendment. I think this is a very, very appropriate
expenditure of money.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have made my comments pretty
clearly. I oppose the amendment. I believe that Mr. Wicker spoke
eloquently. I also think that Mr. Olver made it pretty clear that this
is not the resolution that we would look for on this particular
situation.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
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 by Fairfax County, Virginia Park Authority for field
improvements in Annandale, Virginia.

[[Page H3924]]

from using $50,000 in Federal taxpayer dollars for field improvements
in Annandale, Virginia.
When I first saw this earmark, I had trouble understanding why the
Federal Government was giving $50,000 to the Fairfax County Park
Authority in Virginia for field improvements. Fairfax County is the
11th wealthiest county in the United States. I used to live there. It
is a wonderful county. Has a wonderful park system and a big budget.
Why the Federal Government is funding this, I just do not know. The
county's 2007 available funds will total around $3.38 billion, total
county funds. In 2004, the median household income in Fairfax County
was $88,133, double the national average of $44,684.
The Fairfax County Park Authority in Virginia received over $100
million in revenue in 2005, and spent under $70 million. Again, this is
the park authority that we are funding here, adding over 30 million in
net assets in one year alone.
In 2005, the assets of the Virginia Park Authority exceeded its
liabilities by more than $419 million. Along with parks, recreation
centers and trails, the Fairfax County Park Authority manages seven
golf courses.
How should we explain this earmark to the taxpayers in Arizona or
Colorado or New Mexico or anywhere else; or Mississippi, for that
matter? My amendment would simply prevent funding for this purpose. In
this bill, Virginia is expecting more than $24 million in earmarking,
with more than $3 million in HUD grants alone.
This is compared to States like Wyoming and Vermont which receive
less than $1 million in total earmark funds in this bill. Why is the
Federal Government adding to the wealth of the Fairfax County Park
Authority by giving it $50,000 for field improvements? How does this
earmark relate to the central purpose of HUD programs, which I thought
was to help house people?
Mr. Chairman, I welcome the justification for Federal funds in this
case.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia rise to control the
time in opposition?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend
taking the amendment out of turn. I rise in opposition to the Flake
amendment. The $50,000 that Mr. Flake is trying to strike would go to
the Fairfax County Park Authority to renovate fields in Annandale,
Virginia.
Baileys Crossroads, Seven Corners, Culmore in the Mason District, is
just inside the Capital Beltway in Northern Virginia. Like many areas,
they are experiencing significant problems with gangs. They have a
heavy immigrant population, and thousands of low-income, low-cost
apartments.
I might add, open space is at a premium in these areas. One way we
can make a positive impact on the gang problem is to give the kids
something to do, and that is just what we are trying to accomplish with
this particular earmark.
The playing fields in question are used by youth athletic leagues
that bring kids in, offering them any number of positive experiences as
alternatives to joining gangs and keeping them out of trouble. This is
a much more urbanized part of Fairfax County. It may be in the
aggregate a wealthy county, but I can tell you the people that this
impacts are the lowest of the low in terms of their incomes.
But we have apartments in this Seven Corners area where you have two
or three families living in two-bedroom apartments. This is a more
urbanized part of the county. The county has over a million people.
Open space is at a premium. Just a couple of years ago, a soccer
field where immigrants used to play soccer was displaced by an Eckerd
Drug Store, depriving them of other fields. And gang activity in the
Culmore area has thrived. Northern Virginia is rapidly expanding.
With every passing year, there are fewer and fewer places for young
people to engage in constructive outdoor activity. And the kids that
this affects do not have cars, they cannot take mass transit, they
cannot afford taxicabs. This is an area where they can get to and be
able to find some alternative to joining a gang and joining into
illegal activity.
With every passing day, there seem to be more and more ways for them
to get into trouble. Athletic activity is one of the best alternatives
to gang activity.
There is an old saying, ``You can pay me now or you can pay me
later.'' This investment, if it just saves one kid from a life of crime
and a career in the prison system, will be well worth the dollars in
this particular case.
But in my district, our constituents frequently tell me there are
pressing needs; can we help out over and above what they might be able
to get in the political process? A lot of the people that this helps
generally have been powerless at the ballot box, they have been unable
to get it through the usual allocation of park authority funds, which
tend to go out to wealthier areas.
Under the HUD portion of this bill, that is where this earmark comes
from. There are programs that are supposed to be used to fund
revitalization programs. That is exactly what this is, in the
Annandale, Baileys Crossroads area.
This project is good use of these dollars. This project, I think,
will help the young people in our district turn away from the influence
of gangs and get them into more constructive activities. More
importantly, I think it is an investment in the future. So it is for
these reasons in this particular case that I rise to oppose the Flake
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate that putting one kid into a gang
with the crimes that could be committed and a life in the prison system
is worth a lot more than the $50,000 that we have asked for and earmark
in this bill that will improve these fields and make them available to
a wide array of young people.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, let me simply state again, Fairfax County's available
budget funds for 2007 are around $3.38 billion. The Fairfax County Park
Authority received over $100 million in revenue in 2005 and spent under
$70 million, adding over $30 million in net assets in 1 year alone.
I would submit that it is the county's responsibility to decide what
the priorities are, and if they decide that the priorities are not to
spend $50,000 where we want to spend it here, then perhaps it ought to
be taken up with the county, but not come to the Federal taxpayer again
and again and again for these dollars when the local officials have
turned them down for whatever reason.
I can go in my own State and say, the city I live in, they will not
appropriate money for the Little League field close to my home. I would
like there to be funds for that. So, go to the Federal taxpayer. I
could do that apparently. It would meet the criteria, but it is wrong.
We should not do that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
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 for the city of Banning, California, for renovations
to the city-owned pool.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this earmark limitation amendment would
prevent $500,000 from being spent on renovations to the Banning,
California, city-owned pool.

[[Page H3925]]

This $500,000 is part of nearly $12 million provided to the State of
California in HUD earmarks. Now, I live in the Southwest. I know the
desert can get awful hot, and there is nothing better than taking a
swim. But I do not know why we ought to give the Federal taxpayer a
bath every time somebody wants a swimming pool.
That being said, again here, I wonder what criteria we use when these
earmarks come forward. If we can say that swimming pools, city-owned
swimming pools are eligible for Federal funding, then what is not
eligible for Federal funding? Do the criteria mean anything in that
regard? Is anything open? Why not earmark the entire bill.
If we accept the premise, which we seem to accept in this House, that
we know better than the Federal bureaucrats on how to spend this money,
why not earmark the whole thing? I might hear agreement there.
That is what we seem to be doing. We keep going more and more and
more. In 1994, I think there were a total of fewer than 2,000 earmarks
on all appropriation bills. Last year there were over 10,000. The
dollar value keeps increasing.
So we simply have to go the other way. In 2006 the transportation
appropriation bill included $250,000 for the city of Banning,
California for city pool improvements. Similarly, the 2005
transportation bill included $250,000 for the city of Banning,
California for construction and renovation of the city pool.
So this is $500,000 tacked onto $250,000, tacked onto $250,000 for a
pool, that to my understanding, has not even been built yet.

{time} 1200

They are waiting for more funds to come from the Federal Government
apparently before they even build this pool. How does this happen? How
does the community pool receive a revenue stream out of the Federal
Treasury?
I think this is simply the wrong way to do business. We have got to
stop. What better place to stop than right here on this amendment and
say we are going to send a signal to the taxpayers that we are going to
do business differently?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, every one of these projects relative
to the gentleman's comments, must relate to the eligibility of the CDBG
program. Every single one. We don't waive the requirements.
In fact, to show how worthwhile we think these projects are, for the
very first time this year the committee is imposing a 40 percent match
for each of these projects. We think that each EDI is so meritorious
that with just a little bit of CDBG seed money, these organizations and
cities will be able to leverage other funds for the same goal. They do,
and it does work.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment as well. The
gentleman who presents the amendment has expressed in many ways his
commitment to reducing Federal spending across the board. There is not
any doubt that he and I disagree relative to the way we should go about
reducing the Federal budget and impacting the national debt.
For example, just last week we had an extensive debate regarding the
supplemental appropriations bill, which was designed to provide vitally
needed funds to fight the war on terror in the Middle East and, above
and beyond that, to provide critical funding for relief for those
people who are impacted by hurricanes in the gulf coast. The gentleman
felt that that spending within that package was unacceptable enough to
him that he voted against those efforts.
In contrast, when we attempted to weigh and measure carefully those
funding requirements, I thought that supplemental did a fabulous job. I
voted in favor of it. So we have a different approach relative to how
we would impact the Federal budget.
In this instance, we are talking about very, very small pieces of
money. The other involves billions of dollars, but they were critical
Federal responsibilities. The gentleman in this instance is addressing
by way of a couple of amendments a region in California that has faced
very, very explosive growth. The communities within the region are made
up of people who are largely older, senior citizen. They do not have an
industrial base.
There is, in one instance, a very interesting cooperative project
between the community involved, the city, a community college and
senior citizen organizations to make sure that there is a recreational
activity that will not only assist the schools' physical education
programs but also supplement the vital economic needs of that
community.
The gentleman has suggested that nothing has been done in the
appropriations process regarding reducing spending over these recent
years. Let me suggest the reality is much different than that. The
fiscal year 2007 House Agriculture appropriations bill includes $35
million less in Member projects than last year's bill.
The Military Quality of Life bill reduced Member projects by $40
million compared to last year. The current House Interior
appropriations bill reduced Member projects by $89 million.
We have brought about a small revolution in this last year in the
appropriations process. Every one of our bills came in under budget and
well ahead of time. Working with the other body, we were able to send
all of our conference reports to the President's desk for signature
without having an omnibus bill at the other end.
The gentleman, paying lip service to reducing the budget in this
amendment, reduces spending by something like .0007 percent. The
reality is that whatever money might be theoretically saved by his
amendment will go back into the pool and bureaucrats will spend the
money.
I believe that the President should and has the responsibility to
present the House with a budget. We, in turn, have a constitutional
responsibility to control spending. You do that by effective oversight
of every one of these programs.
Indeed, in this instance the gentleman seems to have much more
confidence in bureaucrats downtown than he has in the Members of the
House who do their work every day, day in and day out, year in and year
out, in our subcommittees.
Indeed, I strongly object to that style which would suggest a
Member's preconceived notion is better than the work of the House. I
urge, very strongly, to have the Members vote against these proposed
amendments that suggests that either one Member or indeed bureaucrats
can do the job better than the committee.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments. When the
gentleman says that this money will go back into the pool, I hope we
are not talking about another swimming pool here.
Let us remind ourselves what we are talking about here. Whether this
funding is being spent by a Federal bureaucrat, I would submit that if
they are saying that we ought to be spending money to offset the
spending of some swimming pool in Gilbert, Arizona in my district, that
would be wrong. A Federal bureaucrat, we ought to have oversight and
say you shouldn't do that. But that doesn't mean that we ought to do it
ourselves. I mean, it is tough for us to make a credible case for
oversight of the Federal agencies when we are spending money like this.
This is a swimming pool.
The notion that the criteria now has a 40 percent match that we have
to get the local folks to kick in money as well, boy, who wouldn't? Who
would not offset their budget? What local municipality would not jump
at the chance to pay only 80 cents on the dollar or 50 cents on the
dollar for a new project that they have, swimming pool or otherwise?
Where did this end? Where does this end? It is no better if it is a
Federal bureaucrat. But, boy, we look horrible if we say, hey, we spend
money better than Federal bureaucrats. We are going to spend it on a
swimming pool in Banning, California. Simply wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H3926]]

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
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 for the Bakersfield Beltway System, California.

point of order

Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment violates clause 3 of rule
XXI. It reduces obligation authority and associated outlays below the
levels provided in Public Law 109-59 in violation of rule XXI, clause
3.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member wishing to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule. The Chair has examined
clause 3 of rule XXI, which originally was adopted by the enactment of
section 8101(e) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
as an exercise of rulemaking power, which was amended by section 8004
of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in order to conform the rule to
the current law authorizing funds for highway and transit programs.
Clause 3, in part, reads as follows:
``It shall not be in order to consider a bill, joint resolution,
amendment or conference report, that would cause obligation limitations
to be below the level for any fiscal year set forth in section 8003 of
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy
for Users, as adjusted, for the highway category or the mass transit
category, as applicable.''
Clause 3 also states:
``For purposes of this clause, any obligation limitation relating to
surface transportation projects under section 1602 of the
Transportation Equity Act and section 1702 of the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users shall
be assumed to be administered on the basis of sound program management
practices that are consistent with past practices of the administering
agency permitting States to decide High Priority Project funding
authorities within State program allocations.''
The Chair will make certain findings concerning the language of the
rule and the provisions of the existing law.
First, clause 3 of rule XXI, identifying a ``floor'' below which a
proposition may not ``cause obligation limitations to be,'' points to
levels set forth in section 8003 of SAFETEA-LU.
Second, section 8003 of SAFETEA-LU, in setting forth levels of
obligation limitations, establishes aggregate, annual amounts.
Third, the assumption in clause 3 of rule XXI that obligation
limitations will be administered on the basis of past practice of the
administering agency is confined to projects under section 1602 of
TEA21 and section 1702 of SAFETEA-LU.
Fourth, the project in the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona is designated as a Project of National and Regional
Significance in section 1301 of SAFETEA-LU.
Fifth, the funding for projects in section 1301 of SAFETEA-LU are
part of the level of obligation limitations for fiscal year 2007
established in section 8003 of SAFETEA-LU.
From that review, and as asserted by this point of order, the Chair
finds that the point of order established in clause 3 of rule XXI,
together with the accompanying statutory scheme, were designed to
insulate certain projects specified in SAFETEA-LU from collateral
legislative change. Under that statutory scheme, the amount prescribed
for the instant project specified in section 1301 correlates directly
to, though it does not account entirely for, the level of obligations
set forth in section 8003, and the funding specified for that project
may not be redirected elsewhere in the program. Consequently, a measure
placing a restriction on that project would have a esponding effect on
the level of obligations.
The Chair therefore holds that the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona, by prohibiting funds in the pending bill for the
specified project, would, in the words of clause 3 of rule XXI, cause
an obligation limitation for fiscal year 2007 to be below the level set
forth in section 8003 of the act.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
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 for Xerox Area Road Improvements, Monroe County, New
York.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I won't speak for long on this. This is an
amendment that seeks to limit Monroe County in New York from spending
$1 million on Xerox Area Road improvements. This is one of 111 earmarks
New York received in this bill worth more than $46 million, the fourth
highest total of all States.
These earmarks include more than $1.6 million in transportation
earmarks in this appropriations bill.
Xerox is a Fortune 500 Company. It is a $15.7 billion global
enterprise and a valued employer to Monroe County, New York. The Xerox
area they are speaking of is made up of 47 major buildings, 5.5 million
square feet. I simply don't know why the Federal Government, Federal
taxpayers, are being asked to essentially pave their driveway.
Monroe County has already offered many incentives to Xerox, including
a $500,000 loan for new equipment, $100,000 training grant from Empire
State Development and incentives through the County of Monroe
Industrial Development Agency.

{time} 1215

Let me just say how pernicious this becomes when the Federal
Government weighs in on behalf of local governments who are seeking to
incentivize private companies to locate their facility there. You are
inevitably picking winners and losers.
If Xerox is not going to locate their new facilities or more
facilities or more employees in Monroe County, they are going to do it
elsewhere, in another part of the country, and it is likely that we may
have to fund job training or other in that other area where it is
moving from.
At what point do we say this is not our business? The Federal
Government's business is not to weigh in and aid one local government
at the expense of another. That is essentially what we are doing here.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Michigan rise?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. To oppose the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The Transportation, Community and System Preservation program is
authorized to fund a wide variety of transportation projects that
improve the efficiency of the transportation system in the U.S., reduce
the impact of transportation on the environment, and other purposes.
The purpose of this project, and soon I will yield to Mr. Walsh, in
question is to rehabilitate several roads in Monroe County, New York to
bring them up to acceptable standards and improve safety. These are
eligible activities for the program, as defined in law.

[[Page H3927]]

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding me time and for including this appropriation in his bill.
Clearly, the Constitution provides the power of the purse to the
House, and clearly, as elected representatives of the people of New
York or Arizona or Michigan, we need to help establish priorities for
the spending. The Founding Fathers put that power in our hands. We need
to exercise it wisely.
Our committee, under the leadership of Chairman Lewis, has done a
great deal to reduce Federal spending. In fact, nondefense
discretionary spending has led us to today in terms of reducing
spending, and so great credit should be given to the chairman and to
the Appropriations Committee.
This expenditure is very important to New York State. We are involved
in a competition not just with other States but with other countries
around the globe, and across the country we have seen great American
jobs lost to global competition where other countries and those
communities are supporting those business' moves to those places. We
have seen it happen with UTC, with General Electric, with Kodak, and
certainly here with Xerox.
We are working with local municipalities, the town of Webster, the
County of Monroe, the State of New York, to incentivize, to try to
retain those jobs in upstate New York.
Now, Xerox is a major player. They are investing tens of millions of
dollars in the location to build a new building, to put in new
processes. Upwards of $50 million is their investment. What we are
doing is providing one-fourth of the public investment: one-fourth
Federal, a portion local, a portion county, and a portion State, to
make the improvements that will facilitate the construction of this
facility and the access and egress for the employee. Is that a lot to
ask?
I would ask my colleague and friend from Arizona, whose State has
benefited from hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars, of
Federal dollars support, taxpayer support, my constituents in New York
that helped to build all the water projects across the West, that
enabled people to live in otherwise very inhospitable places. I
understand they now have designs on the water from the Great Lakes
because they cannot sustain the populations in the desert where they
have chosen to live. New York taxpayers and Michigan taxpayers and
California taxpayers, New Jersey taxpayers, have helped to subsidize
the livelihoods of the farmers of Arizona. We do not begrudge them
that. We think it is great.
The Salt Road project, other water projects across the southwest are
providing a livelihood, the electricity, the air conditioning for the
people that Mr. Flake represents here. We have provided those moneys
other the years without any fight, without any begrudging of that. It
is important.
We need to work together as a Nation to strengthen our industry, to
strengthen our quality of life, and I would only ask the gentleman to
please consider this process that he has brought before us today. This
$1 million will leverage tens of millions of private sector investment,
will enable hundreds of people to gain their livelihoods in upstate New
York, to compete in the globally competitive world and allow us to
maintain our tax base and our quality of life.
We support the quality of life for people of Arizona. We would ask no
less from the gentleman for the people of New York.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman mentions that he does not begrudge those in Arizona
seeking water subsidies, for example. I do. I hope the gentleman will
join me in voting against the extension of the next farm bill, which
gives massive subsidies to cotton farmers in Arizona. They should not
have those subsidies. They should not have them anywhere.
So I simply think we have got to start somewhere, and when we say we
are going to incentivize and we are going to join with local
governments in incentivizing businesses to come, again I have to ask
the question. I would love some guidance from the chairman of the
committee on what would happen if the city of Newark, New Jersey, for
example, said we are trying to lure Xerox to come here and we would
like you to help. How does the committee make the decision? Do you look
at seniority of the Member who is asking? Do you look at something
else? What criteria are then used? When does the Federal Government
stop weighing in and picking winners and losers?
Again, if they are relocating facilities, they are relocating from
somewhere else. How do we jump in and say we are going to do it here
and not elsewhere?
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
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 by the city of Weirton, West Virginia, for planning
and design, construction, renovation, and build out of
facilities.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment would limit the city of Weirton, West Virginia from
spending $100,000 on a facility. Now, I am not being deliberately vague
here. This is all we know. This is all we know about this earmark.
Again, city of Weirton, West Virginia, we are spending $100,000 on a
facility. I would ask for guidance from the committee as to what that
facility is, or the author of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the floor this afternoon about
the needs of work in West Virginia in this particular appropriation. If
there is any town in our Nation that is deserving of economic
development dollars from this appropriation bill, it is Weirton, West
Virginia.
Weirton is a steel town. Growing up around a nearby steel mill
started in 1909, the mill and the town grew quickly, and at its peak,
the mill employed about 14,000 employees. However, downturns in the
steel industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s reduced the number of
employees to approximately 7,000; and today, as a result of our
Nation's trade policies that are very injurious to basic industry
America and, in particular, our steel towns across the Nation, today
the number of employees at Weirton Steel hovers around 1,250, down from
that 14,000 number several years ago.
The West Virginia congressional delegation, in cooperation with the
Independent Steelworkers Union, we fight every day for policies that
favor Weirton's hardworking steelworkers and their families.
Well, despite our best efforts, Mr. Chairman, the loss of steel jobs
has resulted in some of the highest unemployment rates in my State.
Brook County and Hancock County have unemployment rates approaching 7.6
and 8.6 percent.
This grant combats those unemployment rates. As requested by the city
of Weirton, these funds, coupled with other funds like CDBG dollars,
generally would be used to develop a meaningful regional
competitiveness plan. The language in the bill is that the funding is
for planning and design, perhaps construction, perhaps renovation, we
would hope; but specifically the city wants to use these dollars to
evaluate regional economic and business trends and hone in on specific
sectors that have the strongest growth potential within Hancock and
Brook

[[Page H3928]]

County. They are looking for economic diversification as an alternative
to the condition that they are experiencing.
For example, as an industrial town, Weirton and the surrounding area
have a number of brownfield properties. These properties sit idle, but
if properly redeveloped and integrated into a sound economic
development effort, strategically planned, they could be home to new
businesses and could generate high-paying job opportunities for those
unemployed constituents.
Examples of those businesses might be a period in this area that
would include clean coal technology industry, medical device
manufacturing, but moving from brownfields to a thriving economic
sector takes careful planning, which is what this funding provides.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I would ask again, we do not know, is it a facility? Is it not
a facility? I guess it is planning for perhaps a facility, maybe not.
Are we simply subsidizing the city of Weirton, West Virginia? Are we in
the practice of subsidizing all cities who are having trouble with
their budget? Where do we pick and choose?
Again, we are tasked with providing oversight. How do we provide
oversight if we do not even know if we are funding a facility or not?
Let me just give a couple of other examples in this bill, ones that I
am not highlighting today. Other examples of vague earmarks, $250,000
to the Salvation Army Family Enrichment Center in Anchorage, Alaska,
for the construction of a ``blank.'' The sentence was not completed;
$250,000 to the city of Marathon, Florida for the construction of a
facility. Again, is it a facility? It may or may not be. We do not
know. How can we offer oversight in that case?
This is what it says: $400,000 to the South Valley Community Dental
in Albuquerque for the construction of a new, again, ``blank.'' The
sentence was not completed; $200,000 in transportation funds for Cedar
Bluff, Alabama, no further description; $550,000 to Ed Roberts Campus,
Berkeley, California. No other description. What is the money for? We
have no idea.
We are, in the Congress, tasked with oversight. This is all we are
given from the committee; $750,000 to the city of Temple, Texas for the
acquisition and renovation of a facility. There is that dreaded
``facility'' again. Keeps popping up. We do not know what kind of
facility. Yet we are asked to fund it.
My staff went so far as to send an e-mail to the committee staff
requesting help in determining the intended use of appropriated funds
in some of the particularly cryptic line items. We did not receive
anything back. I can understand that. There was a lot going on this
past weekend. There were 1,500 earmarks added Wednesday of last week.
It is tough to get around to deciding what they are, but I would submit
that if we cannot, we should not bring them to the floor and ask
Members to vote on them, just to vote on appropriating money for
``facility'' when it may or may not be a facility.
Mr. Chairman, I retain the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I had the impression that the gentleman from Arizona is now switching
off the issue that we are talking on and raised a whole bunch of others
to try to create some sort of a category. I want to go back to this
particular one.
No State in our great country has over the past at least two
generations, and probably more than that, suffered greater economic
distress and greater job loss than West Virginia. Thousands and
thousands of families have migrated to other States, to West Virginia's
great loss and to the gain of those other States.
Now, Weirton, West Virginia is one of those places that has been
right on the point of the sphere of this economic distress and job
loss. As the gentleman from West Virginia pointed out, it has had
serious losses of jobs in the steel industry, and its population has
declined precipitously. Precipitously.
It is very difficult to bring back distressed communities in
situations like that, and it is a hard effort to do the planning and to
figure out what are the projects that are the greatest chance of
success to bring back jobs.

{time} 1230

And there can be no greater purpose, it seems to me under the
Economic Development Initiative under HUD, than to provide help in
communities exactly like that. This project, because of the breadth of
it and the need in the area, meets all the criteria that HUD has set,
and it is totally consistent with the purposes of the Economic
Development Initiative program under HUD.
So I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that has been offered
by the gentleman, however well intentioned it may be. I urge a ``no''
vote on the amendment and hope that that will prevail.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Bonilla).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) is recognized
for such time as he may consume.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) will have to remain on
his feet.
Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. It was
once said that one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same
thing over and over again and somehow expecting a different result.
That is what we are seeing here with these amendments that are being
presented, and I would say to any Member who would attempt such tactics
that there is a demonstration of a lack of consideration for all of the
hard work that has gone into putting these bills together.
Questions have been raised by the author of this amendment about the
specificity of where some of the money is going on some of these line
items that are being discussed, and therein lies an illustration of the
problem that exists here. The grunt work in the trenches that is done
day in and day out by Members of the subcommittee, by the good
professional staff goes back sometimes many weeks and months. And when
these kinds of amendments are brought up, without any knowledge that is
even acknowledged by the author of the amendment, it is a frivolous
waste of time for Members on both sides of the aisle.
So I would ask any Member who would operate using this tactic to take
that into consideration. It is like a football team that takes the
field every week with the same team and winds up losing 50-0. And some
might say that the team that takes the kick in the tail every week,
well, they have good heart because they want to come back again and
fight another day. But at some point you have to measure what that
person's brain is all about as well and what kind of consideration is
shown to those who work hard in the trenches every day for the teams
and to those ``fans'' or constituents that are also looking at what we
are doing.
So I would ask again that any Member who is using these tactics that
it is a great thing to come and present an amendment. Some Members
offer amendments on a regular basis that have a true conviction about
what they are trying to accomplish, and then they realize that they are
not going to accomplish much and they turn around and work on something
else.
Wise up, I would say to anyone proposing these kinds of amendments.
Again, it is an attempt to do something over and over again and somehow
expecting a different result.
I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I think I am the best intentioned multiple-
amendment loser in the House these days, I guess. I keep being told I
am well intentioned, but these aren't going anywhere.
Let me just say again. As I mentioned last week or a couple of weeks
ago, this is the only opportunity we have. This is it. If we are going
to offer any oversight, this is it. And when we get amendments that say
for a facility, and let me just say that my staff e-mailed the
committee last Friday and said, please, can you give us further
explanations so that the authors of these amendments can come to the
floor and better defend them? Please let us know what this is. We
didn't get anything back from the committee. Nothing. That was 4 or 5
days ago.
Now, I understand it is a difficult thing, but maybe the committee
ought to think that maybe 1,500 earmarks in

[[Page H3929]]

the manager's amendment might give rise to a little suspicion that we
can't police this very well; that when we are spending money on
swimming pools and facilities that we don't even know whether it is a
real facility or not, that we have overstepped our bounds.
I am not going to apologize for standing up and offering 12
amendments, 12 out of 1,500 that we could choose. There is nothing
wrong with that. In fact, we ought to be doing it more often. So I
would ask for the indulgence of the Members. This process, this is the
only opportunity we have. We found out about the amendments last
Wednesday. We go to the committee and attempt to look at them. We are
told we can only look in the committee at one binder, right there. We
can't even take it back to our office to study these amendments. Not
until Friday did we get a copy. As soon as we did, we sent an e-mail
back saying please give further explanation on these amendments. We
heard nothing back.
What else are we to do? I am asking. What else are we to do?
I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
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 by the city of Yucaupa, California, for the design
and construction of a multipurpose athletic facility at
Crafton Hills College.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to limit the City of
Yucaipa, California, and I think it was misspelled in the manager's
amendment that this is from, from spending $500,000 on an athletic
facility at Crafton Hills College. Funding for a California community
college project should be under the jurisdiction of the State, not for
Congress.
This $500,000 is part of nearly $12 million provided to the State of
California in HUD earmarks, which is part of $87 million in total
earmark funds included. This is the highest amount of any State in the
bill.
You would expect that. California is a big State. But, still, when we
are spending HUD monies on athletic facilities at community colleges, I
would submit something is wrong. We should not be doing this.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentleman claims this money should remain apparently in the hands
of the bureaucrats downtown, and I would ask him what do bureaucrats
know about economic development or constituent needs in Arizona or
Detroit or Yucaipa, California? The gentleman from Yucaipa, California,
has already spoken eloquently on the needs of the constituents in the
City of Yucaipa.
I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, again, I do not know what else to say on
this one. I think we have spent enough time on it. This is money for an
athletic facility, a HUD grant for an athletic facility in Yucaipa,
California. Simply, why we are spending money on that I don't know.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
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 for the Agri-Center Interchange, Tulare, California.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would limit the Strand
Theater Arts Center from spending $250,000 for conversion of a theater
in Plattsburgh, New York, into a performing arts center.
I simply have trouble again understanding why the Federal Government
should pay $250,000 to renovate a theater in Plattsburgh, New York.
This is not the only frivolous earmark included in the HUD grants in
this bill. Others include $100,000 for the Village of Jamestown, Ohio,
for building renovations to the Jamestown Opera House.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, if I may, either the Clerk designated the
wrong amendment or the gentleman is on the wrong script.
Mr. FLAKE. I apologize. We will send down the one we intend to do.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to withdraw
the amendment?
Mr. FLAKE. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the new amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
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 by the Strand Theater Arts Center in Plattsburgh, New
York, to convert the Strand Theater into a performing arts
center.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair and the Members for their indulgence,
and I apologize to the Member from New York.
As I mentioned here, this is funding for the Strand Theater Arts
Center, $250,000 for the conversion of the theater in Plattsburgh, New
York, to a performing arts center. There are other earmarks in the bill
of this type: $100,000 for the Village of Jamestown, Ohio, for building
renovations to the Jamestown Opera House; $100,000 to the Metropolitan
Theatre Foundation in Morgantown, West Virginia, for the construction,
renovation, and buildout of facilities; $100,000 to the Houston Zoo in
Houston, Texas, for the construction of the Outdoor Life Science
Learning Center.
It goes on and on and on and on. Again, you have to say, where do we
stop? Where do we say this is not the role of the Federal Government?
Where do we say local government knows best.
We say that we know better than Federal officials and bureaucrats
over in the Department of Transportation or elsewhere where to spend
money, then it stands to reason that those at the local level know a
lot better than we do about what to spend money on. Sometimes in these
cases these are facilities that they have decided specifically not to
fund, yet we are going to go ahead and fund them.
That may or may not be the case in this case. But when we are saying
we know best, we are going to decide

[[Page H3930]]

where these monies are going, whether or not it is leveraging local
funds, we simply can't justify it to the Federal taxpayer.
We need to remind people again and again we have a deficit this year
of somewhere between $300 billion and $500 billion, depending on how
you count and what you count. We have a Federal debt approaching $8
trillion, and yet we are spending money to renovate theaters in small
towns across the country.
Where do we say we have done enough? This ought to be done at the
local level or it shouldn't be done at all. But how can we justify
using taxpayer money at the Federal level for projects like this?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. McHugh).
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman, and,
first of all, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say that I wish the record
to show I am not only willingly here, I am eagerly here in support of
this program.
I know one of the legitimate concerns and criticisms about the
process of so-called earmarking has been that where funds are being
sought too often they are done anonymously. That is not the case here.
I am proud to have penned my name to it, and it is also not the case in
any project I have ever sought. I believe it is in the taxpayers'
interest to have transparency, and I am proud to be associated with
this project. It is the right thing to do.
I am also happy to try to help the gentleman answer some of the
questions that he asked. I have to be frank, I am more than a little
confused by the assertion on these kinds of motions to strike, and this
one in particular, that somehow there is no local participation. In
fact, the locals have placed over $1 million in a very small community
in support of this. There will be more to follow. Also, under EDI, as I
understand the process, a 40 percent local match is required.
And I would note as well that this is an authorized program. The
gentleman may have a concern about the authorized program, but this has
been an effort that has culminated over more than 12 months to try to
qualify under the EDI accounts, which were first authorized back in
1974 under section 108 of the Community and Housing Development Act. So
authorization is not the issue.
This is a program that has had congressional votes and presidential
signatures over the years, and it has evolved into the current form.
This project finds itself on the floor today in virtually every other
way over the past 5 years that each and every EDI program has come
before us.

{time} 1245

It does not find itself on the floor at this moment by a process of
whim or political leverage or whatever other nefarious means the
gentleman lies behind it. It is quite the opposite.
I think it is important to note this project was rejected under the
EDI process just a year ago. It could not demonstrate that it met the
qualifications, that it met the requirements under that program. And
there are a number of them. You have to provide proof of resulting job
creation. Your funding is restricted so you can have no personnel
expenses. You cannot pay for program operations. You cannot reimburse
expenses at any level, including debt service.
For more than the past year local citizens who have worked so hard on
this initiative have hired professional consultants, have conducted a
menu of analysis and feasibility studies, all of it part of the public
record and all of it designed to meet the requirements and the
initiatives under the EDI account.
I have to say the folks who have put forward that effort and worked
so hard would be very, very surprised to hear the gentleman's concern.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the
Strand Performing Arts Center, not because it is in my congressional
district, because it is not; but because I recognize it as an important
part of economic development in the north country, a part of the State
of New York that I partially represent.
Let me suggest that I play a little off of my colleague, Mr. McHugh's
comments and the notion that what I would suggest the gentleman from
Arizona do is direct his angst and his efforts toward the authorizing
processes, the processes that created the criteria that many of these
projects have had to compete within for many of these years. Maybe that
is where the reforms and the oversight would be best directed, because
by playing by the rules, the people of the north country have an
expectation here that they are going to improve their economic climate,
a place that is incredibly distressed, that is in the national
interest, I believe, to help assist, and that will be able to improve
the quality of life.
Things like being able to recruit good doctors to come to work at the
Champlain Valley Physician's Hospital, a place that endeavors to
develop a cardiological unit that will provide the opportunity for the
people of the north country to not have to drive or relocate their
families hundreds of miles away. This adds to the quality of life and
the recruitment potential.
I also want to make a brief comment about the comments by Mr. Walsh
and associate myself with them. New York State is a donor State. We
send tens of billions of dollars every year in Federal tax dollars. New
York State taxpayers send to the Federal Government more than they
receive in return. A $250,000 earmark for the Strand Theater Arts
Center which will help with the economic development in a depressed
area is a concern for all of the people of New York, and, I believe,
all the people of this Nation.
I think this is an appropriate use of Federal dollars. I think if the
gentleman is sincere about his efforts to provide the proper oversight,
he ought to direct them towards where they ought to be properly
directed, and that is where the rules are made up for it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate this debate. As I have said before, this is the only
forum we have to try to exercise a little fiscal discipline over this
process.
A few speakers prior mentioned it is the definition of insanity to
stand up, do the same thing, and expect you are going to get a
different result. I don't know that I will ever get a different result
here. I understand this process. I understand log rolling. I understand
what this is about. But somebody has to stand up at some time.
I think the definition of insanity is assuming that the taxpayers are
buying this, that they believe this is a good use of Federal taxpayer
dollars. I think they see it for what it is. I simply think you have to
stand up at some point and say enough is enough. That is what we are
doing here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona 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 to the Internal
Revenue Service by this Act may be used to develop or provide
taxpayers with free individual income tax electronic
preparation and filing products or services other than
through the Free File program and the Internal Revenue
Service's Taxpayer Assistance Centers, Tax Counseling for the
Elderly, and the volunteer income tax assistance programs. In
addition, no such funds may be used to implement direct
interactive online electronic individual income tax
preparation or filing services or products, or a return-free
system as described in section 2004

[[Page H3931]]

of the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act
of 1998.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
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 against the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is relatively simple. It says that none of
the funds in this bill will be made available for an income tax
electronic preparation and filing system at the IRS, being prepared by
the IRS.
Now this is a stopgap measure for just 1 year until we thoroughly
review before the authorizing committee acts upon this. The IRS is
attempting to do a return-free tax system where they would write the
software and administer the software so people could have their taxes
prepared by the IRS.
They first tried to do this in 1998. They announced it during their
annual software developers conference. We tried to stop it. Congress
was successful. They did not move forward with it.
In 2000, once again, they tried to propose a tax software business
inside the IRS. Congress protested and the IRS backed off.
In 2001, they tried a different avenue through the U.S. Postal
Service. Again, Congress weighed in and the plans were again dropped.
In 2002, the IRS used its e-government project and EZ tax filing
system. Once again the government backed off after Congress intervened.
In 2004 and 2005, they tried through the return-free tax filing
system. We intervened and once again they backed down. Last year
Chairman Knollenberg, along with myself and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Doolittle) had a colloquy clarifying the House's
intention to stop the IRS going into the tax preparation business.
The reason why we are opposing this is stated very well by Mr.
Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. He
believes that the prohibition should be supported. He says, number one,
that the current Treasury Secretary, the IRS Commissioner, as well as
President Clinton's last IRS Commissioner, are on record of opposing
such a plan, and for very good reasons.
I am going to quote Mr. Alford. He said, ``It is extremely difficult
to fathom that a government agency whose primary responsibility is tax
collection and tax compliance would not be biased against helping the
individual taxpayer when it comes to maximizing deductions. The IRS and
State tax collectors are under constant pressure from lawmakers to
maximize revenue intake.'' He said that they would likely do everything
legally possible to minimize deductions on those tax returns if they
prepared them.
Following what Mr. Alford said, those that would be impacted most are
minorities because they are usually single, one-job, wage-only type
taxpayers that use the 1040 EZ form. They would be the ones at greatest
risk. It is not the wealthier Americans who spend money to have their
taxes prepared by an expert, but it would be more likely that the IRS
would minimize the deductions of lower income earners.
Also, Mr. Chairman, it is not really apparent how much this system
would cost. The IRS says just to design the system would cost $300
million, and administering, keeping upgrades and maintaining the
software is not included in that. And the private sector already has
those products. Software is available. I use Tax Cut software to
prepare my own taxes.
This is where the government is trying to compete with the private
sector. I think it is inefficient. I think that it is difficult for us
to believe that they would try to maximize deductions for taxpayers,
especially those in lower income levels and those that are minorities.
Number five, lastly, is polling. The Wall Street Journal recently in
an on online poll of 3,000 respondents, 70 percent of them said we
should oppose the IRS getting into the business of preparing individual
tax returns.
Mr. Chairman, I realize that this would be subject to a point of
order under clause 5 because of the way our House rules are written.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
This amendment is similar to H.R. 5114, the Tax Return Choice Act,
which I'm a sponsor of and which enjoys over 100 bipartisan cosponsors.
This amendment should not be controversial, and I also think it
should have the strong support of the Ways & Means Committee.
This amendment simply prevents the IRS from creating its own
electronic tax preparation and filing service, or a ``Return-Free'' tax
system, without first coming to Congress and the Ways & Means Committee
to present and explain their plans in public and receive congressional
authorization for their program.
Rather than infringing on the Committee's jurisdiction--as the
Chairman has indicated--this amendment protects the Committee's
oversight authority. Our income tax system is highly complicated and
burdensome for taxpayers and Congress should work to streamline and
simplify the tax code. The solution to these problems is not to empower
the IRS to assume an intrusive and complicated role as income tax
preparer.
This amendment simply ensures that if the IRS seeks to assume such a
role, it must do so with the prior authorization of Congress. A Return-
Free tax system would represent a tremendous change in our system of
tax collection. Under such a system, the IRS would present taxpayers
with a bill which they would have to either challenge or pay. I don't
believe the IRS should be in the business of preparing tax returns, and
I'm convinced that such a system has dangerous and unavoidable
conflicts of interest with the IRS taking control of tax preparation,
auditing, and enforcement.
For the first time in the history of our income tax system, the
principle of voluntary compliance by U.S. taxpayers would be turned on
its head and the federal government would be charged with assessing
taxes directly. This structure poses serious implications for
taxpayers' rights, privacy and security. Some disagree and think the
IRS should be in the business of tax preparation. I think it's
inappropriate for this system to be implemented without action by
Congress. I don't . . . and I think it is essential that Congress
establish the rules if there is to be such a system.
There are too many questions and concerns about a Return-Free system
to allow it to move forward without the scrutiny and approval of
Congress. This amendment makes certain that the appropriate
deliberation takes place.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my
disappointment that section 206 and this amendment will not be a part
of the FY07 Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development
Appropriations bill.
Section 206 and Mr. Tiahrt's amendment would have stopped the IRS
from spending taxpayer dollars to develop a return-free tax filing
system or a direct online interactive tax filing system or web portal.
Having the IRS prepare our taxes is a little like having fox guard
the hen house, isn't it? This is a bad idea from start to finish.
Right now there is no way to prevent the IRS from implementing a
return-free tax filing system or a direct online web portal.
A return-free tax filing system would burden small businesses, and
raises serious privacy and data security concerns.
Such a system would unfairly target low income taxpayers who would
not have the resources to fight a bill from the IRS saying they owe
money. They would be forced to accept what the IRS sent them, and that
outcome is exactly what governments who want these systems expect.
Their overall goal is to squeeze additional revenue from people who
already pay their fair share of taxes.
In my home state of California, where they have been unsuccessfully
trying to implement such a system, a recent poll showed that 67 percent
of Californians say they do not want the government to do their taxes.
The Tiahrt amendment would have prevented all of that, and I am
disappointed it will not be a part of this bill.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment not because I believe it is necessary, but because it is
under a point of order; but will carry on the battle to make sure that
the IRS does not get into the business of competing with the private
sector and taking advantage of those in lower income levels.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

June 14, 2006--On Page H 3931 under: Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment not because I believe
it is necessary, but because it is under a point of order; but
will carry on the battle to make sure that the IRS does not get
into the business of competing with the private sector and taking
advantage of those in lower income levels. The following appeared:
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment not
because I believe it is necessary, but because it is under a point
of order; but will carry on the battle to make sure that the IRS
does not get into the business of competing with the private
sector and taking advantage of those in lower income levels.

The online version should be corrected to read: Mr. TIAHRT. Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment not
because I believe it is necessary, but because it is under a point
of order; but will carry on the battle to make sure that the IRS
does not get into the business of competing with the private
sector and taking advantage of those in lower income levels.

========================= END NOTE =========================

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking
member for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I planned to offer an amendment to H.R. 5576 to limit
the

[[Page H3932]]

use of funds within the act to prevent the contracting out of jobs of
the postal police officers.
Based on a security assessment that predates either the anthrax
attacks of 2001 or 9/11, the Postal Service is proceeding with an ill-
conceived plan to decrease the number of professional law enforcement
personnel at a number of postal facilities nationwide. In lieu of
offering an amendment, the Chairman of Government Reform has agreed to
write a joint letter to the Postmaster General outlining our concerns
regarding the contracting out of the postal police officers.
Further, the letter will ask the Postal Service to base its security
decisions on more recent assessments and to put on hold any plans for
cuts or redeployments until updated threat assessments are complete.
Nearly 900 men and women serve as postal police officers. Postal
police are fully trained, uniformed law enforcement personnel who have
full arrest authority. They ensure a safe environment at postal
facilities located in major metropolitan areas that are considered high
risk. They are the first responders on the scene of any crime that
occurs at postal facilities.
Since 9/11, the Federal Government has moved aggressively to replace
contract security personnel with full-time Federal employees to
appropriately address terrorist threats. Seeking to protect America
from terrorist threats by keeping in-house highly trained law
enforcement personnel is sound policy, especially given that the Postal
Service is an attractive target for a terrorist attack and given the
recent anthrax attacks it endured.
I feel strongly that contracting out the Postal Service police
officers with private sector personnel with the training or arrest
authority or ability to carry weapons puts constituents, including
postal employees and patrons of postal facilities to move in the
opposite direction as the war on terror continues.
In short, I believe that the Postal Service's plan is pennywise and
pound foolish. I want to thank the ranking member of the Transportation
Subcommittee for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform for his time and
commitment to keeping the highest level of security at postal
facilities and helping to ensure the safety and security of not only
all of the postal facilities and its employees but the American public
and its mail at large.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
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 eliminate, consolidate, co-locate, or plan for the
consolidation or co-location of a Terminal Radar Approach
Control (TRACON).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today with other colleagues to offer an
amendment prohibiting the FAA from eliminating, consolidating,
colocating or planning to consolidate or colocate any terminal radar
control centers which are referred to as TRACONs.
The TRACON system guides planes within a 40-mile radius of the
airport on their takeoffs and final approaches.

{time} 1300

In an effort to save money, the FAA has embarked on an ambitious
consolidation and collocation plan which will significantly limit our
air traffic capacities in the future.
The FAA's current consolidation proposal seeks to eliminate 14 of 24
TRACONs in 9 States across the United States. In some instances, entire
States will be left without any approach radar system within their
borders. In other instances, consolidation runs the risk of placing
undue stress on nearby TRACONs already having to deal with larger
airspaces and staffing shortfalls.
For example, under the FAA's plan, the TRACON in Boise, Idaho, will
be consolidated into a TRACON in Salt Lake City, Utah. This will leave
the entire State of Idaho with no TRACON at all, and controllers in
Utah will be directing approaching aircraft into Idaho airports, well
over 300 miles away.
In Florida, the FAA is planning to consolidate the TRACONs of Miami
International, Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood International, and Palm Beach
International airports, all within a Federal high risk urban area, into
one TRACON.
Once this plan is implemented, if a terrorist attack or a natural
disaster were to strike the Miami TRACON, then all three major
international airports would lose their approach radar system.
Controllers in Jacksonville, which is more than 350 miles away, would
be where they would be controlled.
Finally, the southern California TRACON, the busiest in the country,
reported 12 close calls between January and May 31 of this year. This
total is up from only seven close calls during the same period last
year.
Just imagine if southern California controllers already operating in
a high risk urban area and facing staffing shortfalls have to direct
their daily workload of more than 6,000 flights and those flights in a
nearby region.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a question of whether or not consolidation
can logistically be done. It can be done and it is being done. On the
contrary, this is a question of what should Congress be willing to risk
for consolidation to occur?
The FAA's consolidation of TRACONs runs the grave risk of leaving our
air traffic system vulnerable during critical times.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to my colleague from
Idaho, Representative Otter.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. OTTER. In my 1 minute, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a
couple of points that were already touched on by Mr. Hastings, but are
awfully important to the whole idea of the consolidation of TRACON.
First off, the FAA has furnished us with rules on cost savings which
are just totally unrealistic.
Number two, in the Boise airport to which Mr. Hastings referred we
have not only general aviation, commercial aviation and the National
Guard control out of the Boise tower, but we also have the National
Interagency Fire Center, which attacks the wildfires on BLM and Forest
Service ground all over the West.
And finally, I would say this is such a bad idea, but it would be a
terrorist dream. To consolidate all of our air traffic control into one
center would be a tremendous target for those folks.
And so, with that, Mr. Chairman, once again I thank Mr. Hastings for
his leadership on this and for the time. And I would like to offer
letters from the Governor, from the National Guard Bureau and also from
other interested parties for the record.
Mr. Chairman, in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Hastings,
the FAA has embarked on a plan to collocate TRACON--radar--facilities
from airports around the United States.
My colleagues from Idaho and I have had a number of contacts and
meeting with FAA on this issue--and still, there are few answers and
lots of concerns about the proposed move of the only TRACON located in
Idaho--Boise Airport--to collocate facilities at Salt Lake City.
There are lots of reasons I could share about why this move is of
concern to my constituents and I: redundancy of TRACON facilities in
the vast Intermountain West, dramatic growth in the region, air space
flexibility for our biggest airport, which also serves as the home to
Idaho's active Air National Guard as well as the National Interagency
Fire Center, which serves the whole West.
But there are general concerns that I think speak to why it is
important to support the amendment offered by Mr. Hastings:
Poor cost analysis--limited savings: The FAA has only been able to
show negligible savings with the proposed collocation. After two
meetings and repeated requests for detailed cost information--to
include short-term expenses and savings, as well as long-term projected
costs, etc.

[[Page H3933]]

On April 27, my delegation colleagues and I met with Administrator
Blakey, at which time a rudimentary cost savings analysis was provided,
claiming only $2.47 million in savings over 25 years--less than
$100,000 per year.
More importantly, by the FAA's own admission, this ``analysis'' does
not take into account all personnel costs, such as the need to hire
additional controllers due to loss of flexible scheduling, dual
training and other efficiencies currently used at the Boise tower, as
well as other potential cost increases.
Therefore, the planned move will likely result in greater costs over
that 25-year period.
Poor Planning: It appears that the FAA's ``alternatives analysis''
being conducted on TRACON collocation does not have a long-range plan
or vision.
There is no plan on how TRACON facilities will be collocated and/or
consolidated around the Northwest--let alone across the country--as
they look to maximize use of their new STARS radar system. At least
none has been communicated by the FAA when questions have been raised
at meetings.
The process, as presented by FAA staff, appears to be based solely on
those projects that are currently working on getting funding or those
that have funding earmarked and are ready to go to construction.
In the case of Boise Airport, a much needed new air traffic control
tower project has been delayed or benched after more than $16 million
in earmarks have been worked on over the past 3 years by my Idaho
colleagues and me.
This setback will negatively impact the economic development
opportunities, security and safety concerns we have expressed to the
House and Senate Appropriators in support of funding for this project.
Colleagues, we aren't talking about decreasing the size of government
or lowering our costs here. Until FAA can articulate real cost savings
and a national strategy for TRACON collocation and consolidation, we
ought not go down this path any further. I urge your support for the
Hastings/Wexler/Shaw/Foley Amendment.

Military Division,

State of Idaho,

Boise, ID, January 27, 2006.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: Thank you for all your efforts on
behalf of the Idaho National Guard. I know you are aware of a
recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposal to
remote the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) at Boise
Air Terminal to Salt Lake International. I would like to
voice the Idaho National Guard's strong objection to this
proposal.
Aircrews from the Air and Army National Guard operate here
on a daily basis and fly thousands of sorties each year. They
are experienced at getting into and out of the airport
traffic area. Controllers also gain a familiarity with an
area and become extremely adept at controlling traffic within
that area. The familiarity controllers have of our local area
and their knowledge of our local weather phenomena allows
them to provide expedited services that will not be feasible
with a controller located in Salt Lake. I know of many
occasions when their knowledge of the area and its weather
patterns has resulted in the safe recovery of our guard
airplanes and helicopters as well aircraft from Mountain Home
AFB. I am also concerned that this proposed change may
restrict our use of the short field approach and landing
strip and that its use may be denied when other aircraft are
operating on the main runways, significantly limiting our
training opportunities. I am doubtful controllers located at
Salt Lake will ever gain the familiarity that would allow
them to provide the same exceptional service we currently
enjoy.
Sir, of utmost concern to me is the margin of safety that
will not be possible with a controller in Salt Lake. Whether
the separation is between participating traffic and our C-
130's operating on the short field, fire fighting aircraft
operations or our helicopter operations, we enjoy a
relationship with the TRACON that allows us to operate our
military aircraft with civilian traffic simultaneously in a
safe, expeditious environment. We cannot accept anything
less.
Finally, thanks to your great efforts, Boise will complete
a new control tower within the next few years. This great
addition to the airport combined with the National Guard's
efforts to relocate its munitions storage area will allow for
a significant growth opportunity at the airport. Attracting
major flying operations in the future will depend on the
ability of those aircraft to smoothly transition into and out
of the airport. To remote the TRACON to Salt Lake will in all
likelihood slow down the traffic flow, thus increasing
operating costs and making Boise a less attractive location
in which to operate.
Thank you for your continued support of the National Guard
and the Boise Air Terminal. If I can be of any further
assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,

Lawrence F. Lafrenz,

Major General,
Commanding General.
____

State Capitol,

Boise, ID, February 1, 2006.
Hon. Norman Y. Mineta,
Secretary, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Mineta: I am writing to express my concerns
regarding recent efforts by the Federal Aviation
Administration to evaluate the consolidation of some Terminal
Radar Approach Control (TRACON) facilities. It is my
understanding that Boise Airport is one of the facilities
under consideration.
The Boise Airport serves a region that continues to
experience exponential growth, necessitating expansion of the
airport's facilities. Over the past few years, I have been
working with Idaho's congressional delegation in the effort
to secure federal funds for the construction of a new air
traffic control tower at the Boise Airport. So far, Congress
has designated roughly $16 million to date for this purpose.
The federal request has included a budget for construction of
a new control tower complete with an electronics suite,
including radar approach control.
While I understand and support efforts to streamline
government expense, I find little savings opportunity with
the removal of radar approach control from the Boise Airport
to Salt Lake City. I question the value of this consolidation
when other facilities in the region that handle less air
traffic are not under consideration for similar
consolidation.
I also have several concerns about safety and service for
air traffic at the largest airport in our state. 1 believe
that knowledge of the area by the radar controllers is
critical to safety. This interest has been expressed by
controllers and pilots, both with a vested interest in
personal and passenger safety. Additionally, given the
unstable weather conditions in the Boise area firsthand
updates on local weather conditions are improved by the added
ability of a local radar controller to simply look out the
window.
Finally, the Boise Airport has National Guard operations
co-located at the airport property. These local military
operations require a great deal of flexibility that a Salt
Lake City approach could not provide. I have a vested
interest in maintaining every advantage I can provide to
Idaho's Air National Guard. My state has some of the finest
guardsmen in our nation and those men and women are serving
admirably in the war against terror. I am in disfavor of
anything that might affect their ability to train or perform
admirably.
If TRACON facilities were to move to Salt Lake City, Idaho
would be the only state in the nation without radar approach
equipment capability. In addition, consolidation would limit
or end the airport's ability to do simultaneous visual
approaches, which would effectively make the Boise Airport a
one-runway airport and significantly decrease capacity at a
time when growth in capacity is imperative.
Given that you are in the process of making a determination
on this proposed consolidation, I want to register with you
my concerns and urge you to retain radar approach control at
the Boise Airport. I appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Dirk Kempthorne,
Governor.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. The location of a TRACON has absolutely no effect on
controllers' ability to manage aircraft or the capacity or capabilities
of any airport. This is because TRACON controllers do not have to have
visual contact with aircraft as today's radar technology allows it to
see the aircraft.
I understand that the gentleman is concerned about the complexity of
the airspace in south Florida and the risk of hurricanes and terrorist
attack on south Florida.
The fact is the busiest airspace in America is in New York, Chicago
and Atlanta, served by TRACONs located off the airport site that have
been consolidated with other facilities.
Although I agree that the airspace in south Florida is complex, the
New York airspace, with three major airports located within 10 miles of
Manhattan, is far more complex than south Florida. And any one of the
three major New York airports serves more traffic than all of the Miami
area airports. However, a total of 15 airports in this area receive
services from a single TRACON located on Long Island.
Consolidation would not affect continuity of operations during a
terrorist attack or during a catastrophic hurricane. There are
contingency plans in place to respond to such situations. The backup
for the Miami, West Palm Beach facilities is a Miami en route control
facility. In fact, the colocation of the West Palm Beach TRACON to
Miami actually reduces the risk that a storm could disrupt service.
This is because the Miami TRACON is built to withstand a Category 5
hurricane, unlike the West Palm Beach TRACON.

[[Page H3934]]

Just a couple of examples of consolidated TRACONs. A single TRACON on
Long Island serves 15 airports, including LaGuardia, Newark and JFK and
the most complex airspace in America.
The Potomac TRACON serves 10 airports. Five different TRACONs were
consolidated in one facility in Warrenton, Virginia. The FAA also
operates TRACONs in southern California that include 22 airports and
extend from San Diego to LAX, and a northern California TRACON that
serves 21 airports.
The fact is we do not have TRACONs at every airport and we don't need
them at every airport, not with the technology that we have. We do not
need all the TRACONs that exist today.
FAA's only mission is to ensure safety, and there is absolutely no
safety issue associated with consolidating these TRACONs.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
I yield the balance of my time to my friend from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Knollenberg has done an excellent
job in explaining the situation, and security issues raised by this
amendment are in fact bogus. There are no negative security
consequences resulting from the TRACON consolidation that is being
proposed.
In fact, as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, I have a report
from GAO which talks specifically about the benefits of a TRACON
consolidation.
Let's be frank about this issue. This is an issue that does concern
some movement of personnel, and some personnel in FAA will be
displaced. But what we are doing is we are modernizing the system. We
are actually updating and upgrading the system. We are putting in
better communications so that we can have backup systems that we don't
have now.
With respect to the TRACONs in south Florida, and I represent south
Florida, again we will be consolidating three of these. We will still
have Jacksonville as a backup. It is just like Houston did in the case
of Hurricane Katrina when they picked up the responsibility for the
gulf coast.
So we can have safety, security in times of national emergency. We
can also have efficiency with the limited taxpayer dollars, and
upgrading this technology will do an even better job in these new
consolidated TRACONs.
So they are bogus arguments. I would like to try to accommodate and
we will try to accommodate replacing these personnel in the least
disruptive fashion to their families and to their careers. But this is,
unfortunately, a personnel matter within FAA.
It is time to modernize, upgrade and bring together the best, most
efficient, safest system for the traveling public and the flying public
through consolidation of these TRACONs.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am intending to speak for a few minutes and then I
will yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Florida to
finish the remarks that he wishes to make.
Mr. Chairman, and Members, this is a simple limitation of funds
amendment. It would prohibit the use of funds in this appropriation
bill for the 2007 fiscal year from being used to eliminate,
consolidate, collocate or plan for the consolidation or collocation of
a Terminal Radar Approach Control, TRACON, all of them all over the
country. That sounds like a fairly strong piece of medicine.
On the other hand, we have seen no plan that I know of. There are
very few people who know how many TRACONs there are, though I am sure
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) would be able to tell that
exactly. If there are benefits, we have not actually seen what those
are. I have not seen them, as the ranking member of this subcommittee
with jurisdiction, and I am concerned when a Member from a growing
State, growing fast, but a spread out State like Idaho comes and says
there will be no TRACON there. That doesn't surprise me particularly.
There will be some other States that will not have TRACONs, and if
there is low air traffic that may be appropriate. But I have seen no
plan justifying what is being planned to be done. We have not been
told, and I am concerned in particularly in relatively urban areas
about consolidation of these, though that may be exactly where they
should be done.
So with the limitation that has been proposed, I am going to support
the gentleman's amendment at this time, and hope that that might make
certain that I am informed by the bureaucracy at FAA of exactly what
their plans are by the next time we end up with this kind of effort on
their part.
So with that, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the ranking member for yielding to
me. And let me answer quickly what the FAA is weighing in closing some
of air traffic control facilities. Reno would go to northern
California. Fresno and Bakersfield would go to Las Vegas. Pensacola
would go to Meridian, Mississippi--excuse me, Gulfport would go to
Meridian and Tallahassee would go to Pensacola. Lincoln would go to
Omaha, and Dayton and Columbus would go to Cleveland. Those are just
some of the suggestions.
Why I asked for time, Mr. Olver, is to respond to my good friend from
Orlando and central Florida to tell him that I don't think this
proposal is bogus at all. I don't think that he can demonstrate to me
that Orlando and Jacksonville are ready to handle, either in the event
of a natural disaster or a destruction in the nature of the kind of
disasters that we prepare for in our homeland, that it would allow,
among other things, that it would be a smooth transition. I don't
believe that to be the case. Workload is simply added to those
facilities where they don't exist today because those centers will be
completely gone if the FAA gets its way.
Simply put, during these critical times we should not be limiting our
air traffic capacity, and I believe that that is what my amendment
remedies. And I certainly didn't bring it here with any thought in mind
of it being bogus. All the air traffic controllers that have contacted
my office and expressed their concerns, I don't consider them bogus.

{time} 1315

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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 Florida will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gordon

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Gordon:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. 945. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used in contravention of the Federal buildings
performance and reporting requirements of Executive Order
13123, part 3 of title V of the National Energy Conservation
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8251 et seq.), or subtitle A of title I
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (including the amendments
made thereby).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is my understanding that the chairman of the subcommittee as well
as our ranking member have agreed to accept this amendment. So I will
be very brief.
Our Federal Government wastes about $250 million a year by not
enforcing our own regulations on conservation in our buildings. This
amendment simply says that within those areas within this jurisdiction
of this committee that they will abide by the current laws, no
additional laws, and I think we will wind up saving a lot of money for
the taxpayers and be a leader.
This amendment forbids funds to be used in contravention of the
buildings performance goals and reporting requirements of the buildings
performance requirements of two public

[[Page H3935]]

laws and one executive order. In doing so, it adds no new statutory or
regulatory requirements for Federal agencies. For instance, with
historic preservation requirements, or where there are local market
conditions, Federal agencies are still authorized to acquire the best
available space in support of the agency's mission. Its purpose is to
bring attention to the priority the Federal agencies should make of
meeting their responsibilities under existing law to significantly
reduce energy use in Federal buildings at a time when energy prices are
soaring, and to put the executive branch on notice that the Congress
expects it to undertake a serious effort in fiscal year 2007 and every
year to move aggressively to save energy in Federal buildings. This
amendment's requirements can be met by the Office of Management and
Budget and the agencies receiving appropriations under this act
stepping up to its responsibilities of rigorously carrying out the
intent and reporting requirements of section 301 through 303 of
Executive Order 13123.
The National Energy Conservation Policy Act as amended, since 1978
has set out a program for making Federal buildings models of energy
efficiency. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 updated that act by
establishing energy efficiency goals for Federal buildings for fiscal
years 2006 through 2015, by establishing a program for metering energy
use in Federal buildings, and by upgrading requirements for the
procurement of energy efficient products in Federal buildings. The
current building performance requirements for Federal buildings we are
focusing on are:
Through life-cycle cost-effective energy measures starting in fiscal
year 2006, to reduce energy consumption per gross square foot of
Federal buildings of the agency by 2 percent per year through 2015;
To design new buildings for all-around sustainability, including
energy efficiency, on a life-cycle basis;
To further save energy by procuring Energy Star and FEMP-designated
products for use in those buildings;
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by switching from petroleum to
natural gas and renewable energy sources, and by eliminating
unnecessary energy use;
To set up metering in Federal buildings that permit energy use to be
measured at least hourly; and
To reduce water consumption and associated energy use.
Sections 301 through 303 are the procedures now in place to provide
Federal agencies with the funds they need to achieve the building
performance requirements and to hold them accountable for achieving
their building performance requirements. Section 301 requires that each
agency's budget submission to OMB shall specifically request funding
necessary to achieve the goals of that order, which essentially are a
restatement of the Federal building energy efficiency and water use
requirements. Budget submissions are to include the costs associated
with Energy Savings Performance Contracts, utility energy-efficiency
service contracts, and other contractual platforms for achieving
conservation goals, life-cycle cost-effective products, and
construction of sustainably designed new buildings, among other energy
costs. Section 302 requires each agency to develop an annual
implementation plan for meeting its building performance requirements.
Section 303 requires annual reports to the President by January 1 of
the next fiscal year on agency progress in meeting its goals.
In recent years, funds requested for energy conservation purposes
have not kept up with the need, leading inevitably to the many of the
goals and requirements not being met despite the fact that on a life-
cycle basis, energy efficiency improvements generally save substantial
amounts of money. Annual agency reports to the coordinating body, the
Federal Energy Management Program, FEMP, and the subsequent FEMP
reports to Congress are often several months overdue. Thus budgetary
decisions are predicated on data that is at least 1-2 fiscal years
behind. Through the inclusion of this amendment in H.R. 5576--
Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary,
the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act
for fiscal year 2007, Congress is making clear to the Department of
Treasury and other agencies that construct or operate buildings using
funds provided under this act, that it expects those agencies and OMB
to make energy conservation in buildings a priority and to take all
reasonable means both to carry out their responsibilities and to meet
the reporting requirements as described above.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GORDON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this
important issue, and we would be happy to accept his amendment.
Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

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

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act
may be used to apply the revised cost-effectiveness index
rating system established by the Federal Transit
Administration (described in its April 29, 2005, ``Dear
Colleague'' letter) to the Northstar Corridor Rail project.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because I am
deeply concerned about a change of policy that took place last May at
the Federal Transit Administration.
In an innocuous sounding ``Dear Colleague'' letter, FTA announced
that it would change its system of recommending New Starts Projects for
Full Funding Grant Agreements. In plain English the impact of this
change is that transit projects which were formerly able to qualify now
have a higher standard.
For some projects this change was an inconvenience. But for the
Northstar Corridor Rail Project, a New Starts Project planned to run
through my district in Minnesota as well as through the districts of my
colleagues, Mr. Ramstad and Mr. Sabo, this eleventh hour rule change
may be an insurmountable obstacle.
I cannot stress enough how problematic and counterproductive FTA's
decision to change the rules was given the progress towards a Full
Funding Grant Agreement for Northstar. They have made great progress in
recent months. They have already received the 50 percent local match
requirement funded by the State. They have agreed in principle with
BNSF Railway Company. They have completed their environmental review
process. They have completed advanced preliminary engineering and the
planned stations, maintenance facilities and track improvements. So we
have made great progress, but it is clear that we need to make sure
that we can move to the next level.
I am not opposed to the new FTA standards. I am just opposed to its
being applied in the eleventh hour. Given the time and the energy that
we have put into this, we want to make sure this eleventh hour change
does not limit this very positive project from moving forward.
I will not force this issue for a vote here today, as I intend to
keep working with the FTA, the Department of Transportation, and my
colleagues to fix this issue. But I want to bring this attention to the
House while we debate funding for our country's important
transportation programs.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. I will gladly yield to my friend from New
York on this issue.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman is withdrawing
his amendment, and I know this is an important project in the
gentleman's district in Minnesota and that the State and the FTA are
working to finalize the details on this commuter rail line.
Let me say for the record, we will watch the progress as this bill
moves to conference and as the Northstar line moves to full funding
status.
I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I look
forward to working with my good friend from New York and others on the
committee. We both support fiscal responsibility and Federal
transportation projects, and I know we agree that common sense must be
a hallmark of that process.

[[Page H3936]]

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as we are seeing, we have got a lot of business at hand
here today and a number of amendments yet to come and the desire to try
to move forward and finish our work here. But this is an important bill
that really establishes the Federal priorities in transportation,
really does that at a time when we are faced with great fiscal
constraints and the need to move forward.
So I would ask my colleagues, as they come forward to the floor, to
really understand the constraints of time that we have and the
constraints of floor action because, as we know, tomorrow we will be
debating at length the involvements in Iraq and their importance to the
Nation, something that the American people will ask us to provide great
clarity for them.
So as we move forward, we have discussed a number of issues,
including the issues by my friend from Arizona, Mr. Flake, on the
earmarking process and its appropriateness and whether the process for
oversight is appropriate. I want to point out that the process has been
appropriate, but earmarks make up a very small percentage, six-tenths
of 1 percent of all of Federal expenditures and that this process here,
the American people can rest assured that this Congress is doing its
job with great diligence.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
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 for the construction, expansion, renovation, or
building of the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment just simply states
that there is a construction project in Los Angeles that would not be
available for funding out of this bill, and it is about $300,000.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I also accept the amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on my
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
As I was saying earlier, Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of very
important legislation to come and Members are encouraged to
participate, but at the same time we need to continue to move forward.
A number of difficult issues face us. Some of them will affect our
local districts more than they will affect others. And at the same
time, we would urge Members to look at the entirety of what the process
is and the entirety of the constraints that we have facing us as we
move forward in debate on this important Transportation-Treasury bill.
The committee has worked for hours and months. I need to acknowledge
the staff for all of their tremendous work at vetting each of these
projects and making sure that the projects meet the budget requirements
we are under. As Chairman Lewis pointed out earlier in the day, the
Appropriations Committee has done marvelous work in the 2 years under
his leadership, done work in which we have been able to bring
appropriation bills in under budget, and in incredibly stealth and
quick time we were able to pass these pieces of legislation last year
and we will do the same this year before the July 4 recess, thus giving
us time to move with our colleagues in the Senate in conference to
settle the differences that may exist in each of these spending bills.
And as we move forward, Members need to understand that there is a
great deal of work left ahead of us.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, because I think that repetition is important, I want to
make certain that Members understand what is expected for the rest of
the day. My understanding is that the White House event that was
scheduled to take place with Members of Congress tonight has been
postponed until tomorrow. That means that we had originally not
expected that we would be able to finish this bill today. It now
appears that we can if we get the cooperation of all of the Members who
had intended to offer amendments.
So I would simply urge Members, if they expect to be recognized, to
offer their amendments under the unanimous consent agreement. It is
important that they get to the floor and actually offer them so that we
can get out at a reasonable time tonight and complete action on this
bill because tomorrow is expected to be reserved for the Iraqi debate,
and I do not think we want to get in the way of that one.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would be honored to yield to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, during the discussion on these
appropriation bills, there have been a number of amendments to strike
out issues that were added by the committee rather than requested by
the administration. I think that is a good application of the process,
and I think that each one of these items should stand on their own
merit. But I think that it would be a mistake to believe that this was
a procedure that was not acceptable under the Constitution.
For example, I am holding a pocket copy of the Constitution that I
carry all the time, and I read it very closely, having worked with
appropriations for many, many years. And I find nothing at all in this
Constitution that says that Congress can only appropriate that money
which has been requested by the executive branch of government. There
is nothing at all in here that says that, nothing at all that says that
we can only consider requests by the executive branch of the
government.
But in Article I, Section 9, there is a very specific provision in
the Constitution that says the executive branch of government or any of
the agencies of the government cannot spend any money that has not
first been appropriated by the Congress of the United States.
So I say again that if there are those who are concerned that the
process is being abused, the Constitution is being protected by Members
who are offering projects to be included in the appropriations bills.
And I say again those who are trying to strike those are certainly
within their right to do that, and certainly that is part of the
process, and each one of those projects should stand on their own
merit. But there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that
prohibits the ability of Members of Congress to suggest what should or
should not be included in an appropriations bill.
And I repeat the article that I referred to is Article I, Section 9,
and I have referred to that many, many times in the past.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. And reclaiming my
time, I would point out, as we did earlier, that some of the
disagreements that exist between those who are concerned with the
earmarking process may be better rectified or more rectified in looking
at the rules and the standards and the criteria established under the
authorizing process for the allocation of all of these funds.

{time} 1330

In that instance, we might be able to bring about the kinds of reform
that those who advocate against the earmarking process.
I think it is important that the American people understand that as

[[Page H3937]]

local representatives, we are the closest representatives that they get
to their expenditure of Federal tax dollars. Therefore, every 2 years
they have the opportunity to voice their pleasure or displeasure with
us as Members of Congress in terms of whether we are handling the
public purse strings appropriately or not.
I think it is all healthy for the body. We look forward to future
debates on it. But as we move forward, I think that people need to stay
focused on the priorities that are being established, the process which
is meant to vet that priority and protect the American people.
They can rest assured that that process is being fully exercised
through the appropriations process.

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 by Mr. Lipinski of Illinois.
Amendment by Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut.
Amendment by Mr. Hefley of Colorado.
Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Banning, California.
Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona, regarding Weirton, West Virginia.
Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona, regarding Crafton Hills College.
Amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona, regarding Strand Theater.
Amendment by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lipinski

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Lipinski) 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 209,
noes 216, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 274]

AYES--209

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Duncan
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Fortenberry
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
King (NY)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wu
Wynn

NOES--216

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
Leach
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Murphy
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stark
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--7

Clyburn
Evans
Ford
Miller (MI)
Reynolds
Rothman
Sessions

{time} 1356

Messrs. BILBRAY, CARDOZA, BROWN of South Carolina, BOEHLERT, McHENRY,
Ms. DeLAURO, Messrs. STARK, McDERMOTT, TOM DAVIS of Virginia, GRAVES
and Mrs. KELLY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, GUTKNECHT, SCOTT of Virginia, BAIRD,
WEXLER, POMEROY and MARKEY 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. DeLauro

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

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195,
noes 231, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 275]

AYES--195

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)

[[Page H3938]]

Bishop (NY)
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
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
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rohrabacher
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--231

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
Matsui
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Clyburn
Evans
Ford
Miller (MI)
Rothman
Sessions

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1
minute remaining in this vote.

{time} 1400

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

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Hefley

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Goodlatte). 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 ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 276]

AYES--87

Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cooper
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Stearns
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)

NOES--340

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
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
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
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
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary

[[Page H3939]]

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)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
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
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--5

Evans
Ford
Miller (MI)
Rothman
Sessions

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1
minute remaining in this vote.

{time} 1405

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan 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. Flake

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) regarding Banning, California, 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. 277]

AYES--61

Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Biggert
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bradley (NH)
Burton (IN)
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cooper
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gingrey
Gohmert
Green (WI)
Harris
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Linder
Matheson
Meehan
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Ryan (WI)
Schakowsky
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tierney
Westmoreland

NOES--365

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
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)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Evans
Ford
Hart
Miller (MI)
Rothman
Sessions

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1
minute remaining in this vote.

{time} 1409

Mr. GUTKNECHT and Mr. KIRK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 277 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) concerning Weirton, West Virginia, 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. 278]

AYES--73

Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Burton (IN)
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Chocola

[[Page H3940]]

Coble
Cooper
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Inglis (SC)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kirk
Kline
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Matheson
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tiberi
Westmoreland

NOES--353

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
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)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
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
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Hastings (WA)

NOT VOTING--5

Evans
Ford
Miller (MI)
Rothman
Sessions

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1
minute remaining in this vote.

{time} 1415

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) regarding Crafton Hills College 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. 279]

AYES--58

Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bradley (NH)
Burton (IN)
Cannon
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cooper
Deal (GA)
Feeney
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Inglis (SC)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kline
Linder
Matheson
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tiberi
Westmoreland

NOES--368

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick

[[Page H3941]]

Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Evans
Ford
Miller (MI)
Rothman
Sanders
Sessions

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in
this vote.

{time} 1421

Ms. HARRIS and Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina 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 Mr. Flake

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) regarding Strand Theater 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. 280]

AYES--61

Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Blackburn
Bradley (NH)
Cannon
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cooper
Deal (GA)
Feeney
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Inglis (SC)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Matheson
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Norwood
Otter
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tierney
Westmoreland

NOES--366

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

NOT VOTING--5

Evans
Larson (CT)
Miller (MI)
Rothman
Sessions

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there is 1
minute remaining in this vote.

{time} 1425

Mr. PENCE 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. Hastings of Florida

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) 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. 281]

AYES--261

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)

[[Page H3942]]

Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Whitfield
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--166

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chocola
Coble
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marchant
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Myrick
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shuster
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--5

Evans
Gutierrez
Miller (MI)
Rothman
Sessions

{time} 1431

Messrs. FORBES, GINGREY, and CAMPBELL of California changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. POE and Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on June 14, 2006, through an inadvertent
error during voting on H.R. 5576, the Transportation-Treasury-HUD
Appropriations bill, I was recorded incorrectly as voting no. I ask
that the permanent record indicate that on rollcall vote No. 281, the
Hastings amendment, I should have been recorded as having voted in the
affirmative.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts:
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 Department of Housing and Urban Development to
implement, administer, or enforce the second sentence of
section 6c of the Department's Notice PIH 2006-5 (HA), dated
January 13, 2006.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13,
2006, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume, and at the conclusion of my remarks I will yield control
of the time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. Chairman, this is the antidisplacement amendment. It is a
substantive amendment to current law included in the appropriations
bill. Under current law when units are destroyed, made no longer fit
for occupation, for habitation, which have had a section 8 voucher
inhabitant, the section 8 voucher stays on and can be transferred to
another unit as a matter of right.
This bill adds two words, purely substantive. It is not a financial
issue. It adds the words ``under lease,'' which means a unit which had
been occupied by a section 8 tenant, if it becomes occupied and 2 days
later is then subject for demolition, that section 8 voucher is lost to
that community.
What we have is this. Communities are dealing with the issue of an
overconcentration, in some cases, of low-income people. We all pay at
least lip service to the notion of at least genuine integration in our
society: racial, economic and in other ways. We have programs that try
to promote this, and they often mean let's destroy some of the units
that have been too densely packed together for lowest income people and
spread them out.
What the addition of the words by the Appropriations Committee does,
and it didn't go through the authorizing committee, is to say to a
community, when you engage in this process of better distributing and
better integrating people, you may lose some of your overall capacity
to serve people. That is a terrible choice to put to people. You should
not tell a community because you do not want such concentration, you
will then be able to accommodate fewer low-income people. That is part
of our problem.
You know, there was a time, Mr. Chairman, when urban renewal was
known in the black community as Negro removal, because what it meant
was you tore down the buildings where all the low-income people lived
and you built no replacements.
We now have a policy that say yes, tear down some of them, thin them
out, reconfigure them, make them more habitable, but don't have that
result in an overall loss of those units which are available for low-
income people.
The addition of those two words, ``under lease,'' means more than
already is the case; because we have not achieved perfection and the
achievement is ideal, we will lose some of the units in communities
that decide to deconcentrate poverty and race, will have to pay the
price to some extent of having fewer section 8 units available

[[Page H3943]]

than before. I think that is a very grave error.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) to control that time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition
to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in strong opposition to the language amendment overturning a
HUD regulation concerning the number of units that are placed under
lease.
The provision would allow the PHA to essentially create more vouchers
for the program than the 2 million vouchers that exist currently. Today
the program and the cost of the program is based on the number of units
under lease.
If public housing or project-based section 8 units are being
demolished, the additional vouchers provided are only for the units
actually occupied prior to demolition. The department budgets each year
for the number of occupied units it expects to convert from public
housing units to vouchers.
Units that are not occupied now are not provided a voucher, since the
program only provides a subsidy for those families that are currently
receiving a subsidy in public housing.
To provide PHAs with the authority to create vouchers where there are
no tenants to protect is simply a back-door way of creating new
vouchers for the program. This cost is not budgeted for in this bill
and would be significant.
Approximately 38,000 units in public housing and project-based
section 8 are assumed to be demolished in 2007. Of this number, 21,000
are occupied and eligible for a voucher. The cost of these tenant
protection vouchers would be $149 million. That is provided for in this
bill. If vouchers were made available to those 17,000 units not
occupied, as well as those already budgeted for, the costs will
skyrocket in 2007 by an additional $122 million and increase every year
thereafter.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the explanation of this amendment
that we just heard is exactly upside down. Exactly wrong and backwards.
The fact is that our amendment would ensure that the level of housing
assistance is maintained at the same level as previously; that it is
not automatically reduced when public housing buildings are demolished
or sold. It continues the same number of affordable housing units as
previously.
Every year we demolish several thousand units. Until January of this
year, the policy always was if you demolish 100 units, there are 100
section 8 vouchers issued, so the number of affordable units in the
community does not go down.
In January, HUD put out a new regulation which said that we will
replace the units under lease with new vouchers so that if 100 units
are demolished but 10 of them were not occupied at that moment because
people were moving in and out, they would only replace 90 vouchers. In
other words, the number of affordable units would go down.
The policy we have always had which this amendment seeks to continue,
not to change, is that when you demolish public housing, you maintain
the same number of units by issuing the same number of vouchers, not
less, not more. Contrary to what the distinguished chairman said, this
would not increase the number of vouchers issued, this would maintain
it at the same level as we always have had; one-for-one replacement for
all of the low-income housing demolished.
The administration seeks to change that policy, first by HUD
regulation last January that said we will only replace those actually
occupied at that moment. So if 5 percent of the units are under repair
or 5 percent of the units have people moving in and out, there is
always some churning, we won't replace those. So the number will go
down every time we do this. That is pernicious. It means, as the
gentleman from Massachusetts said, that if you want to demolish an
overconcentrated housing or you want to privatize an existing section 8
building, what will replace it will be fewer units of subsidized
housing.
In the bill before us, the distinguished committee violated the rules
of the House because they seek to take this policy initiated by HUD by
regulation in January and by adding the words ``under lease'' to the
bill, they would say in a broader perspective, in a broader universe
than covered by the regulation, we would only replace occupied units.
The Rules Committee said points of order against the bill are waived
so we could not raise a point of order against legislating on an
appropriations bill. An amendment to take out those words would itself
be legislating on an appropriation bill, so it's a one-way racket. The
committee can get away with it but we can't unlegislate from the floor.
So this amendment is narrower. It, unfortunately, doesn't prevent the
committee from doing what it is doing, which changes the number of
units we are replacing to a fraction of those being demolished in some
of the housing; but for the public housing at least, which the bill
doesn't do but the regulation did, where the regulation said from now
on we will only replace occupied units, not the total number of units,
this amendment says no funds appropriated shall be used to enforce that
regulation. That we can do.
So the CBO scores this amendment as costing zero dollars. All it says
is we can't use funds to implement that regulation. It doesn't change
the amount of money appropriated for section 8 by a nickel.
What it does say is we will not countenance a change by the
department so that the previous policy, which we want to maintain, is
if you demolish public housing, you demolish 100 units, you have to
have 100 units to replace it, so the total amount of low-income housing
in the community is not going down.
They want to replace that by saying they will only replace the units
occupied at that moment. So the normal churning effect, people moving
in, people moving out, would demolish the number of units replaced.
So this amendment would keep the existing system, the system that has
existed for the last few decades, one-for-one replacement, and it is
scored by CBO as costing nothing. I would urge the House to adopt this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I speak against this amendment. You know,
I think all of us want the same thing. We want to make sure that
affordable housing is available to as many American families as
possible.
In 1999 we changed the rules, and we made every community live by a
certain number of units, not how far they could stretch those dollars.
And our costs exploded. In fact, in the HUD budget the section 8
voucher program went from 33 percent of the HUD budget to over 50
percent of the HUD budget.

{time} 1445

Now, if you believe that the Federal Government has unlimited
dollars, that wouldn't worry you. But if you believe that we live in a
time where we have to measure every dollar and spend it carefully, you
begin to ask what we could do better. Let me reiterate. It went from 33
percent of the HUD budget to 51 percent, but it didn't include one
additional voucher. Not one additional American family was able to have
a voucher based on those increases in costs. And let me say that the
dollars were significant, too. We increased the dollars by over 50
percent in the section 8 program, and still not one additional American
family was able to be served by a section 8 voucher. The changes that
we are making today are going to allow every community to take the
dollars that they have and to use them more effectively and more
efficiently so that we can begin to use the section 8 which are already
an enormous part of our budget to serve more American families in the
future. The idea is to help Americans get into the units that their
family wants to get into, maybe near where

[[Page H3944]]

they work, maybe near where their family is that can help them watch
their children, maybe into a private housing unit where the budget just
makes up the difference in the voucher, so that they can live where
they want and become independent American families based on the section
8, and not just the 9,000 families that we have in Louisville, Kentucky
today but hopefully many more in the future due to these reforms.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, spurious statistics don't help us
get anywhere. The fact is, yes, section 8 is a higher percentage of the
HUD budget because this Congress has cut down other programs. We have
cut down CDBG by $500 million. So what does that prove?
And the fact is that all this amendment seeks to do is to say not
that more people should get more section 8 vouchers; I wish we could do
that, and not that more people should get affordable housing, but
simply to maintain our previous policy, that if you are demolishing low
income housing you replace it with the same number of units. QED. And
if the administration is so incompetent that we are wasting a lot of
money because we are not administering the program properly, there is
money slipping through its fingers because they are not administering
the section 8 program properly, let them clean up their act. But the
fact is the number of units should remain the same or go up.
This amendment says, and the gentlewoman says we are all in
agreement, that as many people as possible should be helped. Well, if
as many people as possible should be helped, at least let's agree, and
this amendment is the only way to do that, not to cut down the number
of section 8 units, not to cut down the number of units available
whenever we demolish existing housing. That is all this amendment does.
Nothing else. And anybody who says that this amendment increases the
availability of housing above the policy of one for one is not telling
the truth.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
I understand that you must have a speaker that wishes to speak at
this moment?
Mr. NADLER. No. The other cosponsor had to go back to the committee.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that one thing I don't
quite understand about what is taking place here, but I want to get to
the bottom of it. Having to provide a subsidy for empty units, and that
is what you are doing, with a budget that only assumes least unit cost
or least unit risks being unable to assist real families, this will, I
think, unfairly, shift section 8 dollars to certain regions of the
country for what are now vacant units. And this would be to the
detriment of the distribution of those funds.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I must correct the gentleman. That is not
what it does at all. There are always, in any housing stock, there are
always some vacant units because someone moves out on Monday, it takes
a month to prepare the apartment for someone else to move in. It has
always been the policy that you replace the number of units that you
are tearing down. If you are tearing down 1,000 units, you get 1,000
section 8 vouchers. If you change the policy, such as HUD is now
seeking to do, such as the bill is seeking to do and which this
amendment opposes doing, then you are saying that if 10 percent are
vacant because someone has moved out and someone else hasn't moved in
yet, they are cleaning it up, that you replace 90 percent instead of
the 100 percent.
All this says is continue the policy we have always had of replacing
units, not units occupied, because units occupied is always 80, 90
percent of total units because there are always people moving in and
out. Someone died last week and so forth. There is no housing stock on
earth 100 percent occupied 100 percent of the time. And if you look at
5 percent or 10 percent that are unoccupied now because three people
died and five people moved and no one has moved in again, you are
reducing the number of units. And all we are saying is don't do that.
If you tear down low income housing, replace it one for one on the
basis of the number of units. That has always been our policy. That has
always been the law and all this amendment seeks to do is to keep it
that way and not change it as the bill would do.
I yield back.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, this creates an
entitlement for vacant units. These funds are for tenant protection,
not unit protection.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. 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
Massachusetts will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Oberstar

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar:
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 Department of Transportation to finalize or
implement the policy proposed in the notice of proposed
rulemaking published in the Federal Register on November 7,
2005 (70 Fed. Reg. 67389), or the supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on May
5, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 26425), in Docket No. OST-2003-15759.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13,
2006 the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
For 65 years, aviation trade has been governed by a fundamental
principle and a statute which requires that only an airline that
qualifies as a citizen of the United States may provide service between
citizens in the U.S. or on international routes. The international
trade bureaucrats at the Departments of Transportation and State have
decided to change that law by rule. That should not be changed by the
bureaucrats. It should be done by act of Congress. We ought to have
more than just a couple of hours of hearings. We ought to have in-depth
hearings in the House and the Senate and decide whether or not we are
going to change that statute to something else.
Secondly, why would we, in the context of an international trade
negotiation, trade away the one sector of economics where the United
States has a positive balance of trade? Aviation. We have a $9 billion
surplus balance of payments with the European Community. If we allow
U.S. airlines to be sold to foreign interests, that positive balance of
payments will disappear. Gone.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Petri). The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, let me try to clarify a few things.
First, there are no safety or security impacts associated with the
proposed rule on foreign investment. In fact, this rule does not change
the statutory requirements that limit foreign investment in the U.S.
airlines.
For example, U.S. airlines will still be U.S. airlines. U.S. citizens
must be in actual control of the airline. U.S. citizens must own 75
percent of the voting stock. U.S. citizens must comprise two-thirds of
board membership.
The proposed rule explicitly walls off any foreign investment
proposal that would affect safety, security or defense in any way,
including any impact of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, or CRAF program.
No foreign investors will have a say when it comes to safety, security
or national defense.
In addition, any control afforded to a foreign investor, such as
marketing or product quality, can be revoked at any time.
Further, in response to concerns raised within the last several
months,

[[Page H3945]]

DOT met with General Schwartz, Commander of USTRANSCOM and Robert
Jamison, Deputy Administrator of TSA, to double check, I should say to
triple check that these agencies have absolutely no safety or security
concerns regarding the proposed rule. They did not. The rule itself
will strengthen the airline industry in the U.S. The industry will be
able to attract additional capital to improve their financial position.
Some have indicated that the rule will result in fewer jobs. This makes
no sense at all. Strong U.S. airlines result in a stronger aviation
community that is ready, willing and able to hire more people, more
pilots, more flight attendants, more mechanics.
Further, any open skies agreement between the U.S. and the European
Union is predicated on this more modern investment rule. The rule,
coupled with a U.S.-EU open skies agreement, will preserve and create
new U.S. jobs and expand markets. It will increase the number of
international flights operated by U.S. carriers and increase the number
of foreign travelers to the U.S. It will also increase service to small
and medium cities. This is because international markets must be
supported by the robust feed traffic from the non-hub markets.
I am for a strong competitive industry that creates new American
jobs, ensures better service, and is a boon for the economy, all
without weakening security.
I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, for over 60 years we have required U.S.
citizens to be in control of operation of our airlines. Make no
mistake, the DOT's proposed rule will absolutely reverse this critical
policy, allowing operation of our airlines to be controlled by
competing and potentially unfriendly foreign interests will undermine
our homeland security and result in a loss of U.S. jobs.
Mr. Chairman, no critical U.S. infrastructure should ever be under
foreign control. Did we not learn anything from the Dubai ports
debacle? Doesn't anyone remember the outrage that you shared over
Dubai? This is just as big an outrage. The DOT is using executive fiat
to implement a very dangerous and absolutely wrong policy. This
amendment will ensure Congress determines what is in the best interest
of this country, not the bureaucrats of DOT. Remember the explanation
we got from the administration on the Dubai ports, that everyone had
thoroughly examined it. And then we found out that it hadn't been
thoroughly examined. Critical infrastructure must remain in U.S.
operational control.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I now yield the remaining time in my
allotment to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, I want to be polite, but
let me just say that this is a terrible amendment. It is short-sighted.
It is special interest legislation. It is a red herring to prevent,
quite frankly, the implementation of an agreement between the United
States and the European Union to have open skies.
Now, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, if you want to increase jobs in
your district, on both sides of the Atlantic, this is not the amendment
to vote for. If you want to increase service and have some shot at some
international service to your district or your region, you vote for
this amendment and you are killing those chances.
The great opportunities for job and expansion of aviation markets in
an industry that has been so hard hit from September 11 is expanding
these markets, and for the first time we can open those doors and that
opportunity. This is all a red herring about investment, trying to tie
this to Dubai.
The current limitation of 25 percent foreign ownership continues. It
has not changed at all. In fact, we have a guarantee under this that
matters of safety and security are off the table to foreign investors.
You know, I am thinking about this. If we use this mentality, Mr.
Chairman, and my colleagues, if we used this mentality in the past we
would still be trading beads with the Indians. We wouldn't be taking
advantage of opening jobs and markets and expanding opportunities for
the people in this country.
Simply stated, also, this is a voluntary process in this investment.
So this is a protectionist amendment. It benefits a few people to keep
things a little cozy the way they are now. And I know people are trying
to do that. But it is an enormous step back for the United States
aviation industry.

{time} 1500

So I urge you to defeat this amendment, which will do great harm to,
again, opening doors and opportunities in American, European, and
actually all of our aviation opportunities for the future.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), ranking member of the Aviation
Subcommittee.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Oberstar
amendment.
This amendment would stop the Department of Transportation from
implementing its proposed rule to open up U.S. air carriers to a
greater share of control by foreign owners. For the past 65 years, we
have required that U.S. citizens have actual control over all
management decisions of U.S. airlines. In a matter of a few months, the
Bush administration has sought to make enormous changes by allowing
significant opportunities for foreign investors at the expense of
America's safety, security, and its workplace.
The proposed rule would change and allow foreign investors to have a
greater say on airline economic decisions that would include being able
to direct airlines to buy foreign aircraft or have more repair stations
overseas; have work performed by foreign citizens; and dictate routes,
frequency, pricing, classes of service, advertising, and code sharing.
I am opposed to the change because it will result in the loss of
American jobs, hurt rural and small communities, and could severely
jeopardize our safety and security. I am very concerned about the
outsourcing of jobs for our pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics,
and I urge all Members to support the Oberstar amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter).
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
With great respect for Chairman Mica and Chairman Knollenberg, I
support this amendment strongly.
This is a matter of priorities, and it is a matter of American
ownership in a system that supported and that transported 93 percent of
our military personnel to the warfighting theaters. It is a matter of
priorities.
Dan McKinnon, Ronald Reagan's head of the Civil Aeronautics Board,
who owned and sold North American Airlines and controlled it, said,
``As a rescue helicopter pilot with 61 saves, my number one priority
would always be American security. If the country needed me, that's
where I would send my planes.''
That is the kind of control, operational control, we need on American
airlines. I strongly support this amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding.
Likewise, I have great respect for Chairman Mica, but in this
particular situation, this is a national security issue, and you cannot
separate national security and security of an airline industry with
daily operating procedure. We cannot allow some foreign airline to
control the operating procedure of American airline companies,
especially in time of war. In time of war, American airlines have
always been able to mobilize the American fleet during Iraqi I and
Iraqi II; 5,872 missions were flown by American airline companies.
Ninety-eight percent of those were my American pilots. If our airline
industry is controlled by a foreign country, what makes us think that
country will cooperate with us in time of war?
This is certainly a national security issue, and we should not
outsource our

[[Page H3946]]

national security to the European Union.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In my remaining time, I just want to refute what the distinguished
gentleman from Florida said, that domestic aviation will not be
affected. It will be affected. Foreign owners will decide routes, fleet
size, type of aircraft, service in domestic markets and international
markets. We will lose an international trade aviation sector.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This is Dubai Ports all over again. Vociferous people are aware of
this change in policy, and they will not say what their position is on
it. This will undermine national security.
Any country with an open skies agreement will be able to buy and
control a U.S. airline for all practical intents and purposes,
including Indonesia. Imagine when we deploy our military on the
civilian reserve air fleet flown by Indonesian pilots. Oh, there is a
little terrorism problem in Indonesia, isn't there? That will be really
good. I think they will feel really secure on those planes.
It is also in pursuit of lame free trade agreements, so-called ``open
skies,'' yet another loser for America. The outsourcing of pilot jobs,
flight attendant jobs, mechanics jobs, and other executive jobs. And I
am not so concerned about the execs.
But we are essentially ceding control of the United States of America
in violation of statutory provisions if we do not stop the Bush
administration.
This must be adopted. Mr. Mica could not be more wrong. This will
undermine security and air service in this country.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson).
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong
support of Mr. Oberstar's amendment.
It appears to me that we should see that we are in a huge deficit
with the guarantees being foreign governments. We have lost jobs. We
are selling companies and property to persons from out of this country.
Now we are going to sell our airlines. I think that is one of the worst
decisions we could make for homeland security. And I rise in strong
support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Oberstar-LoBiondo
Amendment to H.R. 5576.
The Bush Administration's most recent proposal to alter policy
regarding the role of foreign ownership of U.S. airlines is an issue
that, without question, warrants the full attention and oversight of
this body.
Yet, despite the expressed consent of Congress in 2003 regarding the
``actual control'' of U.S. carriers by U.S. citizens, the
Administration seems intent on circumventing the will of this body in
an effort to fast track an international air service agreement.
While I wholeheartedly support the notion of our aviation industry
being afforded every opportunity to excel in the global economy, I do
not support the Administration's utter disregard of this body--
particularly the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
The Congress should be afforded the opportunity to perform the
necessary due diligence, conduct hearings, and debate any proposed
changes to foreign ownership laws.
Any modification to laws governing foreign control of domestic
carriers will have enormous implications for industry stakeholders and
jobs here at home.
As a result, such changes should not be hastily promulgated through a
proposed rule-making introduced in the dead of night.
To characterize DOT's current rulemaking proposal as an artful
maneuver would be an understatement.
DOT asserts that in order for the U.S. air transportation industry to
remain a leader in the global economy, a reinterpretation of ``actual
control'' is needed to ensure access to capital afforded by global
financial markets.
Under DOT's proposed rule, foreign investors would be allowed to
exercise decisions over all commercial aspects of domestic carrier
operations.
U.S. citizens would be required to control only decisions related to
safety, security, organizational documents, and the Civil Reserve Air
Fleet.
To think that commercial aspects have no implication on security,
safety, and the CRAF program underscores the shortsightedness of this
proposal.
I support the halting of DOT from issuing any final rule on ``actual
control'' and urge my colleagues to vote yes on this commonsense
amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for
yielding to me.
I rise in support of the bipartisan LoBiondo-Poe-Oberstar amendment
on foreign ownership.
The bottom line on this issue is that the DOT's rulemaking runs very
close to violating the law that Congress set down for the airline
industry. The statue says that U.S. airlines must be controlled by U.S.
citizens. The DOT rule would allow foreign investors to own 49 percent,
but the foreign investors would be allowed to effectively control the
operations. Unfortunately, I do not see how it is possible to separate
safety and military airlifts. If foreign owners can control scheduling,
staffing, and maintenance, then U.S. owners are not in control of the
safety or the military obligations. The proposed rule does not make
sense and the DOT should not give foreign control over U.S. airlines
just because the European Community is asking for it. Airlines are not
just another business. They are an essential form of transportation
with many impacts on public policy.
Foreign investment in airlines is a major decision for Congress, not
the Department of Transportation. Therefore, we should support the
LoBiondo-Poe-Oberstar amendment and reject the DOT rule.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan
amendment, and it is bipartisan, Members on both sides of the aisle.
Congress has rejected, two times already, attempts to change foreign
ownership and control requirements. Let us get it right this time. The
Congress spoke in unison about the Dubai Ports deal, and they are
speaking in unison today to stop this insanity of giving away our
assets and having them controlled by foreign investors.
This is not to stop foreign investment. We must have a robust debate.
This is a radical change. Altering the foreign control requirement for
U.S. airlines does not belong in rulemaking, and that is what you are
trying to do today. Being a member of both the Transportation and
Homeland Security Committees gives me a unique perspective on the vital
role the U.S. airline industry plays in the homeland security and the
national defense of our Nation.
I am concerned that the proposed rule is unclear and does not
guarantee that heads of security and safety would have complete
autonomy from their foreign national leadership. It is no secret that
security costs are one of the financial challenges facing our domestic
industry. In fact, many additional security measures have been
voluntarily undertaken by U.S. carriers.
I hope that both sides of the aisle support what I believe is a very
reasonable amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Oberstar-LoBiondo-Poe
Amendment prohibit to the use of funds in this bill to implement a
proposed Transportation Department regulation that makes a profound
change to federal aviation policy.
I would submit that it is actually a radical change. Altering the
foreign control requirement for U.S. airlines does not belong in a rule
making. We need robust debate--when we didn't have debate you saw what
happen the Dubii Ports deal.
In their attempt to complete an Open Skies agreement, the
administration has sought to avoid an open debate in the halls of
Congress.
Congress has twice rejected attempts to change foreign ownership and
control requirements. This time should be no different.
The proposed change is heavy-handed, too vague and leaves too many
legitimate questions and concerns unanswered.
Being a member of both the Transportation and Homeland Security
Committees gives me a unique perspective on the vital role the U.S.
airline industry plays in the homeland security and national defense of
our Nation.
For these reasons, unlike most other industries, airlines do not
easily lend themselves to foreign control.
I am concerned that the proposed rule is unclear and does not
guarantee that heads of security and safety would have complete
autonomy from their foreign national leadership.

[[Page H3947]]

It is no secret that security costs are one of the financial
challenges facing our domestic industry.
In fact, many additional security measures have been voluntarily
undertaken by U.S. carriers.
But under foreign control, commercial interests may carry more weight
when it comes to cutting costs.
Measured foreign investment may be beneficial for U.S. air carriers.
However, throwing open the floodgates to foreign control is not the
answer.
At the very least, Congress should have a vigorous, robust debate on
this highly sensitive matter before anything is finalized.
I am confident that most members, upon judicious review, will
conclude that this proposed rule change, as it stands, is not in the
best interest of our nation.
And I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to cover a couple of points. This
protectionist amendment is an enormous step backward for the U.S.
airline industry. It denies U.S. airlines the ability to compete with
the European carriers on a level playing field. It stops the Department
of Transportation from modernizing rules governing investment in U.S.
airlines.
The DOT rule does not relax congressionally set limits on foreign
investment in the U.S. airlines. U.S. citizens must still control, as I
mentioned, 75 percent of U.S. airlines voting stock and comprise 66
percent of their board of directors.
The DOT rule safeguards U.S. airline security and safety. It strictly
prohibits any foreign influence over security, safety, or the civil
reserve air fleet, or CRAF, program.
The DOT rule will create new U.S. jobs and improve service to small-
and medium-sized communities. Further delay and opposition to the DOT
rule is a blatant attempt to kill U.S./EU. open skies. Eight months is
enough time for review.
At this point I would like to yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica) for any comments he might wish to make.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let
me say we are not giving away any assets. This has nothing to do with
Dubai. This proposed rule does not change any statute with respect to
U.S. control or foreign ownership of U.S. airlines. It now is in the
law 25 percent maximum ownership. It is going to be the law after this
rule passes. What part of 25 percent do these folks not understand?
U.S. carriers can accept foreign investment today, up to 25 percent.
They are arguing that safety and security might be put into question.
Under the current provisions, there is no enumeration of safety or
security spelled out. This, for the first time, spells out safety and
security.
Under the proposed rule, the U.S. carrier has the ability to agree or
disagree with the terms put forth by the investor. This is just a
clarification of an investor's ability to participate in the
investment. Simply stated, the DOT's rule is voluntary; it is not
mandatory.
Finally, we have worked closely with the Department of Defense to
make certain that any of our defense interests are preserved. So this
does benefit the consumer. We will have lower international airfares.
It creates jobs, and it will create them throughout the country. It
also increases the service to airports and locales that currently do
not have the opportunity for international service on both sides of the
aisle.
Now, let us face it, a small group of people do have a very vested
interest in not changing this. They have got a little corner on the
market. They do not want to see this changed. So I have said this is a
red herring. I tried to be polite.
I urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this rule just came in
today, and I think everybody is aware of this. The administration
understands that an amendment may be offered today to prohibit the use
of funds to implement a final rule regarding the foreign investment in
U.S. airlines. The proposed rule would facilitate a landmark agreement
with the EU that would provide significant benefits to consumers as
well as the domestic passenger and cargo airline industry. The
administration has worked with Congress to address these concerns with
the final rule and recently extended the final comment period by an
additional 60 days. The administration, as you must know, strongly
opposes any amendment that would prevent the Department of
Transportation from finalizing its rule.
Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

{time} 1515

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. I rise
to strongly, strongly oppose the Oberstar-LoBiondo-Poe amendment,
because just exactly as the chairman and others have spoken in
opposition to this amendment, this would jeopardize the open skies
agreement between the United States and the EU.
The domestic airline industry in this country is struggling with fuel
costs. This would literally be a knockout blow to them. In regard to
the rulemaking, it assures still that 75 percent of stockholders must
be Americans on a domestic airline, and two-thirds of the seats on the
boards of directors must be United States citizens.
I think we need to move forward with this rulemaking so that we can
complete this open skies agreement with the EU. This is a benefit to
our airline industry that we have an opportunity to open up the markets
to more international flights, more flights of their carriers into our
smaller non-hub cities.
Mr. Chairman, this is a jobs bill. I strongly, strongly voice my
opposition to this amendment. I ask my colleagues to vote against it.
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. Oberstar's
amendment to prevent implementation of a proposed Department of
Transportation rule that would in effect reverse 60 years of precedent
on United States policy in the domestic airline industry. Permitting
the Department of Transportation to implement a rule that would weaken
longstanding policies on domestic ownership of U.S. airlines would
permit the reversal of policy that is in place specifically to ensure
U.S. control of an industry that, in many ways, is of vital strategic
importance to our Nation. As some of my colleagues have noted, domestic
airlines fly 92 percent of our troops and 41 percent of our cargo to
battlefields in the War on Terror. I believe that allowing the daily
operations of our airlines to be controlled by competing and
potentially unfriendly foreign interests could undermine U.S. homeland
security and national defense. Having an industry that plays such a key
role in times of national need be placed outside the hands of U.S.
ownership could introduce a degree of unpredictability that our Nation
could not afford in such crucial times.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that under the current rules,
rules that have served the U.S. airline industry very well, that have
served U.S. employees in that industry very well, that have served our
Nation's traveling public very well and that have served our Nation's
security very well, our Nation has successfully established Open Skies
agreements with over 75 countries in the last 15 years. Current rules
do not inhibit international travel or create untenable positions for
trade with foreign countries. Current rules work.
I join Mr. Oberstar in opposing changes to those rules, changes that
could very well jeopardize U.S. national security. I believe this is
unwise and I support the Oberstar amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. 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 Minnesota will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran of Kansas

Mr. MORAN of Kansas. 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. Moran of Kansas:
Page 252, insert the following after line 5:
Sec. 945. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer, implement, or enforce the amendment
made to section 515.533 of title 31, Code of Federal
Regulations, that was published in the Federal Register on
February 25, 2005.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the

[[Page H3948]]

gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is a bit of history that brings me back to the House
floor, an issue related to agriculture, food and medicine trade with
Cuba. In July of 2000, this House of Representatives adopted an
amendment that I offered to allow the sale of food, medicine, and
agriculture commodities to the country of Cuba.
That amendment was adopted in July of 2000 by a vote of 301-116. A
majority of Republicans, a majority of Democrats supported that
amendment. As a result of that amendment being adopted, in the
conference committee significant discussion occurred, and ultimately
the new legislation, TSREEA, the Trade Sanction Export Enhancement Act,
of 2000 was adopted.
And that law was working reasonably well for a period of time. And
then in February of 2005 the Department of Treasury adopted a
regulation changing some of the rules related to trade with Cuba. Mr.
Chairman, we have had the opportunity now of taking advantage of the
opportunity to sell for cash, cash up front, to Cuba agriculture
commodities, food and medicine, to the tune of about $400 million in
the previous year.
But the regulation that the Department of Treasury adopted in
February of 2005, began to seriously limit the opportunity for American
farmers to export their agriculture commodities to Cuba. The rule that
the Department of Treasury promulgated changes the time frame in which
the cash must be paid. Again, let me reiterate what we are talking
about here is not whether Cuba must pay cash in advance, but the timing
of that payment.
And the rule that was adopted by the Department of Treasury changed
that time by a few days. It turns out to be 10 days to 2 weeks. And the
issue becomes that the cash must be paid prior to the shipment from the
United States as compared to prior to delivery in the port in Havana.
As a result of that, it has increased the cost of doing business with
Cuba in a significant way, and, in fact, we have had a significant
reduction, 22 percent reduction, in the sale of agriculture products
since the adoption of that rule.
This amendment that I offer today, Mr. Chairman, simply is a
prohibition against the spending of any money to enforce that
regulation and therefore return us to where we were prior to February
of 2005.
It is identical language to what was included in the appropriation
bill last year in both the House and the Senate. The language was
removed in conference. But this House of Representatives and our
companion body across the way adopted identical language in the
Treasury/ Transportation appropriation bill a year ago.
And the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) has made that effort
in 2005, which we all agreed to when this bill was adopted a year ago.
So the sole purpose here today is to return us to preFebruary 2005.
We will probably have the opportunity to debate the value of trade
with Cuba and what it means to the Castro government. And I welcome
that opportunity. It seems to me that unilateral sanctions, we clearly
can reach the conclusion that unilateral sanctions by the United States
are only harmful to our own agriculture sector, to our own farmers, at
a time in which drought affects much of the country. High energy and
input costs are dramatically increasing.
It seems to me that there is no reason for us to make these sales
more difficult. And, in fact, the reduction of those sales is almost 21
percent of corn, 17 percent of wheat, and 27 percent, 26 percent of
meat products from the United States, reduction in those sales since
the adoption of this rule.
This amendment is obviously supported by a wide array of farm
organizations.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I negotiated the
agreement that Mr. Moran made reference to, along with my dear
colleagues, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mrs. Emerson. At that time Mr.
Nethercutt was here. And the agreement stands.
The agreement authorized sales to the Cuban regime as long as
payments were made, cash in advance. Now, the Cuban regime, and let us
be clear when we talk about trade with Cuba that we are dealing, there
are no Cubans, there are no Cubans who can buy, because it is a
totalitarian state, the regime.
Now the dictator started to make purchases after the law was passed
in October of 2000. And as is to be expected, then he started engaging
in delaying tactics, precisely to create leverage and pressure so that
we would see something like we see today. Sure enough, the delaying
tactics began by the dictator.
And U.S. financial institutions asked for clarification of what
``cash in advance'' is. Now, it should not surprise us that the
dictator started his delaying tactics, when we see the billions and
billions of dollars that he owes to anyone who has given him credit.
It should not surprise anyone that he started, he began delaying
tactics. The reality of the matter is, cash sales are allowed. The
reality of the matter is that U.S. financial institutions asked for
this clarification.
And also I want to make a separate point. President Bush is right,
and I thank him once again for, today, having issued another very clear
statement of administration policy, when he has stated from the first
day of his administration that he has promised to veto any legislation
that enriches the Cuban dictatorship or benefits the Cuban dictator's
regime.
The President is right. I stand with him. I thank him once again. And
I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart)
has 3 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) has
1 minute remaining.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time
as she may consume to another negotiator of the deal, of the agreement
that still stands and has not been changed by this regulation by
President Bush, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Moran amendment. Let us be clear: This amendment is not about
agricultural sales to Cuba. This amendment seeks to prevent the
implementation of safeguards that have been put in place to ensure that
American farmers do indeed get paid.
Under current U.S. law, the sale of agricultural products to Cuba is
authorized. There are no sanctions in place for such sales. The law
only stipulates that these sales meet four simple conditions: payment
of cash in advance, of payment prior to transfer of title, shipping and
a licensing provision.
Again, these requirements were put in place to protect American
producers, to protect American taxpayers, so that they will in fact get
paid by the Cuban regime, and that these sales are in keeping with the
U.S. foreign policy and commercial interests.
Given the Castro regime history, and you can see right there in Mr.
Diaz-Balart's currency debt, and its history of insolvency, its poor
credit rating, its debt levels, it is incumbent upon us in Congress to
undertake necessary steps to protect Americans from getting cheated,
from getting swindled, like so many others have by the Castro
dictatorship.
Mr. Chairman, we have ample reasons to be concerned about the
worthiness of the Castro regime. At $14 billion, Cuba's foreign debt
reached an all-time high last year.
Cuba simply refuses to pay its debts. Now, we all know that the Cuban
tyrant can afford it. Forbes Magazine recently listed him as among the
top ten wealthiest rulers in the world. The U.S. must not allow its
citizens to shoulder the burden of a corrupt foreign government, a
deadbeat dictator.
Simply put, this amendment promotes lawlessness and the protection

[[Page H3949]]

of Americans against the Cuban regime's antics. I join Mr. Diaz-Balart
and so many others in hoping that we vote ``no'' on the Moran
amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is
again, what part of payment, ``cash in advance'' is hard to understand?
Cash in advance means cash in advance. That is what the rules are
right now. There is nothing changing that. That is what we need to
keep. That is why we need to defeat this amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the
remainder of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and
insist, again, that in order to deny economic resources to the Castro
regime, it is imperative that we maintain the sanction and travel
restrictions that are in place, and encourage the ordinary citizens of
Cuba, and enable them the benefit of our sanctions that are aimed at
trying to free the people of Cuba and end their oppression, end the
oppression that they suffer under.
Again, I quote from the administration, ``Lifting the sanctions now
or limiting our ability to enforce them, would provide assistance to a
repressive regime at the expense of the ordinary Cuban people.''
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas to close debate.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, again, let me reiterate that this has nothing to do
with changing the sanctions that are in place. The law remains. The
administration created a new rule a year ago for which there is no
commercial basis.
And the argument that farmers will not be paid, it is farm
organizations and farmers who are supporting my amendment today. And,
finally, the suggestion that we must save taxpayers expense, there are
no taxpayer dollars involved in trade with Cuba. There is no subsidy.
There is no agricultural credit provided.
This is really about a noncommercial reason, just trying to make the
trade more onerous, more expensive, so that our farmers have less of an
opportunity to export their goods to Cuba.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask support. Return us to the compromise
that was created prior to February of 2005.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1530

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Rangel:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 9xx. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the economic
embargo of Cuba, as defined in section 4(7) of the Cuban
Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996
(Public Law 104-114), except that the foregoing limitation
does not apply to the administration of a tax or tariff.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of House of June 13, 2006, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, this amendment at the desk prevents all
spending in support of the embargo against Cuba. I recognize this is a
very emotional subject because so many people have personal memories of
the dictatorship of Fidel Castro.
But this is not a pro-Castro amendment, this is a pro-American
amendment. If we are going to get rid of this fellow, one thing that is
clear, the embargo route is not the way to go. For 45 years, he has
outlived all of our Presidents by being there. If anything, he has used
the embargo as an excuse to continue his dictatorship. It hasn't done
anything except hurt the Cuban people by having the negative economic
impact on their government.
But more important than anything, it restricts the American people
from doing what we should be able to do without being restricted by our
government. Americans should be able to travel, period. Nobody should
deny us the opportunity to go anywhere that we want to go. If we are
going to be restricted because it is a Communist country, then the
administration is saying they don't have confidence in us that we are
going to be converted to communism.
What about capitalism, the whole idea of changing people's lives and
thoughts through exchange of goods and wares? What about our farmers?
What about those that want to invest in oil?
But, more importantly, what about those people that believe in not
only economic freedom, but cultural freedom, educational freedom, song,
dance, get to know people? The Cuban people love us and those who know
them love the Cuban people.
It is this rascal that is in charge that we have lost billions of
dollars in denying our people the opportunity to have economic
exchange. That has not gained us one thing except perhaps a handful of
votes in Florida.
Because America has to do what works. The embargo is not working any
kind of way, and the meanness of it all, to deny Americans an
opportunity to visit their families in Cuba, or to restrict it to once
every 3 years, we have to check with the doctor to see whether or not
your parents are sick enough or well enough so that you can plan your
visit. That is not the American way of life.
The whole idea that you have sick and poor people in Cuba, and you
are Cuban American, and you want to send some money to them, that that
is being denied because the hard money is going to be used by the
government.
I suggest that nobody in this House, even the lovely lady from
Florida, is going to say that this program has worked. I know it is a
political issue, and I am not belittling that. I know there is a lot of
compassion behind it. But I will call this the American amendment, an
amendment for Americans to travel where they want, to trade where they
want, to entertain where they want, to listen to entertainment where
they want, and to send money where they want and never be able to say
that these people in Cuba that are being adversely affected are a
threat to our national security.
If we love those people, we wouldn't cut off America to them. We
would send America there with the American flag, with our young people,
with hip-hop, with jeans, with all of the things that the whole world
has come to enjoy. But to deny the people in Cuba this because we don't
like or we hate or we want to get rid of this man who puts innocent
people in jail or who shoots down harmless planes, if you want to get
rid of him, bring America to Cuba but don't keep us out.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from New York
(Mr. Rangel). I know that he called this the For-America amendment, but
I think it is the Blame America First amendment, because it says that
if there is misery in Cuba, and there surely is, that it is the fault
of the American people because of our foreign policy tools that we have
been using of sanctioning the government of the regime of Fidel Castro.
I agree with the gentleman that the embargo should be lifted. It is
the embargo that Fidel Castro has on the Cuban people, an embargo on
freedom and an embargo on expression and an embargo on freedom to
worship. That is the embargo that we would like to see lifted.
But here we go again. How interesting that we have this debate on
today, of all days. This is Che Guevara's birthday, and Che Guevara,
like Castro, was a bloody assassin, even though we have young people
wearing

[[Page H3950]]

his T-shirts. They have no idea what that man stood for.
Like Che Guevara, Fidel Castro continues this bloody, tyrannical
rule. Here we have an annual campaign to award an oppressive
totalitarian state, a human rights violator, right here in our own
hemisphere. If history has taught us nothing about the consequences of
appeasing and awarding a brutal power hungry tyrant, we are again being
asked to consider an amendment that in practice would lift all
sanctions on the Cuban dictatorship as a reward for his good behavior.
In matter of fact, as the Cuban regime intensifies its crackdown on
peaceful demonstration, people who are just for democracy, as it
systematically harasses and seeks to intimidate our own U.S. Ambassador
personnel in the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, as the regime
increases its support to pariah states such as Iran and Syria, and the
global jihadist organization, we should not, we cannot, we must not
resolve that this is going to go unnoticed, that we will not be
punishing Fidel Castro, that we will, in fact, be rewarding him for
continuing to oppress his own people.
The misery that the Cuban people feel is Castro's own making. It is
not the Blame America First crowd that wants you to believe that, but
that is so.
There are three major conditions that must be in place before any
sanctions are lifted on the Cuban regime. They are very simple. The
liberation of political prisoners, the legalization of all political
parties, and the holding of free, fair, multiparty, internationally
recognized democratic elections.
This amendment suggests that demanding freedom, demanding democracy,
demanding respect for human rights first is all too much to ask. I say
it is not. The human rights condition in Cuba continues to deteriorate.
Cuba's tyrannical rule punishes even harder those who seek to exercise
their fundamental freedoms of expression, of assembly, of free
association. As the steadily increasing number of Cuban political
prisoners demonstrates, conditions are deplorable and the Cuban people
are oppressed by this ruthless dictator.
So I ask you, are we to reward the imprisonment of peaceful
demonstrators and independent journalists? No, I don't think we should.
I don't think that we will.
Labor leaders, local civil rights activists, are being tortured today
as we speak. They are being jailed by this tyrannical regime. In
addition, sex trafficking is on the rise. According to our own State
Department report on sexual trafficking, it says in Cuba women and
children are trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and
forced child labor.
The Cuban regime does not meet even minimum standards for this so-
called thriving sex trade, but rather participates, participates in the
commercial, sexual exploitation of these women and children. Are we to
reward these violent harassers, this intimidation, these human
traffickers? No, we must not.
In a post-September 11 world, Mr. Chairman, Congress should not, we
must not, help subsidize trade with a regime that is committed to the
destruction of the U.S. Cuba provides safe haven for globally wanted
fugitives and pursues even closer ties with Syria and Iran.
Let us not forget then in May of 2001 Fidel Castro said, together,
Cuba and Iran will bring America to its knees. The imperialist king
will finally fall.
Then, Cuba also voted no on an International Atomic Energy Agency
that would have condemned Iran's nonproliferation obligations. I ask my
colleagues to stand on the side of political prisoners and reject the
Rangel amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I think everyone in this Chamber
appreciates Ms. Ros-Lehtinen's commitment to human rights, and I salute
her for that. However, I think we have to observe that the embargo
hasn't stopped Castro, it hasn't stopped Cuba from progressing. It
hasn't forced out Castro.
It certainly provided hurdles and extra expenses that have been felt
by every Cuban in every sector of the economy that is desperate for a
boost. Proponents of the embargo argue that constricting the Cuban
economy will fuel discontent among the Cuban population with the
current government and will force out Castro. That hasn't happened in
45 years.
Moreover, it didn't happen when the Cuban economy was at its worst
period following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.
But the desired outcome by the proponents of the embargo will not be
achieved. In the process of forcing the embargo, the United States is
paradoxically curtailing the freedom of its own citizens and the human
rights and the very things for which the government criticizes Cuba.
Today, I might point out, to my good friend from Florida, it is not
only Che Guevara's birthday, but it is also Flag Day in the United
States. The values that we hold with our flag we could stand for in
saying that the Cuban embargo ought to be taken down. In November of
2005, for the fourteenth year in a row, the U.N. General Assembly
passed a resolution with the support of 182 Nations calling on the
United States to immediately end its economic embargo against Cuba.
Nearly the whole world is opposing the embargo. Many U.S. allies have
voiced concern that the extraterritorial application of U.S. embargo
would infringe on their rights. It is time for a change in U.S. policy
towards Cuba. It is time to craft a policy that is based on the values
of the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations, human rights of pure
logic and lift the embargo against Cuba.
I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel amendment and to support a
new direction and a new day.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for a total
of 4 minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your kind indulgence.
I know that there is a lot of passion involved in those that oppose
anything that would appear to be supporting a ruthless dictator in
Cuba. I want you to know that if we had an opportunity to take a vote
on this floor for or against Cuba, I would volunteer to get rid of
Castro, because we are from Cuba, but we are not for Castro.
There is nothing in the embargo that punishes Castro. Certainly it
seems to have enhanced his popularity. But be that as it may, for those
people who want to get rid of the ruthless dictator, share with me what
good it is to take a Cuban American that is here or a Cuban American
that is here in America, and say that they can't send money back to
Cuba to their family in a very poor country because we hate Castro.
How can we tell farmers that want to sell food to the Cuban people
that you can't do it? We have to get special permission to send
medicine and food, and even that is being opposed by some. How do you
tell a kid that wants to go to Cuba and to learn not communism but
learn about medicine, or why not have Cuban kids be able to come here
to learn about our great republic, our great democracy?

{time} 1545

How are we able to say that putting up a wall between the Cuban
people and the American people is going to help get rid of this
ruthless dictator? It would seem to me that we would have such pride in
our ability to change the way people think about democracy by
demonstrating it, but when you tell Americans who are so proud of
ourselves that we are fortunate enough to live in the greatest Republic
in the world, that we can brag about it in every city and every valley
and every county in every country, but for God sake do not show the
Communists in Cuba how proud you are, people who have never been able
to enjoy any of the things that we just take for granted in this
country.
But realistically and honestly, has this got anything to do with the
people in Cuba over Castro? Or does it have to do with the electoral
college system in Florida? Is this not where we concentrate to make
certain that we are going to try to find out who hates Castro the most?
I wish we could change this debate around and have it to be who loves
and

[[Page H3951]]

cares for the Cuban people the most. Why can we not expose them to our
market of food and medicine and education and the ideals of freedom
that was fought for in this country? Why can we not go there and be
able to say that we are not afraid of Castro, they cannot lock us up,
so if you lock those people who disagree with you up, then we will
stand up there and say this is what democracy IS about? Who are the
greatest advocates of freedom than free Americans?
I am suggesting that let us take the politics out of this. Let us
take the embargo out of this. Let us be proAmerican, and those people
who refuse to allow our American flag to be carried by Americans to
Cuba, they are the ones that are stopping democracy; because I will
suggest to you that any American that is so proud of what we have been
able to do, we may have obstacles to overcome, but we love our country.
We preach about how great it is, especially when we are overseas. Do
not deny Americans the right to be able to say how great democracy is,
and do not put a cap on our capitalism. Let us be able to sell to
whomever wants to buy from us and do not blame it all on Castro because
he is not being hurt.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman
Knollenberg.
I was pleased to hear that our colleague from the other side of the
aisle said that, I think he said something like he would vote for
democracy in Cuba. When we have had opportunities in this Chamber, as
late as May of 2005, to condemn the human rights violations, I see that
he has voted ``no.'' So I am glad that perhaps some progress on that
issue may be being made.
Mr. Chairman, which of the conditions that Ms. Ros-Lehtinen
mentioned, which are in our law for the immediate lifting of U.S.
sanctions, the sweeping of trade, the arrival of massive trade and
tourism and financing, which of the conditions in our law that make
that access to the U.S. market, that are contingent for that access to
the U.S. market, which are the conditions mentioned by our colleague,
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen? The liberation of all political prisoners, the
legalization of all political parties, labor unions, the press and the
holding of free elections, which of those conditions are objectionable?
We want to see the sanctions lifted. What we want to see are the
people of Cuba, 90 miles from our shores and oppressed for 47 years by
a totalitarian tyrant, we want to see them freed. We want the political
prisoners freed. We want their political parties legalized. We want to
see them with free elections. Which of the conditions are
objectionable?
Is it correct to lift, to reward that tyranny now, unilaterally,
while the prisons are full of men and women, prisoners of conscience,
who peacefully advocate for freedom and democracy, the freedom that we
are here exercising today? For example, one of them, an independent
journalist, Guillermo Farinas, is on the verge of death as we speak
because he entered a hunger strike 4 months ago for the right as an
independent journalist to access the Internet and to be able to have
and send e-mail, and he is on a hunger strike, on the verge of death as
we speak.
What is objectionable with our insistence to that tyranny that that
political prisoner be released and all the others and political parties
be legalized and the Cuban people have access like the rest of this
hemisphere has to free and fair elections, multiparty elections? What
is so objectionable? Why the different treatment? Why is it that we
insist on free elections for countries throughout the world, but our
neighbors 90 miles away, no, no; for them let us unilaterally reward
the tyrant and give him what he seeks.
No, this amendment must be defeated once again, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment wants
to lift all sanctions unilaterally on the regime that, among other
things, has invited the President of Iran to visit in the next few
months because the Cuban regime supports Iran's nuclear program. It is
on the list of states that sponsor terrorism, and yet, how do some
Members, how does this amendment want to deal with that terrorist
state? By unilaterally asking nothing in return, helping that regime
with billions and billions of dollars from here, from the United
States, so that that terrorist regime can continue to oppress and also
do what it used to do when it had money.
Let us not forget the American GIs that died in Grenada fighting that
regime's thugs. Do we really want to fund an antiAmerican terrorist
state just 90 miles away, particularly in a time of war? Absolutely
not. It makes no sense. It is absolutely ludicrous.
So I would ask you to once again soundly defeat this amendment. It
makes no sense.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the two previous gentlemen who
just spoke, the issue is not whether we like Mr. Castro or not. I think
Castro has an abominable human rights record. I think he has an idiotic
economic record. The issue, rather, is whether or not we trust our
fellow citizens.
I would also say that the issue to the question I would ask is why
should the United States follow a policy which allows Castro to pretend
that the United States and its embargo is one of the reasons for his
economic and political failures. I think we make it easier for Castro
to survive by our own silliness.
That is why I support the amendment of the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I hoped we would not distort the argument.
If we can have a petition to circulate tomorrow, where we can support
the release of all political prisoners, where we can condemn the
dictatorship of Castro, hey, I would want to be a part of circulating
it.
I do hope that sometime you might try to explain to the American
people how we are supporting Castro because we say that a Cuban
American that wants to visit their sick parents or their brother and
sister, how that compassionate visit is supporting communism.
I would like to know how would supporting Castro, if what we are
saying is that we want to send some money to poor families that are
there, but we cannot do it because we hate Castro and we would be
rewarding him, I would like to know how we are rewarding him when our
farmers are denied the opportunity during the time they have to export
food, the pharmaceuticals, the people who export the American dream, I
would want to know as we put a cap on capitalism, how this is rewarding
Castro?
No, I think it has been said by many people. Castro uses us as a
vehicle for his dictatorship. And the people who are in prison, I think
if we had more Americans there and people from other countries there
condemning his conduct, do you think that Americans would be locked up
by this dictator if our youngsters were able to go there and protest
there as they are so easily able to do it here?
Why do you not open up this door and acknowledge, this is a Floridian
problem. This is a political problem. This is who-hates-Castro-the-most
type of problem.
I submit to you, if you were to take this and say who likes the
American people, who loves the American people the most, how can we
help them the best, I would think it is to bring them medical care, to
bring them food, to bring them help, to bring them technology and wrap
it all up in the American flag and dare them to contest what we are
doing because we are the freedom-loving people. We do not ban people
from going to places, and I do not want to give up my democracy because
of some feeling that people have of their own politics, which has
nothing to do with my great country.
Castro is not a threat to the United States of America. He is a
threat to whether Republicans or Democrats gets votes out of Florida.
The Cuban people are not a threat to our national security. They are
always offering to send doctors here, to send blood here,

[[Page H3952]]

because they love our way of life. If Castro is an impediment for them
being able to know and enjoy what America stands for, then let
Americans go there, especially Cuban Americans who know the tyranny of
Cuba and know the freedom that they have enjoyed in Florida and New
Jersey and New York and throughout these States.
Who could be a better ambassador for freedom, an embargo or people
who have known the pains of dictatorship and the love and the joy of
the American way of life?
So do what you want to do politically, but do not take away
Americans' rights to be able to enjoy the hearts, the culture, the
education, the music and all of the things that we have been able to
enjoy, really, merely because you are trying to pick up a seat or two
in the State of Florida. It is not fair to the Cuban people. It is not
fair to the American people, and it is not fair to our Constitution.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Rangel
amendment.
If we want an effective foreign policy that prepares the United
States for a post-Castro transition, we need to engage with our Cuban
neighbors.
Until very recently this Administration has not engaged with Iran--to
the detriment of U.S. national security interests.
Similarly, not engaging with Cuba has resulted in the loss of trade
opportunities for U.S. manufacturers and the U.S. agricultural
industry, and prevented the opportunity to develop a civil society
within Cuba that is sympathetic to U.S. interests.
We need to recognize the failure of silent diplomacy.
This deafening silence will prevent a smooth transition to a post-
Castro government--both for Cubans and for U.S. national security.
Now is the time to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba--lifting
the embargo will:
Encourage cultural exchanges that build understanding between
Americans and Cubans;
Enable Cuban Americans to visit their relatives just like other
Americans whose relatives live in places other than Cuba; and
Engage democratic reform.
I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel Amendment and end the
embargo against Cuba.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

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

Amendment offered by Ms. Lee:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 9xx. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce the amendments
made to paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 515.565 of title
31, Code of Federal Regulations (relating to specific
licenses for United States academic institutions and other
specific licenses), as published in the Federal Register on
June 16, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 33772). The limitation in the
preceding sentence shall not apply to the implementation,
administration, or enforcement of section 515.560(c)(3) of
title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is very simple, and it really, quite frankly, should be
noncontroversial. It was unanimously approved by this body in 2004, and
it deserves to be passed again this year.
This amendment prohibits funds in the bill from being used to enforce
regulations promulgated on June 30, 2004 that included severely
restricted and, in many cases, eliminated opportunities for American
students to study in Cuba. There are no valid reasons for needing to
restrict the rights of Americans, especially our young people, to
travel abroad and study abroad.

{time} 1600

Whether or not you support the United States embargo against Cuba,
you should support American national security interests, educational
exchanges, and civil liberties that this amendment promotes.
Mr. Chairman, the Office of Foreign Assets Control within the
Department of the Treasury is tasked with tracking the finances of
terrorists, international narcotics, and weapons of mass destruction.
However, in 2003, the Miami Herald reported that this office had six
times more personnel working on Cuba licensing than trafficking bin
Laden.
Now, that is a fact, and it doesn't make any sense. OFAC shouldn't
waste their time prosecuting and tracking average Americans, especially
our students. We have other real pressing national security concerns,
and people watching this debate at home should, quite frankly, be
outraged, especially when we consider that the State Department and the
9/11 Commission both underscored the importance of students in
spreading American values. They are our best goodwill ambassadors.
Patricia Harrison, the former Assistant Secretary of State for
Educational and Cultural Affairs, stated repeatedly that ``one of our
greatest assets in public diplomacy is the American people themselves.
Programs that bring Americans and foreign citizens in direct contact
can and do have tremendous positive impact.'' That is what she said.
The bipartisan Commission report, the 9/11 report, recommends that we
rebuild the scholarship exchange and library programs that reach out to
young people and offer them knowledge and hope. But our policy on Cuba
continues to do just the opposite.
Most importantly, this amendment addresses the issue of basic civil
liberties. American students should be able to travel freely and gain
invaluable experience that only study abroad programs can provide. Our
students simply want the opportunity to conduct their studies, learn
about other cultures, and make independent judgments for themselves.
Students can participate in exchanges with China, why not Cuba?
Simply said, any policy that restricts United States educational
exchanges should not be approved or supported. They are in every sense
anti-American and contradict our values and our ideals. This amendment
is straightforward and should not be controversial, so I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Lee amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Florida seek time in opposition
to the amendment?
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
A couple of points of clarification. Currently, U.S. law already
allows individual members of religious organizations to travel to Cuba
for religious purposes. The only requirements, of course, is that they
have a specific license, and that is a safeguard in U.S. law to ensure
that travel is in fact for the stated purpose and not for the purpose
of tourism.
Again, current regulations ensure that the financial donations are
not provided to the regime, that terrorist regime, that murderous,
terrorist regime, under the guise of religious activity. And the
current law seeks to prevent the manipulation of legitimate activities
to practice or share as one may believe about the Cuban people.
Why is that important? Well, I have this board here, and I hope you
can see it, the American people can see it. Why is it so important that
we are careful about how this goes? Because the regime in Cuba is a
regime that promotes pedophilia, promotes sexual tourism, including
with children. And let me read this quote. ``Cuba has a tourism
industry, government operated or affiliated, and it engages in
promoting child prostitution.''
Yes, child prostitution, which is not only trafficking under our law,
United States law, but under U.N. protocol. And it is done very openly.
This just came out recently. This came out just recently.
So again, yes, the law provides that you can do it, as long as it is
real. It is not just to do other things, such as what that terrorist
regime promotes

[[Page H3953]]

and sponsors, like pedophilia and child prostitution.
I will note that the sponsor of this amendment said that the American
people would be ashamed, or would be appalled, I guess--I don't want to
quote her, but in essence--if they saw this debate. It is ironic that
when, for example, myself, and now Senator, then Congressman Menendez
proposed resolutions just condemning the crackdown of the dissidents in
Cuba, condemning the crackdown against the freedom of press in Cuba,
most of this Congress voted in favor of that resolution condemning the
crackdown.
Only 22 Members of this House voted against those resolutions,
bipartisan resolutions, condemning the crackdown on the free press,
condemning the crackdown on the peaceful opposition movement in Cuba.
The distinguished Member who was here before who said that he would
support a resolution condemning the regime is on record not 20 years
ago, not 10 years ago, just last year against even condemning the
crackdown against the free press. Against even that. It would be
interesting to find out where the sponsor of this amendment was. Was
she condemning the crackdown? Did she vote with us to condemn the
crackdown, or did she support the Castro regime even when they were
doing the crackdown?
The bottom line is this, my dear friends. There is a terrorist regime
just 90 miles away from the United States with close ties to Iran, to
North Korea, and other nasty, horrible, murderous terrorist regimes. In
itself the Cuba regime is a terrorist regime. This is not the time to
be helping anti-American terrorist regimes with funding or in ways in
which the terrorist regime can obtain more funding.
I would respectfully ask this amendment also once again be strongly
defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that if the gentleman would
look at what the current regulations do, they are very restrictive in
terms of allowing for students to participate in student exchanges. We
want to make sure that our American students are allowed to participate
in educational exchanges in the same manner in which they participate
in educational exchanges with other countries. That is what this
amendment is about.
Our young people should not be denied the opportunity to visit
countries, to participate in legitimate academic programs. We are not
talking about a 2-week summer program, we are talking about a semester,
a year, a 2-year program, an academic program that students would like
to participate in to be able to gain knowledge of a different culture.
As they do with China, they would like to learn that about Cuba.
They would like to participate in their academic curriculum in
foreign countries, like they do everywhere in the world. Cuba should
not be distinguished. And part of the reason that they can't go should
not be because of our United States policy towards Cuba. Students
deserve to be able to study abroad.
That is all this amendment does. It provides those options for them
to participate in educational exchanges in a country 90 miles away.
That is all this is about. Our young people deserve that, and it is
amazing to me that we can deny kids the chance to grow and to develop
and to say what they believe in terms of a country's culture, foreign
policy, and academic institutions. They should be able to do this for
themselves, see for themselves, study, and learn. That is what this
amendment is about. It is not about U.S. policy toward Cuba.
Finally, let me just say that many groups around the country have
supported this amendment. The Emergency Coalition in Defense of
Educational Travel, the NAACP, the Washington Office on Latin America,
and the Freedom to Travel Campaign.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance
of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding,
and I rise in strong opposition to my good friend, Ms. Lee's,
amendment.
The proponents of this amendment say that it would allow American
students to travel to Cuba. The reality is that under current law
educational trips to Cuba by American students are permitted. The
restrictions do exist, however, and they are in place in order to
ensure that American students studying in Cuba are indeed engaging in
legitimate educational activities with substantive academic and
cultural components.
This is in contrast to the time before the regulations were put in
place in July of 2004. What was happening then? Students were
participating in activities with little or no educational merit. These
trips were organized under the guise of educational activity but they
were in fact spring break getaways and island shopping excursions.
We have to understand and remember that when this amendment was
offered last year the elected leaders of the opposition in Cuba wrote a
letter to every Member of Congress saying please defeat this amendment;
this does not help our cause for freedom.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
To continue this intellectual discussion between Florida and
California, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Lee amendment to
prohibit the use of funds to enforce regulations restricting access to
educational programs for students who wish to study in Cuba.
Mr. Chairman, throughout the Cold War, American students studied in
the Soviet Union. Many of them went on to become diplomats, scholars,
and policymakers who used the knowledge they gained to contribute to
the development and implementation of U.S. foreign policy. Similarly,
many Americans are studying in the People's Republic of China today.
There is no reason to treat study in Cuba differently.
Study abroad provides valuable educational experiences for American
students and contributes to the development of knowledge and informed
professionals who can use their knowledge to serve our country in the
future. I urge my colleagues to support the Lee amendment and support
educational opportunities for American students in Cuba and throughout
the world.
Mr. Chairman, I have been to Cuba many times. I have been to the
great medical university. Castro has trained over 60,000 doctors. I
think they will be the first to come forward with a real cure for HIV
and AIDS. Don't deny our students the opportunity to share in this very
rich culture, despite the fact that we have an embargo.
I would urge support for this amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just want to clarify a couple of points that the opponents of this
amendment have said.
First of all, currently the licenses for participation in student
exchanges are valid for only 1 year, rather than 2. We want to return
back to the 2 years.
Also, only students who are provided educational opportunities in the
undergraduate and graduate level institutions can participate in these
restricted licenses. No high schools, no other educational institutions
are allowed to participate in Cuba travel.
Also, employees who travel under the license must be full-time
permanent employees of the licensed institution, which prevents many
teachers and many professors from participating with their students as
they travel to Cuba.
Also, all people-to-people educational travel was eliminated in 2003,
and that ended thousands of educational visits by United States
citizens to Cuba for broader educational purposes. Educational
activities in Cuba now may be no shorter than 10 weeks, unless they are
for the purpose of graduate research. Now, this eliminates scores of
valuable educational programs to Cuba that were really a few weeks
long.
Finally, let me just say that it doesn't make any sense to deny
students, once again, the opportunity to participate in educational
programs abroad. Cutting off these opportunities makes no sense. It
really is a violation of their civil liberties. It goes against who we
are as Americans.
Our young people are hopeful for the possibilities of a new world
free of all the politics that we have heard today.

[[Page H3954]]

{time} 1615

So why don't we give them a chance to participate?
So all this amendment would do would be to revert back to the 2003
prior regulations which for many of us were very restrictive also, but
we are just asking to go back to those regulations so that our young
people will have the broadest possible opportunity to participate in
educational exchanges, given the unfortunate status of the United
States policy toward Cuba.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I
yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I noted with
interest that the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee
stated that he was interested in this intellectual exercise. Perhaps
this could be because we are in a free Parliament, in a democracy, and
it could be interpreted as an intellectual exercise.
But I will tell you for whom this issue is not an intellectual
exercise. When a year ago, despite the totalitarian nature of the Cuban
regime, over 100 delegates from the peaceful prodemocracy movement
managed to meet. Many others were not able to meet. They were stopped.
They were arrested. For many reasons many others were not allowed, but
over 100 did manage to meet in assembly. And they elected leaders and
principles.
Those leaders sent us a year ago, after their assembly, after this
amendment, the same amendment and a few others had been filed, a
statement of position with regard to the amendments, including this one
that was filed a year ago.
Now, of these three leaders, the elected leaders of the prodemocracy
leader in Cuba, one was thrown in the gulag after sending this letter,
where he is today. He remains uncharged. Who knows if the dictator will
ever charge him? He was sent to the gulag and he is today in that
inferno gulag after sending us his position. That is not an
intellectual exercise; it is an exercise of extraordinary heroism.
And they stated in the letter that those amendments, and one of them
was this one, if any of them would be passed, that Cuban regime in
Havana, which has given continuous examples of its absolute
immovability and of its repressive and antidemocratic vocation, would
consider such amendments unilateral actions by this Congress as a
policy of accommodation with the regime. So this is not an intellectual
exercise.
We are dealing with a tyranny of 47 years. And let no one be
confused. Despite the 47-year duration of that tyranny, let no one be
confused that for one single day the Cuban people have failed to fight
for their freedom. And they will be free and the tyrant who is about to
celebrate his 80th birthday will soon be elsewhere and the Cuban people
will be free.
By the way, statements like the resolution that was mentioned
recently, that only 22 Members of this House voted against, in support
of the prodemocracy movement and in condemnation of the violation of
the human rights of the Cuban people, those statements and
manifestations by this Congress will always be seen as admirable,
admirable statements of solidarity of the people who deserve to be free
and who will be free despite 47 years of oppression.
So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to once again stand
for the rights of the Cuban people to live in freedom. And these
amendments, like this one which seeks to confuse, because it is already
legal for Americans with educational purposes to get a license and
study in Cuban, but not to engage in child prostitution and not to
engage in the endeavors of the regime, like our State Department has
stated publicly just a few days ago on the record, Ambassador John R.
Miller, Ambassador-at-Large on International Slavery: Cuba has a
tourism industry, government operated or affiliated, which engages in
promoting child prostitution, which is not only trafficking under
United States law but under United Nations protocol, and it is done
very openly.
That is among the realities, the horrible realities of the Cuban
tyranny which will soon come to an end but that we must continue to
condemn and we must continue to reject unilateral rewards for. So I ask
my colleagues to vote down this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
conduct a study to determine the amount each State department
of transportation spent in fiscal year 2005 to comply with
laws and regulations of the United States Department of
Transportation.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006,
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, many times Members come with their amendments to the
floor and say I have a commonsense amendment to present. Sometimes they
are common sense and simple, and sometimes they are not. I would hazard
the statement that this one is simple and a commonsense amendment that
I make today. And it is one that I have made on the floor over the last
several weeks with regard to some of the other appropriations bills as
well.
It is simply to try to rein in some of the spending that we do here
in Washington, to put some sort of a reasonable limit on some of the
spending that we do because, you know, when you listen to all of the
debates back and forth when we discuss the budget and other such
matters, we differ on how we get here on some of these issues, but one
thing that we do not seem to differ on is that we are spending too much
and our debt is too high in this country.
If we can try to rein that in and bring down some of that debt, it is
a good thing. And that is what this amendment does. This amendment puts
a reasonable limit on the number of Federal employees that can attend
out-of-this-country international conferences.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I am very willing to accept the amendment. I think
it is a good amendment.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I appreciate that, and I will just briefly
conclude by saying that I appreciate the acceptance of the amendment to
make sure that as we go forward, the Federal Government limits the
number of employees who go overseas. We do not say that there should be
no one traveling. We recognize the importance of staff, both here on
the floor, and we recognize the importance of staff as far as Federal
agencies are concerned, but if we put a reasonable number, as the
chairman just accepted, I think we are doing a good thing for the
American taxpayer.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
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 apply the assumption contained in section A150.101(d)
of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.

[[Page H3955]]

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006, 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 of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I rise at this time for purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the
gentlemen from Michigan and Massachusetts, which was the intent of
bringing up the amendment so that we would have an opportunity to
discuss a very important issue.
Sometimes it takes money, but sometimes it takes policy. We recognize
that one of the advantages of modern life is the convenience of air
travel. America's air transportation system is the best and safest in
the world, but airports are not quiet. If you ask any resident that
lives near a busy airport, you will hear many grievances about the
noise level.
Although there is no way to make airports soundproof, it is possible
to reduce airport noise so it is less disruptive to the lives of the
families that live near some of the Nation's busiest airports, work and
pay their taxes.
Under the Airport Improvement Program administered by the FAA, grants
are available to airports and local governments to fund noise reduction
projects located in areas significantly affected by airport noise above
65 decibels over a 24-hour average, as indicated by the notation 65
dB(A) DNL. Noise mitigation grants are generally not available for
areas in which the noise level may be substantial but does not exceed
the 65 dB(A) DNL. Thereby, money does not solve the problem; policy
does.
However, substantial impacts occur to millions of people well below
the 65 decibel level. This value is inadequate for several reasons:
From a scientific perspective, it is not supported by research. The
65 decibel level is derived from the Schultz Curve which correlated
people reporting being highly annoyed by noise with noise levels.
Substantial impact occurs well before people become highly annoyed.
In addition, the data used in the Schultz Curve for airports shows that
``highly annoyed'' occurs around 57 decibels, not 65, and that comes
from a Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
The EPA has identified 55 dB(A) DNL as a more appropriate noise
level. The day/night average sound level is the level of noise
expressed in decibels as a 24-hour average, and averages do not
adequately account for the impacts of aircraft noise on individuals.
Research has shown that noise disruption as low as 55 decibels can
negatively affect communities near airports. Unfortunately, communities
that have a dB(A) less than 65 are precluded from applying for an
Airport Improvement Program grant to reduce airport noise. We need to
help them. I have even heard from cities in Minnesota. It is all over
the country.
It is important to stress that this amendment does not entitle any
airport, local government or other eligible entity to receive a noise
mitigation grant. Nor does it have any financial impact. This amendment
only affects an applicant's eligibility to be considered for an airport
noise reduction grant. Each applicant must demonstrate that its
proposed project deserves to be funded, but no applicant can be
disqualified from consideration merely because the area covered by the
grant request does not have a dB(A) DNL greater than 65.
I would ask the gentleman to agree to work with me and, of course,
others in this Congress who have similar interests for the betterment
of the airports and airlines and airline travel, but also for those
hardworking taxpaying communities to provide some relief to these
affected communities. And I would yield to the gentleman.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. My understanding is that the gentlewoman is willing
to withdraw the amendment, presuming I will work with you?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am yielding to the gentleman.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. If you withdraw the amendment, I am prepared to work
with you any way that I can, but the amendment would have to be
withdrawn, so I am just asking for a guarantee that the amendment will
be withdrawn.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think the colloquy states.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Well, it states it in reverse, and that is my
question. I thank you for the layout of the information here. You
certainly raise an important issue, and I pledge to explore the issue
with you further.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much for
acknowledging the importance of this issue, and that it impacts many
communities in addition to Houston and the district that I represent.
With that in mind, I hope we will be able to march towards efforts both
with the authorizers and the subcommittee to be able to work on this.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment of the gentlewoman
from Texas is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

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 13, 2006, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I recognize
the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, it was just yesterday we were on this floor honoring
the work of former President Dwight Eisenhower and also celebrating the
50th anniversary of the national interstate highway system.

{time} 1630

That system that he was the champion of for a number of years
beforehand and finally got done, that system that we today bear the
fruit, enjoy the fruit of. That system that was, in essence, put in
place to connect border to border, east to west, north to south, the
major urban areas and the city areas of this country, primarily for a
national defense purposes was what the President had in mind. That
system, as I say, was started 50 years ago. That system, of course, was
also completed 20 years ago. And as I mentioned on the floor just
yesterday, I believe that the former President and great general that
he was, would want us, as we go into the second half of that century to
be able to stand on his shoulders of the work that he was able to
accomplish and now move on to a more progressive and appropriate system
for this century.
Under the current system, it is sort of a top-down approach as far as
transportation dollars are concerned. Even though States spend twice as
much money on our transportation system in the country than the Federal
Government does, we are all aware of the fact that there is an 18-cent
gasoline tax in every State. That money comes from your respective
State to Washington, D.C., through the hands of the bureaucrats down
here where the decisions are made and then reallocated with the things
that we read about in the paper as well as far as some of the programs
and dollars where they are spent. Things that our taxpayers probably
just scratch their head and wonder what is Washington doing with those
dollars. I would gather the local officials, county, municipal and
State officials also wonder just what Washington is doing with those
transportation dollars as well.

[[Page H3956]]

To that end, I have introduced legislation called the Surface
Transportation and Taxation Equity Act, the STATE Act for short. And
that is a piece of legislation that simply says this: That States
should be allowed, if they so desire, to opt out of the Federal
gasoline and transportation system and make those decisions right at
home instead.
See, right now, States are either donor States or donee States.
States like the State of New Jersey, which is my own, is a donor State.
We send more to Washington as far as gasoline taxes than we ever get
back in return, so we are, in effect, subsidizing the other States. But
even donee States, even those States that think that they are doing
well by this system, may not be. And the reason I say that is this.
Even though they are getting a little bit more, a few pennies back on
the dollar more than they send to Washington, the problem is there are
strings attached to those dollars. Washington just doesn't turn those
dollars back to those donee States nor in to the donor States without
any restrictions. They don't turn them back carte blanche. Washington,
the bureaucrats, put restrictions on them. But what exactly do those
restrictions cost the States? What do they cost through the micro-
management that Washington does to those States? What does it cost
those respective States inasmuch as they are not able to spend the
dollars as the citizens of those States feel are most appropriate? What
does it cost at the end of the day in wasted Federal and local taxes?
So what this amendment does, to get to the bottom of it, is simply do
a study. Let's get the facts. Let's find out what it is, in fact,
costing the States to comply with this top-down, inefficient, outdated
system of funding and building our roads and bridges across this
country.
This amendment simply asks the U.S. Department of Transportation to
conduct a study to determine the amount each State spends to comply
with the regulations of the USDOT and whether or not there are programs
that they are spending on that the sovereign States do not intend for
them to spend it on. So in the end this is simply an amendment asking
for a study to ask for full disclosure so that we both in Washington
and at the local level and the taxpayers as well know exactly where
their dollars are going to, where they are coming from and whether they
are being put to the best use.
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.
The rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. The
amendment imposes additional duties. I ask now for a ruling from the
Chair. I think that would be the appropriate step.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, at this point, recognizing
the point of order raised and setting it out, I at this point seek
unanimous consent for withdrawing the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bishop of New York:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) Congress finds that (1) Trans World Airlines
(TWA) Flight 800 crashed off the coast of Long Island, New
York, on July 17, 1996, resulting in one of the worst air
disasters in United States history; and (2) since the crash
of TWA Flight 800, numerous technological advances have
enhanced passenger safety on airlines.
(b) On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the crash
of TWA Flight 800, Congress (1) offers condolences to the
surviving families and friends of the 230 passengers and crew
who perished as a result of the crash; and (2) recognizes the
importance of continually upgrading aircraft technology,
particularly with regard to the flammability of fuel tanks,
to safeguard the flying public.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of June 13, 2006, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Bishop) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a
straightforward, nonpartisan resolution commemorating one of the worst
air disasters in history. Nearly a decade ago, on July 17, 1996, the
world witnessed as TWA Flight 800 crashed off the coast of Long Island
in the Atlantic Ocean just south of my district. All 230 passengers and
crew perished.
Today it is important that we continue to offer our support by
joining the surviving families who will recognize the 10th anniversary
of that tragedy next month and we must do all that we can to safeguard
the flying public against future disasters.
Like other challenging times our Nation has faced, the reaction to
the Flight 800 catastrophe brought out the best not only in my
constituents but in so many others in the surrounding towns, States and
across the Nation who joined New Yorkers in mourning the loss of so
many who lost their lives and who helped my community recover from its
most horrific tragedy.
New Yorkers, indeed, all Americans demonstrated the great human
strength and spirit that makes our country prevail in the face of
tremendous adversity. Thousands of volunteers and employees of the
Coast Guard, U.S. Navy, Army Corps of Engineers and the NTSB searched
the waters below where the plane fell in an unprecedented search and
recovery effort. Throughout and despite their grief the families of the
victims worked tirelessly to build a permanent memorial with the help
of Navy Seabees and thousands of dedicated local building trades union
members. Today this solemn monument spirals along a strip of Long
Island's south shore and serves as a constant reminder of our
community's tremendous loss one decade ago.
As we approach this milestone, it is important to take stock of our
progress in preventing air disasters since Flight 800. From a
technological perspective, we have made some great strides towards
aviation safety, particularly, for example, with design upgrades and an
ongoing effort to mitigate fuel tank flammability, the cause of the
Flight 800 crash.
It is also important to once again offer our condolences to the
families of the Flight 800 disaster and assure them of our steadfast
commitment to safety and of our vigilance against preventable
catastrophes.
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 appropriations bill. Therefore it violates clause 2
of rule XXI.
The rule states, in pertinent part, an amendment to a general
appropriations bill shall not be in order if it is changing existing
law. The amendment proposes to state a legislative position. And so I
ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New York or any other Member
wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Only that in my view this is a very benign,
very straightforward amendment. It does just two things. It offers the
condolences of the Congress to the survivors of the tragedy and it
reasserts our commitment to air travel safety.
I understand the point of order. I guess I would respectfully request
that the chairman acknowledge that this is a benign and straightforward
amendment and not impose the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The amendment proposes
to express a legislative sentiment. As such, the amendment constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is
sustained, and the amendment is not in order.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now

[[Page H3957]]

resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed,
in the following order:
Amendment by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
Amendment by Mr. Oberstar of Minnesota.
Amendment by Mr. Rangel of New York.
Amendment by Ms. Lee of California.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214,
noes 214, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 282]

AYES--214

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
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
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
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
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
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
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
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
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--214

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
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
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
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--5

Brady (TX)
Cannon
Miller (MI)
Rothman
Sessions

{time} 1705

Messrs. SHERWOOD, HULSHOF, WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mrs. EMERSON and
Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. PASTOR, Ms. WOOLSEY
and Mr. BOREN 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 Mr. Oberstar

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar)
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 291,
noes 137, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 283]

AYES--291

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee

[[Page H3958]]

Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--137

Aderholt
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Ehlers
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Granger
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Van Hollen
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--4

Becerra
Miller (MI)
Rothman
Sessions

{time} 1711

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 284]

AYES--183

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

NOES--245

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berkley
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
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
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Blackburn
Miller (MI)
Rothman
Sessions

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1718

Mr. GRAVES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page H3959]]

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

Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 285]

AYES--187

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

NOES--236

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

NOT VOTING--9

Blackburn
Boehner
Hunter
Marchant
Meeks (NY)
Miller (MI)
Norwood
Rothman
Sessions

Announcement by the Chairman

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

{time} 1724

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last four lines.
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, 2007''.

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Chairman, I want to address two issues in H.R. 5576,
the Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, Judiciary
and District of Columbia Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(TTHUD) that are of great interest to the Fifth District of Missouri:
first, the need to redesignate funds in the SAFETEA-LU program to
address critical traffic problems along a stretch of highway known as
``Death Valley,'' and second, the woefully inadequate resources for
housing and community development.
Let me begin by thanking Chairman Joe Knollenberg and Ranking Member
John Olver both of the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee
on Transportation and Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member Jim
Oberstar both of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for all of their hard work on this measure. I know it is
through their efforts that we have this bill and I will have the
opportunity to help my district fix an alarming problem.
I prepared a very simple amendment to make a technical correction to
redesignate funds, and alleviate traffic at one of the most dangerous
intersections in Missouri's 5th Congressional District: the
intersection of M-291 Highway and Courtney Road in Sugar Creek,
Missouri.
Originally, this SAFETEA-LU allocation would have designated $1.6
million for one highway project in my district, and the amendment would
have fully transferred the designation to the City of Sugar Creek, so
that they could have alleviated the traffic problems along a different
stretch of high-traffic highway known as ``Death Valley.''
Within a 22 month span, there were 31 traffic accidents. In 1997,
there were 87 accidents and 2 fatalities. In the summer 1998, five
people died within two days in traffic accidents.This stretch has truly
earned its nickname, and the area has only grown busier.
Overall, there is a large number of truck and car traffic crossing
from the outer roadways of M-291 at an uncontrolled intersection North
of Kentucky Road and South of Courtney Road. This redesignation would
facilitate construction to finish the East and West outer-roadways to
Courtney Road to allow for traffic to move safely through controlled
intersections.
Until now, the City has only been able to do minimally protective
measures, such as reducing the speed limit and adding a red light
violator camera system. This redesignation would improve public safety
by finishing the extension of the East and West outer roadways and
adding desperately needed traffic outlets.
Mr. Chairman, I withdrew my amendment after conversations and
assurances with the good Chairmen and Ranking Members, that a more
appropriate vehicle for this technical correction and redesignation
would be coming up for consideration shortly. I look forward to working
with the Chairmen and Ranking Members so that we can put an end to
``Death Valley.''
Today, I reluctantly cast my vote in favor of H.R. 5576. While this
legislation allows current 2006-level funding for vital programs
affecting

[[Page H3960]]

the citizens of the 5th Congressional District such as Section 202
housing for the elderly and Section 811 housing for the disabled and
slightly increases Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and Home
Funds for programs that directly affect low to moderate income families
in our neighborhoods, it also zero's out several programs that have had
and would continue to have a significant impact on the revitalization
and continued growth of the cities and neighborhoods of the 5th
District. The programs targeted to receive no funds include the CDBG
Section 8 program, Brownfield program, and Youthbuild program.
In Kansas City, Missouri alone the Section 108 and Brownfield
programs have been successfully used to fund job producing economic
development like the Vista Hotel, the first Section 108 HUD loan in the
nation, Quality Hill neighborhood, 18th and Vine, the Westside
Industrial Park (DST plant), H & R Block National Equipment Repair
Facility on Brush Creek, Swope Park Health Facility and a number of
commercial developments, to name a few. Neighborhoods such as Brooklyn
Heights (the old Municipal Stadium site), Little Sisters of the Poor
Housing Redevelopment, and subdivisions such as Citidal Gardens and
Renaissance Place and elderly developments such as the Residences at
West Paseo (the old Robinson Hospital) utilized these programs. None of
these developments would be here today without Section 108 and
Brownfield funds.
Youthbuild programs have provided vocational training and job
opportunities for numerous young people in our district to learn
building trades. By combining classroom and practical experience,
Youthbuild has enabled participants to get decent jobs that pay a
livable wage. In Kansas City, Swope Community Builders in KC received a
$700K Youthbuild grant this year (2006) to train 60 youth ages 16 to 24
in homebuilding trades and build two affordable houses for sale.
Participants can also get a GED if they didn't graduate from high
school. Funding for this program was eliminated in the bill.
Because the House majority leadership has chosen to ignore the
successes of these programs and turn a blind eye to the needs of cities
that require these ``community building tools'' for future
revitalization, I am calling on the Senate, including Missouri's
Senators Bond and Talent, to restore these beneficial programs in the
Senate appropriations bill.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, this bill is far from perfect,
but I believe it is worth supporting.
The bill provides important resources to help support our nation's
transportation systems, community and economic development. Examples of
this include $8.9 billion for federal transit programs, which is an
increase above the Fiscal Year 2006 allocation and the request made by
the Bush Administration. Included in this funding is support for light
rail projects in the Denver Metropolitan Area, which will help to
reduce congestion on Colorado roadways.
Communities throughout Colorado and the nation rely on CDBG funds to
provide decent housing and expand economic opportunities so I am
pleased the legislation rejects the Bush Administration proposal to cut
funding to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG).
I am also pleased the full house has supported projects specific to
the 2nd Congressional District including: $4.2 million for a
replacement tower at the Jefferson County Airport, $500,000 for
construction to relieve peak hour overcrowding, reduce accidents, and
improve access for pedestrian and cyclists along the US 36 Interchange
and Wadsworth in the city and county of Broomfield, $500,000 for
construction of a climbing lane on Interstate 70 in Clear Creek County,
$100,000 for property acquisition and renovation costs of a new
facility for the National Sports Center for the Disabled (NSCD) located
in the town of Winter Park.
Of course, I do not agree with all its priorities included in the
legislation. I believe it was shortsighted to eliminate funding for
Small Starts in the Department of Transportation (DOT) budget. This
much needed program is designed to provide discretionary grant funding
for public transportation projects that run along dedicated corridors
or guideways. I am hopeful the Senate takes a different approach and
provides funding for this vital program.
Additionally, with the increasing federal 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 I think the idea of
eliminating a cost-of-living increase in Congressional salaries is
worth considering.
I thought the House should have been able to have a separate vote on
this increase, and voted against the restrictive procedure that
prevented that. Unfortunately, I was in the minority on that vote.
I also supported a number of amendments to improve the legislation,
including an increase in funding for High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Areas Program, the Section 8 Tenant-Based assistance and for the Help
America Vote Act (HAVA) which improved the bill.
While the legislation is still not all that I had hoped for, it
deserves support and I will vote for it and will hope that it is
improved further as the legislative process continues.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of important
taxpayer-protection provisions that are included in this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, in recent years the IRS has attempted to implement a
new program under which it would contract with private companies to
collect the taxes of thousands of Americans. In recognition of the
inherent risks of such a plan, this legislation wisely prohibits the
IRS from using fiscal year 2007 funds provided by this bill to
implement or administer a private tax collection contracting program.
All of us want a system that efficiently collects federal taxes, but
we cannot do it at the expense of taxpayers' rights or privacy.
However, if the IRS were allowed to go forward with its plan to
outsource its tax collection duties, millions of taxpayer files would
be made available to private debt collection companies who would
``contact'' taxpayers and collect up to a 24 percent fee from such
collections.
This type of incentive system on the part of the collectors would be
ripe for abuse and harassment. It is why the IRS specifically prohibits
its employees from being assigned quotas with regard to collection
activities. It should come as no surprise that the private debt
collection industry receives the greatest number of formal complaints
as recorded by the Federal Trade Commission than any other business in
the nation.
Past experience should also guide us in consideration of this
initiative. In 1996, Congress approved a two year pilot program for
just such a collection scheme. Not only were there multiple violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by the private collection
companies, but sensitive taxpayer data was not properly protected.After
12 months, the pilot program had cost the U.S. Treasury $17 million and
Congress saw fit to cancel the remaining 12 month pilot.
Each year millions of Americans voluntarily disclose personal,
sensitive information to the IRS with the expectation that it will be
handled with the utmost discretion and protected from erroneous or
deliberate disclosure outside of the IRS. Yet the IRS is now leading
the effort to disclose this information to third party contractors who
have demonstrated previously that they cannot adequately protect
taxpayer information.
If the above facts do not cause you concern, imagine the response of
your constituents when they learn that these contractors are not
required to be American-based or staffed. In fact, foreign companies
employing non-US. citizens can bid for this work. When American
taxpayers understand that their personal information could potentially
be put in the hands of foreign workers toiling in ``boiler room''
operations in foreign countries, they will rightly ask who supported
such a risky and short-sighted scheme.
I can assure my colleagues that you will encounter some mighty
unhappy constituents if they find their personal tax information in the
hands of a third party overseas. Keep in mind, also, that the most
susceptible individuals will be our home-bound seniors and busy single
mothers who may have overlooked some aspect of their tax filing. Do we
really want to sic commission-hungry tax collection agents on these
individuals?
Speaking as a veteran, I recently learned that my personal data had
been compromised through a theft. I do not want my personal tax data
may end up in unknown hands in unknown places. This bill protects my
data.
American citizens deserve to have their taxes collected by American
public officials at the Treasury Department. I am glad that this
legislation takes steps to ensure this will be the case.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns and
reservations about a particular matter included in the House Report (H.
Rpt. 109-495) accompanying the bill, H.R. 5576, the Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the
Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for fiscal
year 2007.
Under the Safe Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users, Congress specifically authorized funding to be
made available for the execution of the Federal commitment for transit
new start projects. Currently, 18 transit new starts have Full Funding
Grant Agreements (FFGA) from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
The FFGAs provide a commitment for the Federal share of the project and
serve as a basis for local transit recipients to plan and advance badly
needed transit projects that help serve the transportation needs of
local and regional communities. Without the Federal commitment, many of
these transit projects would not be built.
Unfortunately, the House Report directs the FTA to retain the final
payment under the FFGA for one particular transit new start

[[Page H3961]]

project, the Tren Urbano project in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
until the Commonwealth and the project construction contractor resolve
outstanding issues and reach a closeout agreement.
Mr. Chairman, the language directing FTA to retain funds authorized
in SAFETEA-LU until a contract dispute is resolved by all parties is
highly unusual and interjects the Federal Transit Administration in the
midst of on-going judicial proceedings. The Committee direction would
have the effect of withholding a Federal commitment of funds that are
not related to the amounts under dispute with the contractor of the
system and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Federal funds are not
at risk. The amounts under discussion are related to the amounts
contracted with local funds. Therefore, the FTA should release the
amounts agreed to for the Tren Urbano project.
Based upon FTA's oversight and management reviews, Tren Urbano has
received the support of FTA for the release of the remaining amounts
that the project is entitled to receive. Unfortunately, the report
language would preclude FTA from awarding the final payment for the
Tren Urbano project.
Although the Tren Urbano project has encountered a number of
construction and management missteps in constructing the project, the
government has responded by correcting its management problems,
overcoming delays, and safety concerns. To the credit of the Governor
of Puerto Rico, our former colleague Anibal Acevedo-Villa, and his
Secretary of Transportation, the concerns raised in an audit by the
Inspector General and the requirements made by FTA have been fully
addressed to the Administration's satisfaction. As a result, the
project has recently celebrated its first anniversary with a passenger
ridership of more than 17 million passengers, 35 percent over the
estimated ridership levels. The turnaround of the project has resulted
in an overwhelming transit success.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the unprecedented
language that directs FT A to withhold the final full funding grant
payment until both sides reach a close out agreement. Such direction
may have the effect of further delaying the resolution of contract
disputes. I believe this direction should be rejected by the Federal
Transit Administration so that the Tren Urbano project may receive the
full funding grant amounts that it is entitled to receive under its
agreement with the Federal Transit Administration.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with earmark reform
proposals currently under consideration in the House and Senate, I
would like to place into the Record a listing of Congressionally-
directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are contained within
the report to this bill. These are projects that I asked the
Transportation, Treasury, and HUD Subcommittee to consider this year
and I am grateful for their inclusion in this bill.
I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these
projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers.
The bill contains $2,000,000 for the City of Rocks Back Country Byway
in my Congressional District. This 16.7 mile long project is located on
the popular City of Rocks Back Country Byway in Cassia County, Idaho
and provides the only direct access to the City of Rocks National
Reserve. When fully completed, the project will pave a 1.0 mile gravel
segment, reconstruct 15.7 miles of deficient roadway, correct
deteriorated road and slope conditions, provide a wider road with
shoulders and guardrail, and improve the road's alignment by reducing
the number and severity of sharp curves and steep grades. These
improvements will increase safety for the driving public and provide
safer access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. These improvements
will also significantly reduce the amount of on-going maintenance
required to keep the route usable.
This project was requested by the Idaho Transportation Department.
The report contains $500,000 for the I-84, US-93 Interchange project
near Twin Falls. This is funding to improve an interchange on a segment
of the Interstate Highway System. The project will realign and
reconstruct the interchanges south of I-84 at US-93, provide a new
grade over US-93, and remove the height-restricted structures which
have previously necessitated a signalized intersection. These
activities will relieve congestion caused by fast growth and increase
safety in the city of Twin Falls.
This project was requested by the Idaho Transportation Department.
The report contains $4 million for the Idaho Transit Coalition's
program to improve bus and bus facilities all across the state of
Idaho. The funding will assist Ada County Highway District's
Commuteride, Boise State University, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the City
of Ketchum, the Ketchum/Sun Valley Transit Authority (KART), the City
of Moscow, the City of Pocatello, the University of Idaho, and Valley
Regional Transit. The majority of these projects are identified in the
``Idaho Statewide Public Transportation Needs and Benefits Study''
compiled by the Idaho Transportation Department in 1996 and subsequent
local studies and plans. All projects are identified in the
Transportation Improvement and the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Plan. The current request represents only a small amount of what will
be needed to maintain and expand Idaho's public transportation capital
system to meet the demands of the State's rapidly growing population.
The funding was requested by the Idaho Transit Coalition.
The report contains $250,000 for the Magic Valley Boys and Girls Club
in Buhl, Idaho. The funding will assist in building a Boys & Girls Club
youth center in the town of Buhl, Idaho, which will serve over 800
children and teens annually from the communities of Buhl, Castleford,
and Hagerman. This 7000 sq. ft. facility will be adjacent to an
existing approximately 7000 sq. ft. gymnasium. These federal funds
constitute only a small portion of the overall funding required for
this project and will help leverage significant private sector
donations.
The funding was requested by the Magic Valley Boys and Girls Club.
The report contains $400,000 for the community of Rexburg, Idaho's
Greenways and River Corridor Improvement Project. This funding
represents a very small portion of the overall funding for this
project. The City of Rexburg itself has jump started the project with a
Rexburg Redevelopment Agency infusion of $5,800,000. The funding will
help develop public access to the riverfront through river trails,
build and improve city streets and parking lots in the river corridor,
and construct a public amphitheater.
The funding was requested by the City of Rexburg, Idaho.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally-
directed projects in my region and, an explanation of my support for
them.

{time} 1030

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

[[Page H3962]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.001

[[Page H3963]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.002

[[Page H3964]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.003

[[Page H3965]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.004

[[Page H3966]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.005

[[Page H3967]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.006

[[Page H3968]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.007

[[Page H3969]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.008

[[Page H3970]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.009

[[Page H3971]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.010

[[Page H3972]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.011

[[Page H3973]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH14JN06.012

[[Page H3974]]

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.
Bass) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, 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. 5576) 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, 2007, 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 865, 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--ayes 406,
noes 22, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 286]

YEAS--406

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Case
Castle
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
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, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
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 (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
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
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinney
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
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
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (NC)
Terry
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
Waters
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)

NAYS--22

Capuano
Chabot
Cooper
Deal (GA)
English (PA)
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Green (WI)
Hefley
Hensarling
Matheson
Obey
Otter
Paul
Pence
Pitts
Ryan (WI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry

NOT VOTING--4

Lewis (CA)
Miller (MI)
Rothman
Sessions

{time} 1745

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________