Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 24, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8318-H8359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 558 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. 3074.

{time} 1240

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. 3074) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes,
with Mr. Weiner (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier
today, amendment No. 2 by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) had been
disposed of and the bill had been read through page 82, line 13.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, no further amendment to
the bill may be offered except those specified in the previous order of
the House today, which is at the desk.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 94, line 9, be considered as read, printed in
the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

self-help and assisted homeownership opportunity program

For the Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity
Program, $59,700,000, to remain available until September 30,
2010: Provided, That of the total amount provided in this
heading $27,710,000 shall be made available to the Self Help
Homeownership Opportunity Program as authorized under section
11 of the Housing Opportunity Program Extension Act of 1996
(42 U.S.C. 12805 note), of which up to $990,000 is for
technical assistance, and: Provided further, That $31,000,000
shall be made available for capacity building, for Community
Development and affordable Housing for the Local Initiatives
Support Corporation and the Enterprise Foundation for
activities authorized by section 4 of the HUD Demonstration
Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 9816 note), as in effect immediately
before June 12, 1997.

Homeless Assistance Grants

(including transfer of funds)

For the emergency shelter grants program as authorized
under subtitle B of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act; the supportive housing program as authorized
under subtitle C of title IV of such Act; the section 8
moderate rehabilitation single room occupancy program as
authorized under the United States Housing Act of 1937, to
assist homeless individuals pursuant to section 441 of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; and the shelter plus
care program as authorized under subtitle F of title IV of
such Act, $1,560,990,000, of which $1,540,990,000 shall
remain available until September 30, 2010, and of which
$20,000,000 shall remain available until expended: Provided,
That not less than 30 percent of funds made available,
excluding amounts provided for renewals under the shelter
plus care program, shall be used for permanent housing:
Provided further, That all funds awarded for services shall
be matched by 25 percent in funding by each grantee: Provided
further, That the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall renew on an annual basis expiring contracts or
amendments to contracts funded under the shelter plus care
program if the program is determined to be needed under the
applicable continuum of care and meets appropriate program
requirements and financial standards, as determined by the
Secretary: Provided further, That all awards of assistance
under this heading shall be required to coordinate and
integrate homeless programs with other mainstream health,
social services, and employment programs for which homeless
populations may be eligible, including Medicaid, State
Children's Health Insurance Program, Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, Food Stamps, and services funding through the
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Block Grant, Workforce
Investment Act, and the Welfare-to-Work grant program:
Provided further, That up to $8,000,000 of the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be available for the
national homeless data analysis project and technical
assistance: Provided further, That $2,475,000 of the funds
appropriated under this heading shall be transferred to the
Working Capital Fund: Provided further, That all balances for
Shelter Plus Care renewals previously funded from the Shelter
Plus Care Renewal account and transferred to this account
shall be available, if recaptured, for Shelter Plus Care
renewals in fiscal year 2008.

Housing Programs

Housing for the Elderly

(including transfer of funds)

For capital advances, including amendments to capital
advance contracts, for housing for the elderly, as authorized
by section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C.
1701(q)), and for project rental assistance for the elderly
under section 202(c)(2) of such Act, including amendments to
contracts for such assistance and renewal of expiring
contracts for such assistance for up to a 1-year term, and
for supportive services associated with the housing,
$734,580,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011,
of which up to $603,900,000 shall be for capital advance and
project-based rental assistance awards: Provided, That, of
the amount provided under this heading, up to $59,400,000
shall be for service coordinators and the continuation of
existing congregate service grants for residents of assisted
housing projects, and of which up to $24,750,000 shall be for
grants under section 202b of the Housing Act of 1959 (12
U.S.C. 1701q-2) for conversion of eligible projects under
such section to assisted living or related use and for
emergency capital repairs as determined by the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development: Provided further, That of the
amount made available under this heading, $20,000,000 shall
be available to the Secretary only for making competitive
grants to private nonprofit organizations and consumer
cooperatives for covering costs of architectural and
engineering work, site control, and other planning relating
to the development of supportive housing for the elderly that
is eligible for assistance under section 202 of the Housing
Act of 1959: Provided further, That amounts under this
heading shall be available for Real Estate Assessment Center
inspections and inspection-related activities associated with
section 202 capital advance projects: Provided further, That
$1,980,000 of the total amount made available under this
heading shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund:
Provided further, That the Secretary may waive the provisions
of section 202 governing the terms and conditions of project
rental assistance, except that the initial contract term for
such assistance shall not exceed 5 years in duration.

Housing for Persons With Disabilities

(including transfer of funds)

For capital advance contracts, including amendments to
capital advance contracts, for supportive housing for persons
with disabilities, as authorized by section 811 of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
8013), for project rental assistance for supportive housing
for persons with disabilities under section 811(d)(2) of such
Act, including amendments to contracts for such assistance
and renewal of expiring contracts for such assistance for up
to a 1-year term, and for supportive services associated with
the housing for persons with disabilities as authorized by
section 811(b)(1) of such Act, and for tenant-based rental
assistance contracts entered into pursuant to section 811 of
such Act, $236,610,000 to remain available until September
30, 2011: Provided, That $990,000 shall be transferred to the
Working Capital Fund: Provided further, That, of the amount
provided under this heading $74,745,000 shall be for
amendments or renewal of tenant-based assistance contracts
entered into prior to fiscal year 2005 (only one amendment
authorized for any such contract): Provided further, That all
tenant-based assistance made available under this heading
shall continue to remain available only to persons with
disabilities: Provided further, That the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development may waive the provisions of section 811
governing the terms and conditions of project rental
assistance and tenant-based assistance, except that the
initial contract term for such assistance shall not exceed 5
years in duration: Provided further, That amounts made
available under this heading shall be available for Real
Estate Assessment Center Inspections and inspection-related
activities associated with section 811 Capital Advance
Projects.

other assisted housing programs

rental housing assistance

For amendments to contracts under section 101 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s)
and section 236(f)(2) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715z-1(f)(2)) in State-aided, non-insured rental housing
projects, $27,600,000, to remain available until expended.

[[Page H8319]]

rent supplement

(rescission)

Of the amounts made available under the heading ``Rent
Supplement'' in Public Law 98-63 for amendments to contracts
under section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s) and section 236(f)(2) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1) in State-aided, non-insured
rental housing projects, $27,600,000 is rescinded.

Flexible Subsidy Fund

(transfer of funds)

From the Rental Housing Assistance Fund, all uncommitted
balances of excess rental charges as of September 30, 2007,
and any collections made during fiscal year 2008 and all
subsequent fiscal years, shall be transferred to the Flexible
Subsidy Fund, as authorized by section 236(g) of the National
Housing Act.

Manufactured Housing Fees Trust Fund

For necessary expenses as authorized by the National
Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of
1974 (42 U.S.C. 5401 et seq.), up to $16,000,000, to remain
available until expended, to be derived from the Manufactured
Housing Fees Trust Fund: Provided, That not to exceed the
total amount appropriated under this heading shall be
available from the general fund of the Treasury to the extent
necessary to incur obligations and make expenditures pending
the receipt of collections to the Fund pursuant to section
620 of such Act: Provided further, That the amount made
available under this heading from the general fund shall be
reduced as such collections are received during fiscal year
2008 so as to result in a final fiscal year 2008
appropriation from the general fund estimated at not more
than $0 and fees pursuant to such section 620 shall be
modified as necessary to ensure such a final fiscal year 2008
appropriation: Provided further, That for the dispute
resolution and installation programs, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development may assess and collect fees
from any program participant: Provided further, That such
collections shall be deposited into the Fund, and the
Secretary, as provided herein, may use such collections, as
well as fees collected under section 620, for necessary
expenses of such Act: Provided further, That notwithstanding
the requirements of section 620 of such Act, the Secretary
may carry out responsibilities of the Secretary under such
Act through the use of approved service providers that are
paid directly by the recipients of their services.

Federal Housing Administration

mutual mortgage insurance program account

(including transfers of funds)

During fiscal year 2008, commitments to guarantee loans to
carry out the purposes of section 203(b) of the National
Housing Act, as amended, shall not exceed a loan principal of
$185,000,000,000.
During fiscal year 2008, obligations to make direct loans
to carry out the purposes of section 204(g) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1709), shall not exceed $50,000,000:
Provided, That the foregoing amount shall be for loans to
nonprofit and governmental entities in connection with sales
of single family real properties owned by the Secretary and
formerly insured under the Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund.
For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the
guaranteed and direct loan program, $351,450,000, of which
not to exceed $347,490,000 shall be transferred to the
appropriation for ``Salaries and Expenses''; and not to
exceed $3,960,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation
for ``Office of Inspector General''. In addition, for
administrative contract expenses, $77,400,000, of which
$25,550,000 shall be transferred to the Working Capital Fund,
and of which up to $5,000,000 shall be for education and
outreach of FHA single family loan products: Provided, That
to the extent guaranteed loan commitments exceed
$65,500,000,000 on or before April 1, 2008, an additional
$1,400 for administrative contract expenses shall be
available for each $1,000,000 in additional guaranteed loan
commitments (including a pro rata amount for any amount below
$1,000,000), but in no case shall funds made available by
this proviso exceed $30,000,000.

General and Special Risk Program Account

(including transfers of funds)

For the cost of guaranteed loans, as authorized by sections
238 and 519 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-3
and 1735c), including the cost of loan guarantee
modifications, as that term is defined in section 502 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, $8,712,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That commitments to
guarantee loans shall not exceed $45,000,000,000 in total
loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed.
Gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans,
as authorized by sections 204(g), 207(l), 238, and 519(a) of
the National Housing Act, shall not exceed $50,000,000, of
which not to exceed $30,000,000 shall be for bridge financing
in connection with the sale of multifamily real properties
owned by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and
formerly insured under such Act; and of which not to exceed
$20,000,000 shall be for loans to nonprofit and governmental
entities in connection with the sale of single-family real
properties owned by the Secretary and formerly insured under
such Act.
In addition, for administrative expenses necessary to carry
out the guaranteed and direct loan programs, $229,086,000, of
which $209,286,000 shall be transferred to the appropriation
for ``Salaries and Expenses''; and of which $19,800,000 shall
be transferred to the appropriation for ``Office of Inspector
General''.
In addition, for administrative contract expenses necessary
to carry out the guaranteed and direct loan programs,
$78,111,000, of which $15,692,000 shall be transferred to the
Working Capital Fund: Provided, That to the extent guaranteed
loan commitments exceed $8,426,000,000 on or before April 1,
2008, an additional $1,980 for administrative contract
expenses shall be available for each $1,000,000 in additional
guaranteed loan commitments over $8,426,000,000 (including a
pro rata amount for any increment below $1,000,000), but in
no case shall funds made available by this proviso exceed
$14,400,000.

Government National Mortgage Association

Guarantees of Mortgage-Backed Securities Loan Guarantee Program Account

(including transfer of funds)

New commitments to issue guarantees to carry out the
purposes of section 306 of the National Housing Act, as
amended (12 U.S.C. 1721(g)), shall not exceed
$200,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2009.
For administrative expenses necessary to carry out the
guaranteed mortgage-backed securities program, $10,700,000,
to be derived from the GNMA guarantees of mortgage-backed
securities guaranteed loan receipt account, of which not to
exceed $10,700,000, shall be transferred to the appropriation
for ``Salaries and Expenses''.

Policy Development and Research

Research and Technology

For contracts, grants, and necessary expenses of programs
of research and studies relating to housing and urban
problems, not otherwise provided for, as authorized by title
V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C.
1701z-1 et seq.), including carrying out the functions of the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under section
1(a)(1)(i) of Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, $58,087,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That
of the total amount provided under this heading, $5,000,000
shall be for the Partnership for Advancing Technology in
Housing Initiative: Provided further, That of the funds made
available under this heading, $22,394,000 is for grants
pursuant to section 107 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5307): Provided further,
That activities for the Partnership for Advancing Technology
in Housing Initiative shall be administered by the Office of
Policy Development and Research.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity

Fair Housing Activities

For contracts, grants, and other assistance, not otherwise
provided for, as authorized by title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of
1988, and section 561 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1987, $45,540,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2009, of which $20,180,000 shall be to
carry out activities pursuant to such section 561: Provided,
That notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development may assess and collect fees to cover
the costs of the Fair Housing Training Academy, and may use
such funds to provide such training: Provided further, That
no funds made available under this heading shall be used to
lobby the executive or legislative branches of the Federal
Government in connection with a specific contract, grant or
loan.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas

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

Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Al Green of Texas:
Page 94, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,820,000)''.
Page 94, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,820,000).
Page 99, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $5,820,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman
Obey, Subcommittee Chairman Olver, and Ranking Members Lewis and
Knollenberg. I also would like to thank them especially for their
leadership.
Mr. Chairman, we understand that budgetary constraints are necessary
and that budget challenges are a reality, just as invidious
discrimination in housing is a reality. This is why Congress passed the
Fair Housing Act of 1968.

[[Page H8320]]

The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination not just on
race, color and national origin, but also on religious, sexual status,
disability and familial status. However, nearly 40 years after the
passage of this act, 4 million fair housing violations occur annually,
tens of thousands of complaints are filed, and most violations aren't
investigated.
Violations occur in the rental market when qualified renters are
denied housing based upon invidious discrimination. Violations occur in
the purchase market when qualified buyers are denied loans, pay more
for loans, or are steered to the subprime market when they qualify for
prime loans.
This is why we need to fund the Fair Housing Initiative Program to
the level authorized of $26 million. The Fair Housing Initiative
Program allows for testing. This will allow us to have persons who are
equally qualified, perhaps one is disabled and one is not, to go out
and seek a loan or a rental property. If the disabled person is denied,
and the person that follows who is not disabled receives the loan or
the property, then we are gathering the empirical data necessary to
show that the discrimination exists.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add $5.82 million to the bill to
bring it to the $26 million authorized level.
Mr. Chairman, the need is there, the authorization exists, and the
time to act is here. Let us keep the American dream alive for all
persons who are qualified. Let's do our part on our watch to prevent
invidious discrimination in housing.
I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman is going to withdraw
this amendment. Is that the gentleman's intention?
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is. My hope is that the
gentleman and I would be able to work together to see if there is some
means by which it can be accommodated.

{time} 1245

Mr. OLVER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I thank the
gentleman for that willingness to withdraw his amendment and for
highlighting the issue that we have before us.
We simply could not increase this amount this year because of the
budget constraints. The budget proposal here is the same as the 2007
enacted budget and slightly above the budget request by the
administration. And the offset, the offset is in a place where there
really isn't money to take from the offset to do this.
I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to withdraw the amendment
and will be happy to work with him to try to find money in conference.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. I thank the chairman, and I look forward to
working with the chairman so that we may seek an accommodation in
conference.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of Lead Hazard Control

Lead Hazard Reduction

For the Lead Hazard Reduction Program, as authorized by
section 1011 of the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 4852), $130,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2009, of which
$8,712,000 shall be for the Healthy Homes Initiative,
pursuant to sections 501 and 502 of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1970 that shall include research, studies,
testing, and demonstration efforts, including education and
outreach concerning lead-based paint poisoning and other
housing-related diseases and hazards: Provided, That for
purposes of environmental review, pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
other provisions of law that further the purposes of such
Act, a grant under the Healthy Homes Initiative, Operation
Lead Elimination Action Plan, or the Lead Technical Studies
program under this heading or under prior appropriations Acts
for such purposes under this heading, shall be considered to
be funds for a special project for purposes of section 305(c)
of the Multifamily Housing Property Disposition Reform Act of
1994 (42 U.S.C. 3547): Provided further, That of the total
amount made available under this heading, $48,000,000 shall
be made available on a competitive basis for areas with the
highest lead paint abatement needs, as identified by the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development as having: (1) the
highest number of occupied pre-1940 units of rental housing;
and (2) a disproportionately high number of documented cases
of lead-poisoned children: Provided further, That each
grantee receiving funds under the previous proviso shall
target those privately owned units and multifamily buildings
that are occupied by low-income families as defined under
section 3(b)(2) of the United States Housing Act of 1937:
Provided further, That not less than 90 percent of the funds
made available under this paragraph shall be used exclusively
for abatement, inspections, risk assessments, temporary
relocations and interim control of lead-based hazards as
defined by 42 U.S.C. 4851: Provided further, That each
recipient of funds provided under the first proviso shall
make a matching contribution in an amount not less than 25
percent: Provided further, That each applicant shall submit a
detailed plan and strategy that demonstrates adequate
capacity that is acceptable to the Secretary to carry out the
proposed use of funds pursuant to a notice of funding
availability.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Slaughter

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

Amendment offered by Ms. Slaughter:
Page 95, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 95, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 97, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, first I want to give my thanks to
Chairman Olver and to Mr. Knollenberg for doing a wonderful job on this
bill.
I intend to withdraw this amendment, but if I can just take a moment
or two to discuss the importance of HUD's Office of Lead Hazard
Control, I would like to do that.
The funding is crucial in reaching our goal of eliminating childhood
lead poisoning nationwide by 2010. The grants provided by HUD's Office
of Lead Hazard Control allow cities and States to correct serious lead
hazard in low-income and high-risk homes.
Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, this is not just an isolated problem.
Lead poisoning affects over 250,000 American children under the age of
5 each and every year. High levels of lead in the blood have been
linked to childhood asthma, brain damage, hearing loss, hyperactivity,
developmental delays, and in extreme cases, exposure to lead has caused
seizures, comas, and even death.
Mr. Chairman, this is simply unacceptable.
In my district alone, over 2,000 children fall victim to lead
poisoning every year. Over half of all the homes in Niagara and Erie
counties were built before 1950 and are therefore very likely to
contain lead. And just in Erie County, 1,000 children have unsafe lead
levels in their blood.
The city of Rochester is among the top 10 cities in the United States
with the worst lead paint problems. In 2004, 900 children in Monroe
County were reported to have high blood lead levels. We have a city
ordinance in effect to try to deal with that, but we have not enough
money obviously to take action.
The grants are so important. They are targeted to help the most
vulnerable of our citizens, children under 5 years of age. But in order
to be more effective, they have to have adequate funding. Since the
bill before us only funds the Office of Lead Hazard Control at $130
million, we wanted to put in this amendment.
But I commend the chairman for putting together this thoughtful and
solid bill, and I hope we can work together in conference to try to do
more.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of clause 18, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
An amendment by Mr. Mica of Florida.

[[Page H8321]]

An amendment by Mrs. Bachmann of Minnesota.
An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona.
An amendment by Mr. Chabot of Ohio.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Mica

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Mica:
Page 18, beginning on line 9, strike the colon and all that
follows through line 21 and insert a period.

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 201,
noes 217, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 691]

AYES--201

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--217

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--18

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Brown (SC)
Clarke
Cole (OK)
Cubin
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Gilchrest
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Melancon
Myrick
Pearce
Pence
Space
Young (AK)

{time} 1314

Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms.
WATERS, and Messrs. HODES, GUTIERREZ and PERLMUTTER changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. EVERETT 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 Mrs. Bachmann

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Bachmann:
Page 38, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $106,000,000)''.
Page 83, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $106,000,000)''.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair reminds Members this is a 2-minute
vote and will be followed by 2-minute votes. Please remain in the
Chamber.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 110,
noes 308, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 692]

AYES--110

Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Carter
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ellison
Ellsworth
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Fortuno
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gillmor
Gingrey
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hulshof
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Paul
Pearce
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)

[[Page H8322]]

NOES--308

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--18

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Boyd (FL)
Brown (SC)
Cardoza
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Gilchrest
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Myrick
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Space
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

{time} 1320

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 38, strike line 5 and all that follows through page
41, line 18.

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 94,
noes 328, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 693]

AYES--94

Akin
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Conaway
Culberson
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gingrey
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Poe
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reichert
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (TX)
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)

NOES--328

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton

[[Page H8323]]

Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Brown (SC)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Gilchrest
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Myrick
Pence
Space
Young (AK)

{time} 1325

Mr. SMITH of Nebraska changed his 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

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 41, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $425,000,000)''.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 694]

AYES--104

Akin
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gingrey
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Poe
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reichert
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)

NOES--312

Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--20

Abercrombie
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Brown (SC)
Clarke
Cleaver
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Ellison
Gilchrest
Hare
Higgins
Honda
Kaptur
Marshall
Myrick
Pence
Space
Waxman
Young (AK)

{time} 1328

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Chabot

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Chabot:
Page 61, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $330,000,000)''.
Page 61, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $330,000,000)''.
Page 61, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $330,000,000)''.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 695]

AYES--121

Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Blackburn
Boehner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)

[[Page H8324]]

Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOES--300

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--15

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Brown (SC)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Gilchrest
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Myrick
Pence
Rangel
Space
Young (AK)

{time} 1333

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill through page 120, line 5, be considered as read, printed in
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Ross). Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

Management and Administration

Salaries and Expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary administrative and non-administrative
expenses of the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
not otherwise provided for, including purchase of uniforms,
or allowances therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
hire of passenger motor vehicles; services as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109; and not to exceed $25,000 for official reception
and representation expenses, $1,211,379,650, of which
$556,776,000 shall be provided from the various funds of the
Federal Housing Administration, $10,700,000 shall be provided
from funds of the Government National Mortgage Association,
$743,000 shall be from the ``Community Development Loan
Guarantee Program'' account, $148,500 shall be provided by
transfer from the ``Native American Housing Block Grants''
account, $247,500 shall be provided by transfer from the
``Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund Program'' account, and
$34,650 shall be transferred from the ``Native Hawaiian
housing loan guarantee fund'' account: Provided, That no
official or employee of the Department shall be designated as
an allotment holder unless the Office of the Chief Financial
Officer has determined that such allotment holder has
implemented an adequate system of funds control and has
received training in funds control procedures and directives:
Provided further, That the Chief Financial Officer shall
establish positive control of and maintain adequate systems
of accounting for appropriations and other available funds as
required by 31 U.S.C. 1514: Provided further, That for
purposes of funds control and determining whether a violation
exists under the Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. 1341 et
seq.), the point of obligation shall be the executed
agreement or contract, except with respect to insurance and
guarantee programs, certain types of salaries and expenses
funding, and incremental funding that is authorized under an
executed agreement or contract, and shall be designated in
the approved funds control plan: Provided further, That the
Chief Financial Officer shall: (1) appoint qualified
personnel to conduct investigations of potential or actual
violations; (2) establish minimum training requirements and
other qualifications for personnel that may be appointed to
conduct investigations; (3) establish guidelines and
timeframes for the conduct and completion of investigations;
(4) prescribe the content, format and other requirements for
the submission of final reports on violations; and (5)
prescribe such additional policies and procedures as may be
required for conducting investigations of, and administering,
processing, and reporting on, potential and actual violations
of the Anti-Deficiency Act and all other statutes and
regulations governing the obligation and expenditure of funds
made available in this or any other Act: Provided further,
That up to $15,000,000 may be transferred to the Working
Capital Fund: Provided further, That the Secretary shall fill
7 out of 10 vacancies at the GS-14 and GS-15 levels until the
total number of GS-14 and GS-15 positions in the Department
has been reduced from the number of GS-14 and GS-15 positions
on the date of enactment of Public Law 106-377 by 2\1/2\
percent.

Working Capital Fund

For additional capital for the Working Capital Fund (42
U.S.C. 3535) for the development of, modifications to, and
infrastructure for Department-wide information technology
systems, for the continuing operation and maintenance of both
Department-wide and program-specific information systems, and
for program-related development activities, $125,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2009: Provided, That any
amounts transferred to this Fund under this Act shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That any amounts
transferred to this Fund from amounts appropriated by
previously enacted appropriations Acts or from within this
Act may be used only for the purposes specified under this
Fund, in addition to the purposes for which such amounts were
appropriated.

Office of Inspector General

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the Inspector General Act of 1978,
$113,760,000, of which $23,760,000 shall be provided from the
various funds of the Federal Housing Administration:
Provided, That the Inspector General shall have independent
authority over all personnel issues within this office.

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight

Salaries and Expenses

(including transfer of funds)

For carrying out the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial
Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, including not to exceed
$500 for official reception and representation expenses,
$66,000,000, to remain available until expended, to be
derived from the Federal Housing Enterprises Oversight Fund:
Provided, That the Director shall submit a spending plan for
the amounts provided under this heading no later than January
15, 2008: Provided further, That not less than 80 percent of
the total amount made available under this heading shall be
used only for examination, supervision, and capital oversight
of the enterprises (as such term is defined in section 1303
of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and
Soundness Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4502)) to ensure that the
enterprises are operating in a financially safe and sound
manner and complying with the capital requirements under
subtitle B of such Act: Provided further, That not to exceed
the amount provided herein shall be available from the
general fund of the Treasury to the extent necessary to incur
obligations and make expenditures pending the receipt of
collections to the Fund: Provided further, That the general
fund amount shall be reduced as collections are received
during

[[Page H8325]]

the fiscal year so as to result in a final appropriation from
the general fund estimated at not more than $0.

General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development

Sec. 201. Fifty percent of the amounts of budget authority,
or in lieu thereof 50 percent of the cash amounts associated
with such budget authority, that are recaptured from projects
described in section 1012(a) of the Stewart B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 1437
note) shall be rescinded or in the case of cash, shall be
remitted to the Treasury, and such amounts of budget
authority or cash recaptured and not rescinded or remitted to
the Treasury shall be used by State housing finance agencies
or local governments or local housing agencies with projects
approved by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
for which settlement occurred after January 1, 1992, in
accordance with such section. Notwithstanding the previous
sentence, the Secretary may award up to 15 percent of the
budget authority or cash recaptured and not rescinded or
remitted to the Treasury to provide project owners with
incentives to refinance their project at a lower interest
rate.
Sec. 202. None of the amounts made available under this Act
may be used during fiscal year 2008 to investigate or
prosecute under the Fair Housing Act any otherwise lawful
activity engaged in by one or more persons, including the
filing or maintaining of a non-frivolous legal action, that
is engaged in solely for the purpose of achieving or
preventing action by a Government official or entity, or a
court of competent jurisdiction.
Sec. 203. (a) Notwithstanding section 854(c)(1)(A) of the
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)(1)(A)), from
any amounts made available under this title for fiscal year
2008 that are allocated under such section, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development shall allocate and make a
grant, in the amount determined under subsection (b), for any
State that--
(1) received an allocation in a prior fiscal year under
clause (ii) of such section; and
(2) is not otherwise eligible for an allocation for fiscal
year 2008 under such clause (ii) because the areas in the
State outside of the metropolitan statistical areas that
qualify under clause (i) in fiscal year 2008 do not have the
number of cases of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)
required under such clause.
(b) The amount of the allocation and grant for any State
described in subsection (a) shall be an amount based on the
cumulative number of AIDS cases in the areas of that State
that are outside of metropolitan statistical areas that
qualify under clause (i) of such section 854(c)(1)(A) in
fiscal year 2008, in proportion to AIDS cases among cities
and States that qualify under clauses (i) and (ii) of such
section and States deemed eligible under subsection (a).
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amount
allocated for fiscal year 2008 under section 854(c) of the
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)), to the
City of New York, New York, on behalf of the New York-Wayne-
White Plains, New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Division
(hereafter ``metropolitan division'') of the New York-Newark-
Edison, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area, shall be
adjusted by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
by: (1) allocating to the City of Jersey City, New Jersey,
the proportion of the metropolitan area's or division's
amount that is based on the number of cases of AIDS reported
in the portion of the metropolitan area or division that is
located in Hudson County, New Jersey, and adjusting for the
proportion of the metropolitan division's high incidence
bonus if this area in New Jersey also has a higher than
average per capita incidence of AIDS; and (2) allocating to
the City of Paterson, New Jersey, the proportion of the
metropolitan area's or division's amount that is based on the
number of cases of AIDS reported in the portion of the
metropolitan area or division that is located in Bergen
County and Passaic County, New Jersey, and adjusting for the
proportion of the metropolitan division's high incidence
bonus if this area in New Jersey also has a higher than
average per capita incidence of AIDS. The recipient cities
shall use amounts allocated under this subsection to carry
out eligible activities under section 855 of the AIDS Housing
Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12904) in their respective
portions of the metropolitan division that is located in New
Jersey.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the amount
allocated for fiscal year 2008 under section 854(c) of the
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)) to areas
with a higher than average per capita incidence of AIDS,
shall be adjusted by the Secretary on the basis of area
incidence reported over a three year period.
Sec. 204. Except as explicitly provided in law, any grant,
cooperative agreement or other assistance made pursuant to
title II of this Act shall be made on a competitive basis and
in accordance with section 102 of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3545).
Sec. 205. Funds of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development subject to the Government Corporation Control Act
or section 402 of the Housing Act of 1950 shall be available,
without regard to the limitations on administrative expenses,
for legal services on a contract or fee basis, and for
utilizing and making payment for services and facilities of
the Federal National Mortgage Association, Government
National Mortgage Association, Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, Federal Financing Bank, Federal Reserve banks or
any member thereof, Federal Home Loan banks, and any insured
bank within the meaning of the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation Act (12 U.S.C. 1811 et seq.).
Sec. 206. Unless otherwise provided for in this Act or
through a reprogramming of funds, no part of any
appropriation for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development shall be available for any program, project or
activity in excess of amounts set forth in the budget
estimates submitted to Congress.
Sec. 207. Corporations and agencies of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development which are subject to the
Government Corporation Control Act, are hereby authorized to
make such expenditures, within the limits of funds and
borrowing authority available to each such corporation or
agency and in accordance with law, and to make such contracts
and commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as
provided by section 104 of such Act as may be necessary in
carrying out the programs set forth in the budget for 2008
for such corporation or agency except as hereinafter
provided: Provided, That collections of these corporations
and agencies may be used for new loan or mortgage purchase
commitments only to the extent expressly provided for in this
Act (unless such loans are in support of other forms of
assistance provided for in this or prior appropriations
Acts), except that this proviso shall not apply to the
mortgage insurance or guaranty operations of these
corporations, or where loans or mortgage purchases are
necessary to protect the financial interest of the United
States Government.
Sec. 208. None of the funds provided in this title for
technical assistance, training, or management improvements
may be obligated or expended unless the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development provides to the Committees on
Appropriations a description of each proposed activity and a
detailed budget estimate of the costs associated with each
program, project or activity as part of the Budget
Justifications. For fiscal year 2008, the Secretary shall
transmit this information to the Committees by March 15, 2008
for 30 days of review.
Sec. 209. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations regarding all uncommitted,
unobligated, recaptured and excess funds in each program and
activity within the jurisdiction of the Department and shall
submit additional, updated budget information to these
Committees upon request.
Sec. 210. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the amount allocated for fiscal year 2008 under section
854(c) of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C.
12903(c)), to the City of Wilmington, Delaware, on behalf of
the Wilmington, Delaware-Maryland-New Jersey Metropolitan
Division (``metropolitan division''), shall be adjusted by
the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development by allocating
to the State of New Jersey the proportion of the metropolitan
division's amount that is based on the number of cases of
AIDS reported in the portion of the metropolitan division
that is located in New Jersey, and adjusting for the
proportion of the metropolitan division's high incidence
bonus if this area in New Jersey also has a higher than
average per capita incidence of AIDS. The State of New Jersey
shall use amounts allocated to the State under this
subsection to carry out eligible activities under section 855
of the AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12904) in the
portion of the metropolitan division that is located in New
Jersey.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall allocate to
Wake County, North Carolina, the amounts that otherwise would
be allocated for fiscal year 2008 under section 854(c) of the
AIDS Housing Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)) to the City
of Raleigh, North Carolina, on behalf of the Raleigh-Cary,
North Carolina Metropolitan Statistical Area. Any amounts
allocated to Wake County shall be used to carry out eligible
activities under section 855 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 12904)
within such metropolitan statistical area.
(c) Notwithstanding section 854(c) of the AIDS Housing
Opportunity Act (42 U.S.C. 12903(c)), the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development may adjust the allocation of
the amounts that otherwise would be allocated for fiscal year
2008 under section 854(c) of such Act, upon the written
request of an applicant, in conjunction with the State(s),
for a formula allocation on behalf of a metropolitan
statistical area, to designate the State or States in which
the metropolitan statistical area is located as the eligible
grantee(s) of the allocation. In the case that a metropolitan
statistical area involves more than one State, such amounts
allocated to each State shall be in proportion to the number
of cases of AIDS reported in the portion of the metropolitan
statistical area located in that State. Any amounts allocated
to a State under this section shall be used to carry out
eligible activities within the portion of the metropolitan
statistical area located in that State.
Sec. 211. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall submit an annual report no later than August 30, 2008
and annually thereafter to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations regarding the number of Federally assisted
units under

[[Page H8326]]

lease and the per unit cost of these units to the Department
of Housing and Urban Development.
Sec. 212. The Department of Housing and Urban Development
shall submit the Department's fiscal year 2009 congressional
budget justifications to the Committees on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives and the Senate using the
identical structure provided under this Act and only in
accordance with the direction specified in the report
accompanying this Act.
Sec. 213. Incremental vouchers previously made available
under the heading ``Housing Certificate Fund'' or renewed
under the heading, ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance,'' for
non-elderly disabled families shall, to the extent
practicable, continue to be provided to non-elderly disabled
families upon turnover.
Sec. 214. A public housing agency or such other entity that
administers Federal housing assistance in the States of
Alaska, Iowa, and Mississippi shall not be required to
include a resident of public housing or a recipient of
assistance provided under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 on the board of directors or a similar
governing board of such agency or entity as required under
section (2)(b) of such Act. Each public housing agency or
other entity that administers Federal housing assistance
under section 8 in the States of Alaska, Iowa, and
Mississippi shall establish an advisory board of not less
than 6 residents of public housing or recipients of section 8
assistance to provide advice and comment to the public
housing agency or other administering entity on issues
related to public housing and section 8. Such advisory board
shall meet not less than quarterly.
Sec. 215. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
subject to the conditions listed in subsection (b), for
fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development may authorize the transfer of project-based
assistance, debt and statutorily required low-income and very
low-income use restrictions, associated with one multifamily
housing project to another multifamily housing project.
(b) The transfer authorized in subsection (a) is subject to
the following conditions:
(1) the number of low-income and very low-income units and
the net dollar amount of Federal assistance provided by the
transferring project shall remain the same in the receiving
project;
(2) the transferring project shall, as determined by the
Secretary, be either physically obsolete or economically non-
viable;
(3) the receiving project shall meet or exceed applicable
physical standards established by the Secretary;
(4) the owner or mortgagor of the transferring project
shall notify and consult with the tenants residing in the
transferring project and provide a certification of approval
by all appropriate local governmental officials;
(5) the tenants of the transferring project who remain
eligible for assistance to be provided by the receiving
project shall not be required to vacate their units in the
transferring project until new units in the receiving project
are available for occupancy;
(6) the Secretary determines that this transfer is in the
best interest of the tenants;
(7) if either the transferring project or the receiving
project meets the condition specified in subsection
(c)(2)(A), any lien on the receiving project resulting from
additional financing obtained by the owner shall be
subordinate to any FHA-insured mortgage lien transferred to,
or placed on, such project by the Secretary;
(8) if the transferring project meets the requirements of
subsection (c)(2)(E), the owner or mortgagor of the receiving
project shall execute and record either a continuation of the
existing use agreement or a new use agreement for the project
where, in either case, any use restrictions in such agreement
are of no lesser duration than the existing use restrictions;
(9) any financial risk to the FHA General and Special Risk
Insurance Fund, as determined by the Secretary, would be
reduced as a result of a transfer completed under this
section; and
(10) the Secretary determines that Federal liability with
regard to this project will not be increased.
(c) For purposes of this section--
(1) the terms ``low-income'' and ``very low-income'' shall
have the meanings provided by the statute and/or regulations
governing the program under which the project is insured or
assisted;
(2) the term ``multifamily housing project'' means housing
that meets one of the following conditions--
(A) housing that is subject to a mortgage insured under the
National Housing Act;
(B) housing that has project-based assistance attached to
the structure;
(C) housing that is assisted under section 202 of the
Housing Act of 1959 as amended by section 801 of the
Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act;
(D) housing that is assisted under section 202 of the
Housing Act of 1959, as such section existed before the
enactment of the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable
Housing Act; or
(E) housing or vacant land that is subject to a use
agreement;
(3) the term ``project-based assistance'' means--
(A) assistance provided under section 8(b) of the United
States Housing Act of 1937;
(B) assistance for housing constructed or substantially
rehabilitated pursuant to assistance provided under section
8(b)(2) of such Act (as such section existed immediately
before October 1, 1983);
(C) rent supplement payments under section 101 of the
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965;
(D) additional assistance payments under section 236(f)(2)
of the National Housing Act; and,
(E) assistance payments made under section 202(c)(2) of the
Housing Act of 1959;
(4) the term ``receiving project'' means the multifamily
housing project to which the project-based assistance, debt,
and statutorily required use low-income and very low-income
restrictions are to be transferred;
(5) the term ``transferring project'' means the multifamily
housing project which is transferring the project-based
assistance, debt and the statutorily required low-income and
very low-income use restrictions to the receiving project;
and,
(6) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development.
Sec. 216. The funds made available for Native Alaskans
under the heading ``Native American Housing Block Grants'' in
title III of this Act shall be allocated to the same Native
Alaskan housing block grant recipients that received funds in
fiscal year 2005.
Sec. 217. Incremental vouchers previously made available
under the heading, ``Housing Certificate Fund'' or renewed
under the heading, ``Tenant-Based Rental Assistance'', for
family unification shall, to the extent practicable, continue
to be provided for family unification.
Sec. 218. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act or any other Act may be used to develop
or impose policies or procedures, including an account
structure, that subjects the Government National Mortgage
Association to the requirements of the Federal Credit Reform
Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). This section shall not be
construed to exempt that entity from credit subsidy budgeting
or from budget presentation requirements previously adopted.
Sec. 219. (a) No assistance shall be provided under section
8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f)
to any individual who--
(1) is enrolled as a student at an institution of higher
education (as defined under section 102 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002));
(2) is under 24 years of age;
(3) is not a veteran;
(4) is unmarried;
(5) does not have a dependent child;
(6) is not a person with disabilities, as such term is
defined in section 3(b)(3)(E) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(3)(E)) and was not receiving
assistance under such section 8 as of November 30, 2005; and
(7) is not otherwise individually eligible, or has parents
who, individually or jointly, are not eligible, to receive
assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f).
(b) For purposes of determining the eligibility of a person
to receive assistance under section 8 of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), any financial
assistance (in excess of amounts received for tuition) that
an individual receives under the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), from private sources, or an
institution of higher education (as defined under the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)), shall be considered
income to that individual, except for a person over the age
of 23 with dependent children.
(c) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall issue final regulations to carry out the provisions of
this section.
Sec. 220. Notwithstanding the limitation in the first
sentence of section 255(g) of the National Housing Act (12
U.S.C. 1715z-20(g)), the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development may, until September 30, 2008, insure and enter
into commitments to insure mortgages under section 255 of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20).
Sec. 221. The National Housing Act is amended--
(1) in sections 207(c)(3), 213(b)(2)(B)(i),
221(d)(3)(ii)(II), 221(d)(4)(ii)(II), 231(c)(2)(B), and
234(e)(3)(B) (12 U.S.C. 1713(c)(3), 1715e(b)(2)(B)(i),
1715l(d)(3)(ii)(II), 1715l(d)(4)(ii)(II), 1715v(c)(2)(B), and
1715y(e)(3)(B))--
(A) by striking ``140 percent'' each place such term
appears and inserting ``170 percent''; and
(B) by striking ``170 percent in high cost areas'' each
place such term appears and inserting ``215 percent in high
cost areas''; and
(2) in section 220(d)(3)(B)(iii)(III) (12 U.S.C.
1715k(d)(3)(B)(iii)(III)) by striking ``206A'' and all that
follows through ``project-by-project basis'' and inserting
the following: ``206A of this Act) by not to exceed 170
percent in any geographical area where the Secretary finds
that cost levels so require and by not to exceed 170 percent,
or 215 percent in high cost areas, where the Secretary
determines it necessary on a project-by-project basis''.
Sec. 222. (a) During fiscal year 2008, in the provision of
rental assistance under section 8(o) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) in connection with a
program to demonstrate the economy and effectiveness of
providing such assistance for use in assisted living
facilities that is carried out in the counties of the State
of Michigan notwithstanding paragraphs (3) and (18)(B)(iii)
of such section 8(o), a family residing in an assisted living
facility in any

[[Page H8327]]

such county, on behalf of which a public housing agency
provides assistance pursuant to section 8(o)(18) of such Act,
may be required, at the time the family initially receives
such assistance, to pay rent in an amount exceeding 40
percent of the monthly adjusted income of the family by such
a percentage or amount as the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development determines to be appropriate.
Sec. 223. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
recipient of a grant under section 202b of the Housing Act of
1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q-2) after December 26, 2000, in
accordance with the unnumbered paragraph at the end of
section 202(b) of such Act, may, at its option, establish a
single-asset nonprofit entity to own the project and may lend
the grant funds to such entity, which may be a private
nonprofit organization described in section 831 of the
American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000.
Sec. 224. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
shall give priority consideration to applications from the
housing authorities of the Counties of San Bernardino and
Santa Clara and the City of San Jose, California to
participate in the Moving to Work Demonstration Agreement
under section 204, title V, of the Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-
134, April 26, 1996): Provided, That upon turnover, existing
requirements on the reissuance of section 8 vouchers shall be
maintained to ensure that not less than 75 percent of all
vouchers shall be made available to extremely low-income
families.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. 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. Gary G. Miller of California:
At the end of title II (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. ___. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
may, notwithstanding any other provision of law, approve
additional Moving to Work Demonstration Agreements, which are
entered into between a public housing agency and the
Secretary under section 204 of Departments of Veterans
Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Act, 1996 (as contained in section
101(e) of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and
Appropriations Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-134; 42 U.S.C.
1437f note)), but at no time may the number of active Moving
to Work Demonstration Agreements exceed 32.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, the Moving to Work
program has enabled Public Housing Authorities, PHAs, to create jobs
for residents, add affordable housing stock, and help families build
savings. Such efforts have gained recognition as being very successful
in serving more families and helping recipients to self-sufficiency.
The innovation and flexibility of the Moving to Work program helps more
families realize self-sufficiency through locally oriented programs
instead of HUD's one-size-fits-all approach.
Despite these benefits, only 24 of the more than 3,000 PHAs in the
Nation are participating in the Moving to Work program. This amendment
merely clarifies existing law in order to eliminate confusion at HUD
about the number of PHAs authorized to be designated as Moving to Work.
Congress has authorized 32 PHAs to participate in the Moving to Work
program. Despite this clear intent to have 32 PHAs be designated as
Moving to Work, due to what I view as a misinterpretation at HUD, there
are only 24 agencies that are currently allowed to participate in the
Moving to Work program. Once PHAs leave the Moving to Work program, HUD
has said that no new agencies can be selected to fill their vacancies.
This simple and straightforward amendment would clarify Congress's
intent to require HUD to implement Moving to Work at its fully
authorized level. The amendment directs the Secretary of HUD to
promptly approve new PHAs to participate in the Moving to Work program
whenever the number of agencies is less than the total number and level
we have authorized at 32. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
Does the chairman plan on opposing this amendment?
Mr. OLVER. If the gentleman will yield, I do intend to insist upon
the point of order.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Then if the gentleman is going to
raise a point of order, I will withdraw the amendment.
May I have a colloquy with the chairman?
Mr. OLVER. I will be happy to engage in a colloquy.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Chairman Olver, the Moving to Work
program has enabled Public Housing Authorities to create jobs for
residents, add affordable housing stock, and help families build
savings. Such efforts have gained recognition as being very successful
and serving more families and helping recipients to self-sufficiency.
Congress has authorized 32 PHAs to participate in the Moving to Work
program. Unfortunately, due to the misinterpretation at HUD, there are
only 24 PHAs that are allowed to participate in the Moving to Work
program.
Mr. Chairman, would you agree that it is the intent of Congress that
HUD must implement the Moving to Work program at its fully authorized
level?
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, to the gentleman who is offering the
amendment and offering to withdraw it, I want to say that I am a
supporter of Moving to Work; but the language here is clearly
authorizing language, and we have not been accepting authorizing
language at any point in this debate.
So, I would be very happy to work with the gentleman on the Moving to
Work program, and urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman. If PHAs move
off the Moving to Work program, HUD must immediately solicit new
applicants to keep the program at full force, and I hope this colloquy
will eliminate confusion at HUD about the number of PHAs authorized to
be designated as Moving to Work.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask to engage the
chairman of Transportation and HUD in another colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I have serious concerns about the administration's
proposal to increase the Federal Housing Administration's multifamily
mortgage insurance premium by 35 percent for fiscal year 2008.
The administration proposed a similar increase last year, and
rescinded it after hearing from Members of Congress and those in the
industry most affected. I believe we again do not have sufficient
information about the impact of this proposal on affordable rental
housing for American workforces.
The chairman of the Financial Services Committee Mr. Frank and I are
currently circulating a letter to HUD among our colleagues opposing the
increase in the premium. As of Monday, we have 106 Members of Congress
on record opposing the increase. A similar letter sent to HUD was
recently signed by 38 Senators.
We believe an increase in the premium will impact the communities
where housing would be built as well as tenants in those projects. HUD
needs to perform a full assessment of the likely impact of such a
premium increase on the volume of multifamily rental housing
development, and the consequential effects of higher financing costs on
rents to be borne by moderate-income residents.
This thorough assessment of the potential adverse effects of the
proposed premium increase needs to be submitted to the appropriate
congressional committees, giving Congress the opportunity to evaluate
the proposal. This would need to happen before allowing the increase to
go into effect by simple notice.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from California
that I very much respect the passion

[[Page H8328]]

for which he is working on this along with the chairman of the
Financial Services Committee, and I look forward to working with you on
this issue as we proceed.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the bill
through page 127, line 3, be considered as read, printed in the Record,
and open to amendment at any point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The text of that portion of the bill is as follows:

This title may be cited as the ``Department of Housing and
Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2008''.

TITLE III

RELATED AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

Salaries and Expenses

For expenses necessary for the Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, as authorized by
section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
$6,150,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation
funds received for publications and training expenses.

Federal Maritime Commission

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission
as authorized by section 201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act,
1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 1111), including services as authorized
by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles as
authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); and uniforms or allowances
therefore, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902, $22,072,000:
Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be available for
official reception and representation expenses.

National Transportation Safety Board

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the National Transportation
Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and
aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at
rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate
equivalent to the rate for a GS-15; uniforms, or allowances
therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902)
$85,000,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for
official reception and representation expenses. The amounts
made available to the National Transportation Safety Board in
this Act include amounts necessary to make lease payments due
in fiscal year 2008 only, on an obligation incurred in fiscal
year 2001 for a capital lease.

Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

Payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation

For payment to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
for use in neighborhood reinvestment activities, as
authorized by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Act
(42 U.S.C. 8101-8107), $119,800,000, of which $5,000,000
shall be for a multi-family rental housing program.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness

Operating Expenses

For necessary expenses (including payment of salaries,
authorized travel, hire of passenger motor vehicles, the
rental of conference rooms, and the employment of experts and
consultants under section 3109 of title 5, United States
Code) of the United States Interagency Council on
Homelessness in carrying out the functions pursuant to title
II of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as amended,
$2,000,000.
Title II of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as
amended, is amended in section 209 by striking ``2007'' and
inserting ``2008''.

TITLE IV

GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS ACT

(including transfers of funds)

Sec. 401. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year
2008 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or
previous appropriations Acts.
Sec. 402. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for
the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses
of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening
in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
Sec. 403. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall
remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal
year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations,
unless expressly so provided herein.
Sec. 404. The expenditure of any appropriation under this
Act for any consulting service through procurement contract
pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code,
shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures
are a matter of public record and available for public
inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing
law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to
existing law.
Sec. 405. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, none of
the funds provided in this Act, provided by previous
appropriations Acts to the agencies or entities funded in
this Act that remain available for obligation or expenditure
in fiscal year 2008, or provided from any accounts in the
Treasury derived by the collection of fees and available to
the agencies funded by this Act, shall be available for
obligation or expenditure through a reprogramming of funds
that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program,
project, or activity; (3) increases funds or personnel for
any program, project, or activity for which funds have been
denied or restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to use
funds directed for a specific activity by either the House or
Senate Committees on Appropriations for a different purpose;
(5) augments existing programs, projects, or activities in
excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; (6)
reduces existing programs, projects, or activities by
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or (7) creates,
reorganizes, or restructures a branch, division, office,
bureau, board, commission, agency, administration, or
department different from the budget justifications submitted
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations or the
table accompanying the statement of the managers accompanying
this Act, whichever is more detailed, unless prior approval
is received from the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations: Provided, That not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, each agency funded by this
Act shall submit a report to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations to establish the baseline for application
of reprogramming and transfer authorities for the current
fiscal year: Provided further, That the report shall include:
(1) a table for each appropriation with a separate column to
display the President's budget request, adjustments made by
Congress, adjustments due to enacted rescissions, if
appropriate, and the fiscal year enacted level; (2) a
delineation in the table for each appropriation both by
object class and program, project, and activity as detailed
in the budget appendix for the respective appropriation; and
(3) an identification of items of special congressional
interest: Provided further, That the amount appropriated or
limited for salaries and expenses for an agency shall be
reduced by $100,000 per day for each day after the required
date that the report has not been submitted to the Congress.
Sec. 406. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law,
not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining
available at the end of fiscal year 2008 from appropriations
made available for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2008
in this Act, shall remain available through September 30,
2009, for each such account for the purposes authorized:
Provided, That a request shall be submitted to the Committees
on Appropriations for approval prior to the expenditure of
such funds: Provided further, That these requests shall be
made in compliance with reprogramming guidelines.
Sec. 407. All Federal agencies and departments that are
funded under this Act shall issue a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on all sole source
contracts by no later than July 31, 2008. Such report shall
include the contractor, the amount of the contract and the
rationale for using a sole source contract.
Sec. 408. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be obligated or expended for any employee training that--
(1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills,
and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of
official duties;
(2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of
emotional response or psychological stress in some
participants;
(3) does not require prior employee notification of the
content and methods to be used in the training and written
end of course evaluation;
(4) contains any methods or content associated with
religious or quasi-religious belief systems or ``new age''
belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988; or
(5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants'
personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or
otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing
directly upon the performance of official duties.

{time} 1345

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 409. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with an entity that does not
participate in the basic pilot program described in section
403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS. 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. 15 offered by Mr. Sessions:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following new section:
Sec. 410. None of the funds made available by this Act
shall be used to support Amtrak's route with the highest
loss, measured

[[Page H8329]]

by passenger per mile cost as based on the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation's September 2006 Financial Performance
of Routes Report.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It
would eliminate funding for the absolute worst performing line at
Amtrak, the Sunset Limited, which runs from New Orleans to Los Angeles.
In 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act,
which required that Amtrak operate without any Federal operating
assistance after 2002. Despite this commonsense requirement that they
cease their fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement, since Amtrak was
supposed to be operating free of Federal subsidy, it has, instead, cost
the taxpayers $3 billion in operating expenses.
Mr. Chairman, people tuned in on C-SPAN to watch this debate may be
wondering what exactly this $3 billion in taxpayer funding is paying
for. Well, in the case of the Sunset Limited, it is being used to
subsidize the travels of a very few passengers who want to take a train
from New Orleans to Los Angeles.
The trip is scheduled to take 46 hours and 20 minutes to complete,
that is, assuming the train is running on time. This occurrence is,
however, exceedingly unlikely. According to Amtrak's most recent
monthly performance report, the Sunset Limited was only on time 11
percent of the time. This makes the Sunset Limited the third worst on-
time performer for any of Amtrak's 33 routes during 2007.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, taxpayers should be happy when the train is
not running, though, because when it is, the route loses an average of
almost $30 million a year. This means that Amtrak and the American
taxpayer lose $0.57 per mile for each passenger on this train. For
2006, it cost the Federal Government $524 per passenger on that route,
more than revenue that was brought in.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is the first step to instilling just a
small measure of fiscal discipline at Amtrak. Failure to do so will
only allow Amtrak to continue misusing and wasting taxpayer dollars.
This amendment is supported by the National Taxpayers Union,
Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens Against Government Waste. I hope
that all my colleagues will join me and those taxpayer advocates in
saving the taxpayers from throwing more good money after bad on the
Sunset Limited.
I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I would like to point out to the gentleman that the bill before us
includes language that requires the Secretary of Transportation to
review and ultimately approve or deny grant requests for each train
route as part of the grant agreement. When grant requests are submitted
to the Secretary, they include a detailed financial analysis and
revenue projections, and the Secretary then determines whether to
approve the grant request for the specific train route.
I'd like to make another comment here. All too often we forget about
rural areas. Rural communities deserve transportation choices. This
line serves a number of rural areas in the South and Southwest. But I
do again remind that the Secretary has the authority to review the
financials in relation to a particular route and to approve or
disapprove of grant requests.
Amtrak has made some good moves over the recent past. They've reduced
their debt by $500 million. They have exacted about $100 million of
savings so far in their effort to reduce the costs of the long-distance
routes. They've increased the amount of State investment that's
involved in these routes, and they continue to show better revenue and
ridership.
But the route to deal with individual routes, the way to deal with
individual routes is through the language that's already in the bill,
and so I'm going to oppose the specific effort to eliminate one
specific route when the route is already in place in the legislation
for the Secretary to make that decision.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman who is the Chair of
the subcommittee of the authorizing committee, Ms. Brown.
(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, here we go again, trying
to destroy passenger rail in this country. The United States used to be
the best passenger rail system in the world. Now we're the caboose, and
we don't even use cabooses anymore.
For far too long this Congress has given Amtrak just enough money to
limp along, never giving them the funds they needed to make serious
improvements in the system.
Amtrak was a first responder during Hurricane Katrina and used the
Sunset Limited line to help evacuate thousands of gulf region residents
while President Bush and his administration was nowhere to be found.
Now they are becoming a key part of each State's future evacuation
plan.
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 their systems get bigger and better, our
system gets less and less money.
Vote ``no'' on the amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for
the remaining 2 minutes.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thought we spent most of last night on
amendments to kill the operating account of Amtrak and then kill the
capital account of Amtrak. The only thing that wasn't offered was
burial funds for Amtrak. But now comes the dismemberment amendment.
This route is part of a national passenger rail system. It's the only
route connecting California to the Southwest, to the gulf, and on to
Florida. This route touches one-third of the Nation's population. Many
of the people living in those communities along this route have no
other passenger transportation, mass transportation alternative than
the Sunset Limited.
The gentleman from Texas talked about the time it takes to traverse
that route. What he didn't say is that most of that time is spent by
Amtrak on sidings waiting for freight rail trains to pass. Now, if you
give passenger rail priority consideration on those routes, those
trains would pass very quickly. We could cut a substantial, maybe a
third or more of the time out of their passenger service.
What's happening here is, going back to the origins of Amtrak, when
freight rail companies started as passenger rail service found they
could make more money carrying freight than passengers, they were
carrying U.S. mail on the overnight railway post office, they
petitioned to the Interstate Commerce Commission to discontinue
passenger service when U.S. Postal Service moved to carrying their mail
by truck.
So one by one, they discontinued passenger rail service, dumped it
all in the hands of the Federal Government.
We need to keep Amtrak servicing. Defeat this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. 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 Texas will
be postponed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point something out. Last night the
committee, while most Members were able to leave for dinner, the
committee had to stay here and work until 10 p.m.. Lots of Members
didn't show up then to offer

[[Page H8330]]

their amendments, and so now we have a surplus of amendments that we
still have to go through today.
Now, today, the committee is grinding through these amendments, and
we've just hit a patch in the road where no Members were here to offer
their amendments.
Under the House rules, the committee could have chosen to rise and we
could have moved to final passage without considering any of the other
amendments that are still pending. The committee chose not to do that,
out of fairness.
But I want to point out that if Members want to tie up the
committee's time ad nauseam on repetitive amendments, the same
amendments on the same bills ad nauseam, then the least they can do is
to be on the floor when those amendments are supposed to be offered.
The next time there is such a gap, I will move to rise and move to
final passage.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. 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. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds in this Act shall be available for the Belmont Complex
in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``Department of Housing and Urban
Development--Community Development Fund'' (and specified for
the Economic Development Initiative) is hereby reduced by
$300,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to have the Clerk read
the amendment in these instances where there are very specific
amendments applying to a specific project within the legislation.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the
amendment.
There was no objection.

{time} 1400

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee for their indulgence
here. I just wanted to make sure that Members who have earmarks that
are being challenged here have the ability to come to the floor and are
able to defend them.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would strike $300,000 from funding for
the Belmont Complex in Armstrong County, Pennsylvania.
The Belmont Complex is a local recreational center. It offers an
Olympic-size swimming pool with a 150-foot water slide and an indoor
skating rink and arena. The center has an adult hockey team and also
offers indoor soccer.
To generate money, the center sells advertising space on the ice. A
dashboard ad costs about $800. The center also charges $5 a day for
admission to the pool. Individual pool memberships for the summer
season are also available, and they can run up to $77.
But, apparently, despite all the available revenue streams, the
Federal taxpayers are being asked to pay $300,000 for this recreational
center to rebuild or renovate the center.
The bad news is I don't think any of us are given a free pass. We
aren't given a season pass. That is something that is just for the
locals. I think the entire project should be for the locals.
Reading through this, it struck me that virtually every Member here
in this body has probably a dozen or so of these recreational centers
in their district that we could, with the same justification here, come
to the Congress and say we need a Federal taxpayer subsidy for this. We
are not charging enough for people to come in, where our local funds
are low, so we are going to give the Federal taxpayer the chance to pay
for it.
We simply can't do that, obviously. We can't fund all the
recreational centers across the country. So why do we choose this one?
Why do we pick winners and losers here? Is it just because there is a
particularly powerful Member who is behind it who can say, hey, I am
going to get funds for my district for this recreational center? What
happens to all the other ones? What do you tell the recreational center
down the street just across the district line? You're out of luck? You
have to charge more for your season passes?
It just doesn't seem fair to me. This isn't the road we should go
down. And if we have turned over a new leaf, and we are doing something
different in terms of earmarks, then let's do something different
instead of the same old same old.
We are told that we are going to have a process that vets these a
little better. There are, I believe, about 1,500 earmarks in this bill.
We just got word of what they were just a couple of days ago. And so it
just doesn't seem that the process is changing all that much. It looks
too much now like it did when Republicans were in charge.
So I think that we ought to change it, and that is why I am offering
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman offering this amendment
doesn't happen to be here at the moment; so let me try to point out
what is involved here.
Yes, the Belmont Complex does provide recreational opportunities and
conference and meeting space. Yes, it is a facility that is used for
Chamber of Commerce meetings, and banquets, and business, and seminars,
and training and testing for displaced workers, and local union
meetings and negotiations, emergency rescue training, voter
registration drives, local business-to-business job fairs.
In the county, Armstrong County in Pennsylvania, which is one of
those in the northern part of Appalachia that is struggling hard,
losing population, by the way, if I remember the map exactly correctly.
I was from Pennsylvania in an earlier period of my lifetime. These are
all purposes that are important to the process of keeping the economy
going in that community and that county.
But most important to this particular earmark is that a 2003 fire
damaged much of the building, and these funds are needed to make
continual interior and exterior renovations and to make the facility
handicapped-accessible. Those are important specific things that go
beyond the other bits and pieces that are pulled together in this
complex. The main building within the complex has had fire damage and
needs this money for repair.
Now, I just want to point out that the great explosion, the truly
irresponsible explosion, of congressional earmarking began shortly
after the party which is in the minority gained control of the Congress
in 1995. And so during that period of time, we have gone from zero
earmarking in the Labor, Health, and Education budget to over $1
billion a year. We have tripled the number of earmarks in the defense
bill. The number of earmarks in this legislation, while it has been
reorganized a couple times, has gone up in similar kind of proportion.
Yet this year, this year, we are reducing the number of earmarks and
the number of dollars involved in those earmarks by 50 percent from
what they were under the last time that a budget was put through
completely with earmarks under the leadership of the gentleman's party.
So we are trying to clean up a mess and get a good strong measure of
the earmarking process.
But this one, I think, is legitimate for its purposes, and I hope the
amendment will be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say if you can justify this
earmark for a recreational center to help them basically defray cost of
memberships or to rebuild or renovate, you could do that for any
recreational center in the country. There is nothing that I can see,
and I wish the sponsor of the amendment would have come to the floor to
actually defend it or shed some light on what makes this special, why
there is a Federal nexus here that doesn't exist with other
recreational centers across the country. I wish we

[[Page H8331]]

could have had that debate or not. So we have to assume that this is no
different than any recreational center anywhere in the country. So if
you can justify this one, you can justify any of them. And we simply
can't afford that, and we shouldn't continue just to say, well, we have
cut the number of earmarks or dollar value in half. I mean, we are
trying to get back to fiscal sobriety here after a binge that took
place for years, and I admitted that that binge was my party. But if we
are trying to get back to sobriety, it doesn't count to say, all right,
we are only going to drink half as much this year as we did before.
That's just not acceptable.
This process is out of control. It remains out of control. And this
earmark is a great example of that. If we can approve earmarks for this
kind of thing, anything goes. Katy bar the door.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to
speak on any of these earmarks, but the discussion that has gone on
between the chairman and the gentleman from Arizona I was listening to
upstairs, and it struck me that there needed to be some addition to
this discussion.
The suggestion that earmarks exploded as of the time the control of
the Congress changed in 1995 and began to expand, et cetera, et cetera,
is accurate, accurate, but for reasons entirely different than the
gentleman from Arizona either realizes or understands.
It is a fact that the other party controlled the Congress for 40
years, and over all those years their chairmen, their subcommittee
chairmen, their very high-ranking Members around here with years and
years of power had developed very solid relationships with the second
and third level in the various agencies around this town. And there
weren't earmarks; there were phone marks. Key staff and otherwise were
instructed to call those second- and third-tier people within the
agencies and let them know what they thought the priorities should be.
There wasn't a need for legislative earmarks because phone marks had a
very significant impact upon the process. And we tend to ignore that
reality.
When the majority did change, the new majority found that that second
and third level of bureaucracy weren't nearly as responsive to people
with Rs after their name, or Republicans, and thus they began giving
some specific direction as to what their priorities were, thus the term
called ``earmarks.''
Further, I think the gentleman does his party a disservice by
suggesting that this was our fault. The reality is that even the
earmarks where they are represent in the neighborhood of 1 percent of
all the discretionary spending available in the appropriations process,
and that while the Constitution says that appropriations should begin
in the House of Representatives, to suggest that Members having ideas
as to what priorities ought to be and even putting it in legislation is
wrong, it seems to me, in connection with that, the gentleman is wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Weiner). The gentleman from Arizona has 30
seconds remaining.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me just respond.
The truth is we went from about, as the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee often points out, from zero earmarks in Labor-
HHS to some 1,400 last week. Much of that was under my party.
I think Democrats are as much to blame probably as Republicans are.
The difference is as Republicans, we pretend to stand for limited
government. We should be saying this isn't what we should be doing. If
the agencies are out of control, we need to rein them in through the
oversight process rather than to try to compete with them in terms of
wasteful spending.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has
expired.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak on this issue
either, but I feel required to respond to one thing that the gentleman
from Arizona said.
He indicated that it was too bad that he had only had 2 or 3 days
during which time he could review the earmarks in this bill. I simply
want to say if he feels badly about that and wants to know why that is
the case, all he has to do is look in the mirror along with a number of
his other colleagues.
Why do I say that? Because I tried about a month ago to make clear to
the House that I thought the Appropriations Committee staff had had
insufficient time to take a look at and screen a number of these
earmarks, especially those that came early in the process. So I offered
up another option, and what I proposed is that the committee simply be
given more time to screen those earmarks, and that before the Congress
adjourned in August, we would then publish all of them, and any persons
who had doubts about them would have more than 30 days over the August
recess, and our staffs could have reviewed each and every one of them
for a much longer period of time.
The gentleman and others on that side of the aisle chose to belittle
that proposal, suggesting that we were trying to, quote, ``hide
earmarks until conference.'' Not so. All we were trying to do was to
give the staff and any Members who were interested additional time in
which to review those earmarks. Our friends on the other side decided
that they would rather criticize than agree to that, and so we
acquiesced in their desires to have earmarks in each bill as they came
to the floor.

{time} 1415

We felt that there would be ample protection for Members because we
also included a reform that would have required persons in the
conference to be present and voting on every single item rather than
having to endure what has happened in the past when large amounts of
legislation were slipped into conference reports without a vote of the
conference after the conference is over. But our judgment was not
followed, and so as a result, we have this very limited time for
Members to review projects as they come through in regular order. I'm
sorry about that. But I would say to the gentleman, no one in this
House can have it both ways. We've tried to accommodate the wishes of
the House. Either way, we're doing the best we can. And if the
gentleman doesn't like it, I think, as I say, all he has to do is look
in the mirror because it was comments from people like him that
required us to follow this procedure in this manner.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting 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. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds in this Act shall be available for the Walter Clore
Wine and Culinary Center in Prosser, Washington.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``Department of Housing and Urban
Development--Community Development Fund'' (and specified for
the Economic Development Initiative) is hereby reduced by
$250,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.

[[Page H8332]]

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. Let me just say, in response to the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, this isn't the best process. I appreciate
having a couple of days and being able to come to the floor. The
problem is, under what was proposed by the chairman, we would have had
more time, yes, but we wouldn't have had the ability to challenge
individual earmarks. So that was a trade-off that we were unwilling to
make. And I still maintain that we made the best decision here. But I
think it would be nice to have more than a couple of days to actually
look at these, but I appreciate that the Appropriations Committee is
doing so.
This amendment would prohibit $250,000 in Federal funds from going to
the Walter Clore Wine and Culinary Center in Prosser, Washington, and
reduce the cost of the bill by a consistent amount.
I'm sure people like to be wined and dined, but I think this earmark
goes a little too far. I think that this is another example of, if we
can justify economic development here, then we can justify just about
anything.
We often complain that the Federal Government, the agencies spend
willy-nilly, they're wasting money here, they're wasting money there.
They are, certainly. One amendment that I wanted to bring today but got
it too late would be one to simply cut the account that provides
economic development earmarks because I think the Federal agencies do
waste money in this regard. But instead of reining that account in and
saying you shouldn't be doing that, we're kind of competing with them
and saying we're going to do our own economic development earmarks. I
just fail to see a Federal nexus that exists here that wouldn't exist
with other organizations.
You can justify anything in terms of economic development. The act of
spending money by itself inherently means there is economic
development. But where do we choose? Do we just choose this one or that
one? It just doesn't seem to be a very good process, particularly
without a real Federal nexus here.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
I think the gentleman, in his opening remarks, said something that
currently should be expanded. Current law within HUD has an Office of
Economic Development, and its responsibility, and I want to quote what
its responsibility is, it ``works with public and private sectors as
well as not-for-profit organizations to provide financial and technical
assistance to local communities to develop and implement their own
economic development and community revitalization strategies.'' Now,
that's current law. If the gentleman believes that that agency
shouldn't exist, then certainly he can introduce a bill, and we can
have a worthy debate on that. But that is existing law.
And it is within that context, then, as this relates to my district,
which is a very diverse agriculture area, labor intensive in many of
the specialty crops, but there is a new industry that is emerging in my
district, and that is the wine industry. It's only about 35 years old.
Historically, the wine industry in this country has always been in
California. This is emerging in my district, and it has the benefit,
then, of economic development to expand, to bring more tourists into
this area, which means there's more hotels, more restaurants. That is
the very definition of what economic development is all about.
So let me be very, very clear on this. This project is fully
consistent with requirements for projects normally and routinely funded
under this program and existing programs.
And I might add, it is named for an individual who has been widely
recognized as the father of the Washington wine industry. He is the one
who convinced farmers to transfer some of their lands to growing wine
grapes. And, frankly, they've been very successful.
There has been $5 million raised by other governmental agencies and
quasi-governmental agencies to build this center. This is part of that.
What it demonstrates to me is that there is a strong commitment of this
wide community that identifies this as a local economic development
project.
So while there has been a lot of discussion with the earmarks this
year, and I suspect we will have more of those discussions, I firmly
believe that within existing laws and within the context of economic
development, this falls into a category that I feel very, very
comfortable with in saying that we ought to earmark dollars for this
center because it will expand the economic development in this largely
rural area that I have the privilege of representing. So, to me, it is
an example of what the economic development initiative is supposed to
be.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, Washington wine industry revenues are
estimated at about $3 billion a year. The industry employs, I believe,
about 11,000 people. Over 2 million people visit Washington wineries
every year. That's just the point I was making. This is an industry
that does pretty well. And I just wonder why the Federal taxpayer has
to be involved here.
Public/private partnerships, there is nothing bad about that on its
face; but not every public/private partnership is justified,
particularly when that partner is the Federal Government. I just still
fail to see a nexus.
And, again, we should actually be providing more oversight of the
Federal agencies that expend these economic development grants because
a lot of it is wasted. I'm sure a lot of it is wasted in my own
district. But we shouldn't be trying to compete with that account by
earmarking our own funds.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, let me restate again that
it is existing law within HUD of this office that provides for economic
development. I am simply following the law and exercising my right as a
Member of Congress, who is part of the writing of the appropriation
bills, to earmark what I think is important for my district.
Now, if the gentleman wants to, as I mentioned in my previous
remarks, if he wants to have a debate on whether that office ought to
exist, well, I think that is worthy of debate. In fact, I would have
suggested to the gentleman that maybe he should have defunded
completely the whole office; therefore, he could have been at least
consistent rather than picking out one project that I think is worthy,
following what the requirements are of the Economic Development Office.
So with that, I would urge my colleagues to oppose the Flake
amendment as it relates to the Walter Clore Center.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting 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 Acting 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. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds in this Act shall be available for the North Central
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission in Wausau, Wisconsin.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``Department of Housing and Urban
Development--Community Development Fund'' (and specified for
neighborhood initiatives) is hereby reduced by $400,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 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, as mentioned, this amendment would strike
$400,000 in the bill from the North Central Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission.

[[Page H8333]]

According to the certification letter submitted by the sponsor, the
commission will receive Federal funding to establish the Technology
Revolving Loan Fund.
According to the Web site, the commission is a public agency
dedicated to providing professional services to local governments.
These services include economic development, geographic information
systems, intergovernmental cooperation, land use planning, and
transportation. The commission's funding comes from Federal grants and
State and local money.
This earmark brings up a lot of questions. First and foremost, why is
this fund being created in one particular part of Wisconsin? I'm sure
every Member of Congress would love to establish a revolving loan fund
to help their local businesses. If it is deserving of Federal aid, why
aren't others? Again, why do we pick and choose here?
Can the sponsor of this earmark assure us that once this is done,
that once these monies are loaned out, that more monies won't be
sought? Is this an earmark that will beget more earmarks? It seems that
these are questions that should be answered. It's a dangerous slippery
slope, I think, if we use Federal taxpayer dollars for parochial
revolving loan funds.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I seek to control the time in opposition, and
I reserve my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, here is just another example, and maybe the
sponsor of the earmark can enlighten us, but as to what makes this
different, what makes this deserving of Federal funds? Why are we
helping to set up a local revolving loan fund for local businesses?
What is to stop every Member of Congress from wanting that in their own
district? Isn't this a slippery slope if we just allow taxpayer money
to be used in this fashion? If you can use it for economic development,
if that is the criterion, any spending is justified.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman has indicated, this provides funds for
a revolving loan fund for North Central Regional Planning Commission.
The purpose is to provide small low-interest loans for small business
start-ups or expansions. It is targeted to enterprises which have
little access to capital and need to change the technology which they
use in production.
The planning commission is established by county governments under
State statutory authority. It provides zoning and economic development
assistance to counties. The planning commission covers a 10-county area
and three congressional districts, mine, the gentleman from the eighth,
Mr. Kagen, formerly Mr. Green, and also Mr. Petri's district.
Why are we providing funds for this area? Very simple: this is an
economically challenged area. And I make no apology whatsoever in
trying to provide some modest assistance to the area. We have a similar
fund in two other parts of my congressional direct. In Chippewa County,
for instance, 3 years ago we established a similar fund.

{time} 1430

That fund has saved 58 jobs in the area. They have provided grants,
very small grants, to businesses in question, and they have already
received $200,000 in repayments. All of the repayments are current.
But I want to ask a series of questions about the gentleman's
district. I make no apology for trying to provide small loans to
domestic small business entrepreneurs. In the 10 years that I chaired
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, I learned very quickly the value
of small loans rather than large, megadevelopment projects. I see no
reason why we shouldn't provide those same lessons here at home.
I find it ironic that someone from Arizona would challenge economic
development funds in Wisconsin. Arizona ranks 24th in the Nation in per
capita Federal dollars spent in Arizona; Wisconsin ranks 48th. So the
gentleman is exactly twice as well off in terms of State ranking than
my own State. Arizona receives $41 billion in Federal funds out of the
budget; my State receives $31 billion. Arizona receives $7,300 per
person; Wisconsin receives $5,675 per person. That is a $1,600 per
capita difference.
Eighty-five percent of the difference in what our two States get is
due to differences in Federal salaries and in procurement. Arizona gets
$7 billion more out of the Federal Government because of money spent
for procurement than does the State of Wisconsin. In fact, Arizona gets
a lot more money than all of the States in the upper Midwest. Arizona,
as I said, ranks 24th. Wisconsin ranks 48th in per capita expenditure,
Michigan ranks 47th, Minnesota 49th, Illinois 46th, Indiana 45th.
On a per capita basis, Arizona gets 28 percent more out of the
Federal budget than does Wisconsin. It gets 22 percent more per capita
than does Michigan, 29 percent more than does Minnesota, 21 percent
more than does Illinois, and 20 percent more than does Indiana.
Let me also point out that I doubt very much that the Arizona
delegation doesn't work very hard to see to it that giant defense
contractors like Raytheon, Boeing, Honeywell and General Dynamics
together receive almost $4 billion in funding from the Federal
Government. I doubt very much that the delegations from those States
don't work to get that money in their States. So I make no apology for
this tiny pittance that we are trying to provide for my own State.
Mr. Chairman, I also want to say, however, I think it comes with
considerable ill grace for someone from Arizona to question the
expenditure of $400,000 in Wisconsin, when Arizona has been the
principal recipient of the second largest Federal earmark in the
history of earmarking in this country, the Central Arizona Project. For
Arizona, we have already spent $4.3 billion. The total cost of that
project is expected to be $5.6 billion. The President's request is at
$27 million this year.
Mr. Chairman, that seems to me to be the pot calling the kettle
black. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to continue my observations about what
the gentleman receives from the Federal budget. The Republican Study
Committee said that the $1.5 billion that was provided to the D.C.
subway was the largest earmark in history. In fact, the Arizona project
is almost four times as large as the D.C. subway. Yet the gentleman is
complaining about a tiny $400,000 economic assistance grant for my
State.
I would also simply note that the median household income in the
gentleman's district is $48,000. The median household income in my own
district is $39,000, a $9,000 difference. A good portion of that higher
median income lies in the fact that Arizona has a very large number of
Federal installations in the gentleman's State. Fort Huachuca and
several other Air Force bases inject enough funds to provide employment
for 9,000 additional people, yet the gentleman is objecting to a small
revolving loan fund which provides help in keeping about 50 jobs in
Wisconsin.
I make no apology in trying to get the median family income in my
district just a mite closer to the much higher income found in the
gentleman's district.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for a colloquy to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts, the chairman of the subcommittee, for this colloquy.

[[Page H8334]]

Mr. Chairman, in New Jersey, and all over the country, certain waste
handlers and railroad companies have tried to exploit a supposed
loophole in Federal law in order to set up unregulated waste transfer
facilities.
Under the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, the
Surface Transportation Board, or STB, has exclusive jurisdiction over
transportation by rail carriers and the ability to grant Federal
preemption over other laws at any level, local, State or Federal, that
might impede such transportation. But Congress intended such authority
to extend only to transportation by rail, not to the operation of
facilities that are merely sited next to rail operations or have a
business connection to a rail company.
Unfortunately, certain companies have exploited this loophole to
build or plan waste transfer stations next to rail lines and avoid any
regulation from State or local authorities.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Senate's efforts to close this
loophole. They have passed an amendment in their version of the fiscal
year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations
bill, and I wanted to thank your subcommittee for recognizing this
important issue in this bill's report language.
I had intended to offer an amendment, which I will not offer at this
time, that would take the STB out of the waste management business by
ensuring that funding for any decisions relating to waste transfer
stations be eliminated. Again, you have dealt with this in the bill's
report language, so it is not necessary to move this amendment at this
time. But it is important that States and local municipalities have
some say in this process.
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to add a
word of my support of Mr. Pallone's amendment. The issue of companies
circumventing the law and the wishes of cities and towns in this Nation
deserves to be addressed.
In my district, in Bensalem, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, a firm
wanted to build a waste transfer station. Given the potential
environmental and health risks, both the local community and even the
State voiced their objections to the proposal. As an end run around
this, the rail company that would service the proposed waste transfer
facility applied to the Federal Surface Transportation Board, or the
STB, to, in effect, have the waste transfer facility declared a rail
facility. This was an attempt to supersede the rulings of the State and
local entities that had already rejected the proposed waste transfer
station. Fortunately, the rail company's application was rejected, but
they can reapply to the STB at any time.
Just yesterday I stood with Bensalem Mayor Joe DiGirolamo and
Pennsylvania State Representative Gene DiGirolamo and opposed this
facility. Mr. Chairman, people in the local, State and Federal level
are all opposed to this end run around the law.
Mr. Chairman, when Congress created the STB, it was never intended to
allow decisions by the STB to be used to override the wishes of cities
and towns across the country, and certainly not as a means of
superseding health and environmental regulations of State and local
governments. Yet that is exactly what is happening.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his
excellent leadership on this issue, and thank Chairman Olver for
providing me the opportunity to speak today and stand up for the
residents of Bensalem and the Eighth District of Pennsylvania.
Mr. OLVER. To continue the colloquy, I yield to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with
the remarks of my colleagues from New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
Communities in my home in New York, including the village of Croton-on-
Hudson in my district, are also being threatened by companies who are
hoping to exploit this loophole through the STB to process solid waste
without facing regulation under environmental protection laws. This
type of activity is clearly outside the mission and the purview of the
Surface Transportation Board, and I look forward to working with my
colleagues and chairman to affirm that reality.
I thank the chairman and the gentleman from New Jersey for their
leadership and look forward to working as we go forward with you.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, to respond to this, last night, as the
gentleman from New Jersey has already pointed out, we had an amendment
being offered which was subject to a point of order. I had agreed that
I would be happy to work with him, and I obviously will be very happy
to work with the three Members who are part of this colloquy from New
Jersey, from Pennsylvania and from New York, on this issue, which is an
important issue and would require authorization legislation to do, and
that is why the point of order lay last night.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat, I will be happy to work with the three
gentleman who have spoken on this issue as we go on toward conference.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting 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. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds in this Act shall be available for the National Forest
Recreation Association in Woodlake, California.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``Department of Housing and Urban
Development--Community Development Fund'' (and specified for
the Economic Development Initiative) is hereby reduced by
$50,000.

yThe Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today,
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.
Let me first respond. I had yielded back my time when the gentleman
from Wisconsin talked about Arizona, the Central Arizona Project as an
earmark.
Perhaps in the debate at the time it was called an earmark, but it
doesn't fit the contemporary definition of earmark. There was no
project over the history of this body probably that wasn't debated
through authorization, appropriation, followed up by oversight, than a
project like that. I would have no complaint if some of the projects
that we are challenging here today went through that process of
authorization, appropriation and oversight, but that isn't what this is
about.
The contemporary practice of earmarking that we have fallen into,
under Republicans and Democrats, has been to circumvent the careful
process of authorization, appropriation and oversight. So that is the
complaint here. So bringing up the Central Arizona Project whenever an
amendment is offered to take funding away from an economic development
in a local community is a specious argument, I would add.
This amendment would prohibit $50,000 in Federal funds from being
used by the National Forest Recreation Association for the National
Mule and Packer Museum and would reduce the cost of the bill by a
consistent amount.
According to the earmark description and certification letter
submitted to the Appropriations Committee, the funding would be used
for the construction of a museum to memorialize and help to preserve
the role of mule teams and mule packers in opening and developing the
West.

{time} 1445

The funding, however, will go to the National Forest Recreation
Association. Obviously, you cannot build much for $50,000. I assume
there is a partnership with local entities.
There is much that we don't know about this. Does the location exist?
Will it be owned by the National Forest Recreation Association? Are
there corporate sponsors? How much is the total cost of the museum?
Will the Federal taxpayer be asked to pay more later on?
It seems there is a 20-mule team museum in Boren, California. This is
at least the second mule and packer museum we know of. Does that one
receive Federal funding?
I would simply say it is time for the American taxpayer to say
``whoa'' and

[[Page H8335]]

stand up for fiscal sanity and actually stop the practice of earmarking
like we are doing.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in
opposition to this amendment. As Mr. Hastings said earlier, there is in
current law the Office of Economic Development, which has the
responsibility of working with public and private sectors, as well as
not-for-profit organizations, to provide financial and technical
assistance to local communities to develop and implement their own
economic development in their community. That's current law.
If we want to change that, I agree with much of what the gentleman
has to say, I just think this is not the right time and place to be
covering it in this manner. But it gives me a little bit of a chance to
talk about my district, and all 435 of us, I think, love to have the
opportunity to talk about our districts.
I have a map here which shows my district. It is the second largest
district in California, a little over 21,000 square miles. I live down
here. This is Nevada. This is central to northern California. It is
about 450 miles this way, a couple hundred miles this way. A little
perspective: eight States would fit within this county, one of the
largest counties.
In this county, the town of Bishop, some of the community people have
every year for the last 40 years celebrated what they call Mule Days,
and about 50,000 people come to this community of 3,500 people. In this
whole county that I said eight States would fit in, about 17,000 people
live, and about 3,500 people live in the town of Bishop. They are great
people.
Here are the eastern Sierras, Death Valley. We have the lowest spot
in the 48 States and the highest spot. Death Valley is 280 feet below
sea level, and we have Mount Whitney that is about 15,000 feet above
sea level. It is a great district, just as each of your districts are.
Several years ago, and actually they have been working on this for a
few years, Bob Tanner and some of the people in Bishop thought that
they should have a museum to celebrate the mules. Ninety-five percent
of this county is owned by Federal and local governments. They don't
have any room. There are only a few acres in this town that could even
be developed. They don't have the land to develop for economic
development. They rely totally on tourism, restaurants, motels, packers
that take people up into the mountains. Mules have been an important
part of this, and they want to establish a museum. They are asking for
$50,000. L.A. City is going to donate $2 million worth of land, 8
acres. The county and the city are putting up a little over a million
and a half dollars, and the people that live there are going to raise
another hundred, $250,000.
One thing that I think we forget is that the people in Bishop pay
taxes. They pay Federal taxes, and I guarantee you that during the time
that Jerry represented them and the time I have had the opportunity to
represent them, they have gotten very little back from the Federal
Government for the taxes that they have sent here to Washington.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. McKEON. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Indeed, this territory was a part of my district for some time, and
the people are incredibly wonderful people. They reflect the best of
the American West. And there is no doubt that they are the best and
they are there in the West in no small part because of the mule.
I must say that the gentleman is making a very, very important point.
It is a long, long ways away from somebody else's district to become an
expert in terms of a subject like this. It causes me just to smile, and
so I intend to help the gentleman if I possibly can by voting ``no'' on
this amendment.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman.
Let me tell you a little bit about mules because this is one of the
things that they are going to honor in this museum. George Washington
introduced mules into our country. He received a jack donkey in 1786
from the King of Spain, and he started breeding and using mules. Within
a few years, he had 58 mules working on his plantation a few miles
south in Mount Vernon.
Since then, mules have been used to develop the West. All across the
Nation, they helped the pioneers move. They could go 30 miles a day
where wagon trains could only go about 5. They were an integral part of
the development of this country. Even today, we have 600 mules on
special assignment serving in Afghanistan helping the Army do the
things that they helped the Army do 100 years ago.
I think $50,000, you know, is a good contribution to give to these
people, the money that they have sent back here.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the gentleman from Arizona for
the opportunity to come to the floor to discuss the American Mule and
Packer Museum and the economic development impact it will have on my
district.
Let me first start by saying that this $50,000 is not included in
this bill to laud the humble and noble mule. These funds will be used
to boost tourism dollars in the small city of Bishop, CA by helping to
build a local heritage museum.
The city of Bishop is located in Inyo County--which is geographically
one of the largest counties in the country and is 95 percent owned by
the federal government. Bishop is a classic western frontier city and
has been squeezed out of all other industries by the encroachment of
federal land, which literally surrounds it and limits the community to
survival on tourism dollars. Those vitally important dollars come from
visitors eager to see the great Wild West, ride out like our
forefathers into the Eastern Sierra, enjoy the natural beauty on a
hike, or hire a mule packer to explore the federal forests in the area.
The $50,000 dollar grant contained in this bill for the American Mule
Museum is a modest federal investment in a worthy economic development
project and a good example of how federal seed money is leveraged to
develop local projects.
Every year, at the fairgrounds on Main Street, the small city of
Bishop hosts a famous and popular heritage festival known as ``Mule
Days.'' Some communities have an Apple Harvest festival, some have
Frontier Days. In Bishop, we celebrate ``Mule Days.'' My friend from
Arizona may not be familiar with the essential role Packers and their
trusted mules had to the settlement of the west, but California's home
state President did. Next to me is a picture of then-Governor Ronald
Reagan acting as the Grand Marshall to the Bishop Mule Days parade in
1974.
Mule Days is the single largest draw to that community, bringing
fifty thousand Californians and tourists interested in frontier life
into downtown Bishop, where they shop, dine and stay during the
festival. In addition to honoring their history, this museum would help
expand that tourism by drawing folks in year-round, rather than just
during the long Memorial Day weekend Mule Days celebration. The City of
Los Angeles, a longtime landholder in our northern county, is going to
donate an estimated 8 acres, valued at $2,000,000 for the project. Inyo
County will spend an additional $1.5 million with the hook-ups, parking
lots and access roads. Finally, this federal grant, directed to
National Forest and Recreation Association, in Woodlake, CA (the non-
profit overseeing the project) and private fundraising will be used
towards the excavation and reconstruction of the famed Livermore
Packing Station, and the surrounding corrals in Bishop.
There is a federal interest in preserving the history of how the West
was settled. There are many residents in the city and surrounding areas
who are direct descendants of those pioneers who headed west. A museum
dedicated to local heritage and mule packers that were so important to
the founding of the area will be a proper place to preserve their
artifacts and documents into the future.
The residents of the City of Bishop, my constituents and federal tax
payers are dependent on tourism dollars for their city funds. There are
480 separate EDI projects listed in the THUD bill ranging from $50,000
up to $500,000 with the majority of projects falling in the $100 K to
$200 K range. The projects, with a few exceptions, are for the
planning, land purchase, construction or renovation of facilities
deemed to be important to economic development in both rural and urban
areas. The construction of a museum celebrating local history is a
common theme throughout many of the projects. I urge my colleagues to
reject this amendment and help preserve a piece of American history in
a place that is deserving of federal assistance.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page H8336]]

Mr. LEWIS of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman very much. As you can see, when I
start talking about my district, I get pretty excited. I have a lot of
good things to say about it.
Bishop is a classic western frontier city. It has been squeezed out
of all other big industries by all of the other public lands that are
owned around them, and they have to survive on tourism. So if they can
add this museum, it will help their tourism and it will help bring
people there year-round, which will benefit their economy.
In closing, let me say that this is a partnership. It is not just
Federal dollars, even though there is no such thing as ``Federal
dollars.'' It all comes out of our pockets, and the people in Bishop
pay those Federal dollars back here.
But as I mentioned earlier, the City of Los Angeles is going to
participate by donating the land which is worth $2 million. Inyo County
will spend an additional $1.5 million to work on the project, and local
people will raise the difference.
The final thing I wanted to say is that there are 480 separate
economic development projects in this bill. According to current law,
that is what the law required. The chairman and the ranking member have
gone through, their staffs, they have evaluated all of the projects
requested. Bob Tanner and his friends in Bishop that requested this
project wrote up their project. They sent it to me and Senator
Feinstein. We included it in the request. They were one of the ones
chosen, one of the 480. These projects range from $50,000, this is the
smallest, to $500,000, with the majority falling between $100,000 and
$200,000.
The projects, with few exceptions, are for planning, land purchase,
construction or renovation of facilities deemed to be important to
economic development in both rural and urban areas. This is a very
rural area. The construction of a museum celebrating local history is a
common theme throughout many of these projects. We followed the law. We
did the things that are asked of us. I think this is a worthy project.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for including it in this
bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank my
friend from California for representing the people of Inyo County so
well since I had to leave them in the last redistricting. I intend to
support your position.
Mr. McKEON. If the gentleman would continue to yield, one final
thing.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Is that Ronald Reagan on a mule?
Mr. McKEON. Ronald Reagan led the Mule Days parade in 1974, riding a
mule in the Mule Days parade.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Could it possibly be? Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman brought up Ronald
Reagan. I think it was Reagan, when he was presented with the highway
bill back in 1987, that had, I believe, around 150 earmarks as opposed
to the highway bill we did later, in 2005, with 6,300. He said at that
time, ``I haven't seen this much lard since I gave away ribbons at the
county fair.'' So Ronald Reagan certainly recognized that Congress, at
least at that stage, before we even got into the contemporary practice
of earmarking, was out of control.
I would also like to make the point, and I am glad that the gentleman
mentioned, there is no such thing as Federal money. It is money given
by the taxpayer to the Federal Government. Some of it funds the core
functions of government. Some of it is spent on things that I don't
think are the core function of government, and I don't think most
taxpayers around the country do either, when you say this money is
being returned, but it is not. As long as we are running a deficit,
which is now 2, $300 billion, then the money is borrowed to pay for
projects like this.
I simply don't think that we are giving the taxpayer a fair shake. I
think we should stubbornly refuse to fund this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting 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. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds in this Act shall be available for the Huntsville
Museum of Art in Huntsville, Alabama.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``Department of Housing and Urban
Development--Community Development Fund'' (and specified for
the Economic Development Initiative) is hereby reduced by
$200,000.

{time} 1500

Mr. Chairman, all of us have museums in our districts. All of those
museums, I'm sure, if given the opportunity, would take Federal money
to defray some of their costs. We simply can't fund all of them.
I don't know why we have the account in the agency. Like I said, we
should go after that one, but here we have to show some restraint. And
every once in a while, I think the taxpayer would appreciate if we
actually stopped funding for some of these earmarks.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on behalf of this project that Mr.
Flake has attacked here. I'm the offerer of this project, the
Huntsville Museum of Art, located in the city of Huntsville, Alabama,
the largest city in my congressional district. This is a museum project
that I think is very appropriate to the economic development initiative
account.
This museum chose to locate in the downtown area of the city of
Huntsville some years ago. In the 1950s, early 1960s, the city of
Huntsville's population was around 30,000 people. Currently its
population is close to 200,000 people, but like many downtown areas,
our downtown had deteriorated. It was a target for crime. It was a
target for all kinds of movement there that would not have been in the
best interests of the core of a city of this size.
The Museum of Art chose to locate its new facility there. It
partnered with the community. It raised $8 million to build this
facility that it's in. It is now in another expansion because of the
success of the downtown area, because

[[Page H8337]]

of the momentum that it helped create. Students are coming into the
downtown area. People are coming into there from the region 100 miles
around the area, and it's really caused the city of Huntsville to
renovate and revise its downtown area. Business is coming back, and I
think in terms of economic developments issues, it's accomplishing just
what it should accomplish.
So I'm eager to defend this amendment and say that currently the
$200,000 that we've been able to achieve through the economic
development initiative, through this committee, and I thank the
chairman and the staff and the ranking member and the staff for
considering this project, will go along with another $8 million that
will be raised from the community so that we can create exhibition
space, so that we can create meeting space. This is not a routine
museum expansion that this $200,000 will go toward. It's a small amount
of money that will be pooled with another amount of money to renovate a
downtown area that is in much need of renovation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I just will close on this one, saying again
this is one of many museums that we are funding here. We simply can't
fund them all. At some point it would be nice to give the taxpayers a
gift and actually say we're not going to fund a particular earmark. We
did it a couple of weeks ago.
This is not an idle process. We've had one occasion already where
I've come to offer an earmark, and the sponsor of the earmark beat me
to the floor and offered an amendment to revoke his own earmark. So
obviously there needed to be more vetting of that earmark. I would
assume that there are others like it.
So this is a process we should go through. I would urge support of
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into the debate on this
specific project, but I again want to simply note that I find it
interesting that the gentleman from Arizona is questioning small
economic development programs in other States when, in fact, as I said
earlier, the second largest earmark in the history of the Congress is
the Central Arizona Project, upon which we have already spent not $4.3
million, but $4.3 billion, total cost estimated to be $5.6 billion.
And I also have in my hand, as a certain Senator from my own State
used to say, 61 pages of military contracts that are let to firms in
Arizona. We don't have in our State something like Fort Huachuca or
Luke or Davis Air Force Base, and I'm sure that if we did, we would be
experiencing the benefit to our economy that the gentleman's State is
experiencing.
But I wonder if the gentleman has any idea what the $44,000 was spent
on in a contract with Two Pals and a Gal?
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. I have no clue.
Mr. OBEY. I don't either. It would be interesting to find out. That's
another expenditure in Arizona.
Mr. FLAKE. If the gentleman would further yield for a minute, perhaps
the gentleman wasn't on the floor last week. I actually challenged an
earmark that was going largely to my own district.
Arizona is just like other States in this regard. I don't object to
projects that go through the process. I assume that the Central Arizona
Project had a hearing or two. It was authorized and went through the
process. What I object to is the contemporary practice of earmarks.
Mr. OBEY. Taking back my time, I was here when we went through all of
that with the Central Arizona Project, and I assure you that the
project was not approved because of the merits. It was approved because
of the persistence of the Arizona delegation, and if anyone thinks that
a little politics didn't go into determining that $4.5 billion project,
I'd like to sell them a couple of bridges.
So, all I can say is it is fine for someone who comes from a district
as prosperous as yours to belittle or question these modest economic
development efforts that are being provided around the country in
districts that have a per family income of $8,000, $9,000, $10,000 less
than yours. This is, after all, one country.
And just as I believe that the most fortunate human beings in this
country ought to be willing to extend a helping hand for those who are
least fortunate, I also think that those communities that are well off
ought to be able to extend a helping hand to the communities that are
less well off, and that certainly is the case with the number of the
economic development projects that this committee is trying to fund,
recognizing that we are, after all, all one country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, just briefly in close, this is a modest
economic development initiative. It's very appropriate under this
account, and it will allow this museum project to revitalize an area of
downtown that is in much need of revitalization.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. 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. Frank of Massachusetts:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 410. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the requirement under section
12(c) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437j(c); relating to community service).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I offer this on behalf of
myself and our colleague from New York Mr. Rangel, who, in fact, in a
previous Congress in 2002, I believe, offered a similar amendment. It
would suspend for a year, because we do this 1 year at a time, the work
requirement in the public housing sector. We're talking about 8 hours a
month.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to accept this amendment on the
part of Mr. Frank and Mr. Rangel.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I'm certainly prepared for it to be
accepted.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection. We have no
objection. We accept the amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time, and I will go make a great speech in my office.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting 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. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds in this Act shall be available for the Hunting and
Fishing Museum of Pennsylvania in Tionesta, Pennsylvania.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``Department of Housing and Urban
Development--Community Development Fund'' (and specified for
the Economic Development Initiative) is hereby reduced by
$100,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the

[[Page H8338]]

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, just once I would love to hear the other
side say, we have no objection to that amendment and will accept it,
but I suppose I won't be so lucky today.
This amendment would prevent $100,000 in funding for the Hunting and
Fishing Museum in Pennsylvania and reduce the cost of the bill by a
corresponding amount.
Mr. Chairman, my staff and I have never had a hard time fishing for
earmarks that seem to be fiscally irresponsible, but this one seemed to
be a particularly easy catch. It seems that there is no museum that we
will not fund. We have funded teapot museums. We've funded mule
museums. We have funded rock and roll halls of fame. Now, we're being
asked to fund a museum honoring the time-honored hobbies of hunting and
fishing.
According to the earmark description, the earmark would fund the
development and creation of interactive, educational and historical
exhibits. According to the Web site for the Hunting and Fishing Museum,
the museum came as a result of its location in a forest area of
Pennsylvania where hunting and fishing are already big industries.
I enjoy fishing and hunting as much as the next person, but I'm not
convinced that the Federal Government has a role here. I'd like to have
explained what the Federal nexus is.
According to the National Association for Sporting Goods, the hunting
industry did $2.8 billion in business sales in 2004. For fiscal year
2003, the fishing industry's retail sales totaled over $40 billion.
With these kind of profits, why are these industries relying on the
Federal Government to fund a museum honoring their pastimes? Are we not
picking winners and losers when we select only a handful of museums to
fund? Is this a fair and equitable process?
More than that, more than being equitable, some say if everybody is
given the chance and there's an account to do this, that it's okay,
that it's justified, everybody's getting theirs, let me get mine. But I
think, particularly for us on this side of the aisle who say that we
believe in limited government, economic freedom, individual
responsibility, it seems a particularly hard sell.
I'm not making fun of the hobbies of hunting and fishing. As I
mentioned, I do a fair amount of both myself. But here I just fail to
see a Federal nexus and a Federal role.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the
amendment and claim the time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic today
the maker of this amendment represents one of the more affluent parts
of America, one of the parts of America that wouldn't be there,
wouldn't be growing and prospering without billions and billions of
Federal investment.
We can start with the 336-mile diversion canal that diverts water
from the Colorado River so they can irrigate the desert and make it a
city. It seems to me that's a pretty expensive economic development
project taking desert and making it grow.
Mesa last year, his home area, $35 million of their budget is Federal
money, and he keeps talking about the process. Well, I think I
understand the process, and I'd be glad to debate the process with him
any day, anytime, anywhere. I've been in business all my life,
retailing. I served in local government 8 years, State government 19
years, Federal Government 11 years, and I understand process.
Rural America is not a part of the process of funds from the Federal
Government. This bureaucracy you brag about how they allocate money and
how they hand it out as if this was some pure process. Rural
communities don't have planning departments. They don't have planning
directors. They don't have consultants. They don't hire lobbyists like
Mesa and Phoenix and Arizona do. They're fighting for their economic
lives.
This little forest county is less than 10,000 people. I think the
population went from close to 5,500 to 7,500 because we opened a prison
there. It used to be the home of an Evenflo Bottle Company, and those
people would like to see a little investment in economic development in
that community. It used to be the home of a glass plant. It used to be
the home of a cabinet factory. They're all gone.
It is a beautiful area, some of the most beautiful parts of America.
It is the best hunting and fishing in America, and tourism is the only
tool they have that's working. This Hunting and Fishing Museum is
another tool to try to keep hunters and fishermen and travelers and
visitors to visit that part of the area.
Another thing, its interactive displays teach young people about
hunting and fishing. We have a lot of people today that don't have
fathers at home teaching them to hunt and fish. The Hunting and Fishing
Museum is going to have classes. They're going to have classrooms.
They're going to teach young people the joy of hunting and fishing. I
find you take a young man and you teach him to fish, you teach him to
hunt, you get him involved in a sport, he's less likely to be in
crimes, drugs and on the streets.
It's a part of the fiber of America. There is no urban museum that
isn't loaded with Federal dollars to build it.

{time} 1515

Rural museums don't have that same pathway. I defy a museum in
America that doesn't have Federal funding in it. Because a little
community asks for 50 or 100,000, this is some sort of a crime?
I'm sorry. I'm not going to apologize. I served Forest County as a
State House member, a State senator and now a Congressman. I ran a
business within 10 miles, and many of these people were customers of
mine when I had a supermarket. These are good people fighting for their
economic lives trying to build this museum.
The State has allocated $4 million, but they have to get matching
money. This $100,000 will get them another $100,000 from the State,
because as they raise money, they get money. I gladly debate this
museum. It's a good investment for the future for Forest County and for
America.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, nobody is suggesting that it is a crime to
support this kind of earmark, nor would it be a crime to actually deny
funding for it. That's what the process is about.
My complaint, and nobody has suggested either, that there's this pure
process at the Federal agency level. It's dysfunctional. We haven't
provided the type of oversight that we need to.
The fact that there is an account over there to actually fund
economic development projects suggests to me that it's out of control,
that that's what we are about, what we should be about. We control the
Federal purse strings. It should be in our interest actually to rein in
spending over there rather than trying to compete with it and say if
they do effect spending on this project or that, whomever has the
district, that we shouldn't compete with that here and say, well, we
can do one, one-up them with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. If they
had funded another hall of fame, we should say, is it the Federal
Government's role to fund these? That's what I am questioning here.
If we can fund teapot museums and mule museums and hunting and
fishing museums, what is off limits? What would come here that we could
say we are not going to fund that? We could fund a mule museum. How
about a donkey museum. Is that out of line? Where do we say enough is
enough, and where do we say let's give the taxpayer a break?
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. According to the Department of
Transportation in 2005, his area received $580 million for its
construction of a $1.4 billion, that's a pretty big percentage, of a
19.6 mile light rail system serving metropolitan Phoenix.
Why should people from Forest County have to pay that? I should make
that argument. We can use it. Mass transit gets huge amounts of money,
and Arizona gets lots of that. The largesse goes to the urban areas
that have the ability to get it.
One thing about the earmark process, I am not saying it's perfect,
but I have

[[Page H8339]]

never asked for an earmark that I wouldn't defend publicly in any
setting. I am proud today to ask this Congress to give $100,000 to the
Hunting and Fishing Museum in little Forest County, that is trying to
rebuild their economic base, enhance their tourism and teach our young
people the value of wildlife and fishing and hunting and the beauty of
the area. That's a noble issue.
I will gladly support the ability to help that rural county. I ask
support of this Congress for this earmark.
The Acting 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 Acting 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. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds in this Act shall be available for the Friends of the
Cheat Rails to Trails Program.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``Department of Transportation--
Administrative Provisions--Federal Highway Administration''
(and specified for the Transportation, Community, and System
Preservation Program) is hereby reduced by $300,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 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 take $300,000 from the
Friends of the Cheat Rails-to-Trails program. The Cheat Trail is one
small part of the 13,600 miles of trails built by the Rails-to-Trails
Conservancy. The program's mission is to create a nationwide network of
trails for former rail lines.
The program is a nationwide effort, yet this earmark is aimed
directly at one trail in West Virginia. This is not the first time
Friends of Cheat have bypassed the Rails-to-Trails program for funding.
The House approved a $300,000 earmark for the Cheat trail just last
year. If the trail is in such need of funding, isn't it coming from the
funding and the many grants allocated in the Rails-to-Trails program?
This is another problem I have with the contemporary practice of
earmarking. If we set up processes at the Federal agency level, and we
set up accounts, often when people apply to that account, and apply for
a grant and don't get it, then we in Congress will go and give them
that project anyway through an earmark.
So if we are telling the Federal agencies, here is a process that you
should go through that is merit based, that is competition based, and
then fund those who don't get a contract, what are we saying? If we
have a problem with a Federal agency's process or program, then we
should amend them.
We should change them. We should call the agency heads before us and
say explain why are you doing this, why are you giving money to this
organization and not that one, but not to circumvent the process and
basically add to it.
The Rails-to-Trails program has over 100,000 members, receives
Federal, State and private funding. It was created over 20 years ago. I
think that if this organization was to apply to the program, they are
quite capable of finding funding. There is funding there.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, in a way, I hardly know where to start
here, but I might start with the gentleman's question that he poses
time and time again, not only today but in previous days: Is it the
Federal Government's role to fund these projects?
He has several different arguments against projects. When projects of
a very significant nature are pointed out that are going on in his
district, he says, oh, well, in the past they were authorized,
appropriated, and he says they have oversight. To what extent, we don't
know.
But the point is, they went through a process here in Congress.
Article I, section 7 doesn't say what process it should go through. It
says that it's the Congress' job to do that. Every Member of this body
is looking at their congressional district and thinking about economic
developments and what are the needs.
If you are in a transition economy, transitioning from a basic
industry, manufacturing economy to a new economy, tourism is a very
important part of that new economy, of that vision into the future.
We have seen a lot of projects from industrial areas that fall into
that category, whether they are museums, whether they are trails,
whether they are any of those kinds of appurtenances, if you will, that
contribute to the economic development in the tourism realm.
Well, if the gentleman's question is, is it the government's role,
the Federal Government's role, to fund these projects, which he asks
over and over again, as the alternative argument against these
projects, then it has been answered over and over and over again. It is
the Federal Government's role to do it through this body.
Constitutionally, it is our responsibility. Article I makes that very
clear.
So I just want to point that out and then speak and thank the
gentleman for the opportunity to stand up to speak for Friends of
Cheat, because they are doing just that. They are laying the kind of
infrastructure that is necessary and crucial to that new economy, and
that aspect of our economy in the future of West Virginia is going to
be tourism. He has allowed me to speak to that.
Before I speak to it, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for his leadership and review of this project. I know his
staff has spent hours on it, because my staff has spent hours on the
projects that we have approved. But this funding will be used, as the
gentleman said, to acquire land and develop a trail in order to create
those kinds of infrastructure that are attractive and make usable the
bounty that is West Virginia.
I thank the gentleman for allowing me the opportunity to speak in
favor of this project. I want to compliment him for the tremendous
assets that are going into Arizona. I am extremely impressed; it's an
affluent area. His predecessors have worked very hard, as has been
pointed out here today.
There is nothing the matter with that, and there is nothing the
matter with the process that those projects went through. Nor is there
anything the matter with the projects that we are talking about here
today have gone through.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Might I inquire as to the time remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona
for bringing this amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman from West
Virginia coming down to defend this particular language that's here.
I think we need to take a look at this thing from a perspective
that's perhaps broader than this particular project, that being that
the issues that have been raised here in this Congress will be
discussed again and again throughout this appropriations process.
But if the project has merit, it should have merit. It should be able
to succeed in its efforts without being specifically identified.
But I think it has a fair amount of weight to drag with it, in that
that trail has been there a long time. It could wait awhile longer.
I would submit that the issues that surround the particular district
that the gentleman represents should be considered in light of this
particular appropriation. The report that came out in the Wall Street
Journal that's a little more than a year old, about land that has been
purchased along the river that happens to be the same river that this
trail runs along, I don't know that it's adjacent, brings a question to
mind as to whether or not the gentleman

[[Page H8340]]

from West Virginia will be able to follow through on statements
reported in the Wall Street Journal that say any claim whatsoever that
says these investments are in any way related to my actions as a Member
of Congress is categorically false.
I don't deny that statement. I don't actually take issue with that. I
would just ask the gentleman if he could suspend his aggressive effort
to fund this project until such time as these questions that surround
this Cheat River project could be resolved.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me just close. Let me say, again, I fail
to see the relevance of the number of defense contractors that Arizona
has or the amount of Federal money that goes there by contract, by
competitive bid or otherwise. How is that relevant to this process?
The truth is, there is something wrong with the process when we have
thousands and thousands and thousands of earmarks, when we have 1,500
and just a couple of days to review them before we come here to the
floor. There is something wrong with that process.
As I have said before, we can try all we want to conjure up some
justification for the contemporary practice of earmarking. But if we
think the taxpayers across the country are buying it, we are drinking
our own bath water.
We are believing our own press releases if we think that's the case,
because they're not. They're not believing it, and they shouldn't.
There is no noble pedigree to this kind of earmarking. There really
isn't.
So to appropriate money in this fashion is simply not becoming of
this Congress. We are better than that. We should have more respect for
the institution than that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.

{time} 1530

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have one final earmark at the desk.
The Acting 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. ___. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the
funds in this Act shall be available for the Houston Zoo in
Houston, Texas.
(b) Corresponding Reduction of Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``Department of Housing and Urban
Development--Community Development Fund'' (and specified for
the Economic Development Initiative) is hereby reduced by
$300,000.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 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 Chairman.
This amendment would prohibit $300,000 in Federal funds from being
used by the Houston Zoo in Houston, Texas, for an educational broadcast
program and would reduce the cost of the bill by a consistent amount.
According to the earmark description in this certification letter,
this funding would be used to develop an educational broadcast program
to provide interactive distance learning, first to the neighboring
institutions at the Texas Medical Center, and ultimately expanding the
program to regional school districts.
According to the sponsor's letter, this program would enable children
and students to ask questions of and converse with zoo experts in real
time, replicating an in-classroom dynamic, but in an exciting and
unique manner.
I should say the Houston Zoo is the permanent home of 4,500 animals;
the zoo attracts more than 1.5 million visitors a year; general
admission is $10 for an adult, $5 for a child. In fact, according to
the City Navigator, annual revenue for the Houston Zoo in 2006 totaled
$39 billion. In 2006 alone, the Houston Zoo had over $43 million in net
assets and nearly $20 million in excess revenue. It has a membership
base of over 28,000 households. Corporate sponsors include Continental
Airlines, Shell Oil, JPMorgan, BMC Software, Conoco-Phillips, FedEx.
The list goes on and on.
Again, here, if we are going to start to fund programs at zoos like
this, where does it end? Virtually every Member has a zoo or some type
of wildlife preserve in their district. Where do we say enough is
enough?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of the time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Here again, let me simply say there are a lot of zoos
around the country, a lot of zoos that every one of which would like to
receive Federal funding. Where do we say enough is enough? Where do we
say this zoo is worthy, they have two tigers; this one only has one
lion? The tigers get it? I mean, where do we have some kind of
equitable process rather than Members just being able to designate
funding of this type? We simply cannot continue to go on in this
fashion.
Again, somebody will probably point out Arizona has a lot of defense
contractors and gets a lot of Federal money. Again, I fail to see the
relevance of that argument here. Let's throw the taxpayers a bone here,
if you will, and let's finally say we are going to stop funding for one
of these earmarks and actually return to fiscal sanity. We are running
between a $200 billion and $300 billion deficit this year. Remember,
money comes into Washington, we don't have enough to fund the programs,
and so we are borrowing money to actually pay for programs like this.
We can't continue to do that. I urge support for the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what standard the
gentleman from Arizona follows, but as a member of the Appropriations
Committee, as a guardian of the public Treasury, representing the
people of Houston, I have approached all spending requests from the
perspective as someone who has a second mortgage on the house and all
the credit cards are topped out. My starting answer on all spending
requests is ``no,'' and ``yes'' has to be earned.
I have published all of my appropriations requests on my Web site for
many years. I published both my request letters as well as the final
result of those requests that the members of the committee have
graciously agreed to support because they know that any request coming
from me and my office has already been carefully screened. I won't
submit requests that haven't already passed my very careful scrutiny.
Again, I approach the request from the perspective of there is not
enough money in the Treasury to do it; the starting answer is ``no,''
and ``yes'' has to be earned; the request has to fall within the
functions of the Federal Government, and it has to be something for
which there is no other source of revenue.
I am proud to represent the Texas Medical Center. I am proud to
represent the Houston Zoo. This $300,000 will be used by the zoo. They
are matching it, providing a 3-1 private match to these dollars that
are going to go exclusively into providing live video feeds to
critically ill children and children that are dying of cancer who
otherwise would have no interaction with the outside world.
The Texas Medical Center is recognized around the world as probably
the greatest concentration of medical talent anywhere in the world. God
forbid anybody within the sound of my voice comes down with cancer or a
dreaded disease; but if they do, there is no better place to find a
cure for that than at the Texas Medical Center.
If you are a child with terrible burns, trapped in your room and
unable to get out and visit the zoo personally, there

[[Page H8341]]

is no television channel in Houston for you to see what goes on at the
zoo. The zoo is going to use these dollars to construct dedicated
transmission facilities to these dying children, critically ill
children in their hospital rooms so they can talk to the feeders,
people actually working with the animals, observe the animals around
the clock. And, certainly, your mental attitude is a tremendous part of
getting well and recovering.
This request was the only one that I submitted on behalf of the
Houston Zoo. They submitted a lot of requests to me. In fact, I think
the appropriators will find that most of the requests from me will take
about one page, because I am very careful and only submit a very few. I
am proud of all of them. They are all on my Web site. And I can tell
you, this is one that I am very grateful to the chairman Mr. Olver and
to the ranking member Mr. Knollenberg for supporting. They know they
don't get many requests from me, and this one certainly is one that is
appropriate to help these dying and critically ill children revive
their spirits in interacting with and seeing what marvelous work the
Houston Zoo is doing, which is, of course, right next door to the Texas
Medical Center.
Finally, I want to encourage Members to vote against this amendment
based on the merits, but then also because the amendment doesn't save
any money. I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this
House and proud of it. I voted against all of these big new spending
programs over the last many years, whether it be the farm bill; I voted
against the farm bill, billions of dollars for AIDS in Africa as money
we don't have; voted against the No Child Left Behind because that is
an intrusion of the 10th amendment sovereignty of the States and money
we can't afford to spend; voted against the Medicare prescription drug
program. I have voted against most of the big spending programs that
have been driven through this House, because I truly believe that I
have got a responsibility to my daughter and future generations to try
to keep Federal spending at a minimum, diminish the size, power, and
cost to the Federal Government.
As Mr. Jefferson, my hero, said, apply core republican principles,
with a small ``R,'' keeping most power and responsibility at the local
level. If you apply core republican principles, the knot will always
untie itself.
So I am always looking for ways to save money. So I would ask Members
to vote against this amendment first on the merits; and then, secondly,
because unfortunately, once again, Mr. Flake's amendment doesn't save
any money. He is not reducing the overall 302(a) allocation of the
bill. So this is another phantom savings that is not going to result in
a savings of one nickel for taxpayers by cutting out the live video
feeds to these dying and critically ill children in the medical center.
And I am sick and tired of phony amendments that act like they are
going to save money. I have already scrutinized this, along with every
other request from my office. I am proud of the work the zoo is doing
and the work the medical center is doing. And you can expect me to be
out here vigorously defending the work of this committee investing in
the sciences.
I thank you, Chairman Obey. The chairman of my Subcommittee on the
Sciences, Mr. Mollohan, is here. Our ranking member, Mr. Frelinghuysen
of New Jersey. God bless them for the investments they are making into
sciences and NASA and medical and scientific research. That is our
Nation's insurance policy. I will be out here vigorously defending them
against anyone attempting to cut those investments into sciences or
NASA or in medical research. That is this Nation's insurance policy.
And I especially resent somebody coming out here and offering a phony
amendment that is not going to save one nickel of taxpayer money;
because this $300,000 is not being taken out of the overall spending,
it is just going to be spent by bureaucrats.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, again, I do not want to comment on the
particular project under question, but, again, I just want to make a
point to my friend from Arizona. And I love the State of Arizona. It is
a beautiful State. I go there every year to visit some friends. I think
it is absolutely wonderful.
But when I came to this Congress, I believe there were four
congressional districts in Arizona, four Representatives of Arizona in
this House, and there were 10 Representatives from the State of
Wisconsin. Now, almost 40 years later, Wisconsin has eight
congressional districts, eight Representatives, and Arizona, I believe,
has a similar number. That means that Arizona has grown at an
incredibly rapid rate, and an awful lot of money from a lot of other
States has helped finance that economic growth.
And I return to the Central Arizona Project. I am not expressing a
judgment about that project one way or the other, but I do know that it
is one of the two or three most expensive earmarks in history. And I
would simply suggest that I find it ironic that the gentleman has
chosen to go after several projects today in States whose economies are
far less prosperous than the gentleman's own State.
I also would question whether or not there is any greater purity in a
highway, for instance, being built on the basis of a determination by
two or three persons from a given State that knows the area, I don't
know why that is any less pure than to have some partisan bureaucrat in
the agency decide.

Moment of Silence Observed in Memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and
Detective John M. Gibson

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair asks the gentleman from Wisconsin to
suspend for one moment.
Pursuant to the Chair's announcement of earlier today, the Committee
will now observe a moment of silence in memory of Officer Jacob J.
Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson.
Will all those present in the Chamber and those visiting us in the
gallery please rise for a moment of silence.
The gentleman from Wisconsin may continue.
Mr. OBEY. As I was saying, I don't know why one should assume that a
decision to build a highway or any other project, if made by partisan
bureaucrats or politically appointed bureaucrats in an agency, I don't
know why that is any more pure than a decision being made out in the
open by Members of Congress, who I think know their districts as well
as any bureaucrat.
So all I would suggest is that while I am certainly not fond of the
earmarking process, I am also not fond of the idea that somehow those
of us from States not quite as prosperous as the gentleman's need to be
embarrassed by the fact that we are asking for a little better deal in
terms of Federal money spent in our districts, especially when the
gentleman's State is above the national average in terms of the amount
of Federal dollars spent in his own State.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. 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 Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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. 25 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 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to
eliminate, consolidate, de-consolidate, co-locate, execute
inter-facility reorganization, or plan for the consolidation/
deconsolidation, inter-facility reorganization, or co-
location of any FAA air traffic control facility or service,
with the exception of the reversal of the transfer of the
radar functions from the Palm Springs Terminal Radar Approach
Control (TRACON) to the Southern California TRACON.

[[Page H8342]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, 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 rise today with
Representatives Poe, Filner, and Bono to offer an amendment prohibiting
the Federal Aviation Administration from eliminating, consolidating,
colocating, or planning to consolidate or colocate any terminal radar
approach control center, or TRACON.
Our amendment is virtually identical to the amendment that was
overwhelmingly approved by the House in a bipartisan fashion by almost
100 votes just last June. Yet, since the House went on record of
opposing further consolidation, the FAA has done virtually nothing to
address our concerns. Even more, it has accelerated its consolidation
efforts while shutting out stakeholders from the process.
Mr. Chairman, the TRACON system guides airplanes within a 50-mile
radius of the airport on their takeoffs and final approaches. The FAA
has embarked on an ambitious consolidation and colocation plan which
will significantly limit our air traffic capacities in the future. I
warn that this policy is shortsighted.
It is now rumored that the FAA's current consolidation proposal seeks
to eliminate or consolidate nearly 50 TRACONs in over 30 States across
the United States.

{time} 1545

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.
In Florida, the FAA is planning to consolidate the TRACONs of Miami
International, Ft. Lauderdale International and Palm Beach
International airports into one TRACON. Note that all three of these
airports are within a Federal high-risk urban area, and smack dab in
the heart of Hurricane Alley.
Once this plan is implemented, if a terrorist attack or natural
disaster were to strike the Miami TRACON, then all three international
airports would lose their approach radar system. Controllers in
Jacksonville, an airport more than 350 miles away, will be forced to
direct approaching aircraft throughout virtually the entire State.
Realize, Mr. Chairman, this is not a question of whether or not
consolidation can technologically be done. It can be done and it is
being done. On the contrary, this is a question of should it be done
and what risk is Congress willing to run.
Further, in the instances where consensus is possible and
consolidation could be appropriate, the FAA is still refusing to
involve stakeholders in the process. To that end, this amendment
appropriately exempts the TRACONs of Palm Springs and southern
California from the limitation.
Opponents of our amendment likely will argue that the construction of
some new control facilities, including one in my district, will be
delayed and funds lost if we do not allow consolidation. To them I say,
why can't we keep those funds available until all stakeholders can
reach a viable solution? Congress does it all the time.
Some point to the FAA authorization bill as the appropriate place to
address this issue. And I have great respect for the chairman of that
committee with whom I've had a conversation. If that's the case,
though, why do we keep throwing money at the problem in this bill? At
the very least, we should tie this money to smart policy and a
transparent process.
The FAA's TRACON consolidation runs the grave risk of leaving our air
traffic system vulnerable during critical times and setting a dangerous
precedent for a process that excludes stakeholders from decisions that
impact their lives. This is not a risk that Congress should be willing
to take.
I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the major problem, other than lack of funds,
related to aviation in this country for the next period of time is the
great growth in traffic. We are expecting total traffic to pass 1
billion passengers within the next 10 years. Over the last 10 years it
has risen from, gone well above 500 million passengers per year.
Now, this amendment will make the cost of providing facilities and
equipment in order to be able to meet that great growth in traffic much
higher than it otherwise would be. The modern equipment that is
necessary, most of the present towers need to be upgraded, the
equipment needs to be upgraded, towers need to be built for the next
generation of air traffic control to deal with all of that huge
increase in expected traffic. The towers themselves are expensive. The
electronic equipment, the facilities, what you call the STARS systems
for control, all of these are expensive items, and the expense of the
process burgeons if we do not make other kinds of efficiencies.
Now, this amendment would halt all of the modernization of air
traffic control facilities, both TRACONs and towers, and the equipment
within those facilities. Consolidation has already gone on very
successfully in some parts of the country.
The gentleman from Florida has suggested that there are problems in
safety, potential problems in safety. Look, in California they have
consolidated to now two TRACONs covering the whole State for the 30-
plus million people in California and the roughly 40 commercial air
systems, airports that are there. So that kind of consolidation has
gone on also in New York, also in Chicago, also in Atlanta, in all of
those places, some of the most complicated air traffic systems in the
country. The most complicated ones have already been undergoing
consolidations, and this proposal would stop that process.
It would cost us $85 million in savings from planned and designed and
in construction consolidations that are already in process. It would
cost another $110 million in funds which would expire, because funds
for FAA facilities and equipment goes on a 3-year cycle.
In addition, there would be $225 million in construction funds that
will be placed on hold. It is an extremely costly endeavor, and it is
generally wrongheaded, really. We have to have this consolidation
because it's critical to the efficient dealing with our movement of air
traffic in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Without a great deal of enthusiasm, I oppose the
amendment of the gentleman, although I supported it last year. But this
year we have in place in our FAA reauthorization bill a process that
will cure the problem the gentleman has brought to the House floor.
Frankly, the FAA has not been responsive to the gentleman from
Florida. Worse, they have been dismissive. They have not consulted with
him or with his airport or with the community that he represents.
In the legislation that the gentleman from Illinois, chairman of the
subcommittee and I have fashioned with bipartisan support, we have a
process in place. Once our authorization bill is enacted, that will
require the FAA to consult with communities, with airport authorities,
with the Members of Congress on these consolidation proposals and
report back to the Congress. We'll get another crack at it. We'll do it
in due course and due appropriate process, not the way FAA is proposing
to do it, certainly not with a base-closing commission approach that
the administration offered to the Congress.
Just today the gentleman from Illinois held a hearing on the wretched
conditions in a great many of our air traffic control facilities, which
the FAA is ignoring under the guise of modernization of air traffic
control system.
Well, come on. That's not happening for another 5 to 10 years.
Meanwhile, people have to sit there and suffer through mold and rain
and mildew and, in northern Minnesota, in my district in Duluth, snow
coming through the windows, or flies in the air traffic control tower
in the winter. Come on. That's not taking care of our facilities.

[[Page H8343]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I, too, am opposed to this amendment. A number of
planned and paid-for capital improvement projects will be delayed or
completely cancelled if this amendment goes through. And I think that
the discussion you've heard from the two previous speakers is enough to
suggest that, as much as we may want to help the dilemma in the
gentleman's Florida area, there is a lot of other land out there across
this country that needs to be looked at, too.
I yield to the ranking member of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. John Mica.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment. I'm pleased to join Mr. Oberstar who chairs our committee,
and as the ranking member, and you'll hear from our ranking member on
the Aviation Subcommittee, also opposed to this amendment and, I
believe, Mr. Costello, who's the Chair of the Aviation Subcommittee,
which I previously chaired, is opposed to this amendment. So rarely
have we had such bipartisan support in opposing an amendment.
As Mr. Oberstar said, too, maybe this may be well-intended to try to
deal with some problems we've had in the past, but let me tell you,
this amendment can have some very severe consequences. We're talking
about closing down the modernization of our air traffic control system.
Here's the headline of today's Washington Times: ``FAA Target Airline
Delays.'' I can't come to the floor and not be besieged by Members who
haven't been delayed by flights. If you really want to close down our
Nation's aviation system, pass this amendment.
We have successfully done these consolidations in the past. We'll do
them and modernize and get the latest equipment. However, a moratorium
on consolidations through January of 2009 will cause FAA to lose $110
million of expiring funds this year that are targeted toward
modernizing these facilities, and nearly a quarter of a billion dollars
in construction costs will be placed on hold for projects currently in
process across the country. This would be a disaster.
Many of the airports affected are planning to make improvements, and
all of this attempt to get our aviation industry moving and air traffic
moving and modernization of the system will come to a grinding halt.
May be well-intended, may try to solve a problem that the gentleman
from Florida has experienced, but this is not the solution.
I urge opposition.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield now to the
gentleman on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Petri
from Wisconsin.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleagues on the committee
who have studied this matter in opposing the amendment before us.
Just this morning the Aviation Subcommittee conducted a hearing on
our aging air traffic control facilities, some of which are in very,
very bad condition, and this amendment would move us in the wrong
direction rather than the right direction. The impact of the amendment
would be, according to the FAA, that it would lose some $110 million in
funds that have been programmed to modernize the facilities that it
needs to maintain to keep our system moving. And this will expire if
the amendment is adopted.
The average age of FAA towers is some 27 years and in route centers
are 43 years. They need to spend some $30 billion over the next few
years to modernize the facilities and maintain them.
And I realize that it's a well-meaning amendment, but it would set us
back and delay the efficiency and mobility of our population, and could
even result in some increase in risk in the system.
For those reasons, I would urge rejection of the amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Would the Chair advise how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 30 seconds.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that each side be
given an additional 2 minutes.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr.
Poe, my colleague from Texas.
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly a proponent of this amendment. I
represent southeast Texas. We have a TRACON at Houston Intercontinental
Airport. We have one in Beaumont, 90 miles away. And I am not convinced
that the consolidation of these two TRACONs in Houston is a good idea
for safety.
I'm also concerned about the fact that we have more and more planes
in the air, but yet the FAA wants to have fewer and fewer facilities in
the United States to control that aviation.
I'm also concerned, as the gentleman from Florida is, about security.
Down in southeast Texas, what I represent, I represent the number one
refinery in the United States, the number two refinery in the United
States. Twenty-two percent of the Nation's aviation fuel is produced in
my area.

{time} 1600

And if there was some tragic event, some terrorist attack on Houston
and the Intercontinental Airport, who would be controlling the skies?
Some TRACON unit in Oklahoma City and New Mexico? I think not. I think
it is good that we have two TRACONs in the area.
And, lastly, I am not convinced that this would save any money. Just
as we went through with the BRAC military base closures, we are finding
that that did not save the taxpayers any money, especially with
Ellington Field in Houston.
So for all those reasons I think this is a wise amendment for safety
and security, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, going forward, my colleagues argue that we would lose
$110 million that expires at the end of this year for FAA. I remind my
colleagues that this is the United States Congress, and I have been
here when we have extended the kinds of funds that would be made
allocable to agencies by time. If we wanted to, the $110 million that
has been discussed could be extended for 2 or 3 years, and FAA could be
delayed in that particular undertaking with reference to so-called
modernization.
What they did in this particular measure, after we passed the measure
last year, FAA then accelerated their process rather than sitting down
and talking with the stakeholders such as the Members of Congress or
pilots or air traffic controllers or airport operators or aviation
operators and the general public; absolutely no discussion, and then
put forward the measures that have come out now. That is the primary
reason that I am on the floor. Sixteen thousand controllers and
engineers believe this to be the case.
For the Record I will include a letter from the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association.
National Air Traffic

Controllers Association, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.

Vote Yes on the Hastings-Poe-Filner-Bono Amendment to THUD
Appropriations

Dear Member of Congress: As the President of the National
Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA), representing
over 16,000 controllers, engineers, architects, nurses and
aviation safety professionals, I urge you to vote yes on the
Hastings-Poe-Filner-Bono amendment to H.R. 3074, the FY08
Transportation Appropriations Act. Representative Alcee
Hastings offered a very similar amendment to last year's
TTHUD bill to prevent the FAA from consolidating Terminal
Approach Control (TRACON) facilities, and it passed with 261
bipartisan votes.
In the past, NATCA and the FAA have worked in tandem to
identify air traffic control facility consolidations that
could potentially make sense and to ensure that the process
involves the important input from vital stakeholders.
Unfortunately, the FAA is no longer taking into consideration
the legitimate concerns of stakeholders such as Members of
Congress, pilots, air traffic controllers, airport operators,
aviation operators, and the general public.
NATCA believes that the FAA must consider air traffic
control facility consolidations/colocations using a
transparent process

[[Page H8344]]

because the Agency has an obligation to involve stakeholders
in any Agency effort that could affect the safety and
efficiency of the airspace. A full risk-assessment, including
the Homeland Security implications of placing all of our
radar functions in one location, must be conducted and made
open to public scrutiny.
A moratorium on consolidations is necessary to provide the
opportunity for Congress to evaluate the specific operational
need for proposed consolidations and prevent the Agency from
moving ahead with flawed consolidation plans without a
defined policy.
We hope that you will support the efforts of our nation's
professional air traffic control workforce in keeping our
National Airspace System the safest in the world by
supporting this amendment. Vote yes on Hastings-Poe-Filner-
Bono.
Sincerely,
Patrick Forrey,
President.

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the Hastings
amendment, joining the chairman of the full committee, Chairman
Oberstar; the ranking member Mr. Mica; and Mr. Petri.
Mr. Hastings is exactly right. The FAA has done a very poor job of
communicating with Members of Congress and stakeholders on its plans to
consolidate and relocate facilities, but halting the process at this
stage is not the answer.
Instead, what we need is an open, continuous, and defined process,
and that is exactly what we have in the reauthorization bill that the
Transportation Committee passed just a few weeks ago. It allows
affected stakeholders to work together with the FAA to develop criteria
and make recommendations that will be submitted to the Congress and
published in the Federal Register for proper review and oversight. Any
objections or changes made to the recommendations must again be
submitted to the Congress. Congress does not relinquish its role, but,
instead, can provide thorough review, oversight, and input.
Let me say that preventing consolidation and relocation is not the
answer. We just held a hearing this morning, the Aviation Subcommittee,
in which we discussed the FAA's aging traffic control facilities. Many
of these facilities are 40 years old or older, and they are exceeding
their useful life expectancy in not meeting current operational
requirements. This has resulted in the GAO's giving many of the
facilities a score of fair to poor.
We must ensure that the FAA make the investments needed to maintain
the current existing infrastructure, including in some cases
consolidation and relocation, to ensure that the current system can
continue to operate in a safe and reliable way. I believe the best
course of action is to address this issue through the reauthorization
bill, and that is exactly what we have done in passing the bill out of
committee.
As a result, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the Hastings amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that the
gentleman from Florida has made the point that the House passed last
year legislation doing this. That was never acted upon and was not
included in the CR, the final CR for the 2007 budget. That was adopted
in the House version of the bill, but it was not carried through to the
CR. So there is no precedent of merit there.
Secondly, the crux of our problem is that we have a huge growth of
air traffic that is expected within a 20-year period. From 1995 to the
year 2015, we will have gone from half a billion passengers to a
billion passengers, and that is in the commercial traffic, plus all of
the increase in general aviation. We cannot sit with our head in the
sand and not modernize all these facilities, the towers, the
facilities, the equipment, the control systems that are necessary to
deal with that increase in traffic, and that has to be done. It has
already been done in some of our major parts of the country.
The gentleman from Texas has concerns about Texas. The authorizing
language which the T&I Committee has reported out includes a system to
look at those cases to review and to set up a system for reviewing how
those systems will be set up in additional places as the consolidation
of TRACONs and the modernization of these facilities and the
reequipment of these facilities must go forward.
So I think that that part of it is a red herring, truly. In the case
of Chicago and New York and Philadelphia and Washington and California,
our heaviest traffic locations in the country, and Atlanta besides, we
already have these consolidations in place. And in the case of
California, 40-some-odd airports and their tower facilities have been
included now in 2 TRACONs where there used to be 8 or more TRACONs in
the State of California.
So the number of TRACONs is going to come down. It must come down,
and we must get on with this modernization of the facilities and
equipment that otherwise would always be very costly. It must be done.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida,
though I don't think I have much time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Just to say, Mr. Chairman, you know there is
another component to all of this, and that is that the 16,000 air
traffic controllers and the people that work in these modern facilities
are overburdened, and I just for the life of me do not understand how
we don't understand the dynamics of their work.
And I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. OLVER. They will be much less burdened if they have new
facilities and new equipment, equipment that is modern and that can
manage to handle that traffic in a much more efficient manner.
I hope that the amendment will not be adopted.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. 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. Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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. Frelinghuysen:
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 by the Federal Aviation Administration to
implement its preferred alternative of the New York/New
Jersey/Philadelphia Airspace Redesign project.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this amendment
on my own behalf as well as Congressman Garrett from New Jersey, my
colleague; and Congressman Christopher Shays from Connecticut.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague from
New Jersey, Scott Garrett.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I am pleased to come to the floor today with my colleague from New
Jersey, Morristown, and also my other colleague here as well from
Connecticut, Christopher Shays, as we propose an amendment that will
ask the FAA to basically more closely consider how their proposed
airspace redesign plan will impact upon the quality of life of the
residents of the State of New Jersey, from Connecticut, and also from
the State of New York as well.
Now, we all recognize that the skies over our area are more crowded
than ever before, and air travel is, obviously, a worthy goal. But the
FAA must make noise and air pollution a top consideration whenever they
work to redesign their airspace.

[[Page H8345]]

Residents of the communities across the five States are facing a
threat now to the quiet of their communities and also to the value of
their homes as well. The residents of my area, the Fifth District of
New Jersey, are especially concerned about this. Just recently we held
what you call a town meeting of sorts, and nearly 1,500 people came out
to the public hearing up in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, and that was
just about a month ago. And they came out to voice their concerns
directly to the FAA.
The FAA received comments from all present, but wouldn't it have been
a lot better if the FAA had taken those comments before they drafted
their preferred alternative? The citizens who came to that meeting left
with a deep concern that the FAA just is not listening. So this
amendment is really here to help force the FAA to listen to those
people in the area.
So as noise in these communities increases, there is a very real
possibility that the values of their homes are going to decrease.
Residents are concerned their communities are going to be drastically
affected by the fact that the FAA is simply trying to save 2, 3, 4, 5
minutes from the travelers' air time.
So, in conclusion, we are simply asking now through this amendment
that the FAA reconsider their preferred alternative with an eye towards
protecting the communities and considering that at the same time that
they consider the air travelers as well.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, this and the previous amendment go together.
Together, if these two amendments pass, our air traffic control system
will be set back years in the process from which they have been going
forward in trying to modernize both the air traffic design and the
TRACON facilities to be used.
The FAA has spent more than $50 million on airspace redesign in the
New York, Philadelphia, New Jersey, western Connecticut area already.
They have posted hundreds of outreach meetings to understand the needs
and concerns. In addition, the design has undergone independent
analysis by the inspector general throughout the process, and the FAA
has adopted each of the IG's recommendations.
Now, what are the benefits, what are the purposes of the airspace
redesign? Well, number one, we have got this huge expected increase in
traffic that I have already spoken to twice.
Secondly, the air traffic region that is being described here, and
this amendment only affects that region, not the whole country, only
that region, but that air traffic system, that airspace system, is the
system where the greatest delays, the greatest delays, are happening as
we speak.
The redesign of the airspace would allow for a major reduction in
delays, first of all. By so doing, there would be less noise. They
would be able to fly at higher altitudes, and use a gradual glide
pattern in rather than stepwise glide patterns in, and use the whole
airspace so that the net reduction of people who are affected by noise,
by the levels of noise, is very large.
In addition to that, environmentally if you are not flying around for
long periods of time in the airspace and under delay and in holding
patterns and sitting on the tarmac with the engines going, then you are
saving a lot of fuel.

{time} 1615

There will be much less fuel burned, therefore, much better air
quality control in the process.
All of these taken together, along with the fact that if you've got
delays in that major area where so much traffic occurs, then there are
backups with delays all over the country. So the air space design issue
is a critical issue in totality for our modernization of our traffic
control.
So, I oppose the amendment, and I hope it will not be adopted.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota, the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia metropolitan area
has the most complex air space in the United States; that means, the
most complex air space in the world. Four of the Nation's five airports
reporting the worst on-time performance are Newark, LaGuardia, JFK and
Philadelphia. Holding time is five times greater than any place in the
country.
The percentage of flights that arrive in Newark over an hour late is
15 percent of all the fights. Seventy-five percent of the Nation's
domestic and international flights are affected by delays and
inefficiencies in the New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia air space, no
matter where they're going.
You have international flights arriving from the transatlantic
corridor. You have flights arriving from Canada, flights arriving from
South America, flights arriving transcontinental from the United States
on the east coast merging into this area. Sure, there are awful noise
impacts upon residents, but the redesign will save noise to some
619,000 people, shifting it elsewhere, shifting it away from other
people. FAA has held over 120 public meetings since they began the
process of the air space redesign. This will save 20 percent of delays
and 12 million minutes a year. This is important to the Nation, not
just to this region.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I, too, oppose the amendment. I agree that we need
to do something with the problems that are out there. We have to strike
a balance between our neighborhoods and our close-in airports. And I
know that Mr. Garrett spoke about 1,500 people showing up for a hearing
and/or town hall hearing, some kind. That's a lot of people, so there
is a lot of grief and upset out there. But the traffic delays of the
New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania airports, as has been pointed out
by Mr. Oberstar, are the worst in history, and I think it's less than
50 percent of the flights were on time. The FAA does need to act.
At this time, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, Mr. Mica from Florida,
a member of the T&I Committee.
Mr. MICA. It is, again, rare that we have the chairmen on both sides
of the aisle, the appropriation and authorizing committee, all
uniformly in opposition to an amendment. But let me tell you, if you
want to close down air traffic in the United States indefinitely in the
Northeast, adopt this amendment.
Now, this isn't something that we just cooked up, that we're going to
redesign the air space in the Northeast corridor. We started on this in
1998. We haven't redesigned the air corridor in the northeast United
States since 1988. Imagine not expanding the roads or the
transportation system in the Northeast since 1998 and the congestion
you would have, and that's exactly what we've got.
Now, I've been to the districts. I've been to Mr. Garrett's district,
Mr. Fossella's district. I've been to Mr. Shays' district. And I
continue to work with Members, when I chaired the Aviation
Subcommittee, and now as ranking member, and we will work with them,
but we have got to redesign the air space. Imagine having no expansion
highways. Now, planes are no different than highways; they run in
corridors. But we haven't changed it in the Northeast corridor since
1988. We have been working on this redesign since 1998, some 10 years.
We have got to make these changes and move forward with them.
And we need to listen to the people. We need to make certain that we
don't harm their environment, their noise levels, and take into
consideration as many of the points that have been raised. But I urge
you to defeat this amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
Mr. PETRI. I thank my colleague for yielding.
First of all, let me say that there is no one in this body who pays
more attention and is more hardworking in defending the interests of
his constituents than Mr. Frelinghuysen, the author of this amendment.
But the fact of

[[Page H8346]]

the matter is that it's not in the national interest to stop this study
in its track. They're not doing it just because they want to. They're
doing it because the Nation has grown. The system is at capacity. It
needs to be redesigned to accommodate the movement of people by air
through this New York region. If we don't do it, they will have to go
by train, and that's almost at capacity. And the roads are congested.
It will slow down our economy. It will impact and affect the growth of
the whole region if this can't go forward.
So, I would urge people to defeat the amendment. We will work with
the Member from New Jersey and others to make sure they're sensitive to
local noise concerns, but this is not the way to do it.
I urge rejection of the amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
For well over 15 years, I've been an advocate of reducing aircraft
noise over northern New Jersey. I have attended dozens of public
hearings, had meetings with FAA officials, responded to thousands of
letters from constituents whose lives have been negatively affected by
the existing air traffic patterns and related noise. I have been more
than a proponent of a design of air space over New York and New Jersey
metropolitan area, the first such redesign conducted by the FAA, but I
have actually been working on funding for this design plan.
And let me say, I respect Mr. Oberstar. I respect all of the big guns
that are out against this amendment. But the issue is, and Mr. Oberstar
mentioned it, is that the FAA has always been dismissive of aircraft
noise concerns. We're not trying to say that we shouldn't be concerned
about airline safety and too much congestion, and we don't want to do
damage to our airline industry, but for those in the flight patterns
now, what they propose negatively affects our constituents in northern
New Jersey.
Quite honestly, the FAA, if you will pardon the expression, has been
blowing us off for a long time. They've been dismissive. So this
amendment is all about sending a wake-up call to Administrator Blakely.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise today in
opposition to the amendment.
As Mr. Mica said, the last comprehensive change to the air space
Northeast corridor occurred in 1987 and 1988. Since that time, the
traffic has grown significantly. Delays and inefficiencies in the New
York-New Jersey-Philadelphia metropolitan area must be addressed as
they have reached an all-time high.
Eighty-six percent of the delays caused by the New York center were
due to the air space volume. Let me repeat that. Eighty-six percent of
the delays caused by the New York center were due to air space volume.
In the first quarter of 2007, the five airports with the worst on-
time performance were Newark, LaGuardia, O'Hare, JFK and Philadelphia.
Four of the five airports are part of the air space redesign. The New
York-New Jersey-Philadelphia air space will handle 15 to 20 percent of
all of the air traffic in the Nation by 2011.
The FAA has a specific process in place that it must follow in
implementing the air space redesign. Over the course of the project,
the FAA has held over 120 meetings to allow stakeholder input, many of
which were not required by law. My colleagues, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Sestak
and I have asked the GAO to look into the air space redesign to make
sure that the FAA has followed the law in implementing this redesign.
However, I do not believe that we should be halting the project at this
time. It is too critical to our system not to go forward.
Congress should not pick winners and losers in the air space redesign
debate. This amendment is asking us to do just that. And for that
reason, I ask my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
Mr. FOSSELLA. I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in strong
opposition to this amendment, with much due respect to my friend and
colleague from New Jersey.
And in large part it has been echoed, but let me repeat it. If
anybody who was sitting on a runway, whether you are across this
country, especially in LaGuardia or Kennedy, and in particular, Newark
Airport, you would be stampeding this House to ensure that this
redesign go through. The reason being, as has been detailed
extensively, and who knows it better than the riding public, is that
congestion is at all all-time high and only will get worse unless this
plan is put in place.
The second, and perhaps I would, quote, in clean hands talk with
respect to air noise with the people of Staten Island, that practically
every plane that takes off to the south goes over Staten Island. So I
can appreciate those who don't want more planes going over because the
people in Staten Island suffer every day.
The preferred alternative in the plan will reduce traffic from Newark
Airport from about 20 minutes to 12 minutes; will reduce air noise, as
I said, over Staten Island; will reduce costs to airlines by $248
million by 2011; and a 1999 study showed that by 2010, we would hurt
the U.S. economy by about another $4 billion, and the preferred
alternative outlined in the plan could save our economy as much as 7 to
9 billion.
It is important and imperative that this plan go through. The riding
public deserves it. Those sitting on runways now deserve it. Those
waiting to get to Newark or any other airport deserve it. And I would
just urge a speedy and urgent opposition to this amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Before yielding to my colleague from Connecticut,
this appropriations bill relating to the FAA has always carried
language directing the FAA to deal with the issue of air noise. It has
been repeatedly ignored.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Shays of
Connecticut.
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The Frelinghuysen-Shays-Garrett amendment should be adopted. The big
guns, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee involved in
transportation and, the ranking member and the chairman of the full
Transportation Committee, and the ranking member are all against it.
And what they're doing is sending a message once again to the FAA that
they can continue to be arrogant, that they can continue to ignore the
public, that they can continue to do whatever they want as it relates
clearly to safety and efficiency, but they don't have to care about
anything else. They don't have to care about quality of life. They
don't have to listen to anybody about quality of life, particularly as
it relates to impact of noise. They can ignore us as they have
continued to ignore us throughout the years.
So now what you will have in LaGuardia is planes taking off twice as
often. They will veer to the left, then they will veer to the right.
They will veer to the left, they will veer to the right. They won't run
these planes over Long Island Sound. They will run them right over
individual homes. They don't care. They don't listen. They don't give
us an opportunity to speak.
I have constituents who have attended hearings, but are told, Listen
to us. You can't testify.
If we want the FAA to come and allow testimony, they say we'll come
to Danbury (where the planes are at 8,000 feet), but we won't come in
to Stamford where they're 4,000 feet. They don't want anyone to know
what they're doing. We need to pay attention to them. We need to give
some authority to those in the community who have a different view . .
. to those who are concerned about noise and quality of life.
I rise today in support of the [Frelinghuysen/Shays/Garrett]
amendment that would prohibit funding for the Federal Aviation
Administration to implement its New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia
Airspace Redesign for one year until FAA Reauthorization is complete.
First, let me say I understand the FAA's desire to improve efficiency
at LaGuardia, Newark, Teterboro, Philadelphia and JFK. I represent a
great number of business travelers who are frustrated by long delays at
many of these airports.

[[Page H8347]]

With that being said, however, I strongly oppose the FAA's Integrated
Airspace Alternative that would route more air traffic over residential
neighborshoods. Over the past few months, the FAA has zeroed in on this
proposal as its preferred alternative.
Throughout this time, I have shared my concerns and the concerns of
my constituents with the FAA, particularly the fact that the plan
brings more planes into the region at the expense of the region's
quality of life.
I am particularly disappointed the FAA has not implemented any noise
mitigation strategies in the district I represent, or in many districts
throughout the Northeast, despite the wide swath of land over the
Fourth District that will be adversely impacted by planes flying as low
as 4,000 feet.
Even though there is no mandate to consider quality of life issues,
the FAA simply must not ignore the hugely negative impacts of air noise
in this process.
I believe that if the FAA had to consider the quality of life impacts
of the Integrated Airspace Alternative, it would never have concluded
that airspace redesign was the appropriate first attempt at relieving
air traffic congestion.
It seems to me there are other solutions that should be considered
before implementing such a radical alternative that negatively affects
so many thousands of residents throughout the Northeast.
In my judgment, a one year delay to this plan is appropriate. We are
working to reauthorize the FAA this year. I am hopeful we can give the
FAA authority to implement other solutions in the authorization
process, and protect precious quality-of-life. I urge adoption of this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHAYS. 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 New Jersey
will be postponed.

Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO. 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. DeFazio:
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 establish or implement a cross-border motor
carrier demonstration or pilot project or program to allow
Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the
commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. In May, the Appropriations Committee included language
in the FY07 supplemental to impose requirements on the Department of
Transportation before they open the U.S. border to Mexican trucks,
giving them free range across the United States of America. This
language by the committee was the first step in ensuring that the
Department of Transportation considered safety and security
ramifications before allowing cross-border traffic and before rushing
into a pilot. And unfortunately, the Bush administration immediately
declared that they were in compliance with the law, making no changes
in their program.

{time} 1630

This is a paper-based program. They have not inspected physically one
Mexican truck. They have not interviewed one Mexican driver. In Mexico,
they have no system of drug testing, unlike the United States of
America, and no certified drug-testing laboratories, unlike the United
States of America. They have no hours of service in Mexico. Mexican
drivers are frequently required to drive as long as 72 hours. They take
drugs to do it. They freely admit that in the Mexican press.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would be perfectly happy to accept the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I want to join the gentleman in this amendment to
strike the funds for this project on the basis that this poses a
security risk for our country.
We have absolutely no view of the background of the hundreds and
thousands of truckers who will be coming in behind the wheels of these
vehicles now with no offload requirement. In the areas of narcotics
transportation and potentially terrorist transportation, this is an
exposure for the United States.
I support the gentleman strongly.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to support Congressman
DeFazio's amendment and appreciate the chairman's willingness to
consider it. Coming from the Midwestern part of the country, we
literally have had Mexican trucks end up in our region, how, we don't
know, where the driver was actually moving the steering wheel with a
vise grip. Now, how does that get to the State of Ohio all the way from
the border with Mexico? Something is really broken in the system
already. We should not expand anything. We should fix the problem that
we have today.
Let me tell you, the sheriffs in Ohio along the turnpike and all of
our surface roads are busy dealing with traffic that shouldn't be there
in the first place. A lot of those vehicles are carrying illegal
narcotics into our region. That border is a sieve. We ought to take
care of it.
Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment and commend him for
offering it here today.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas.
Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, I, too, am in strong, strong
support of this. The House has overwhelmingly voted 411-3 to pass this
amendment. To be honest, I think it is just an egregious grab of power
by the administration to take the will of the American people and the
will of this Congress and completely disregard it.
There are not systems or laboratories in place to test for drugs.
There isn't documentation in order to make sure that we have inspected
our trucks, that we have the training, and that there is drug testing.
It is just a complete farce to be told that these safety requirements
are going to be met.
Mr. Chairman, I know that I, as well as the people of the Second
District of Kansas, are strongly urging the President to stop this. I
certainly support this bill, which will stop the funding and stop this
pilot program.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will
be very, very brief.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that we are
all in agreement here. I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Olver) is. I am. That should be the end of it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the chair and the ranking member for their
support on this. This will be a tremendous step toward protecting the
American traveling public. It will move us away from a system of faith-
based regulation and protection to one based on the rule of law and
regulations.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
bipartisan amendment. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), Chairman
of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, has worked tirelessly on
the issue of cross-border trucking in this Congress and I commend his
determination in probing the details of the Administration's plans to
open the U.S.-Mexico border to truck traffic.
While I strongly support this amendment, I am at the same time
extremely disappointed that Congress must take yet another step to
compel the Administration to do the right thing and protect the safety
of the American people.
Members of Congress face growing frustration with the
Administration's clear desire to

[[Page H8348]]

open the U.S.-Mexico border at any cost, with minimal regard for the
safety of the traveling public, and little attention to the concerns
raised by the House and Senate. Today's amendment is the culmination of
a mounting effort to ensure safety and to hold the U.S. Department of
Transportation (``DOT'') accountable as the Department reveals its
plans for opening our nation's southern border.
On February 23, 2007, Secretary of Transportation Peters announced
the start of a one-year pilot program to grant 100 Mexico-domiciled
trucking companies unrestricted access to U.S. roads, beyond the
commercial zones at the U.S.-Mexico border. DOT has acknowledged that
this pilot program is the first step to full border opening. This
announcement had generated a groundswell of opposition.
Since February, Congress has tried to shed some light on this pilot
program. On March 13, 2007, the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
held an oversight hearing on the pilot program. Chairman DeFazio and I
have asked the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation to
review the proposed pilot program for compliance with all applicable
motor carrier safety and hazardous materials laws and regulations.
On March 29, 2007, Representative Boyda introduced H.R. 1773, the
Safe American Roads Act of 2007, of which I am a proud sponsor. This
legislation limits the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to
unilaterally open the United States-Mexico border to truck and bus
traffic under the ruse of a hasty pilot program. Instead the bill
provides the U.S. with an opportunity to test, evaluate, and learn from
the impacts of allowing Mexico-domiciled trucks on our highways, but
only once a strict set of prerequisites are met and only under a
specific set of conditions.
At the beginning of May, the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure ordered the bill reported to the House by a vote of 66-
0. The House passed the bill on May 15, 2007, by an overwhelming vote
of 411-3.
The message to Secretary Peters has been clear: proceed with caution
and do not open the border to Mexico-domiciled trucks until sufficient
checks are in place to ensure that they meet U.S. motor carrier safety
laws. Yet, DOT opposes the safeguards included in H.R 1773. It
continues to charge ahead, and intends to start the pilot program as
early as next month.
The agency seems to have little regard for what findings or
shortcomings may come to light in the reviews required to date by
Congress. DOT has been unwilling to make changes to its plans to bring
the proposed pilot program in line with the strict criteria strongly
supported by the House. As a result, we must take this action today to
bring this program to a standstill.
I continue to question whether DOT is truly ready to open the border,
and whether adequate systems are in place to make sure Mexican carriers
meet our strict federal safety requirements. It is well-established
that Mexican law does not require many fundamental elements of highway
safety that are required for U.S. vehicles and drivers, including
hours-of-service restrictions, drug and alcohol testing, and commercial
driver's licensing requirements. Data collection issues and tracking
violations of Mexican drivers while operating in the U.S. also remains
a challenge.
The United States is bound to live up to its commitments under the
North American Free Trade Agreement (``NAFTA''). However, nothing in
NAFTA suggests that we must allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to
operate throughout the U.S. if they pose a safety hazard to our
citizens.
Launching a cross-border pilot program represents a major shift in
transportation policy. It is the responsibility of DOT to ensure that
any program that allows trucks from Mexico to enter the United States
must be conducted with the safety of the American people as the highest
priority. We must not forget this in a rush to open the border.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the DeFazio amendment
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of California

Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. 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. 16 offered by Mr. Gary G. Miller of
California:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 410. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to take any action to issue a final rule or notice
based on, or otherwise implement, all or any part of the
proposed rule of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development published on Friday, May 11, 2007, on page 27048
of volume 72 of the Federal Register (Docket No. FR-5087-P-
01), relating to standards for mortgagor's investment in
mortgaged property.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to
prevent HUD from implementing a new rule that will effectively close
homeownership opportunity to many American families.
In today's housing market, one of the primary barriers to achieving
the dream of homeownership is the lack of accumulated wealth and
disposable income. Fortunately, some nonprofit organizations have
developed programs to provide down payments to qualifying families.
Such programs empower individuals and families who lack the necessary
funds for down payment and other related costs, but can afford the
monthly mortgage payment to become homeowners.
These down payment assistance programs have proven successful in
expanding ownership opportunity to low- and moderate-income families.
In the past, HUD has permitted the use of these programs in conjunction
with FHA-insured loans. Recently, however, HUD issued a proposed rule
that would effectively eliminate seller-funded down payment assistance
programs.
I am very concerned about the impact of this proposed rule on
homeownership in this country. Rather than going too far, I believe we
should develop reasonable and fair criteria by which these programs can
continue to operate while also protecting the FHA insurance fund. If
there are legitimate problems that have been identified by HUD, then
let's work together to fix the problems.
The amendment I offer today with Housing and Community Opportunity
Subcommittee Chairman Waters and Mr. Al Green of Texas would prohibit
funds from being used to implement this proposed rule. It would give
Congress time to work with HUD to preserve down payment assistance
programs while imposing strong regulations and oversight. This
amendment will would allow us to put the control in place that will
weed out the bad actors, while still allowing those who help millions
become homeowners to continue their good work.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to
preserve homeownership opportunities for all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
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.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which
would overturn HUD's urgent attempt to halt these scam practices by the
so-called nonprofits that operate under the veil of helping people get
mortgages.
Under the guidance of the Inspector General, and in coordination with
the Treasury Department, HUD is moving to crack down on so-called
nonprofits that offer to pay the down payment so that families can
purchase a home. This amendment would overturn that effort and cost the
taxpayers some millions of dollars in defaulted loans.
While there may be honest nonprofits, and I am sure there are, that
genuinely want to help increase homeownership, this program does have
many problems.
First, the default rate for mortgages in which the down payment is
paid for by nonprofits is three times the national average. That is the
default rate. This has cost millions and is a source of instability to
the fund, and, according to HUD, is a major reason that the FHA fund is
rapidly heading to a deficit situation.
Second, there is no free lunch. The mortgages are simply turned
upside down with the down payment added to the price of the home. They
are not free to the homeowner. Further, expensive fees are often added
to the costs of the mortgage by nonprofits.
The Treasury Department is moving quickly to revoke the nonprofit
status

[[Page H8349]]

of many of these organizations, but HUD needs to act now and needs to
get this rule out as final.
I oppose any attempt to delay the rule and oppose this amendment. I
think that if the Federal Government is so concerned about how a
program is operating that it feels compelled to draft a regulation, I
think we should carefully review the situation before we rush to
overturn that effort. Frankly, we have not done that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am actually in support of this amendment.
I think the authorizers have been hard at work at reforming the FHA
program, and I support their efforts to resolve this issue.
I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Miller-
Waters-Green amendment to H.R. 3074. On June 22, 2007, the Subcommittee
on Housing and Community Opportunity, which I chair, held a hearing on
homeowner down payment assistance programs. That hearing provided a
window into down payment assistance programs that I had not seen
before.
The hearing was prompted by the issuance of the HUD proposed rule on
May 11, 2007, to terminate down payment assistance programs. I applaud
HUD for extending the comment period for the proposed rule, but that is
not enough.
Down payment assistance provided by charitable organizations to low-
and moderate-income individuals and families to purchase homes has been
a mainstay of HUD and FHA since 1999. In fact, we heard testimony that
30 to 40 percent of FHA loans used some type of down payment
assistance.
What was even more astonishing was that HUD proposed a similar rule
in 1999, only to have never finalized it. Indeed, HUD's failure to
finalize a rule gave de facto approval for the continuation of many
down payment assistance programs.
Down payment assistance is often used in conjunction with HUD's
mortgage insurance under the 203(b) program administered by FHA. Down
payment assistance programs have helped nearly 1 million low- and
moderate-income persons become homeowners, providing an instant source
of equity for them. Homeownership would be out of reach to thousands of
homeowners without down payment assistance programs.
Unfortunately, HUD's issuance of the proposed rule on May 11, 2007,
would eliminate the use of down payment assistance programs. FHA
opposes the use of direct or indirect funding provided from the sale of
property, and that is fine. But an across-the-board rejection of all
down payment assistance programs without further review, analysis or
clarification from HUD is unacceptable.
Down payment assistance programs do not need to be the scapegoat for,
as what one HUD called it, the ``looming shortfall'' in HUD's fiscal
year 2008 budget. I believe if HUD is left to its own devices, this is
exactly what will happen to down payment assistance programs.
I support down payment assistance programs meeting Federal
requirements. Therefore, I ask that you join Gary Miller, Al Green and
me in supporting the amendment to prohibit HUD from implementing the
proposed rule with any funds from this bill.
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment because it is a good amendment, and HUD's language is bad
language.
Mr. Chairman, since 1997, this program has assisted literally nearly
1 million families with down payment assistance. In my district alone,
it has helped more than 600 families. This program is a privately
funded down payment assistance program. I think that is important for
us to highlight, a privately funded down payment assistance program.
Yes, there is some concern with reference to the appraisals, but that
can be amended and fixed by way of a program similar to what the VA
has. The VA has a blind pool appraisal process. With a blind pool
appraisal process, you can get the appraisals that are fair market
value, and you will save the program that has helped so many families.
This program is viable. It helps community development. It is
meaningful. It helps needy buyers. It is workable. It can work through
HUD, and it is achievable without this language. I suggest that my
colleagues vote for it. Let's save this program. Let's vote for this
amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I respect my good friend's argument on behalf of
Treasury and HUD; however, I want to remind my colleagues that it has
been just a few years ago that Treasury and HUD came to us and asked us
to implement the American Dream Down Payment Assistance Act, which
means the Federal Government will give individuals the down payment and
closing cost money necessary to be able to own a home that otherwise
they would never be able to own a home where they can make the payment.
The argument made to us is the private sector is doing it. We can
implement upon what the private sector is doing, and with the
government's participation, we can put even more people into homes.

{time} 1645

Now, if we have a problem as some say with appraisals that are not
being factual enough, then let's implement the same underwriting
criteria that FHA will use on zero downpayment and FHA uses on the
American Dream Downpayment Act. If you can come up with a reasonable
appraisal to give Federal dollars to somebody to buy a home, why can
you not come up with the same criteria for a reasonable appraisal to
help the private sector put people into homes?
Mr. Green made a very good point. We put a million people into homes
with the Downpayment Assistance Program provided by the private sector,
and the argument made in committee was 15 percent of these loans that
were made are troubled. Now, that does not mean that 15 percent are
being foreclosed upon. That means 15 percent might have missed a
payment at one point in time or had some other problem at some other
point in time.
But on the other side, you have 850,000 people, families who own a
home today, who built up equity they would not have otherwise have had
renting a home and now have a home that had it not been for the private
sector would have been renting an apartment or be in section 8 or in
government housing.
If that 15 percent relates to 4 or 5 percent in foreclosures, and if
that 4 or 5 percent has something to do with underwriting standards
being used that do not meet the criteria they should meet, or if
appraisals are being implemented that do not meet the criteria they
should meet, let's get together as a Congress first in committee, let's
deal with the problems and rewrite the law and bring it before this
House and debate it, and let's make sure that the bad apples and those
that my friend said are practicing scam practices are eliminated.
But to think that we are going to eliminate the possibility in the
next 4 or 5 years for a million families to own a home, or have them
come to the Federal Government and ask for a downpayment when they
could also go to the private sector and ask for a downpayment, it seems
some way disingenuous and unrealistic for us to do that. If there is a
problem, let's fix it. If FHA can offer a zero downpayment loan under
given underwriting criteria, and we use the same underwriting criteria
for a downpayment assistance loan and the person owes $200,000 with
zero downpayment and $194,000 with the downpayment assistance, they are
better off with the program.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the
amendment.

[[Page H8350]]

There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Hensarling:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
None of the funds in this Act may be used for the Edmunds
Center for the Arts, City of Edmunds (WA).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of earmarks in this
bill that are somewhat similar to this one. I will be the first to
admit I don't know all that much about the Edmonds Center for the Arts.
But as I follow these typical earmark debates, I know that soon there
will be a Member to come to the floor to tell me he knows his district
better than I do. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point.
He will also tell me that this body has the authority to provide for
this earmark. Mr. Chairman, I once again concede the point.
I am sure they will come down here and say good things can be done
with the money. Mr. Chairman, once again, I will concede the point.
They will also tell us well, it is a very small portion of the
Federal budget. Mr. Chairman, I will concede the point.
But here is what I will not concede: the money is a very small
portion of the Federal budget. But I fear again that earmarks in
general, and perhaps this category in specific, become a larger portion
of the culture of spending which is harmful to the Nation. We need to
look at it very closely.
Often amendments are brought to the floor that many Members will say
this is just draconian. We can't manage to spend less money here. Okay,
so we offer earmark amendments and people say, well, it is just a small
portion of the Federal budget. It is kind of like either the porridge
is too hot or the porridge is too cold. When is the right time to offer
an amendment to try to save taxpayers money?
So this is money that under the certification letter the funding
would be used for renovation of the Edmonds Center for the Arts. Again,
there are a number of earmarks that do this. I assume, frankly, there
are Members of both parties that are requesting this funding. But it
needs to be put in context because every time we so-called ``invest''
in a project like this, there is somebody out in America that is being
divested in order to pay for the investment. So we have to look very
closely at where this money is coming from.
Now, Member after Member comes to the floor to tell us we should do
everything we can to preserve the Social Security trust fund. We know
under our unified budget today that as long as we are running a
deficit, and unfortunately we still are, it is declining due to lots of
tax revenue, but we still have a deficit. We know that this expenditure
is going to come ultimately out of the Social Security trust fund. Yet
so many Members come to the floor to decry the practice. So is this
money going to the Edmonds Center for the Arts worth raiding the Social
Security trust fund? I believe not.
In addition, we know that the Democrats, Mr. Chairman, in their
budget resolution, it contains the single largest tax increase in
American history. Over 5 years if we don't figure out a way to stop it,
the average American family will have an average $3,000 a year tax
burden. That is money coming out of their pocket that they could have
used for their arts, their entertainment, and their transportation; but
they are being divested in order to invest in centers for the arts.
As I said earlier, I have no doubt that the sponsor of the earmark
knows his district better than I do, just like I know my district
better than he does. In talking to people in the Fifth Congressional
District of Texas, they think their tax money might be used for better
purposes. And if it is going to go to art centers, they kind of prefer
that Mesquite Art Center be funded. They prefer the Henderson County
Performing Arts Center be funded. They prefer the Lake Country
Playhouse in Mineola to be funded; and they prefer the Kaufman County
Civic Theater in Terrell, Texas, be funded, and the list goes on.
Given that we are threatened with the single largest tax increase in
history, a vote for this is to raid the Social Security trust fund. And
already with the spending we have, we are due to double taxes on the
next generation.
I know Congress has the right to do this. I don't question our
authority; I question our wisdom in doing that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. INSLEE. This is a misguided amendment. It is quite a surprise
that of all of the decent efforts to help communities across the
country, for some reason the gentleman picked this one. That is
something beyond at least my understanding. The particular project
involved here is a community center that is involved in a whole host of
youth projects, including the Edmonds Boys and Girls Club, the Sno-King
County Youth Club, the Triple Threat Basketball Club, the Brighton
School, the Cascade Symphony Orchestra, the Edmonds High School Multi-
Class Reunion, the Olympic Ballet Theater, the Sno-King Community
Chorale, and Edmonds Community College.
I don't know why those seem like such un-American activities to the
gentleman, but to our community and to the country at large, those are
integral parts of our communities. I may note this is not a situation
where somehow there has been some sort of Federal largesse, that is an
intrusion into the community.
This is an effort where we have multiple parties that have been
associated with funding this project. This is not just the Federal
Government. In fact, it is less than 10 percent of the entire project.
It is financed with Federal funds. It is largely a matter of local
development, including a variety of local corporations. So where we
have less than 10 percent in this final phase, why this has been
selected doesn't make sense.
Now there is a difference, I suppose. I hold a press release from the
author of the amendment dated February 28, 2007, announcing that the
city of Winnsboro, Texas, had received $100,000 in Federal funds. The
author of the amendment said: ``I am excited that some of the hard-
earned tax dollars sent to Washington are flowing back into the
county.'' There is a difference, I suppose, between that money flowing
to Edmonds, Washington. In that case it was money going to the
proponent of this amendment. In this case it goes to a different one. I
am not sure I understand the difference.
I guess the difference is the money that went to Texas was chosen by
the bureaucrats. The money that is selected here has been chosen by the
United States House of Representatives. Now, I don't know why the
proponent believes there is some intrinsic genius of the bureaucrats.
Some believe all bureaucrats are smarter than all Congressmen, or the
least wise bureaucrat is smarter than the most intelligent Congressman.
Some may hold that view; I don't.
We have a valid community purpose here. We have a small Federal
commitment, and we have a useful thing that is helping kids at risk as
well as community development. I note that an economic evaluation of
this particular project showed that it would have significant economic
value as well as community value in helping the kids in these local
communities.
So I would commend this small investment of Federal dollars in this
community.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HENSARLING. 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 Texas will
be postponed.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H8351]]

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield time to enter into a colloquy with
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).
Mr. SHULER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on behalf of myself and the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
In 1941, the United States was building up for World War II in dire
need of new sources of energy. The Tennessee Valley Authority obtained
Federal authority for construction of a hydroelectric dam in Swain
County, North Carolina. This construction required that an important
road be flooded. In a 1943 agreement, the Federal Government promised
to rebuild the road.
In the 64 years since the agreement was signed, no road has been
completed and no settlement was offered to the people of Swain County.
The 2001 Transportation bill provided $16 million to study the
environmental costs of building this new road. The National Park
Service will complete this study in September.

{time} 1700

Mr. Chairman, the financial and economical costs are too high to
build this road. The National Park Service has said that the final
environmental impact study will recommend a cash settlement with the
people of Swain County.
Senators Alexander and Dole have amended the Senate version of this
bill with language to allow the Park Service to use remaining funds
from this study for this solution. This commonsense solution enjoys
strong bipartisan support in the North Carolina and Tennessee House
delegations.
Mr. Chairman, would you be willing to work with me and Congressman
Wamp to ensure that this bipartisan language is included in the final
conference version of this bill?
Mr. OLVER. I would like to thank the gentleman for bringing this
issue to our attention.
Sixty-four years is a long and, it seems, quite unreasonable time to
wait for the government to resolve this issue. So I pledge to work with
you both on this issue as we move forward in this process and
conference this bill with the Senate.
Mr. SHULER. Thank you, and I would like to thank my colleague Zack
Wamp for his hard work along with this bill, and I certainly thank the
chairman for your hard work and your dedication.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield now to Mr. Crowley from New York
also for a colloquy.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation and
want to commend you and the ranking member and your staffs for the hard
work that has been put into this bill. I would also like to engage you,
as you mentioned, in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased the committee included $15.8 million to
hire and train new air traffic controllers. This will go a long way in
helping to ensure the safety of our skies. However, I believe that more
needs to be done.
I note that we have 1,100 fewer fully certified air traffic
controllers than we did on 9/11.
Mr. Chairman, my concerns were underscored by a recent incident at La
Guardia Airport, which is in my district in the Seventh Congressional
District in Queens. As you know, La Guardia Airport is one of the
busiest airports in the Nation. Over 1,000 flights a day and 27 million
passengers a year frequent the airport.
On July 5 of this year, two planes nearly crashed on the runway.
While a catastrophe was narrowly avoided this time, many questions
remain as to the cause of the incident, including whether it was due to
a staffing shortage, a lack of well-qualified air traffic controllers,
or simply pure human error.
I believe we must examine the incident at La Guardia while we also
examine the larger issue, which is determining how we must address the
impending air traffic controller shortage. That is why I believe that
Congress must fund a study by the National Academy of Sciences.
This study would examine what factors are contributing to air traffic
safety concerns, including human factors, increased traffic activity,
and the technology and equipment at our Nation's airports. Ultimately
the report will recommend how to address this issue, particularly with
regard to staffing standards and whether we need to train more air
traffic controllers.
I intended to offer an amendment today to fund this study, but it
would have been subject to a point of order. So instead, Mr. Chairman,
I am hoping we can agree to work together as this legislation moves
forward to find a way to address this issue and potentially fund this
study.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, this is a vital public safety concern that
we must address. I understand that the FAA has been working with the
National Academy of Sciences and has factored in many of its
recommendations from the Academy. The FAA is also working with Mitre
algorithms, models and base assumptions.
I, too, want to ensure that the skies remain safe, and I will work
with the gentleman to ensure an adequate number of controllers exist in
that area.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond, I want to thank
the chairman, and as you know, if we don't address this issue, the next
incident at La Guardia may not be a near miss, but rather a tragedy,
one that I hope we would avoid. And I would imagine if it were a
tragedy, we would be having a different conversation than this
colloquy.
I appreciate the gentleman for his time.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING. 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. 21 offered by Mr. Hensarling:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 410. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for parking facilities.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is aimed at limiting
funding for parking facilities within this bill, which is not including
Federal facilities that might be included within bills dealing with our
military bases, GAO, national parks, what have you.
Mr. Chairman, apparently there are about 15 or so of these earmarks
covering Members of both parties, and again, as I said earlier, Mr.
Chairman, I know that the funds represented are probably a small
portion of Federal spending, but I think it is good, I think it is wise
that this House pause from time to time and look at the fiscal
challenge that we are facing and to remember, if everything is a
priority, then nothing is a priority.
So, again, I have no doubt that parking facilities are needed all
over America, but I doubt the wisdom within the confines of this bill
of using Federal taxpayer money today to pay for them.
Let's take a look at the challenge that we're facing, Mr. Chairman,
and just don't take my word for the fact that we have a great fiscal
challenge. Let's listen to our Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke.
He said recently, without ``early and meaningful action'' to address
spending in Washington, ``the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened;
with future generations bearing much of the cost.''
Let's listen to the Brookings Institute, not exactly a bastion of
conservative thought: ``The authors of this book believe that the
Nation's fiscal situation is out of control and could do serious damage
to the economy in coming decades.''
Let's listen to the General Accountability Office: The rising costs
of government spending, specifically entitlements, are ``a fiscal
cancer'' that threatens ``catastrophic consequences for our country''
and could ``bankrupt America.''
Let's listen again to the GAO: ``Absent policy changes on the
spending and/or revenue sides of the budget, a growing imbalance
between expected Federal spending and tax revenues will mean escalating
and ultimately unsustainable Federal deficits and debt

[[Page H8352]]

that serve to threaten our future national security as well as the
standard of living for the American people.''
The Federal budget continues to grow way beyond the ability of the
family budget to pay for it, and seemingly, the only standard for
spending the people's money today is do we have a noble purpose, and
can some good use be made of the money. But, Mr. Chairman, that
standard is not sufficient. It's not sufficient when we're threatening
future generations with a fiscal calamity. Sooner or later, this body
needs to say enough is enough.
Almost every State in the Union, I think, save but two or three, are
running a surplus. We're running a deficit, and what are we doing?
We're funding local parking facilities.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm not here to debate the constitutionality of
doing that, but, again, I'm here to debate the wisdom, given the fiscal
challenges the Nation faces, and all too often I fear that this body is
more focused on the next election and not the next generation. But the
Comptroller General has said we're on the verge of being the first
generation in America's history to leave the next generation with a
lower standard of living.
Mr. Chairman, fiscal responsibility has to be included in each and
every bill, and we have a bill that's growing about 6.7 percent. Let's
somewhere draw a line in the sand on behalf of American families, on
behalf of American taxpayers, on behalf of future generations and just
say, you know, today the Federal taxpayer and future generations are
not going to have to pay for parking facilities. It's all this
amendment is about, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the author of this amendment is undoubtedly
trying to get at some egregious earmarks that are funded in this bill
or in some other bill; however, in drafting a provision that is so
broad in scope that what we have is an amendment that's careless.
There are legitimate parking facilities that can be built using
Federal funds, and I use an example, for instance, the parking
facilities that we have with elder housing projects, built in various
places around the country, but this amendment would kill that.
Under current law Federal funds can be used to fund park-and-ride
facilities and other activities aimed at encouraging carpooling and
vanpooling. In fact, these activities are of such a high priority that
they're eligible for 100 percent Federal funding and require no State
or local match. Similarly, Federal funds are used to build safety rest
areas along our interstates. This amendment would put an end to that.
For these reasons and others, this amendment must be defeated.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that
this bill funds what we call the 811 program, housing for disabled.
Now, I don't know why we would want to say that we would vote money to
build housing for the disabled but no parking. Have we found a new
group of totally mobile disabled?
I mean, this amendment would say that if you got funds under the 811
program to build housing for disabled people, you couldn't provide
parking for vans, for transportation. I'm really baffled as to the
scope, and I do think that telling people that they could not provide
parking at a disabled housing facility is a very poor idea.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this money's going to have to come from somewhere. So,
again, I would invite the committee chairman to tell us, is this part
of the largest tax increase in history? Is this coming out of the
Social Security Trust Fund? Is this going to be debt passed on to
future generations? Where is the money going to come from? Does it
reach that purpose?
And I cannot believe that the only parking lots that are made
available to those who are disabled are somehow coming from the Federal
taxpayer. I just don't believe it.
With that, I would urge an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the back the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes
remaining.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the gentleman
from Texas is when you have federally funded housing for the disabled,
the parking that goes for the disabled and the service vehicles comes
from that money. So the gentleman says, why does the Federal Government
have to pay for parking? I don't know who else the gentleman thinks is
going to pay for parking at housing that is built for people who are
disabled.
If the gentleman is unhappy with this, then perhaps he should draft
his amendments more seriously.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Parking facilities are eligible under a number of our surface
transportation programs, funded out of the Highway Trust Fund. In the
SAFETEA-LU legislation, we authorize funding for parking facilities to
encourage commuters to park their vehicles and use public
transportation.
Congestion is a growing problem all across this country. It costs us
$68 billion a year. The more cars we can get off the roadway and more
people use public transportation, the better off citizens are in their
drive patterns. And the parking facilities encourage carpooling,
vanpooling and use of light rail and commuter rail and local bus
transit operations.
Furthermore, because they're funded with Highway Trust Fund moneys,
no fees can be charged at these parking facilities, so they're not
revenue-generating activities.
Furthermore, we have imposed very strict standards for highway safety
for long-haul truckers. Hours of service have been limited so that
roadways will be safer, but those long-haul truckers, working long
hours, need safe places where they can rest.

{time} 1715

The hours of service limitation requires them to stay off the roadway
before they become fatigued. That's why we have parking facilities to
accommodate over-the-road truck drivers, as well as passenger vehicle
drivers.
So the parking facilities we provide under the SAFETEA-LU national
transportation program is in the best public interest, in the interest
of public safety and in the interest of roadway safety, to the best
interest of the driving public, reduces congestion, and we ought not to
take this broad brush stroke and strike the spending.
No, we carefully considered these issues in the course of fashioning
the SAFETEA-LU in the House and the Senate and conference and on this
House floor. Let's keep existing policy in place and defeat this
misguided amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HENSARLING. 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 Texas will
be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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 No. 14 by Mr. Westmoreland of Georgia.
Amendment No. 15 by Mr. Sessions of Texas.
An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Belmont Complex.

[[Page H8353]]

An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding the Wisconsin Regional
Planning Commission.
An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding Woodlake, California.
An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding the Rails to Trails
program.
An amendment by Mr. Flake of Arizona regarding the Houston Zoo.
Amendment No. 25 by Mr. Hastings of Florida.
An amendment by Mr. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Westmoreland

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Westmoreland) 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 116,
noes 307, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 696]

AYES--116

Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Graves
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Paul
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wolf

NOES--307

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Fortuno
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Myrick
Pence
Tancredo
Young (AK)

{time} 1741

Mr. CALVERT, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-
BALART of Florida, Mr. NUNES, and Mr. RANGEL changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CAMP 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 No. 15 Offered by Mr. Sessions

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) 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.
Members will be reminded there will be seven 2-minute votes to
follow.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 139,
noes 283, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 697]

AYES--139

Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono
Boozman
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reichert
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt

[[Page H8354]]

Tiberi
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)

NOES--283

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Putnam
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Diaz-Balart, L.
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Myrick
Pence
Sullivan
Tancredo
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised they have
less than 1 minute remaining on this vote.

{time} 1746

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas and Mr. PICKERING 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 unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) regarding Belmont Complex 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.
Members are reminded to remain in the Chamber.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 87,
noes 335, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 698]

AYES--87

Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (NE)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)

NOES--335

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez

[[Page H8355]]

Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Myrick
Pence
Pickering
Reynolds
Tancredo
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded that they
have 1 minute remaining to vote.

{time} 1750

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) regarding the Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission 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. Members are
admonished to stay in the Chamber.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 68,
noes 356, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 699]

AYES--68

Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Blackburn
Boehner
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Graves
Hastert
Heller
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Linder
Mack
Marchant
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pitts
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Walberg
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)

NOES--356

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Myrick
Pence
Tancredo
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded that
there is 1 minute remaining on this vote.

{time} 1755

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) regarding Woodlake, 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. Members are urged
in the strongest terms to remain in the Chamber.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 69,
noes 352, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 700]

AYES--69

Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Blackburn
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Graves
Hastert
Heller
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
McCaul (TX)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Petri
Pitts
Price (GA)
Putnam
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Smith (NE)
Stearns
Sullivan
Thornberry
Walberg
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)

NOES--352

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer

[[Page H8356]]

Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--15

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Conyers
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Donnelly
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Myrick
Obey
Pence
Tancredo
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are reminded that
there is 1 minute remaining on this vote.

{time} 1759

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) regarding the Rails to Trails program 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. Members are
strongly encouraged to remain in the Chamber.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 81,
noes 342, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 701]

AYES--81

Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Biggert
Bilbray
Blackburn
Boehner
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dreier
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Graves
Hastert
Heller
Hensarling
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
McCarthy (CA)
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (NE)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)

NOES--342

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton

[[Page H8357]]

Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Faleomavaega
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Myrick
Pence
Tancredo
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

{time} 1802

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Flake) regarding the Houston Zoo on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 702]

AYES--77

Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bilbray
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dreier
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Graves
Hastert
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mica
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)

NOES--347

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortuno
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Myrick
Pence
Tancredo
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

{time} 1806

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 702, I inadvertently
voted ``yes.'' My vote should have been recorded as a ``no.''

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 703]

AYES--268

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry

[[Page H8358]]

Fortuno
Fossella
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hodes
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOES--158

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boucher
Boustany
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Coble
Conaway
Costello
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hirono
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCrery
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Musgrave
Napolitano
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Reichert
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Thompson (CA)
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf

NOT VOTING--10

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Myrick
Young (AK)

{time} 1810

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ISRAEL changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 703 on the amendment
offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida, I inadvertently voted ``no'', while
intending to vote ``aye''.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Frelinghuysen

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Frelinghuysen) 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. Members are urged
to remain in the Chamber.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 65,
noes 360, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 704]

AYES--65

Aderholt
Andrews
Bartlett (MD)
Blunt
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chandler
Christensen
Culberson
Doolittle
Dreier
Engel
Ferguson
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillibrand
Gohmert
Goode
Hall (NY)
Hastings (FL)
Heller
Hinchey
Holt
Israel
Issa
Jones (NC)
King (IA)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Murphy (CT)
Nunes
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Radanovich
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Sali
Sensenbrenner
Sestak
Shays
Shimkus
Simpson
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Waters
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)

NOES--360

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chabot
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Feeney
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.

[[Page H8359]]

Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Fattah
Higgins
Honda
Marshall
Myrick
Young (AK)

{time} 1814

Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina and Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

{time} 1815

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cardoza). The Committee will rise
informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ryan of Ohio) assumed the chair.

____________________