[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.

  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 bar Fairfax County

[[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

  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 87, 
noes 340, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [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

  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 61, 
noes 365, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [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

  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 73, 
noes 353, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [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

  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 58, 
noes 368, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [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

  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 61, 
noes 366, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [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

  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 261, 
noes 166, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [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:

       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.

  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

  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 183, 
noes 245, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [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

  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 187, 
noes 236, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [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.

                          ____________________