[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H8359-H8390]
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 Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment offered by Ms. Harman
Ms. HARMAN. 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. Harman:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs have
the ``ENERGY STAR'' or ``Federal Energy Management Program''
designation.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment is offered by Mr.
Upton, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Inglis and me, and what it would do is deny
funds under this appropriations bill if the ENERGY STAR and the Federal
Emergency Management program standards are not met.
Mr. Chairman, it takes 18 seconds to switch one incandescent light
bulb. If everyone did this, just one, we would save $8 billion in
energy costs, prevent the burning of 30 billion pounds of coal, remove
2 million carts worth of greenhouse gas emissions, and make a big dent
in our climate problem.
This amendment has been accepted to every appropriations bill so far,
and I would urge its adoption now.
It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. I would just say that this is a bipartisan amendment. We
have been asked to expedite our remarks tonight so we can finish votes
later this evening.
The Federal Government is the largest purchaser of light bulbs. This
will save $30 per bulb, hundreds of millions of dollars to the
taxpayers every year. It is something that has been adopted on every
bill, and I would like to think that we can adopt it by voice again
this evening.
Mr. OLVER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HARMAN. Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield.
Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I am quite happy to accept the amendment that is being offered by you
and Mr. Upton.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection. We agree. We
accept. Thank you.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. 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. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
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 collect tolls on Interstate 80 in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I will be very brief because I believe
the amendment has been agreed to.
My amendment is a simple amendment that says Federal funds cannot be
used to establish or collect tolls on Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania.
Mr. OLVER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. OLVER. I am happy to accept the amendment by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. And likewise, I accept as well.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the two gentlemen. We will let
the process move forward.
This was offered both on behalf of Congressmen Peterson and English.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter
Mr. HUNTER. 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. Hunter:
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 participate in a working group pursuant to the
Security and Prosperity Partnership.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of
myself and the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
And Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which goes directly to the
security of this country, the homeland security of this country, and
particularly the border security and the sovereignty of the Nation.
We have right now in Texas a project that is underway, a massive
project to build a 12-lane highway heading north, presumably funded
largely by private funds, which will head north toward Oklahoma. And
the understanding that I have, looking at the statements which have
been made by the Security and Prosperity Partnership, is that this is
part of an overall plan to develop a corridor between Mexico and Canada
transiting the United States.
[[Page H8360]]
Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment, which strikes the funds
for the administration to spend money with discussion teams and working
groups on this particular project, is because this is a project which
cries out for congressional oversight, of which right now there is
none. Now, as a representative of a border State, and having
represented all the California-Mexican border at one time, my questions
would be: What security matters are being discussed right now with
these thousands of new trucks which will be transiting this 12-lane
highway? What percent of the trucks will be checked? What transparency
will be involved with respect to the driving records, and more
importantly, the criminal records of the people behind the wheels of
these trucks? What are the plans in place to put together a security
apparatus to ensure that we have more than 1 percent or 2 percent of
this vehicular trade checked?
Now, this is a working group which is proceeding, which claims that
it has no plans to participate in what they call this private program
to deliver this 12-lane highway straight across the middle of the
United States connecting Mexico and Canada. Yet, in their own
description of what they do, they claim that they undertake these
working groups to facilitate multimodal corridors and alleviate
bottlenecks at the border.
Alleviating bottlenecks at the border, Mr. Chairman, when you only
are checking 1 to 2 percent of the cargo containers coming in right
now, is a code word for less security, these so-called ``fast passes,''
these passes in which you go through the security apparatus in a matter
of seconds rather than in a matter of hours.
So I think that it's time, before they facilitate this multimodal
operation, for the administration to consult Congress. It's time for
our oversight.
At this point, I would like to yield to the cosponsor of this
amendment, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and in support of the
Hunter-Kaptur amendment. It is a simple limitation amendment. And
frankly, one of the chief reasons I'm supporting it, in addition to all
the excellent reasons Mr. Hunter has given, is that the administration
refuses to report back to Congress its negotiation on this Security and
Prosperity Partnership and its impact in a number of areas, including
transportation. They have been intransigent, they have been
unresponsive and, frankly, they've been secretive. And this is going to
have an enormous impact on public welfare across this continent,
particularly in our country.
The gentleman talks about security. I support him in that. Right now
we've got a situation under NAFTA where so many of our jobs and
production platforms have been outsourced to Mexico. We've got all
these illegal trucks coming in. They're even making their way all the
way to Ohio, up into Detroit, causing us all kinds of difficulty. We
need transparency and we need disclosure about what the Security and
Prosperity Partnership is all about. The Administration, even on our
request, refuses to answer inquiries about the SPP.
Due to NAFTA, we just have tremendous problems with additional
illegal drugs in our area coming in transported in a lot of these
vehicles that are coming from the border, and in many ways we already
have an unregulated flow across our continent.
So I really support the gentleman's efforts here. We need
transparency. We need disclosure. We don't need to expand the
difficulties we're already having as a result of what has transpired
with NAFTA. And with the size of the roadways that are being talked
about, and the possibility they will be privatized tollways, we need to
have reporting back from this administration.
So I support the gentleman's amendment very strongly.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I, frankly, am not in favor, and I must oppose this
amendment because I think any superhighway between Mexico, the U.S. and
Canada, and there are no funds in this bill for this mythical private
road, I just don't believe that this superhighway is something that we
should get into.
And furthermore, this amendment puts a stop on several
transportation-related initiatives between my State, which is Michigan,
my city and Canada. For example, we've been working for years to
improve the crossing at the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and
Windsor. That's the busiest, it isn't the second busiest, it's the
busiest U.S.-Canadian crossing in our country. This amendment would
stop years of work and cooperative efforts that we've been working on.
And another example of a cooperative effort under this partnership is
aviation. I've got to tell you that there are three international
airports in my area, all of which fly into Canada. DOT and Canada are
working together to ensure that travel between the two countries is
smooth, free and safe.
{time} 1830
I would say, free of any burdensome barriers. This amendment would
put all of the U.S.-Canada transportation initiatives to an end. That
would be detrimental to the Nation.
I think the amendment is one that is a broad brush. It tries to
actually focus on one thing, but it is too broad. In fact, it contains
some elements that bring about a real problem. I think that they can do
much better if they ever redrafted this.
But here is the story. There is no superhighway in this bill. There
is not. But there are good initiatives in this bill, ongoing
initiatives, that are vital to our country.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
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. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond to the
gentleman from Michigan and say that my district borders Canada too,
across Lake Erie. The planes fly over our border, and we go up to
Michigan and we take the Ambassador Bridge and so forth up into Canada.
So we share those concerns. But what we don't share is our dismay at
the lack of transparency that characterizes the Bush administration.
What exactly are they discussing with the Government of Canada, with
the Government of Mexico and other governments in the Americas?
We have a right to know. We have a right to participate. We want
transparency and disclosure on the SPP. Their secretiveness about what
is going on is a deep concern. Vote for the Hunter-Kaptur amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the ranking member, it
seems to me, makes some very good points. I know how concerned he is
about the impact that this might have, that may be unintended
consequences in relation to the northern border with a prohibition of
this nature. I think we need to be concerned about unintended
consequences in which worthwhile activities that we might want to
support might be eliminated by it.
Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I am going to vote against this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. 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 California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. 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. Jordan of Ohio:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following new section:
Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act that is
[[Page H8361]]
not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available
by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 6.3 percent.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed each will control
20 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, we had asked unanimous consent earlier and
were given unanimous consent that these amendments would be read. I
didn't hear the amendment read.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the
amendment.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the chairman.
The amendment before you would reduce the appropriations in the bill
by $3.2 billion, as was just read by the Clerk.
Even though the majority party will call this a ``cut in spending,''
this is not a cut. This is simply returning the level of spending in
this appropriations bill to last year's level. It is level funding,
spending the same dollar amount we spent last year. Again, as I have
articulated on this floor several times in the appropriations process
on other pieces of legislation, it is exactly what all kinds of
families across this country have to do.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the work of the committee. I don't
bring this amendment because I don't appreciate the work that the
committee does; I bring it because our country and our government do
face a real financial challenge in the future. If we don't begin to get
a handle on the spending that this Congress does and that our
government does, we are going to have real problems.
The best way to begin to start that, when you think about the
challenges and problems that loom in front of us, with entitlements,
with Social Security, with Medicaid, with Medicare, the way to start
that process, to get a handle on the fiscal crisis that is looming, is
to start right here and say, you know what? It is probably not too much
to ask for the Congress and for the Government of the United States to
spend the same amount that they spent last year. That is why I bring
this amendment forward.
I would also point out this: Inevitably, when you continue to
increase spending and increase spending and increase spending, it
always leads to greater taxes. People talk all the time about tax-and-
spend politicians. In truth it is just the opposite. It is spend and
tax. Spending drives the equation, and that is why we have to focus on
spending if we don't want to raise taxes on the American people, which
we surely don't want to do.
Yet the other party is talking about doing exactly that. All you have
to do is look at recent press clippings where they talked about raising
the tobacco tax to deal with the SCHIP program. They have talked about
raising taxes on the top marginal bracket to begin to address the AMT.
Both are bad ideas for families, bad ideas for our economy, and not the
direction we want to proceed.
Again, I bring this amendment forward because I think it is something
that we have to begin to focus on as we look at the financial situation
that is just around the corner for this country. All kinds of families,
all kinds of taxpayers, all kinds of business owners have to live on
last year's spending. It is not too much to ask our government to do
the same. It is not to much to ask that our government do exactly what
families all across this country have to do.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 20
minutes.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is an amendment
that reduces the overall funding in this legislation by $3.2 billion,
which is the amount of the budget as passed for the 2007 fiscal year by
way of the continuing resolution that was passed back in February. In
this process we have had a large number of holes in the legislation
that had been presented to us by the President for this year, and in
his budget was $2.8 billion under the bill that we had presented here
this evening.
In the process there are several items which are very similar and
some which are quite different in reaching where we are in this
legislation. In particular, the section 8 funding under HUD, we felt
that we had to increase the funding for section 8, both for the Tenant-
Based Housing Assistance program and for the Project-Based Housing
Assistance program, by a substantial sum of money. That is done
specifically because there was a change in the CR of the authorizations
there for funding vouchers, and in order to make certain that every
person had their vouchers and no one was going to lose rental
assistance, it was necessary then to add about $1 billion into tenant-
based and project-based assistance in order to meet that and fill that
need. That is one of the items.
We had also to very substantially increase the programs in
transportation in order to reach the guarantees necessary for meeting
SAFETEA-LU, which, of course, the President doesn't really care about.
So those items, which I think everybody in this Congress agrees with,
have had to be increased and require that we not reduce the funding
under the legislation to the level that has been suggested.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the Republican Conference
Chair.
Mr. PUTNAM. I thank my friend for yielding the time.
Mr. Chairman, let's take a little status report here. This is the
eighth appropriations bill that has moved across this floor, which is
commendable, since none have moved across the Senate floor. But it is
easier to move legislation when there is no bottom line, when there are
no constraints, when you can just put any amount of money into the
spending bills. This bill marks the eighth step in the progression
towards a $1 trillion fiscal train wreck that is coming this fall
because of the inability of the Democratic Congress to adhere to fiscal
restraint.
There is a $23 billion difference between what the Democratic
Congress would fund and where the President's request is, something
that has been dismissed in their letter to the President as ``a mere 1
percent.'' Well, only in the fantasy land of Washington is $23 billion
pocket change.
{time} 1845
It is vitally important that we restore fiscal accountability to
Washington, and it begins with amendments like this one offered by my
friend from Ohio that says let's just hold what we had last year. This
bill proposes to spend almost 7 percent more than last year and almost
6 percent above what the President requested.
But what's the difference between that 1 percent? You say it is 7 and
6 percent. That is the difference between $2.8 billion and $3.2
billion. The difference between what this Congress would spend and what
the President would spend is larger than most States' budgets that meet
all of the needs of that State. This is the first step in this bill's
process towards restoring the kind of commonsense fiscal accountability
that Americans are starving for.
And when we get down into the weeds of these numbers, people just
cloud up because it is so hard to comprehend that a mere 1 percent
translates into tens of billions of dollars. But mark my words, ladies
and gentlemen, the fiscal train wreck is coming this fall because of
the inability of this Democratic-led House to restrain itself from
spending billions more than are necessary to meet the needs of this
government.
And what that will mean undoubtedly as part of their budget blueprint
is higher taxes, taxes that will cripple our economy, taxes that will
undo the record low unemployment rate, undo a 14,000 point Dow, undo
record homeownership.
Mark my words, a trillion-dollar train wreck is coming if you don't
adopt amendments like these.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).
Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my
[[Page H8362]]
friend from Ohio for yielding and for his leadership.
I come from the mountains of east Tennessee. We have a lot of common
sense in those mountains. We understand when you spend $3.2 billion,
that's a lot of money. We have men and women all around America right
now sitting around their kitchen tables trying to decide just exactly
how they are going to feed their children, how they are going to take
care of their families, how they are going to pay the tuition and buy
that next tank of gas.
We talked about in the last election that we are going to be
providing a change here in Washington. I believe the freshmen
Republicans that came into Congress with me this year are here to offer
that change. The way we offer that change is quit spending as much as
has been spent in the past. We can do that.
When we have an economy growing about 3 percent and this bill is
going to grow by 6 or 7 percent, people understand you can't grow
government at twice the rate of the American family's income. It just
can't be done. We need to make sure that we use some commonsense when
we put these budgets together. We can't spend more money than the
American people can earn.
I think the American people did send us here to Washington to rein in
that spending, get a handle on our fiscal House. I think this amendment
by my friend from Ohio will go a long way towards doing that. This is
not about a cut. This is simply about holding the line on spending.
The American people can understand if they have $100 this year and
somebody wants to grow it to $200 next year but you can't afford it,
and you say, ``I can't give you $200, but I will let you keep your
$100,'' if you kept that at $100, that is not a cut. That is staying
the same. That is what this amendment does. This simply says we are not
going to grow that $3.2 billion.
I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time
remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 12\1/2\ minutes. The
gentleman from New York has 17 minutes.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, does the gentleman
from New York have any additional speakers on the amendment?
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that I have the
right to close, and I am reserving to close.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, is he intending to close with a
17\1/2\ minute speech?
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. Sali), a friend and freshman colleague.
Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, as I have walked around the halls of the office
buildings for the House. I have noticed the signs that talk about the
truth needing to be told regarding the majority's budget that was
passed, the claim that while there is no tax increase in that budget,
and technically that is true, Mr. Chairman. There is no language in
that budget bill that says taxes are raised on anyone in any manner.
There is no claim there are additional taxes. That language is not in
that budget.
But the effect of that budget, Mr. Chairman, will be increased taxes.
Why do I say that? Well, because the majority has been very vocal
throughout the last year, through the last campaign season, that by
golly, one of the things we need to do is get our spending under
control, get this deficit problem under control.
Well, Mr. Chairman, the problem is not taxes at this point. The
problem today, though, is the spending, because if the spending
continues at the rate we are going, that the majority is proceeding,
one of two things has got to happen: Either we have to increase deficit
spending or we have to increase taxes to pay for it.
I would just point out that about $1 in $5 for the budget last year
was deficit spending, so how does the majority intend to avoid deficit
spending at the same rate that they criticized last year? And, in fact,
how will they avoid increasing that deficit spending by spending more
this year unless they intend to increase taxes. At some point that
choice has got to be made.
Mr. Chairman, it starts with the spending. If we support this
amendment, that will be a start in the right direction.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, because the Democrats are so
mesmerized by our presentation, we will continue. It is the first time
I have known them to be speechless, but we will continue, and so I
yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Ohio for his
leadership on this bill, and I am happy to come and lend my comments to
the discussion.
Last year the Democrats got elected partly on the basis of their
promise to cut spending. They made a big to-do about the fact that we
were increasing spending. Republicans had done that. This is not
cutting spending; this is holding the line on spending.
The eight appropriations bills that have passed the House so far are
$34 billion above last year's spending levels. That is not fulfilling
the promises that they made to help hold the line and even cut
spending. As my colleagues have said, this inevitably is going to lead
to the largest tax increase in the history of this country.
Furthermore, in terms of this bill in particular, I have searched the
Constitution and I see no role for the Federal Government in most of
what is going to be funded in this bill. But the Democrats have never
met a request for spending that they didn't like, and so they are going
on willy-nilly increasing spending, putting the American taxpayer at
risk, and increasing the deficit in this country; whereas, the tax cuts
that were passed in 2001 and 2003 have led us to a very, very strong
economy which we know is benefiting the American people right now.
Furthermore, none of the promises that they made about slowing the
exploding growth of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that would
result in deficit reduction have been dealt with in this Congress.
We have simply got to come to grips with the fact that we cannot tax
the American people to the level at which they are being taxed and the
level to which the Democrats want them to be taxed. We have to hold the
line on spending, and I support this amendment.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking
member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan).
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for posing
this amendment.
The reason we are here today, Mr. Chairman, is because this is
overbudget. Take a look at this bill right here. It is $2.8 billion
above the President's request and includes a $3.1 billion boost for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. There are also some phony
gimmicks in this spending bill.
As noted, the bill provides phony offsets for spending increases by
rescinding budget authority with no outlay savings. So what you are
doing, you are actually canceling something that doesn't really exist
to show paper savings so you can spend it somewhere else. Now, this is
an old trick that has been done on both sides of the aisle over the
years, but it still doesn't make it right.
The problem we have with this bill, as the preceding bills and the
following appropriations bills, is it is $34 billion above last year's
spending level just for what we have passed so far. That is $19 billion
above the President's request. This majority's spending bills are going
to be $81 billion above last year's spending level.
When you look at the budget resolution, this bill does conform to the
budget resolution. It meets 302(b). What that means in budget talk is
they are conforming to their budget. But what does their budget do?
Their budget leads to the largest tax increase in American history.
If you accept these spending increases, which, on average, are 9
percent spending increases for discretionary spending, three times the
rate of inflation, three times the rate of
[[Page H8363]]
wage growth, three times the ability for families to be able to afford
this expense, three times the rate that our family incomes go up at
best, if you accept these spending increases, that means you are
accepting the plan in the budget, and the plan in the budget is to
raise taxes. Not by a little bit, by a lot.
What tax increases are they specifically calling for in the budget
resolution that this is a part of? Getting rid of the marriage penalty,
bringing it back altogether; reducing the child tax credit in half;
raising income tax rates across the board for every single working
American and every single working family; bringing the death tax back
in full force; raising taxes on capital gains and dividends, which
makes it easier for people to save for retirement, and that creates
jobs.
So the problem we have here, Mr. Chairman, is not a revenue problem.
We have had double-digit revenue increases coming to the Federal
Government for the past 3 years in a row.
{time} 1900
The deficit just went down this year again by 18 percent because of
faster revenue growth. So we don't have the problem with the money
coming in. We don't need to raise taxes. Plenty of money is coming in
to the coffers of Washington.
The problem we have is spending. We are just spending too much money
too quickly. If we want to balance the budget without raising taxes, we
have to control spending. That's the lesson we've learned.
Now, what does this bill do? This bill irresponsibly increases
spending too fast. Are there important functions that are in this bill?
Yes. Are there important things that the government needs to do, roads
and bridges and transportation? Yes.
The problem I have with this bill is it doesn't have fiscal
discipline. It doesn't contain a budget cap that makes sure we won't
raise taxes.
So, by subscribing to the budget increases, the spending increases in
the bill and the appropriations bills before it and the ones that are
yet to come, it puts us on that glide path, on that trajectory to
having the largest tax increase in American history. We don't want
those taxes to be increased, and we sure don't want to support budgets
that put us on the path to making it a sure thing, and that, Mr.
Chairman, is why I think we should vote against this.
I think we should also have better budgeting. I don't think we should
be rescinding phony budget authority to then use it for outlays. So, if
we get rid of the gimmicks, this thing wouldn't even comport with the
budget resolution itself.
So with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this
bill.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I ask how much time is left.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 17 minutes. The
gentleman from Ohio has 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that there is no tax
increase in this bill. The other side, Mr. Chairman, they went from
saying that there is a tax increase to that this may put us on a
trajectory to a tax increase, could be, possibly.
There is no tax increase in this bill.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, just a few comments before we use
the remaining few minutes of our time as well.
Think about this. The ranking member of the Budget Committee pointed
out the facts, what's in this bill, the numbers, the budget, and what's
going on. But it's always important to come back and focus on how that
translates into the lives of the American people and American families.
I think it's important just to remember and think about the typical
family across this country. They go to work each day. They go to church
on Sunday. They make their house payment. They make their car payment.
Maybe they're paying their kids' private school. They're saving for
college. They may be saving for a family vacation. They don't get an
automatic 7 percent, in this particular bill $3.2 billion, increase.
They don't get that. They have to budget. They have to learn to live on
less many times.
And that's all this amendment says is, you know what, let's just
spend exactly what we spent last year, because if we don't. And we keep
on this spending train that we're on, there will be tax increases. And
then that family I just described, it's going to be tougher for them to
pay for that vacation, pay for their kids' school, pay for the shoes
for soccer practice and Little League and pay for all those things that
families have to pay for. That's why this is important.
It begins to put us on the path to deal with the problems that are
certainly going to be there if we don't start getting a handle on
spending. That's why I bring the amendment forward. That's what all our
speakers have talked about, because it's that important that we begin
to do the right thing here.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio have any further
speakers?
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. You do.
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the chairman.
Has the gentleman yielded back his time?
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. The question from the Chair was do we have
additional speakers. My response was no.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I have
the right to close.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has the right to
close.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Is the gentleman from New York the only speaker?
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I am the final speaker, and I have the
right to close.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Then I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, this is like a soap opera. It doesn't
matter when the American people tune it in, turn it on, it's the same
script, the same characters, the same plot, the dialogue.
Every week this small group of Members tries to offer these
amendments, and every week they're defeated, defeated by the members of
their own caucus.
This appropriations bill was passed by the Appropriations Committee
on a bipartisan basis. Democrats and Republicans supported this bill
because it has the right investments for the American family.
They support the notion that we should make sure that we have
children in car seats that are safe. The gentleman's amendment would
cut funding for car seat safety for our children.
They support the notion that we should make sure that our highways
are safe. The gentleman's amendment would cut funding for highway
safety.
They support the notion, Republicans and Democrats alike, that when
you go to the airport, there should be enough inspectors to make sure
that your plane is safe. The gentleman's amendment would cut the number
of inspectors for airlines and increase delays at airports.
Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee alike
agreed with the notion that elderly people who worked hard, raised
their families, paid their dues should have a chance, a better chance,
to get decent housing. The gentleman's amendment would cut that chance
of decent housing for the elderly.
And Republicans and Democrats alike, who share commonsense values and
compassion, also agree that if you're disabled, you should have a
chance to get some decent housing. The gentleman's amendment would cut
the chance of getting decent housing if you are disabled.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talked about the common family and the
values that they have. Let me suggest to the gentleman one thing, and
then I will close.
This isn't really about the argument that the gentleman uses that we
should cut spending. With all due respect, the gentleman was nowhere
around when we spent and spent and spent and borrowed and borrowed and
borrowed for special interests. I will talk about the typical American
family.
This morning on the front page of the newspaper there was a story
about how
[[Page H8364]]
huge tax breaks that some on the other side supported for the largest
multinational corporations on Earth, that were promised to create jobs,
did the opposite. Two years ago, according to the newspaper, when
companies received a big tax break to bring home their offshore
profits, the President and Congress justified it as a one-time tax
amnesty that would create American jobs, but the companies did not
create many jobs in return. Instead, since 2005, the American drug
industry has laid off tens of thousands of workers in this country.
And so let's close by returning to that family. The gentleman may
have a family in his district, a Jones family. Mr. Jones worked for one
of those big multinational corporations that have a P.O. box in Bermuda
to escape their fair share of taxes at home. Mr. Jones thought that
that tax break to that big company was going to save his job. The
company got the tax breaks. He got a pink slip.
Now, if that's not bad enough, the gentleman would propose that Mr.
Jones, when he goes on the highway to try and find another job, that
he's less safe; that Mrs. Jones, who's working at the Wal-Mart, when
she straps her daughter into a car seat, that that car seat be less
safe because of the cuts to those programs; if the Joneses have enough
money to scrimp and save and maybe visit their parents or grandparents
in another State, that they wait even longer to get on the plane, and
that the plane not have the inspection as quickly as it needs to; and
that if Mr. Jones' and Mrs. Jones' parents or grandparents want to have
a decent roof over their heads, that they have to wait longer, in fact
may not even qualify, because of the cuts in housing assistance for the
elderly and the disabled.
The difference between us is that we want to invest in the American
family, and the other side, not everybody on the other side,
Republicans and Democrats alike, on a bipartisan basis, passed this
bill to invest in the American family.
The sponsor of this amendment wants to continue giving giveaways to
the richest special interests. We believe those funds are better spent
with the American family.
That's what this is about, and that's why I'm so proud that
Republicans and Democrats alike supported this bill in the
Appropriations Committee and will defeat this amendment when it comes
to the floor later.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. 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 Ohio will be
postponed.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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 No. 20 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced
in the amount of $507,767,000.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair, and I thank the leadership
for the opportunity to bring this amendment forward.
This amendment is a very simple amendment. It's an amendment that has
come to be known as the Hefley amendment, or at least came to be known
as the Hefley amendment, a former Member of this body who offered an
amendment to decrease appropriations bills by 1 percent in an effort to
begin fiscal responsibility.
And it's my privilege to bring these amendments to the floor again in
an effort to take that first step, take that first step to begin fiscal
responsibility in this Chamber.
This is a good debate. It's a good debate that we have when we talk
about how to spend hard-earned taxpayer money, because, Mr. Chairman,
as you know, oftentimes in this Chamber, in fact, we've heard on some
of these appropriations bills Members talk about their money, about my
money. And it's always important that we remember whose money it is.
It's not government money. It's not our money. It's the money of the
hardworking American taxpayer.
So this amendment is very simple. It simply says that we ought to
reduce by 1 percent the amount of money being spent in this particular
appropriations bill. And to be clear, that is still a significant
increase in spending over last year, but it's an attempt to begin
fiscal responsibility.
One of the numbers, the numbers are that last year this portion of
the appropriations bill spent $47.5 billion. The President requested an
increase to $47.9 billion for this next fiscal year, and the committee
itself brings forward a bill that will spend $50.7 billion. That's $3.2
billion more than last year.
So this amendment would say, well, we ought not spend $50.7 billion.
Let's see if we can't get a little fiscal responsibility and instead
spend $50.2 billion.
Again, it's not as far as many of us think we ought to go in an
effort to try to be more responsible with spending the hard-earned
American taxpayers' money, but it is a step in the right direction. It
is a step along the line of fiscal responsibility. It is a recognition.
It would be the beginning of a recognition that this is not Congress's
money, that it is the money of the hardworking American taxpayer.
On many of these bills we seem to get a few more votes each time. I'm
hopeful that at some point this House will make a statement, that this
House will make a statement and say, yes, we do believe that, in fact,
moving forward under the banner of fiscal responsibility dictates that
we respect the hard work of the American taxpayer and, in fact, accept
one of these amendments as we move forward.
So with that I think it's a commonsense amendment. It's a problem-
solving amendment. It's an amendment that speaks to what the American
family would do when they have some fiscal challenges, and that is to
overall reduce the amount of money that they spend.
So, with that, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 20
minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to
my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague Dr. Price for
offering this amendment. Certainly the American people can relate to
this amendment. It simply says that we will not spend 1 percent of the
bill as currently written, 1 percent. Well, that equates to $500
million, a substantial sum of money even in the context of the Federal
budget.
What we have in Washington, D.C., is a spending problem. We don't
have a problem with income to government. The government will receive
about $2.7 trillion this year on a Federal budget that actually spends
$2.9 trillion.
{time} 1915
What is absolutely fascinating about this is that there are only two
countries on Earth with whole economies that are larger than the
Federal Government here in Washington, D.C., and that is the
governments of Germany and Japan. When we talk about China and the
growing threat of China's economy, well, look at the size of the
Chinese economy. The whole economy of China is $1.9 trillion. What we
have here in Washington D.C. is certainly a spending problem.
What this amendment proposed by Dr. Price says is that we should be
able to slip off just a little bit of that spending, just a little bit,
show the American taxpayers that we can tighten the
[[Page H8365]]
belt just ever so slightly, which means, instead of eating that whole
cake, which is what the Democrat leadership proposes for dessert,
eating that whole cake, we are just going to take off just a little bit
of the icing, just a taste of the icing, rather than eating that whole
cake.
Now, certainly we can do that. Certainly the American people
understand the Federal Government could save 1 percent. Every family
budget across America can save 1 percent.
I urge my colleagues, even the liberal Democrats on the other side of
the aisle, my friends from the other side of the aisle who said that we
want to spend more and more and more. They certainly can say we will,
when we are increasing spending so rapidly, what the Democrats are
doing here, we could say that just 1 percent, we will take off 1
percent right off the top.
So I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable and commonsense
measure that shows some level of restraint, even with bloated Democrat
spending in Washington, D.C.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire whether it's the
intention of the gentleman from Ohio to close when he speaks.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is my intention. I am the final speaker.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend
from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank my good friend and colleague, the
gentleman from Georgia, for yielding the time and for bringing up this
amendment.
Each time he does, of course, I am reminded of our former colleague,
our great friend, Joel Hefley from Colorado who brought this amendment
up in past Congresses.
Mr. Chairman, I didn't understand, perhaps I would have to admit, the
full significance and importance of what he was trying to do, and that
was just to, in a very, very, very modest way, curtail the spending
spree that we have here in Washington, that spending spree that our
friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina, was just
explaining.
Of course, this is a modest effort, 1 percent on one spending bill.
We know that the real issue here in Washington is the explosion in
entitlement spending. The gentleman from New York earlier said that
there was no tax increase in this bill. Of course, we understand that.
This isn't a tax bill; this is a spending bill.
But it is tied to a budget, to a budget that significantly did one
thing: it brought us the largest tax increase in American history. Yes,
that tax increase won't hit in a significant way in this year, but in
order to make that budget balance, it was necessary to bring us the
largest tax increase in American history so that by the end of the
budget period, the budget could balance.
The other thing that budget had, or, more significantly, did not
have, it didn't have anything to constrain entitlement spending. Well,
it did. It had a small piece, a very small piece, where there was an
effort to save less than $1 billion in entitlement spending; and our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle stepped up to the plate to
save that less than $1 billion and created nine new entitlement
spending programs.
We do have a spending problem here, and that is followed by an
enormous taxing problem. This is a spend-and-tax issue that I think the
American people can understand. Their budgets aren't growing by 7
percent. The Federal Government is growing its spending by more than
that. This effort by my good friend from Georgia is, indeed, a modest
effort.
This is a tiny, let's save one penny, one penny on the dollar that
this spending bill has. We can't seem to find a way to save that one
penny, and yet we are letting entitlement spending grow by trillions of
dollars.
I think the American people are going to grow increasingly aware that
we have an unfunded liability in entitlement spending of trillions and
trillions of dollars, well over $50 trillion.
So this is a modest effort, but I would call on my colleagues to take
this tiny step that Mr. Hefley brought us in the past and that my
colleague, Mr. Price, has brought us here.
Let's support the amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. I just wanted to respond to the gentleman who had just
spoken.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota has mentioned twice in the
comments that he has made, at least twice in the comments, that, again,
the idea that this budget that we are dealing with has somehow inherent
in it the largest tax increase in American history, twice he has made
that comment.
Well, the budget that we are dealing with has no increase in taxes
whatsoever related to it. I think the gentleman understands that. In
fact, even the budget resolution that guides the budgeting this year
for all of our bills, all of our discretionary budget legislation, that
budget resolution does not have any tax increase in it either. I think
the gentleman understands that as well.
We are making messages here that are really not correct. They are
simply not accurate. They are simply not true.
I want to make a couple of points. I want to remind the gentleman and
others from the other side who have spoken that since President Bush
took office, the national debt has increased by over $3 trillion, $3
trillion, over 3, it's closer to $3.3 trillion. That's 3 with 12 zeros
behind it.
Some people have a difficult time understanding a three with six
zeros behind it. That's $1 million. But $3 trillion, with 12 zeros
behind it is $1 million, million dollars.
That debt increase of $3 trillion that has occurred in the 6 years
that President Bush has been in power in the Presidency, that ends up
costing us, the American people, us as a Nation, $100 billion each and
every year in additional deficit, which is what has happened, an
additional deficit, every year $100 billion each year, which is some
200 times the amount of money that is being suggested ought to be cut
from this one little budget that we are talking about that provides
money for a whole series of very important initiatives that serve the
American people.
To close, I could go on substantially on the debt, but the $500
million that has been suggested that should be cut from this budget,
this one simple budget that funds housing and transportation programs
of the government, this one budget, if one compares the $500 million,
that two pieces of the budget, the $500 million is essentially the same
money that we had to put back in the budget because Amtrak would have
shut down.
$500 million is about the same amount of money as was put into that.
It is about one half of the money that was put back in to make certain
that not a single family, low-income family, people who are living with
incomes of under 30 percent of the adjusted median income in their
areas, one half of the amount of money that would allow all of those
people who had vouchers and who are getting rental assistance, in that
very low-income category, to maintain their vouchers for the next year.
It is also a sum of money which is somewhat less than the amount that
we had to put back into the budget to bring it up to these levels, to
the 2007 enacted level at $700 million, or the Community Development
Block Grant program, which provides money to virtually every community
in the country, larger cities, by direct distribution from the Federal
Government through Housing and Urban Development, but also to many
smaller cities and communities, even quite small communities, through
the money that's distributed to the States who then give it back to
those communities in order to build affordable housing and build public
facilities in their communities.
It is very close to the amount of money that is included in this
budget and provides for the construction of elder housing, housing for
the disabled and housing for distressed public housing as well.
So that is what is involved in $500 million at this point. I hope the
amendment is defeated.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend
from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for purposes of setting the record straight.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.
I appreciate that because I would like
[[Page H8366]]
to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts on just a couple of
points.
One, we had a number of discussions on zeros and what that means when
we talk about the debt, nine zeros, 12 zero, six zeros, I would say
there are a lot of American families that are concerned about five
zeros and what the impact of the tax increase is going to have on that.
With all respect to my friend from Massachusetts, the Democrat budget
does have the largest tax increase in American history. In order to
make that budget balance, all of the tax relief which we have worked so
hard to achieve in the last few years, and which is behind the growth
and the economy, all that would go away, tax relief for married
families, tax relief for every American worker who pays taxes. All
that's erased in the Democrat's budget that is behind this spending
bill that we are in today.
I think he helps me make the point that this is, when he talks about
trillions of dollars, that this bill, that this amendment is a very
modest step in curtailing that spending.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire as to the amount
of time remaining.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 11 minutes. The
gentleman from Ohio has 20 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from Georgia.
Mr. Chairman, this budget proposal isn't a real surprise; it's
business as usual for the Democrats and proves that their promises to
be fiscally responsible are just empty rhetoric. If this budget, along
with the other budgets that we have been approving, are approved, it
signals a return to the Democrats' beloved tax-and-spend model for
government. They are very happy to try to run the lives of all
Americans from the Federal level.
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have produced a real decrease in the tax
burden on North Carolina's married couples, single parents, and
families. Almost every taxpayer, low-income, married, single or self-
employed, will lose valuable tax cuts under the assumptions made in the
Democrat budget proposal earlier this year, and that would cover the
costs that are in this budget tonight.
The economy is booming. The stock market is doing great. People's
401(k) plans are increasing tremendously. But they want to stop that
because they want to spend your money. They think they know better how
to spend your money than you know how to spend your money.
The Federal Government doesn't have a revenue problem. Revenues
increased by 14.5 percent in 2005, 11.6 percent in 2006, and they are
projected to grow by an additional $167 billion, or 7 percent, this
year, according to the latest OMB estimate.
Again, the economy is booming, things are going great, but the
Democrats would put a halt on that with their profligate spending. To
put it another way, the Federal Government is projected to collect $800
billion more in revenue in 2007 than was just the case 4 years ago,
$2.6 trillion in 2007 compared to $1.8 trillion in 2003.
{time} 1930
We need to slow down spending and allow the American people to keep
more of their money. They know how to spend it better than Federal
bureaucrats do.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And I just want to say to the gentlewoman from North Carolina that
the absolute platinum standard for fiscal irresponsibility lies
squarely on the shoulders of her party and the Presidents of her party.
The national debt for this country when President Carter left office
in 1981 was less than $1 trillion. The national debt 12 years later, in
the case of President Carter, that represents the debt that had been
reached over 180 years of American history. Twelve years later, the
national debt when the first President Bush left office was $4.3
trillion, more than four times as much, more than quadrupling the total
national debt. That is the gold standard of fiscal irresponsibility.
And then we had 8 years of President Clinton, and the national debt
went up another $1.2 trillion, about a 25 percent increase in the
national debt in the 8 years that he was President.
But then, under the present President Bush and the Congress of his
party in control during those years, the national debt has gone up $3.3
trillion more, a total of about two-thirds more, 67 or 68 percent more
in debt. That is the platinum standard in debt increase and in fiscal
irresponsibility.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to
yield 1 minute to my friend from Texas, the chairman of the Republican
Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling.
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I must admit, every time I come to the floor and a Democrat lectures
me on fiscal responsibility, I feel like I am having an Alice in
Wonderland experience; and that is because the deficit is the symptom,
it is spending that is the disease. And so we have Democrats come to
the floor and say, well, when you Republicans were in power, you spent
too much. Well, some of us Republicans agree. So what is your answer,
Mr. Chairman? Well, they want to spend even more.
For the last 10 years, look at the record. Every time the Republicans
offer one budget, the Democrats offer a budget that spends even more.
And then they say it is fiscally irresponsible that the national debt
went up from $5 trillion to $8 trillion. I don't like that a bit. But,
guess what? Because the Democrats' budget was stone cold silent on
entitlement spending, the national debt unfunded obligations is $50
trillion. So I will be glad to accept responsibility for $3 trillion
when my friends on the other side of the aisle accept responsibility
for their $50 trillion.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I continue to reserve my right to close.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to ask my good
friend from Ohio whether it is the final right to close, or whether it
is otherwise.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I will continue to reserve my right to close,
unless my chairman wants more time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to
yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I like us being
pleasant with each other.
I think this is a fascinating debate and an important debate, and,
quite frankly, I have watched it unfold over the bills earlier this
year. And the reality is, in Washington, nobody has the high ground on
spending.
When I and my colleagues as fiscal conservatives get up on this side
and say cut spending, as we are in this amendment by a mere 1 percent,
it is absolutely fair and absolutely true for my colleagues to get up
on the other side, as they have done and done well, and lecture us
about spending. You guys are the, to use the words a moment ago,
platinum standard on spending. And in many ways they are absolutely
right.
I note with chagrin that because neither Republicans nor Democrats
have the high ground on spending, something has to be done, and I would
suggest at some point we have to begin. Maybe it is with this
amendment, maybe it is not with this amendment, maybe it is with
something else. But let's talk about spending.
On our watch, on the Republicans' watch, family income grew from 1995
to 2004 by 8.2 percent. Pretty good. Not bad. We could all wish it had
been better. But what did Republicans do on spending? Republicans grew
Federal outlays by a staggering 25 percent. You are right, we don't
have much high ground to talk about. But when, then, will we start? And
who will it be that starts?
Your side of the aisle encouraged the American people by saying,
James Clyburn, Democratic House chairman, said in a press release on
October 10, 2006: ``Democrats offer a new direction which includes
fiscal responsibility.''
Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi in a press release November 16 said: ``We
will work together to lead the House of Representatives with a
commitment to integrity, to civility, which we have
[[Page H8367]]
seen a little bit of tonight, and to fiscal responsibility.''
And Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said: ``It is imperative to the
future of our Nation, and I agree with him, that we come together,
Democrats and Republicans, and restore fiscal responsibility.''
There are some hard facts that both sides have to deal with. Those
hard facts include: As we stand here debating this bill, it will
increase spending by 6.7 percent over last year, this particular bill.
That is nearly three times the rate of inflation. It might be less than
Republicans grew the spending in some occasions; but nonetheless, if we
keep growing spending at three times the rate of inflation, we will
double the size of this government in a short 10 years.
I would simply suggest that neither Republicans nor Democrats can
defend putting that kind of a tax burden on our economy and on our
taxpayers and sustain it. And I would suggest that the respected
leaders of the Democrats' party, Mr. Clyburn, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer,
acknowledged that when they said it is time to restore fiscal
responsibility.
This kind of an explosion in Federal spending is simply not
sustainable. Now, I have listened to my colleagues on the other side
say, well, you guys spend in this area or that area. Now you want to
cut here. You come in and say, we spent in an inappropriate way on,
call it corporate subsidies, call it tax giveaways, whatever it is. So
be it. That is fair criticism, too.
But the question I think that presents itself to all of us,
Republican and Democrats alike, is: When do we reduce spending?
If you don't want to reduce spending on this bill by 1 percent or on
the next amendment by one-half percent, then where are we going to cut
spending? Because at the end of the day, this economy, I do not
believe, will sustain, whether it is driven by Republicans or
Democrats, a continued growth of three times the rate of inflation.
The average American gets by without anywhere near that kind of an
increase in their spending. The average American's budget doesn't
double in that short a period of time. It doesn't go up by 6.7 percent
per year. And it seems to me, whether it is on your watch on this bill,
on your watch on a different bill, or on our watch someday down the
line, we have got to rein in government spending, or we will cripple
this economy. And if you want to change the priorities and spend in
different places, that is your right. You are the majority. But
somebody, whether it is you or whether it is us, has got to reduce the
level of spending, because it simply isn't sustainable.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of
time remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes; the
gentleman from Ohio has 18 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the chairman.
I think this has been a healthy presentation from this side. The
muted response from the other side is understandable.
When you have instituted in your budget the largest tax increase in
the history of the Nation, when you continue to increase the spending
at a rate that is greater than inflation, greater than the increase in
population for our Nation, then the response, I suspect, ought to be
muted.
My good friend from Ohio has said he will close, and I look forward
to that response. I am reminded, prior to him standing up, though, that
a wise individual once said: When you don't have the facts on your
side, then you ought to raise your voice, and you ought to raise it
very loud. And so I ask my colleagues to pay attention to what is about
to come.
I do want to recognize what my good friend from Texas said, though,
and that was talk about Alice in Wonderland. I have dubbed it Orwellian
democracy that we are involved in here. My friend from Massachusetts
talks about the railing against the Republicans who spent too much and
increased the debt. And so what is the response to that? It is to
increase it even further, spend more money. They use the grand line of
we are interested in investing in the American family. Well, Mr.
Chairman, the American families all across this Nation know that when
the majority party, when the Democrats talk about investing, what they
mean is to hold on to your wallet because that means that taxes are
coming; and the budget indeed includes the largest tax increase in the
history of the Nation.
This bill, this bill in and of itself, a $3.2 billion increase, 6.7
percent over last year. Why is it that we can't just decrease that by 1
percent? By 1 percent. Is that too much to ask?
Mr. Chairman, I would urge you, if you have any questions about what
kinds of money we are talking about, it is H.R. 3074, you can go on
line. You can find this bill on line, and you can go to any line item.
And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, when you do that, that if you take
any specific line item and you say to yourself, is it possible that
they might be able to get by with 1 percent less, 1 penny out of a
dollar, $1 out of every $100? Again, that is what American families all
across this Nation do. When they find themselves in a little bit of
financial difficulty, when they find that their wallet is a little
pinched, what they do is they look at their expenditures and they say,
we are going to have to cut back. And that is exactly what we, the
American family, want to do is to cut back.
That is what this is. This is a sincere and a commonsense attempt to
try to begin fiscal responsibility here in the House of
Representatives. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for his fine arguments, and
all of the gentlemen and ladies who have made their presentation here
tonight. And I would also like to thank the Appropriations Committee
for the Transportation and HUD bill. This was passed out of committee
in a bipartisan way unanimously with Democrats and Republicans. So,
again, we come to the floor to have a discussion with a very small
group of fringe Members from the other side, Mr. Chairman, so that we
can continue to get fiscal responsibility lectures from the Republican
Party.
Now, getting lectures on fiscal responsibility from the Republican
Party is like getting lectures on animal welfare from Michael Vick. It
really doesn't have any credibility. It really doesn't have any
credibility.
So we need to look at what the two different approaches here. And I
am not going to be long because we have a lot of votes tonight, and we
want to get the Members out of here as soon as possible.
There is a difference in philosophy, and the bottom line is this:
There are certain things that individual members of our society cannot
do. One of them is build a road. Another is build a bridge. And others
that we have already had discussions about are going to college and
being able to afford college and making sure some families have loans
to go to college. And that is what we are here for. That is what we are
here for. We are here to do the things that individual citizens cannot
do for themselves, and that is what is included in this bill.
We have had talks about trillion-dollar train wrecks coming up, and I
appreciate the gentleman from Arizona stating the fact that, yes, the
party in power over the past 6 years, $3 trillion was borrowed
primarily from China, Japan, and OPEC countries.
{time} 1945
And our friends on the other side had to go to the Treasury
Department and ask for the debt limit to be raised so that they could
go out and borrow more money. So the lectures have all been given and
we've heard them, and we'll probably hear them again later this week
and we'll probably hear them again next week.
One of the Members mentioned entitlement spending. It was the
Republican Party, Mr. Chairman, who passed the largest increase in
entitlement spending with the Medicare part D. And you want to talk
about fiscal irresponsibility; they passed it without even giving the
Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to negotiate down
the drug prices. That is the platinum standard for fiscal
irresponsibility.
So we move forward. What would this cut do? What would this 1 percent
cut?
And as the gentleman from New York stated earlier a few of the
programs, I think it's important that the Members
[[Page H8368]]
know what exactly is going to be cut here. Safety belt performance
grants, going to be cut. Occupant protection incentive grants, going to
be cut. State traffic safety information system improvement grants,
going to be cut. All of the investments in future growth.
In aviation, the inspectors, the budget for inspectors in aviation
for this country will be cut under this amendment. There will be less
inspectors inspecting the maintenance of our airplanes than there would
normally be if this amendment doesn't pass.
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development programs. Airport
safety grants under this amendment will be cut. There'll be less money
for airports. $6.9 billion in this bill for air traffic services. That
will be cut.
Continue on. Rail, passenger rail grants, those will be cut.
Improvement and safety grants, those will be cut.
This is the kicker. Housing for the elderly. That will be cut under
this amendment. Housing for the elderly will be cut under this
amendment.
And we don't say that these are going to be cuts just because they're
going to be cuts, and we're not saying we're spending money on these
programs just to spend money. This is the difference.
I think this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very simple and it sounds
good. Why can't we just cut 1 percent across the top of this budget?
There's changes going on in the world that make it a little more
complex than we would normally think it is. I'll give you some
examples. Traveling on our Nation's highways has grown by 94 percent
from 1980 to 2005, from 1.5 trillion miles to 3 trillion miles. Of
course you're going to need to spend a little bit more money if you
have more people on the roads and you have more roads.
Now, the congestion has resulted in 2.3 billion extra gallons of fuel
being burnt. That means $794 per commuter. Now, there's no way a
commuter can get the $300 tax cut that they got a few years ago and go
out and somehow fix the congestion problem. There's no way to do that.
We had this same discussion with brownfields. An individual citizen
can't clean up a brownfield. You need the Federal investment.
And when you're talking about elderly housing, the elderly population
in the United States, Mr. Chairman, is going to grow over the next 25
years by millions and millions and millions of seniors, so it's
important that we make these investments.
Another program that will be cut is housing for the disabled. 49.7
million Americans live with a disability. Forty-three percent of those
are women. Forty percent of men 65 and older have disabilities. If they
had the money to pay for it themselves, they would pay for it and we
wouldn't need to be here.
We're making these bipartisan investments, Republicans and Democrats,
on the Appropriations Committee to help move the country forward. And
one of the key approaches that we've had when we started this year,
under the leadership of Chairman Obey, is to figure out what the
world's going to look like in 10 years so that the investments we make
today will have our society ready to compete in the global economy 10
years from now, 20 years from now.
And the bottom line is, this bill here reflects the values of this
country, passed by Democrats and Republicans in the committee. And
those 1 percent cuts may not mean a whole lot to me, may not mean a
whole lot to the chairman, but if you're an adult with a disability,
elderly senior, if you're a disabled citizen of this country, if you
use the aviation system.
How do you fix the aviation system by yourself? You need to do that
together, and that's the investment that we make here. So I appreciate
the difference in philosophy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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 Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. 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 Mrs. Musgrave:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced
in the amount of $253,690,000.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and a Member opposed each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, we've had an interesting discussion here
tonight. I am offering an amendment that would propose to reduce the
amount by one-half of 1 percent, a mere 50 cents on $100.
As we look at this appropriations bill, this is $3.2 billion over
last year, or a 6.7 percent increase. My amendment would take it to a
6.2 percent increase.
As we think about this, I hear many things from my friends on the
other side of the aisle about ``investments.'' You can use that word
euphemistically when we talk about investments, because what I'm
thinking when I hear that word is tax increase on the American family.
We hear many worthy things that this money will be spent for, but
there is a philosophical difference in this chamber. And as my friends
on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, talk about us being
fringe Members over here, what they're acknowledging is that we were
not part of the spending problem for our party. We were the folks in
the back of the room raising our hand and saying, we are spending too
much money.
We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. As
we've seen in recent years under different Presidents and different
Congresses, when we lower the tax rate, the revenues increase. So we
don't have a revenue problem. What we have is this spending problem.
But my friends on the other side of the aisle, as they spoke tonight,
Mr. Chairman, they talked about the needs of disabled people and
elderly people and safety and highway issues and air travel, but what
we have to admit in this Chamber tonight is that there is a finite
amount of money, Mr. Chairman. And it doesn't matter how worthy the
spending is. There is a finite amount of money.
When individuals in this country get up in the morning, get their
children ready for school and then they go off to work, they realize
that they have to work a long portion of the year to pay their taxes.
And every time we have another appropriation bill in front of us, we're
getting to the point in this Chamber where it's nearly $82 billion over
last year's spending. And the American family knows that they're going
to have to work longer in the year before they work long enough to pay
their taxes, Mr. Chairman. And I think no matter how worthy the
spending is, we need to exercise some fiscal discipline.
My friends on the other side of the aisle have said it half jokingly,
but referred to us as fringe Members of Congress. And I have to tell
you, sometimes we have to be tenacious about reminding our colleagues
how we're going down a road where we're going to have that fiscal train
wreck. And I am happy to offer this modest proposal tonight to cut this
increase, to lower the increase from 6.7 to 6.2 percent increase and
exercise the fiscal discipline that I truly believe the American
families, the citizens of this country that pay these taxes want us to
have.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman oppose the amendment?
Mr. SCHIFF. Yes, I do.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for
20 minutes.
Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the chairman of the committee for his superb work
on
[[Page H8369]]
the bill and the chairman of the full committee, as well as the
subcommittee.
I'm going to reserve the balance of my time, but I do want to
acknowledge what the gentlelady has said before reserving the balance
of our time, and that is, there is a deep philosophical difference
between the Members of the minority party who are here today and those
of us speaking in opposition to the amendment. And of course there's a
philosophical difference between the Members that are here on the floor
today and their fellow Republicans in committee who unanimously
supported this bill, those Republicans on the committee and in the
House as a whole who have made every effort to work with Democrats and
find common ground in dealing with the fiscal challenges that we face,
but also recognizing the need to invest in America as our parents'
generation did and as their parents did.
Yes, there's a philosophical difference. We're facing a constrained
fiscal environment. We've got to get our budget in balance. Some here
on the floor tonight we'll hear say, well, we can afford to balance
that budget by taking it out of funds for the elderly or taking it out
of funds for the homeless, taking it out of funds that help serve
Native Americans, taking it out of funds that would make our aircraft
more safe.
That's a philosophical difference, I think, with a bipartisan
majority of this House that thinks that those aren't the right places
to find savings, that we ought to look elsewhere. We ought to look, for
example, at the generous corporate welfare payments that we make at a
time when the oil industry, for example, has not only had record
profits of the year or record profits of the decade, but record profits
in the entire history of the oil industry. And not just the history of
the oil industry, but record profits of any corporation at any time in
the history of the world.
Now, that corporate welfare, my friends on the philosophical other
side of this issue don't want to touch. That's sacrosanct. They won't
cut those historic profits by 6 percent, or by 1 percent or even by a
half of one percent because that's contrary to the philosophy. But
they're more than willing to cut those who are desperately in need. And
that's where we do have the divide. It's what I will be addressing when
I conclude the remarks on our side of the aisle.
But at this point, I will reserve the balance of our time.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to my friend
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I recall last term in the
109th Congress in the Budget Committee where I served the gentleman
from Minnesota who's no longer with us, Mr. Gutknecht, who made a point
with regard to spending by this House and Washington, D.C. You know, in
that committee you could always put up charts on the wall with regard
to spending, chart A on mandatory spending or B on discretionary
spending or health care or other spending. You would put them all up
there. And Gil one time went through all the charts and he said, now,
can you put up the chart of all the people and lobbyists that come down
to Washington to ask for a reduction in their program and spending? And
of course they put up a blank screen. Of course, Gil's point was, no
one ever comes to Washington, no lobbyist ever comes before the House
or committee and says that their program should see a flatlining or a
reduction in their programs. And that's really the point here tonight,
and it has been all last week.
We are here to set the priorities because everyone that comes to
every Member of Congress looks for us to spend more on them, and so we
must set priorities because they won't do it for us. So just as the
American family has to set priorities, we do. Just as the American
family says, we're not going to buy a cable TV system and a Dish TV
system and a satellite TV system, we're going to set priorities, pick
one if we can afford it. Maybe we can't afford it at all. And when it
comes to heating our house, we're not going to have electric heat and
hot water heat and coal heat and gas heat. We're going to pick one,
hopefully the most efficient. That's what families do. And we would
hope that Congress does the exact same thing with the money. Set
priorities.
And this amendment really just calls us on doing that, looking to
see, not a 6.7 percent increase but a 6.2 percent increase and try to
set priorities.
{time} 2000
Now, the other side of the aisle says, well, we are being stingy with
all these programs if we are not able to go up by a 6.7 percent
increase.
I would suggest to the other side of the aisle maybe they are not
looking at the right side of the ledger, the right side of the
equation. Look at the families who have to pay for all these
inefficient, duplicative, and unnecessary programs that they want to
spend taxpayer dollars on. Look instead at the American family when it
comes to education.
When it comes to education, well, if they do successfully pass the
largest tax increase in U.S. history, which they are about to do, the
American family is going to have to see their educational spending cut.
The American family is going to have to decide whether they can send
all of their children to college or not.
The other side should look at the issue of health care for the
American family because what they want to do is tell the American
taxpayer, you have to cut your spending on health care. Maybe you have
a child that needs new braces or glasses or something like that. Well,
with their tax increases, the American family is asked to cut their
spending.
How about housing? The other side of the aisle would say the same
thing. Maybe it is a young family trying to start off to save enough
money to buy their first house. Well, the other side of the aisle would
like to raise their taxes on them so that they can put these
duplicative programs through, and they will not be able to afford their
housing.
Finally, most importantly, after the other side puts on all these
burdens when it comes to cutting the taxpayer with regard to education
or health care or housing, the biggest burden is on time. When the
Democrats raise the largest tax increase in American history on the
American family, what they are also doing is taking away time from the
American family because now families which weren't working two jobs now
have to work two jobs. Families that weren't working overtime before
now have to work overtime just to pay for the extra burden that this
government in Washington, under Democrat leadership, is imposing on
them.
So the most basic thing we could all look for, time with our family,
is being robbed, is being taxed, is being taken away from the American
family just so we can implement what the Democrats see as necessary,
but truthfully we have shown are not priorities, truthfully are
unnecessary, duplicative, hugely increased, inefficient programs.
Let's focus again back on the American family. Let's focus again back
on allowing them to have time with their family and put the burden
where it should be.
I support this amendment and encourage my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to do so as well.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I have heard many interesting things from the other side of the aisle
tonight. I am reminded that people are entitled to their own opinions,
but they shouldn't be entitled to their own facts.
I hear a lot of accusations that we have amendments tonight that cut
Federal spending. I kind of wish it were true. But last I looked, we
had an amendment that level-funded this bill, that spent the same
amount of money this year as last year. Now we had an amendment that
would increase funding in this bill 5.7 percent. Now we have an
amendment that would increase spending up to 6.2 percent. Now, it is
less than what the gentleman from Massachusetts desires, and so I guess
under his definition that if you spend less money than somebody in the
universe desires, that is a cut. So I think, one, we ought to have the
facts on the table.
Second of all, I have heard many Democrats bristle at the idea that
[[Page H8370]]
their budget resolution included the single largest tax increase in
American history. Well, don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. The
Washington Post, not exactly known as the leading conservative
publication in America, wrote: ``And while House Democrats say they
want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a
surplus in 2012 only by assuming that all these cuts expire on schedule
in 2010.'' Now, that is the Washington Post, which most people view as
one of the more liberal newspapers in America. That's what they say.
Now, my friends from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, may
say we are not raising taxes; we are just letting tax cuts expire.
Well, Mr. Chairman, if you have the same salary or wage next year as
you had last year, but somehow your tax burden is greater, I can tell
you this much: Anybody in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas is
going to call that a tax increase.
Now, something that my friends from the other side of the aisle don't
seem to get, because they say that we need money for housing, we need
money for transportation, we need money for this, we need money for
that, there is another budget in America that funds housing, that funds
transportation. Mr. Chairman, that is the family budget. And the only
budget that is being cut tonight is the American family budget, and it
is being cut by Democrat colleagues.
I talk to a lot of hard-working people in my congressional district,
in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, and I hear from them
because more spending like what is included in this bill fuels more
taxes, the largest single tax increase in American history. And I ask
them, how is this tax increase going to impact your family budget?
So I hear from people like the Peterson family in Van, Texas: ``If
you divide the amount by 12 months of the year, this tax increase comes
out to $229.58 per month. I am a widow, full-time college student, and
single mother of a growing preteen boy. This amount would be impossible
to squeeze out of my already overextended monthly income . . . This
monthly amount is more than half of my monthly vehicle installment . .
. A tax increase of that magnitude would mean that something would have
to be given up in my household.''
That is the budget that is being cut here, Mr. Chairman. The Peterson
family in Van, Texas, they are having their budget cut. They are having
their transportation budget cut. They can't afford their monthly car
payments because of this bill, which, even though they deny it, is part
of the single largest tax increase in American history.
Or from the Jordan family in Forney, Texas, in my district: ``All of
us have been affected by large increases in the price of gas for our
cars, electricity rates, cost of water, and cost of food. My husband
and I both drive older vehicles and turn up our thermostat to
uncomfortable levels . . . This tax increase reinforces the feeling
that elected leaders could care less about the struggles of families
trying to avoid going into ever-increasing debt.''
Well, guess what? I agree, because once again we have a bill brought
to the floor by the Democrat majority that is going to cut the family
budget, that is going to cut the Jordan budget in Forney, Texas. And
there are family budgets all across America that are going to be cut
because this bill spends too much of the people's money. It takes away
from their housing priorities, it takes away from their transportation
priorities to fuel the government's, Washington's, view of their
priority.
And that is why you are either part of the problem, or you are part
of the solution. And the gentlewoman from Colorado's amendment is part
of the solution, and we should adopt it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 7\1/2\ minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 17\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3\1/
2\ minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I stand in full support of her amendment to cut one-half of 1 percent
from a $51 billion appropriations bill.
Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago when my colleague from Georgia had an
amendment that wanted to cut 1 percent, 1 percent, 1 penny on the
dollar, you ruled that the voice vote was enough, that the Democratic
majority had rejected my colleague from Georgia's amendment to just cut
1 penny. And now my colleague from Colorado, you won't accept that. So
we are asking you would you cut 50 cents, one-half of 1 percent?
When my colleague from Georgia was talking, the gentleman from Ohio
called us this ``fringe group'' on that side of the aisle. This
``fringe group.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, I am a proud member of that
fringe group, as well as another 104 Members on this side of the aisle
that are part of that fringe group, indeed, the majority of the
minority. The gentleman from Ohio, who is part of that fringe group,
the 30-Somethings, the next time I say that to him, I will say I am
paying him a compliment. He is too young to remember the song from the
musical ``Oklahoma'': ``The Surrey With the Fringe on Top.'' But it is
that fringe on top of the surrey that makes that carriage so beautiful
that it is going to deliver some fiscal responsibility to the great
people of this country.
And how many times, Mr. Chairman, have you seen a spot on television
or the radio where they tug at your heartstrings by asking, won't you
just give 1 penny to the children, or won't you just give 1 penny to
the starving people in Bangladesh, or won't you just give 1 penny to
the veterans, or won't you give 1 penny to this group or that group?
And what we are saying on this side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, is
won't you just return 50 cents to the hardworking taxpayers of this
country who are sweating, slaving, and working every day trying to make
ends meet?
And as the gentlewoman from Colorado pointed out, this is not a cut.
This is just reducing the increase from 6.7 percent of what we spent in
fiscal year 2007 to 6.2 percent. And say to my friends, the Democratic
majority, who want to increase spending $81 billion in this fiscal
year, when they are complaining about an $8.9 trillion debt, how does
that make sense, if you are concerned about the debt, and you have got
these signs all over the Capitol, and you want to increase spending $81
billion?
Let's get real. Let's get real. We asked you to cut 3 percent; you
won't do that. We asked you to cut 1 percent; you won't do that. You
won't even give a penny back. And we ask you to give half of a penny
now in the gentlewoman's amendment from Colorado. It is the
compassionate thing to do.
Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I rise in strong support of this amendment. It is an amendment that I
hope all our colleagues understand. It would reduce the increase in
spending not by 3 percent, not by 1 percent, but by one-half of 1
percent. Now, it is not a cut.
The word ``cut'' gets misused on this floor, and we have heard it
misused and misused and misused and misused here tonight. No one is
proposing a cut.
We just heard a long discussion about how the last amendment was
going to cut spending for airport security. It was going to cut
spending for housing for the elderly. It was going to cut spending for
this program and that program and the other program.
Let's assume every single one of those programs is a very worthy
program. There is no doubt that they are. They are indeed very worthy
programs. But not a single amendment has been proposed tonight, not one
amendment, not one amendment proposed by my colleagues, would cut
spending. Every single amendment proposed by this side, every single
amendment proposed by my colleagues over here who have said we want to
change the bill a tiny amount, would increase spending, but we would
reduce the increase by a tiny amount.
[[Page H8371]]
{time} 2015
Only in Washington can a reduction in an increase be called a cut
with a straight face.
This bill grows spending by 6.7 percent. Almost no American is going
to get an increase in their income this year, in their salary this year
of 6.7 percent. So we said wait, wait, let's reduce the increase. We're
going to have an increase; every amendment is going to have an
increase. Let's just reduce that increase by a tiny amount, by a 3
percent reduction in the increase, or a 1 percent reduction in the
increase, or on this one, one half of one penny on the dollar. And
that's too radical. And that's called a cut.
Well, let's be honest; it's not a cut. None of these are a cut. But
it is time to slow the pace of growth of government spending. It is
time to slow the pace of that growth because it imposes a burden on
every single American. And we are simply standing here, and I'm proud
to stand here, and if somebody wants to call it a ``fringe group,''
that's their choice. But I'm proud to stand here in defense of the
American taxpayer and not to slash and burn and cut. There is no cut.
What we're saying is this side has proposed spending at an increase
of 6.7 percent, almost three times the increase in inflation. We're
simply saying how about take off one half of one penny.
I think the lady's amendment is right, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 1 minute; the
gentleman from California has 17\1/2\ minutes.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, as I listen to this discussion tonight,
I think about how varied the Members of Congress are. There are
Members, I dare say, in this Congress that have never had a job,
particularly a job that is menial labor.
I grew up in a home where we were poor, and at the time that was very
difficult; but I look back on that and I'm happy that I learned to
work. I'm happy, as a parent, that one of the values that we taught our
children was to work and to work hard.
It was interesting to watch the experience of my teenagers when they
had their first job outside the home. They worked really hard. And some
of them had a pay schedule where they got paid after 2 weeks of work.
And to see how they responded when they got their first paycheck,
because they were startled about how much was taken out of their
paycheck because they were anticipating a certain amount of earnings,
and they didn't get all that money because they had to pay quite a bit
in taxes. And I just am asking for a modest restraint here, one half of
1 percent.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Weiner). The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. SCHIFF. Again, I thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment
to this bill, as she did to one of the prior bills, because it really
does highlight the philosophical difference between the bipartisan
majority of the House and the self-described ``fringe'' represented by
the views we've heard tonight.
What is that philosophical division between the bipartisan majority
and the Members that we have heard from this evening? Well, the
bipartisan majority of this House believes that if we're going to
ensure a stronger America, then we have to make an investment in that
America. But we have to make the same kind of investment that our
parents made and their parents so that we can enjoy the prosperity that
we enjoy now; that we can't simply say, well, we're going to let our
children and our grandchildren fend for themselves.
The bipartisan majority believes that that requires a responsible
investment in our roads and our highways; a responsible investment in
our aviation system; a responsible investment in our aviation security;
a responsible investment in housing for the elderly, for the disabled,
for those who are in need. That is a priority of the bipartisan
majority. This is our philosophy.
Now, my friends expressing the minority view say, well, let's look at
what the American family would do when the American family is facing
budgetary pressures. So let's look at what the American family would
do. My friends expressing the minority opinion tonight say they would
set their priorities. Well, that's absolutely right, they would set
their priorities, which means they wouldn't cut everything identically
in their lives, which is just what the gentlewoman's amendment would
do. It would cut everything across the board.
The American family, when they're facing a fiscal constraint, doesn't
say, we're going to cut our medicine equally, we're going to cut our
food equally, we're going to cut our essentials equally with how we cut
cable TV, was one illustration given by my friends in the minority. No.
They don't say we're going to cut the necessities the same amount we're
going to cut the luxuries. They prioritize.
But my friends in the minority, with their across-the-board cuts,
don't prioritize. And so they do make cuts, real cuts, not like my
friend from Arizona claimed, which is, unfortunately, not correct. My
friend from Arizona just claimed that nothing is really cut in the
across-the-board amendment. But the reality is there are a great many
things that are cut, real cuts, that don't have an increase in the bill
sufficient to offset what the gentlewoman's amendment would cut.
So what are some of the real cuts the gentlewoman is proposing
tonight? She is proposing real cuts to the number of critical safety
staff in aviation, safety staff that deals with the Office of Flight
Standard and Aircraft Certification. They would be real cuts. Not cuts
in growth, but real cuts, fewer people doing the safety inspections for
our aircraft. Is that what the American family would choose to do when
they're faced with a fiscal constraint? Would they choose to cut things
that have the effect of making their families less safe? I don't think
that's where they would look for the cuts.
What other real cuts has the gentlewoman been advocating? She's
advocating real cuts in emergency response training for hazardous
material transportation. That's a real cut the gentlewoman is
advocating.
She is also advocating cuts in Native American housing grants. Is the
gentlewoman prepared to tell the Native Americans back in her State
that she favors real cuts to their housing assistance? I will be
willing to yield on that question if the gentlewoman is ready to say,
not hide behind an across-the-board amendment, but is ready to say to
the Native Americans in her State, I support real cuts to your housing.
I will yield if the gentlewoman would like to respond to that
question. Is the gentlewoman prepared to say, yes, I'm advocating
tonight real cuts to the American housing in my State?
I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. What I would like to say to the citizens in the Fourth
District in Colorado is that I'm very willing to take the increase from
a 6.7 to a 6.2 percent increase.
Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I yielded the time to the gentlewoman, but she did
not answer the question. Evidently she wasn't willing to tell the
Native American population in her home State she is proposing an
amendment to cut their housing tonight. She is willing to hide behind
an across-the-board amendment, but is not willing to tell them directly
what the effect of that amendment is.
The gentlelady's amendment would also cut, in very real terms,
homeless assistance grants.
Now, let's get back to that philosophical difference between the
bipartisan majority and the minority here tonight. One of my
colleagues, my colleague from New Jersey, said, well, the American
family has to make tough choices. And maybe they need to make the
choice that not all of their kids can go to college. Well, that's the
philosophical view of the minority opinion we hear tonight. Maybe the
American family needs to make the choice that not all of their kids can
go to college.
Well, the philosophical view of the bipartisan majority is that every
child in America that wants to go to college should have the ability to
go to college, notwithstanding whether they are rich or poor. That's
our philosophy. And that's why we increased support in the Labor-HHS
bill which, again, the
[[Page H8372]]
gentlewoman wanted to cut, to help more kids go to college. That's our
philosophy, that if we're going to look after the future of this
country, we're going to have to invest in the future. That means
investing in our kids. And that means not putting American parents in a
position where they have to say this child goes to college, this child
does not. That is not our philosophy. It may be the philosophy of the
gentleman from New Jersey; it may be the philosophy of the minority on
the floor here tonight. It is not the philosophy of the bipartisan
majority of this House, nor the American people.
Now, some of my friends in the minority here tonight say, okay, 6
years of GOP rule; we ran the country into the ground financially, we
admit it. But we weren't responsible, we few here on the floor tonight,
because we were standing up at the time. Well, I have to say that when
we could have used your voices, we didn't hear them. When we could have
used your voices, for example, earlier this year to try to achieve
savings in the expenditures on oil and gas, when people go to the pump
and they're paying record amounts, when we wanted to try to take that
and invest it in the country's future instead of investing it in oil
company profits, the friends in the minority here tonight had nothing
to say. None of them were on their feet saying, yes, this is the time
where we must cut corporate welfare because we can't afford it. Let's
cut it 1 percent across the board.
When our seniors are trying to buy medicine and can't afford it and
we take action here to bring down the cost of that medicine and save
the government money because we're living in a finite world, did our
friends stand up and say, yes, we have to be fiscally responsible? We
have to try to help those families who are working, both heads of
household, and can't afford medicine, or those seniors who can't afford
medicine, so we're going to stand up for them; we're going to cut those
corporate subsidies and corporate welfare? No. They were silent. It's
only when it comes to cutting homeless assistance, cutting assistance
for the elderly, and even cutting support for additional safety
inspections for aircraft that our friends in the minority here tonight
are willing to stand up.
So, yes, there is great philosophical difference here tonight between
the bipartisan majority that believes we have to invest in the future
of this country, between the bipartisan majority that doesn't think a
parent should have to decide which child can go to college and which
child can't, not based on the merit of that child, not based on the
academic ability of that child or the gifts of those children, but
because they can't afford to send both children to college.
There is a philosophical difference between the bipartisan majority
that says that is unacceptable in America, that is not the America we
want to see in our future, and the philosophical views of the minority
here tonight that say that's fine with us. We won't look elsewhere. We
are willing to balance the budget on the backs of our kids and their
kids, the homeless, the elderly and the others. Just stay away from
corporate welfare because that is untouchable.
That is not the philosophy of the majority of this House. It will not
carry the day when this amendment comes to a vote.
I urge my colleagues to join with the bipartisan majority and defeat
these cuts to these vital services, and also to step up to the plate
when we have the opportunities to reduce corporate welfare so that we
can finance these essential services to let their voices be heard.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. 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 gentlewoman from Colorado
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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. Price of Georgia:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 410. None of the funds made available in this Act for
the mortgage insurance programs under title II of the
National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) may be used for
any housing trust fund established under title II of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
12721 et seq.).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would urge my colleagues to take a clear look
at this commonsense amendment.
This is an amendment that addresses an area of the bill. The
underlying bill itself, this appropriations bill, allows for money to
be placed in a slush fund that would be used essentially for political
purposes.
So, Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this commonsense amendment that
would prohibit the FHA from diverting money to help fund a ``housing
trust fund.'' This name for this is actually part of the Orwellian
democracy that I've talked about extensively with this new majority.
{time} 2030
Because it really isn't a housing trust fund. It is a fund that is
wholly unnecessary and wholly political.
This amendment would shield middle-class homeowners from the new
majority's desire to fund a new expansion of government-built housing;
again, with completely political paybacks. HUD already has a number of
programs, a number of programs, Market-to-Market, the American Dream
Downpayment Initiative, which are aimed at preserving existing
affordable housing and expanding affordable homeownership.
The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, also administered by
Housing and Urban Development, is the largest Federal block grant to
State and local governments. It is dedicated exclusively to creating
new affordable housing to low-income households.
The new Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is pending funding in this
bill derives part of its funding from skimming money, and a lot of it,
from FHA mortgage premiums and creates another mechanism which forces
the Federal Government into the home-building business and with
political nuances to it all.
As Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner of
the United States, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Mr.
Brian Montgomery, pointed out at a recent hearing before the House
Committee on Financial Services, FHA receipts are already credited
toward HUD appropriations. As a result, any new program, any new
program, like this one, takes that revenue at the expense of the
previous HUD programs that I mentioned earlier. As Mr. Montgomery
testified, we will be ``robbing Peter to pay Paul.'' Now, why would we
do this? Well, we would do it, I guess, because the majority party
desires to have political direction over that money.
Mr. Chairman, is there any doubt that the provisions of the FHA
modernization bill will create an incentive for FHA to charge higher
premiums than is safe or prudent given that incentive? Pressure to hit
certain revenue targets will cause a dramatic departure from today's
environment where the FHA is able to work to ensure that low-income and
first-time homebuyers are being charged the lowest possible premium. It
will be those borrowers who pay the cost of this new housing trust
fund, those least able to afford it, and likely those least able to
desire any activity that smacks of the political cronyism that this
slush fund would bring about.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to take a serious and prudent look
at this commonsense amendment. I believe it is something that the
entire House should be able to embrace. I hope they will support the
amendment.
[[Page H8373]]
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. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The gentleman
from Georgia is attempting to renew an authorizing fight, which is only
a matter of days old, on the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill, and
that is not the appropriate way to handle the question of the
affordable housing trust.
Our capable authorizers, the chairman of the Financial Services
Committee Mr. Frank, and the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee of
that committee Ms. Waters, have included an Affordable Housing Trust
Fund in their FHA reform bill. That bill was passed by the House last
week or 2 weeks ago. I forget which week it was.
Clearly there is a need for more affordable housing in this country.
The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University has
documented that from 1993 to the year 2003 alone, we have lost 1.2
million affordable units. It is also documented that we have some 8
million households in this country who have incomes below 30 percent of
the adjusted median income in their area. Those households all fall
within the lowest, most vulnerable category of people who are eligible
for assistance under the Housing and Urban Development Department. We
are only providing somewhere in the total of 2.5- to 3 million units
for all of that 8 million people and households who are falling within
that very low-income category. However, we don't intend to step on the
turf of our authorizing committee by renewing the fight about that
bill, which passed, as I said, just a few days ago, on this bill
tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those comments. I
understand the lack of desire on the part of the appropriators to get
into the business of the authorizers, but that is the way the system
works here. One committee will authorize, and then the Appropriations
Committee comes along and determines whether or not there ought to be
money.
What this amendment says is that this House ought to say no, we ought
not put money into a slush fund, into a housing slush fund that
actually takes money away from programs that are demonstrated to have
had excellent results, Market-to-Market, the American Dream Downpayment
Initiative, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
This slush fund will take money away from those programs that have
been very, very helpful to individuals across this Nation, low-income
individuals across this Nation, who are trying to get into a home. What
it will do is substitute it with a slush fund that will be used for
political purposes. There is no doubt about it. So it doesn't surprise
me, I guess, that the majority party would oppose this amendment.
But I would ask my colleagues on both sides, Republicans and
Democrats, to clearly look at this amendment and appreciate that none
of us, none of us, ought be using this kind of money, the kind of money
that allows low-income Americans to get into their home and have the
American dream, realize the American dream, but to do so with political
slush fund money. It just isn't appropriate. It is just not right.
So I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at this amendment and
support the 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 Georgia (Mr. Price).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. 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 Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Walberg
Mr. WALBERG. 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. Walberg:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used by the Department of Transportation to promulgate
regulations based on race, ethnicity, or sex.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to pose an
important question to this House, and that question is this: Do we
really need race, ethnic or gender-based preferences for roads?
Today I am offering an amendment to the transportation bill we are
currently debating that would stipulate no funding in this bill may be
used by the Department of Transportation to discriminate based on race,
ethnicity or sex.
Though this policy may be motivated by good intention, I agree with
Justice Clarence Thomas about the DOT's affirmative action programs
where he states, ``The paternalism that appears to lie at the heart of
this program is at war with the principle of inherent equality that
underlies and infuses our Constitution.''
Last fall in my home State, Michiganders voted overwhelmingly, 58
percent to 42 percent, in favor of amending our State constitution to
outlaw racial preferences in public education, employment and
contracting. Like my constituents in south-central Michigan, I oppose
any and all forms of discrimination. But I also support
nondiscrimination, the practice or policy of refraining from
discrimination.
My support of nondiscrimination compels me to state on this floor
that every American deserves equal treatment when competing for
business contracts, and our Federal Government should treat all
applicants for such contracts on an equal basis. The Federal Government
should never view any American as part of a group, but rather look at
them as an individual. By granting the Department of Transportation the
ability to discriminate based on race or sex, this House would
essentially create affirmative action preferences for our Nation's
highways.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and ensure that all
American businesses competing for public works projects are given a
fair, nondiscriminatory opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to go further
on it. I think it is rather self-explanatory that we are talking here
of just assuring the practice that we don't commit discrimination in
the process of our hiring and contracting practices.
We in the State of Michigan labored long and hard during the last
election cycle, from both sides, to indicate what value there was in
making sure that under the context of our Constitution and the laws
that have been put in place to enforce that Constitution, that we are
each given rights to benefit from those unalienable rights, namely the
right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or property. If we
were to bridge that with any discriminatory practice, we take that away
from one, and we can take it away from all.
For that purpose, this amendment is offered. I would appreciate the
support of my colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am almost speechless with the fact that
this very simple amendment has not been challenged aggressively yet. It
is a straightforward amendment. As I said very clearly and sincerely,
not only am I opposed to discrimination, I am also strongly supportive
of nondiscrimination. For that reason and
[[Page H8374]]
that reason alone, I ask that this amendment be adopted by my
colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my esteemed colleague if he
has any speakers prepared to draw attention to this amendment?
Otherwise, I think that we ought to close with acceptance of this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle come together in unity on this and accept this
proposal that seeks to provide that we don't have discriminatory
practices that go on within our Department of Transportation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 2045
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Either this is not a serious amendment or it is an exceedingly
serious amendment. This amendment is either totally unnecessary or it
has a really nefarious purpose. We do have rules and regulations, I
think, that might come under the material of the legislation that
support and require certain set-asides for minority or women-owned
businesses in providing among all of our contracting in transportation
departments, in some of those departments, and under certain
circumstances. I think those are entirely appropriate.
I don't know whether this is the sort of thing that the gentleman was
trying to get at, but I think that this has some entirely unknown
effects. Perhaps I should have asked the gentleman whether he had
particular things in mind that he knew about because I couldn't at
first think of any.
Mr. Chairman, my chairman says I should accept the amendment, and I
am going to accept the 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 Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
The amendment was agreed to.
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 Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for a
colloquy.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a
colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee. The chairman has been a
long-time advocate in improving safety standards in our Nation's
transportation system. I appreciate his willingness to include report
language regarding occupant ejection and motor coach and school bus
standards in this legislation.
In March, a horrific accident occurred in my district when a bus
carrying the Bluffton University men's baseball team crashed on
Interstate 75 in Atlanta, Georgia, en route to a tournament in Florida.
Six people were killed and 29 others were injured.
That week, Dr. Jeffrey Solomone from Grady Hospital's trauma center,
where most of the victims were treated in Atlanta, called my office
outraged. He knew that their deaths could have been prevented if they
were simply wearing seat belts. Imagine working to save young lives
when you knew their injuries were caused not from impact but from being
thrown from the vehicle.
Last year, two teenage girls were killed in a similar accident in
Beaumont, Texas. Advocates and family members accurately highlighted
that the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration develop a safety
standard in 1999.
In 2005, the SAFETEA-LU legislation reiterated this request and
called for a national standard to be developed no later than October 1,
2009. I applaud the committee for demanding a status report on these
standards. Simply said, it should not take 10 years to figure out a way
to save lives. How much longer must we wait until a simple regulation
is developed?
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman from Georgia
that this and other important safety standards are the utmost priority
of the committee, as they have been all of the years I have served on,
earlier, the Transportation Subcommittee and now the Transportation and
Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee.
Occupant ejection prevention is critical to saving lives. Motor coach
and school bus accidents are not necessarily commonplace, but when
these tragedies occur, they shake the Nation to its core. The committee
highlighted that motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death for
young Americans, and strong safety standards are the cornerstone to
protecting American lives.
I appreciate the gentleman's attention to this issue, and I remain
committed, as will the committee, to ensuring that NHTSA meets this and
subsequent deadlines to develop national standards that save lives in
an expeditious manner.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I look forward to continuing to work with the
gentleman to make sure that we do not have to wait until the last
possible moment in 2009 for changes to be made.
I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and his staff for
working so hard on this legislation and making a commitment to safety
and security on America's roads.
Mr. OLVER. I would just comment it should be possible to get out this
kind of regulation earlier than October 1, 2009. We will see what we
can do about that.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue the colloquy with the
gentleman from Georgia on an additional subject, and I continue to
yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor to compliment
the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr.
Olver, on preparing an excellent and well-balanced appropriation bill.
The large number of important priorities included in this bill create
difficult choices, and the chairman has done an excellent job balancing
the competing interests and preparing a good bill for consideration in
the full House.
As the co-Chair of the House COPD Caucus, I want to speak about one
item that falls under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, and that is
the implementation of the 1986 Air Carrier Access Act. This act was
intended to protect individuals with disabilities who fly on commercial
air carriers from discriminating practices. The legislation has done a
reasonably good job of protecting most passengers.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts 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. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I thank the chairman for yielding.
While the legislation has done a reasonably good job of protecting
most passengers with disabilities, it has had limited success in
influencing air carriers to accommodate the needs of disabled
individuals who require supplemental oxygen.
Currently, as an example, air carriers have the authority to allow or
disallow the use of portable oxygen systems aboard their planes even
when the Department of Transportation and the FAA find that the systems
are safe. This leaves the use of oxygen systems supplied by the
carrier. Potential layovers and delays between flights are an
additional health risk and barrier to access to air flight.
In September 2005, the Department of Transportation recognized this
problem and issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to clarify this
situation to assist the flying public who are in need of assisted
breathing devices.
Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor to commend the Department of
Transportation for recognizing the problem and for issuing this
proposed rule. The final rule will provide uniform standards that will
allow passengers to carry
[[Page H8375]]
their FAA-approved devices onboard. I ask the chairman to work with me
to encourage the FAA to issue a rule expeditiously.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. OLVER. In answer, I thank the Congressman from Georgia for
bringing this issue to my attention, to our attention. I am sure that
the Department will consider all valid points of view in this process,
and I stand committed to making certain that the Department issues its
final rule as you've suggested in an expeditious manner in the very
near term.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I thank the chairman.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. 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. King of Iowa:
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 provide homeownership assistance for applicants
described in 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) to know if he would not speak on the matter, I am quite willing
to accept the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the offer of the
chairman. I wonder if he might concede to a 15-second blurb here in
order to get a couple of words into the Record. I appreciate the
incentive and the concession.
This amendment simply says none of the funds shall be used to hire
people who are not legal and eligible to work within the United States.
That's it. I think we have a consensus on this.
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. This amendment is merely a restatement of current law
which already prohibits the employment of unauthorized aliens. I do not
read it as imposing any new burden on those who use funds appropriated
under this act. Rather, it is fully consistent with the current legal
obligations imposed on all homeownership assistance applicants
regardless of whether or not they use such funds.
I accept the amendment and yield back.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
acceptance of the 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 Iowa (Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. 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. King of Iowa:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 410. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
employ workers described in section 274A(h)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This amendment follows through on the theme of the previous
amendment, only it addresses that no homeownership assistance will be
applicable to those who aren't legal to work or lawfully present in the
United States. Again, it is a simple concept. It supports current law.
Mr. OLVER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I am happy to yield.
Mr. OLVER. As far as I can see, the amendment is essentially the
same. It is based on exactly the same citation in the U.S. Code but has
a different target. But again, the amendment is merely a restatement of
current law which already prohibits the employment of unauthorized
aliens. So again, the rest of my previous statement applies, and I am
willing to accept the amendment if the ranking member is also willing
to do so.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the chairman for his comments. I urge
adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I accept the amendment as well.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 2100
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. 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. King of Iowa:
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 may be used to implement the provisions of
subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code
(relating to wage rate requirements; commonly known as the
Davis-Bacon Act).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that strikes
the requirements for the Davis-Bacon Act within the appropriations of
this bill, and the Davis-Bacon issue is something that I have lived
with for at least my 28 years in the construction business as an owner
and operator, and we'd add about four or five more years as an
employee.
I have received Davis-Bacon wage scales. I've paid Davis-Bacon wage
scales. I've managed my way through the combination of paperwork and
requirements that are part of this. I'm maybe the only one in Congress
who has real hands-on experience for years of dealing with the
additional costs that are involved with the Federal wage scale that's
Davis-Bacon.
And my numbers throughout my history of working with these projects
vary from anywhere from 8 percent increase in the cost of the projects
up to 35 percent increase in the cost of the projects. I round that
down to a round number of 20 percent additional costs.
We're in a situation where we're arguing that we need to bring in
more labor from foreign countries to do this work, and yet we're
setting a Federal wage scale for this work, and we know that labor is
developed by supply and demand. I am a supporter of labor being able to
collectively negotiate the value of their work, but I'm not a supporter
of the Federal Government telling the workers and the employers what
they need to pay their employees.
I believe that if two adult individuals want to enter into a
contractual agreement, they should be able to do so without
interference of the Federal Government. This is not a prevailing wage
in practice. It's only a prevailing wage by statute. Actually, it is
union scale imposed upon wherever the money is spent.
Any construction project with $2,000 or more in it takes the
inflationary cost of a Davis-Bacon wage scale. Some places, it's
actually below the prevailing wage. Other places, it distorts that
prevailing wage dramatically. In almost all cases, it costs a lot of
money, and for example, if it's a 20 percent increase, then if you can
build five projects or 5 miles of road, this will let you build six.
Why would we limit the resource and the infrastructure that we are
building with this project by imposing such a draconian, top-down,
[[Page H8376]]
Federal management tool that not only costs a lot more money, but it
makes it a lot, lot harder to manage your projects?
So with that, 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, I rise to oppose the amendment.
The amendment would eliminate the requirement that the funding
provided in this bill comply with the prevailing wage requirements of
the Davis-Bacon Act.
Let me remind my colleagues that the Davis-Bacon law was enacted
about 75 years ago by a Republican Congress and a Republican
administration.
The law sets minimum labor standards for workers employed in Federal
contract construction and ensures that workers are paid at least the
locally prevailing wage. There's no good reason for denying prevailing
wage protection to workers involved in transportation. This is an issue
of fairness for working men and women.
Without Davis-Bacon, the transportation construction industry, which
is responsible for building our highways and transit systems, might
suffer from low-bid firms that aim to undercut local wages and perform
construction on the cheap.
Davis-Bacon encourages a higher quality of workmanship, and we should
not do away with the law for transportation construction where we need
the highest quality and the longest lasting workmanship.
I urge a rejection of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of
time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise as one, again, who has worked
on union shop and merit shop jobs, both as an employer and as an
employee. As an employer, having been a union shop, I have paid union
scale and also, of course, prevailing wage, Davis-Bacon wage scale.
I've worked under a union shop, and I've worked on a merit based, and
to look at the difference in the workmanship, I don't think we can
apply high quality strictly to union. In fact, merit shop employees do
a fantastic job with the work that they're doing, and they take pride
in it, and they have to compete in the competition of the project.
My son's now in the construction business, the second generation King
Construction. I know the decisions he has to make, and sometimes he
will pick up a set of plans and take a look at that and figure on
bidding that project and find out that it's a Davis-Bacon wage scale.
He understands that that messes up his flow of his employees, and it
limits his ability to manage those employees on the job.
For example, if you're paying an excavator operator $24 an hour and
you're paying your laborer on the ground with a shovel or a grease gun
let's say $10, that man is not going to get off of that excavator and
pick up that grease gun or pick up that shovel, even if it's for a half
hour or an hour if he knows he's going to be paid union scale for that
when he could be paid the $24 an hour to sit on the machine. Those
things work against our efficiency.
My greatest frustration with Davis-Bacon wage scale is not the wage
itself. It's that it takes away my ability to manage a project and my
ability to provide incentives for employees to make decisions
themselves on the ground.
I have to manage them more when they're under a Davis-Bacon wage
scale. I have to tell them what to do. I know people that are owners
and operators of their company who get up in the morning and go out to
the job at five o'clock to grease and service their machines because
they can't afford to pay their operator to get out the grease gun and
do it, and they'll be there at night, too, working 16 hours a day while
that employee is at 8 hours a day on a Davis-Bacon wage scale.
It distorts the work we do. It distorts the skills and the complement
of the skills, and it raises the cost of everything that we do in the
construction business. It injects the Federal Government in the way
between that relationship between an employer and employee.
Additionally, my employees have received 12 months of work, not
seasonal work, health insurance benefits and vacation pay, all of that
flowing because we can pay them what they're worth for a week's work as
opposed to an inflated value of what they're worth for an hour's work.
They make out better, we make out better, and we've got more consistent
employees. That goes across this country almost universally.
So I would urge adoption of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KING of Iowa. 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 Iowa will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway
Mr. CONAWAY. 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. Conaway:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. It is the sense of the House of Representatives
that any reduction in the amount appropriated by this Act
achieved as a result of amendments adopted by the House
should be dedicated to deficit reduction.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts reserves a
point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Conaway) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity tonight to point
out one more time one of the quirks of the rules that we operate under.
We have heard over the last 2 days many of my colleagues come to
these microphones and propose reductions in spending in this particular
area of the Federal budget, very eloquent, very passioned, to try to
reduce this spending.
But the harsh reality is, should any of those amendments have passed
or should any of the ones that we're about to vote on pass, the reality
is that that spending does not, in fact, get cut out of this budget.
This spending would simply be spent in conference and would not reduce
the deficit or, should we ever get to that point, increase the surplus.
So my amendment would simply state the sense that instead of
continuing the practice, the age-old practice of spending whatever is
in 302(b) allocation, whether it's warranted or not, we would actually
take an opportunity to reduce spending which I think folks on both
sides of the aisle, many people on both sides of the aisle would say is
arguably one of the things that we ought to be doing and studying.
This is not a revolutionary position to take, but it's one in which I
think it makes sense. Most folks in Texas in District 11 would clearly
understand the intent of what I'm trying to do. In fact, it would come
as a shock to them to know that if we found 218 votes to adopt the 1
percent cut or the half a percent cut or the 25-basis point cut, that
all of that hard work would be for naught and that that money would
still get spent.
So I understand there's a point of order that lies against this. I
will not push for a ruling from the Chair. I just wanted to simply take
the opportunity tonight to point out to my colleagues that we need to
change the rules. We need to change the way we operate in this House,
and this would be one of those that we ought to seriously consider
doing so that the will of the House could operate to actually change
spending if that were, in fact, the case.
[[Page H8377]]
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to say this tonight,
and I will not push the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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 Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amount otherwise provided in this Act for
``Grants-in-Aid for Airports'' administered by the Federal
Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation
is hereby decreased by $10,000,000 and increased by
$10,000,000.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished
chairman and I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and
the ranking member of the subcommittee. Let me thank both of the
individuals, the chairperson, Mr. Olver, and the ranking member, Mr.
Knollenberg, for their leadership. I thank you so very much.
We've worked on this issue in the past, and I think many of us are
aware of the surrounding neighborhoods around large airports, and I
know that as Members of Congress we have been challenged by that
because we recognize that the vitality of airports certainly support
the economy of our cities.
I happen to represent a very large airport in Houston, Texas, and I
also represent the neighborhoods that surround it. At this time, of
course, we are working on a number of noise studies in our area, and it
is a continuing journey as our airport continues to expand. Sometimes
it takes money but sometimes it takes policy.
We recognize that one of the advantages of modern life is the
convenience of air travel. America's air transportation system is the
best and safest in the world, but airports are not quiet. If you ask
any resident that lives near a busy airport, you will hear many
grievances about the noise level.
Although there is no way to make airports soundproof, it is possible
to reduce airport noise so it is less disruptive to the lives of the
families that live near some of the Nation's busiest airports who work
and pay their taxes.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to encourage the Federal
Aviation Administration to be more proactive in helping communities
reduce, eliminate or cope with the ever increasing levels of airport
noise.
Specifically, I call upon the FAA to undertake a nationwide study of
airport mitigation problems and best practices at the 10 busiest
airports in America and report its findings, along with recommendations
to address major problems found to be existing, to the Congress within
180 days.
{time} 2115
Under the airport improvement program administered by the FAA, grants
are available to airports and local governments to fund noise reduction
projects located in areas significantly affected by airport noise above
65 decibels over a 24-hour average, as indicated by the notation 65
dB(A) DNL. Noise mitigation grants are generally not available for
areas in which the noise level may be substantial, but does not exceed
65.
Please, all of you, join me in those surrounding neighborhoods, and
try to be able to resolve or to be able to accept the noise at that
level. Therefore, money does not solve the problem; policy does. So we
would like to ensure that we have the real information opportunity to
determine the impact, substantial impacts that occurred to millions of
people well below the 65 decibel level.
Information generates policy. This value is inadequate for several
reasons. We find from the scientific perspective, it is not supported
by research. The 65 decibel level is derived from the Schultz curve,
which correlated people reporting being highly annoyed by noise with
noise levels. Substantial impact occurs well before people become
highly annoyed. In addition, the data used in the Schultz curve for
airports show that highly annoyed occurs around 57 decibels, not 65.
That comes from the Journal of Acoustical Society of America.
The EPA has identified 55 dB(A) DNL as a more appropriate noise
level. The day-night average sound level is the level of noise
expressed in decibels as a 24-hour average, and averages do not
adequately account for the impact of aircraft noise on individuals.
Research has shown that the noise disruption as low as 55 decibels
can negatively affect communities near airports. Our airports are
trying. In my own district, we have had several meetings. I know that
this issue is a concern, because we have addressed this question in
airports and cities around the Nation, including the State of
Minnesota.
It is important to stress that this amendment does not entitle any
airport, local government or other eligible entity, to receive a noise
mitigation grant, nor does it have any financial impact that reduces
funding in noise mitigation. This amendment provides for an opportunity
for focusing on the issue of noise mitigation and the difficulty of
using a singular number, 65, while communities around the Nation
suffer.
We are going to continue to pursue this. We have done this every year
to bring attention to this problem of noise mitigation and the fact
that no person who lives in and around an airport acknowledges the fact
that the airport is not important, but what we are trying to emphasize
is that we must provide solace for those who live surrounding airports.
I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, sometimes it takes money, but sometimes it takes
policy. We recognize that one of the advantages of modern life is the
convenience of air travel. America's air transportation system is the
best and safest in the world, but airports are not quiet. If you ask
any resident that lives near a busy airport, you will hear many
grievances about the noise level.
Although there is no way to make airports soundproof, it is possible
to reduce airport noise so it is less disruptive to the lives of the
families that live near some of the Nation's busiest airports, work and
pay their taxes.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to encourage the Federal
Aviation Administration to be more proactive in helping communities
reduce, eliminate, or cope with ever-increasing levels of airport
noise. Specifically, I call upon the FAA to undertake a nationwide
study of airport noise mitigation problems and best practices at the 10
busiest airports in America and report its findings, along with
recommendations to address major problems found, to the Congress within
180 days.
Mr. Chairman, under the Airport Improvement Program administered by
the FAA, grants are available to airports and local governments to fund
noise reduction projects located in areas significantly affected by
airport noise above 65 decibels over a 24-hour average, as indicated by
the notation 65 dB(A) DNL. Noise mitigation grants are generally not
available for areas in which the noise level may be substantial but
does not exceed the 65 dB(A) DNL. Thereby money does not solve the
problem; policy does.
However, substantial impacts occur to millions of people well below
the 65 decibel level. This value is inadequate for several reasons:
From a scientific perspective, it is not supported by research. The
65 decibel level is derived from the Schultz Curve which correlated
people reporting being highly annoyed by noise with noise levels.
Substantial impact occurs well before people become highly annoyed.
In addition, the data used in the Schultz Curve for airports shows that
``highly annoyed'' occurs around 57 decibels, not 65, and that comes
from a Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
The EPA has identified 55 dB(A) DNL as a more appropriate noise
level. The day/night average sound level is the level of noise
expressed in decibels as a 24-hour average, and averages do not
adequately account for the impacts of aircraft noise on individuals.
Research has shown that noise disruption as low as 55 decibels can
negatively affect communities near airports. Unfortunately, communities
that have a dB(A) less than 65 are precluded from applying for an
Airport Improvement Program grant to reduce airport noise. We need to
help them. I have even
[[Page H8378]]
heard from cities in Minnesota. It is all over the country.
It is important to stress that this amendment does not entitle any
airport, local government or other eligible entity to receive a noise
mitigation grant. Nor does it have any financial impact. This amendment
does not even affect an applicant's eligibility to be considered for an
airport noise reduction grant. Each applicant must demonstrate that its
proposed project deserves to be funded, but no applicant can be
disqualified from consideration merely because the area covered by the
grant request does not have a dB(A) DNL greater than 65.
Mr. Chairman, communities coexisting with major airports is one of
the great challenges of modern life. My amendment is intended to help
us rise to that challenge.
I urge all members to support my 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 too am concerned about the environmental
impact of aviation. Noise is a very serious issue and impossible to
solve to the satisfaction of all. Although new technologies and planes
and air space redesign will assist in the noise problem with the number
of passengers projected in the near future, noise will continue to be a
problem.
I commend the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to our attention,
as she has time after time. As I say, it will continue to be a problem.
I am willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the amendment
as well.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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 Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used in violation of section 8 of the National Labor
Relations Act of 1935, with respect to workers on federally-
funded transportation projects.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the two subcommittee Chairs. Might
I just for a moment thank them for a bill that is enormously
challenging, transportation and housing.
I want to thank the staff for their very hard work and the commitment
that this particular bill has in place as it relates to the Treasury
and other agencies. Let me acknowledge the importance of hard work as
well.
Mr. Chairman, we can't do without the workers that provide the engine
of our economy. If we are to appreciate workers, I think it is
extremely important that we do not have outside forces that would, in
fact, take away from the dignity and the responsibility to the American
worker; and that's what my amendment is about.
It is a very simple amendment. It is sometimes fashionable to speak
ill about working Americans who are in unions. This amendment simply
provides support for union workers on federally funded projects, simple
without any additions to it. It is to reinforce the importance of that
work and to reinforce the importance of those workers.
I believe that the engine of America is fused by American workers,
and many of them are both union and nonunion workers. I stand today to
affirm all workers. My amendment simply asks that those Federal funds
that are utilized, nothing is done in the federally funded project to
undermine America's workers.
I believe that we have had a long history of the American labor
movement. It was started by a group of dreamers who simply believed
that we should have the best working atmosphere for America's workers.
Employees represented by free and democratic unions of their own
choosing participate actively in determining their wages, hours and
working conditions.
Their living standards are the highest in the world. Their job rights
are protected by collective bargaining. They have fringe benefits that
were unheard of less than a generation ago.
I know that the support of these workers is bipartisan. I ask my
colleagues to join me in a very simple amendment that ensures that
these projects that are federally funded comply with the law, simply
comply with the law, and do not undermine the working people of
America.
I ask my colleagues to support working people, working people of
America, as we issue Federal funds so that they can be protected.
My amendment is simple but makes an important contribution to the
legislation. My amendment simply provides that none of the funds made
available in this appropriations bill shall be used in a manner
inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act.
Mr. Chairman, I know it is fashionable today to disparage, downplay,
or minimize the importance of organized labor to our country. That is
easy to do but it would be wrong. In the post 9-11 age, where our
transportation systems and infrastructure have been demonstrated to be
targets of those who would do us harm, it is more important than ever
that those who work in the transportation sectors are the best, most
able, most professional, most experienced, and committed workers this
nation has to offer. To do otherwise would put the security of our
nation at risk.
Mr. Chairman, those who would destroy or further limit the rights of
organized labor--those who would cripple collective bargaining or
prevent organization of the unorganized--do a disservice to the cause
of democracy.
Fifty years or so ago the American Labor Movement was little more
than a group of dreamers, and look at it now. From coast to coast, in
factories, stores, warehouse and business establishments of all kinds,
industrial democracy is at work.
Employees, represented by free and democratic trade unions of their
own choosing, participate actively in determining their wages, hours
and working conditions. Their living standards are the highest in the
world. Their job rights are protected by collective bargaining
agreements. They have fringe benefits that were unheard of less than a
generation ago.
Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have
raised wages, shortened hours and provided supplemental benefits.
Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, they have
brought justice and democracy to the shop floor. But their work goes
beyond their own jobs, and even beyond our borders.
Our unions have fought for aid to education, for better housing, for
development of our national resources, and for saving the family-sized
farms. They have spoken, not for narrow self-interest, but for the
public interest and for the people.
Mr. Chairman, unions are as important as they ever were--because
corporations are just as dedicated to their bottom line, regardless of
the consequences for workers. The nature of work in America is
changing. Employers are trying to shed responsibilities--for providing
health insurance, good pension coverage, reasonable work hours and job
safety protections, for example--while making workers' jobs and incomes
less secure through downsizing, part- timing and contracting out.
Working people need a voice at work to keep employers from making our
jobs look like they did 100 years ago, with sweatshop conditions,
unlivable wages and 70-hour workweeks.
In my hometown of Houston, I know firsthand the commitment,
dedication, and professionalism of organized transit workers employed
by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO). These
workers are making the transportation system of Houston one of the best
in the nation. Accordingly, I want to take this opportunity to extol
their accomplishments and to express my commitment to the protection of
their hard won right to engage in and enjoy the benefits of collective
bargaining. I think most of my colleagues can agree that these hard won
rights should not be taken away or undermined, and my amendment
reaffirms this proposition.
And lest we forget, Mr. Chairman, it was the men and women of
organized labor who rushed into the burning World Trade Center Towers
when others were rushing out. The men and women of organized labor put
their lives on the line for their fellow Americans every day. They do
not ask for much. All they ask is to be treated with respect and
dignity. They want what we all want: to do their jobs and to make a
better life for their families.
[[Page H8379]]
The least we in the Congress can do, Mr. Chairman, is to go on record
in support of our working men and women in the vitally important
transportation industries of our country. We can and should affirm that
none of the funds made available in this appropriations bill shall be
used in a manner that undercuts the hard won rights of American workers
that are reflected in the National Labor Relations Act and other
important federal labor laws.
I urge all members to support my amendment.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, as I reflect on what the Labor
Relations Act of 1935 means, it says specifically in the act that there
will be no discrimination with regard to hire or tenure of employment
or any term or condition of employment by membership in any labor
organization, et cetera, and essentially says, by my recollection, that
no one shall be coerced into joining a union, nor shall they be
discouraged from joining a union.
It's a balanced labor relations act that's there, but the statement
that was made by the gentlelady from Texas said it provides for a
report for projects on federally funded projects. I don't know where
that might exist in the statute.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas for a question. I
noticed in your remarks your amendment provides for a report for union
workers on federally funded projects. I don't recognize where that
might be in the 1935 act, and I am wondering, since I don't see it in
your amendment, what the basis of that might be.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think you might have misheard me. I think
I indicated that in the past amendment I asked for a report from the
FAA.
My concern here is simply a statement of affirmation that federally
funded projects protect the workers that are on those projects and
protect those who may be associated with the union. I don't believe
that we asked for a study.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady from
Texas. I did happen to write that quote down verbatim, I am confident.
We have a lot of debate here on the floor. Some of us offered more
than one amendment. I would simply thank the gentlelady for that
statement.
I, for myself, we have the law on the books, and this law is a
neutral law. It's not one that promotes union labor, and it's not one
that promotes nonunion labor. It's one that promotes the freedom and
the discretion of the employee to make that decision.
It does allow for union members to approach workers on the job.
That's a protection that's in there, but it also allows the freedom for
those workers to make the decision as to whether they would want to
collectively bargain or not based upon a vote within that workforce.
Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. KING of Iowa. 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 such time as is needed by the gentlewoman to
finish the explanation of her amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am grateful that the gentleman from Iowa
raised the question, if you would, because I do want to reinforce what
the amendment says.
The amendment specifically says, with respect to workers on federally
funded transportation projects. So your sensitivity is clarified by the
amendment.
As I indicated in my remarks, I am affirming all workers, labor and
union and nonunion. It is a generic term. I want to make sure that we
treat workers on federally funded projects fairly and balanced, and
that they are not diminished if they are on federally funded projects.
We have many individuals who work after the project is finished, and I
want to make sure that they are protected as well, union and nonunion.
The amendment is simply a straightforward affirmation of the
protection of workers on federally funded transportation projects.
With that in mind, I would ask my colleagues to affirm the importance
of protecting workers on federally funded transportation projects,
under section A of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
With that, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I
thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would hope that my colleagues
would see this as an affirming amendment of all American workers.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from
Texas for that clarification. I listened carefully to the presentation,
and the clarification comes now that it is union and nonunion workers
protected equally alike, on balance, between union and merit shop
employees.
The advocacy here is for current law.
Now, as we have made this clarification into this record, I
appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my opposition to the amendment and
congratulate the gentlelady from Texas. I appreciate her patience.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 2130
Amendments En Bloc Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that I
would like to subsequently withdraw. I would like them taken en bloc.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendments will be
considered en bloc.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the
amendments.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments en bloc offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
At the end of the bill before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to prohibit transportation workers from having walkie
talkies, two-way radios, or any other handheld communication
device.
____
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 limit the use of any available technology in
the development of modular or manufactured temporary disaster
housing.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the en bloc
amendments.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts reserves a
point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. It is my intent to withdraw both of these
amendments, and I will just briefly describe my intent to continue to
work with authorizers on these two very vital points.
We have firsthand experience with the tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita, and many of the constituents in my congressional district are
alumni of trailers, the same trailers that have proved to be dangerous
and unhelpful and unuseful. I hope that we will continue to work with
the relevant agencies to look at alternative technology for housing so
that in our future disasters, we can be able to work effectively. There
has been effective legislation moving on this issue, and I know that
the many constituents that are impacted by poor housing will welcome
this Congress continuing to work on that particular issue.
I move quickly to the question of security and safety on the question
of transportation workers who drive a number of transportation vehicles
throughout America. In many instances, in my own hometown of Houston,
these very transportation workers, particularly bus drivers, do not
have the necessary safety equipment such as walkie-talkies, such as
two-way radios, such as other handheld communication devices. I will
look forward to working with the appropriate committees to address the
question of these particular workers who are begging for relief. A
recent tragedy in Houston with an assault on a bus driver brought this
particular issue to a head. We look forward to working with the various
committee Chairs on trying to bring some
[[Page H8380]]
response to those transportation workers across America driving
transportation vehicles.
I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the two amendments that have
been placed pending on the record, to withdraw both amendments.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the en bloc amendments are
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. Mr. Chairman, earlier today during the consideration of
H.R. 3074, this body considered an amendment from Mr. Frank and Mr.
Rangel, providing that no funds in this act may be used to implement
the community service requirement of public housing residents. At that
time I accepted the amendment, as did the ranking member Mr.
Knollenberg, and the amendment was adopted by a voice vote. At the
behest of the Republican leadership, I intend to ask unanimous consent
to vacate that vote and have a recorded vote.
At this point I yield time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) to explain what this amendment did, since at that earlier time I
had wheedled him out of his time by accepting the amendment in the
first place, and he needs to explain the amendment.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I will not object to the unanimous consent request. It will forestall
a 15-minute vote and make it a 2-minute vote. And I appreciate the
cooperative spirit from the gentleman of Michigan on this as throughout
he has been cooperative. I understand other decisions get made, but I
did just ask the indulgence of the House because people shouldn't be
voting on something with no explanation.
There was implemented in 1998 in legislation, and I think it was part
of an appropriations bill then, a requirement that everybody who lives
in public housing who is not otherwise fully employed work 8 hours a
month in community service. It is not highly regarded by the people who
run public housing. It costs money to do this. Understand, when a
similar amendment was proposed for the section 8 vouchers, it was
defeated, it authorized the Housing Authority to hire someone to
administer it. This is not work that is terribly useful.
The way the amendment is written, if you were working, and you are
fired or your job ends because of trade or other problems as some
people in public housing and you are unemployed, you then have to do 8
hours a month of make-work. So it is a make-work requirement does
nobody any good, it is based on the assumption that you can't trust
those lazy people in public housing across the board, and it costs
money to administer. So that is why the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel), who has long been a proponent of it, and myself have offered
this amendment.
I thank the gentleman for a chance to explain it.
Mr. OLVER. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the adoption by voice vote
of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) be vacated, to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
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. 22 by Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
An amendment by Mr. Hunter of California.
An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio.
Amendment No. 20 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado.
An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia.
An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
An amendment by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by
Mr. Hensarling
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling) 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 97,
noes 327, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 705]
AYES--97
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Boehner
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Cooper
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Duncan
Feeney
Flake
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gordon
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Ramstad
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Smith (NE)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--327
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
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
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
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
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
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)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
[[Page H8381]]
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)
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
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
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
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)
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
Conyers
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Honda
LaHood
Marshall
Moran (VA)
Radanovich
Young (AK)
{time} 2205
Messrs. HINCHEY, PASCRELL and TANNER changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by
Mr. Hensarling
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hensarling) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 86,
noes 338, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 706]
AYES--86
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Blackburn
Boehner
Boozman
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goode
Graves
Hall (TX)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Issa
Jindal
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McHenry
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Walberg
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wu
NOES--338
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
Bonner
Bono
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
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
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
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
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
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
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
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
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)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--12
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Blunt
Clarke
Conyers
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Honda
LaHood
Marshall
Peterson (PA)
Young (AK)
{time} 2210
Mrs. SCHMIDT changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Hunter) 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 urged
to remain in the Chamber.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 362,
noes 63, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 707]
AYES--362
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
[[Page H8382]]
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
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
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
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
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOES--63
Bean
Berman
Blumenauer
Blunt
Cannon
Capps
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Delahunt
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dreier
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Farr
Filner
Flake
Fortuno
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Harman
Herger
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Johnson, E. B.
Kennedy
Kind
King (NY)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Larsen (WA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lungren, Daniel E.
Markey
McCrery
McDermott
Meeks (NY)
Neal (MA)
Olver
Price (NC)
Rangel
Reichert
Reynolds
Ros-Lehtinen
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Shays
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Tauscher
Towns
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Wasserman Schultz
Weller
NOT VOTING--11
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Gutierrez
Honda
LaHood
Marshall
Stark
Young (AK)
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members have 1 minute
remaining to cast their vote.
{time} 2215
Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. WELCH of Vermont, Ms. WATSON, Ms. DeGETTE, and
Messrs. WEINER, HINOJOSA, and LANTOS changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Jordan) 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 133,
noes 292, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 708]
AYES--133
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
NOES--292
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
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.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
[[Page H8383]]
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
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 (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
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
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
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)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Honda
King (IA)
LaHood
Marshall
Price (NC)
Young (AK)
{time} 2219
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 250, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 709]
AYES--177
Akin
Altmire
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
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
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lampson
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)
NOES--250
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
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)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
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
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
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
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Honda
LaHood
Marshall
Young (AK)
{time} 2224
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado
(Mrs. Musgrave) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198,
noes 229, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 710]
AYES--198
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
[[Page H8384]]
Conaway
Cooper
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lampson
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--229
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
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
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--9
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Honda
LaHood
Marshall
Young (AK)
{time} 2228
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Price) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142,
noes 283, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 711]
AYES--142
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
NOES--283
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
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
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
[[Page H8385]]
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rogers (MI)
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
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Honda
LaHood
Marshall
Walsh (NY)
Whitfield
Young (AK)
{time} 2231
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
King) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148,
noes 278, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 712]
AYES--148
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--278
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
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
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--10
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Honda
LaHood
Marshall
Walsh (NY)
Young (AK)
{time} 2235
Mr. SHUSTER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, please note that I mistakenly voted
``yes'' on amendment 8, the King Amendment, regarding the funding
provisions and the Davis-Bacon Act. I meant to vote ``no'' but voted
``yes.'' It was too late to change the vote. Given the opportunity I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207,
noes 220, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 713]
AYES--207
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
[[Page H8386]]
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
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
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--220
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
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
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Space
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Honda
LaHood
Marshall
Young (AK)
{time} 2239
Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
This Act may be cited as the ``Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2008''.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of
H.R. 3074, the FY08 Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill.
I want to thank Chairman Obey, Chairman Olver, Ranking Member
Knollenberg and the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on
this piece of legislation.
This bill contains vital funding for the Houston METRO's North and
Southeast New Starts projects. The New Starts project will allow METRO
to continue funding implementation of rail and bus rapid transit
portions in the North Corridor Project and the Southeast Corridor
Projects that are in or service our district.
METRO will use this funding for final design, land acquisition and
construction for the North Corridor Project and the Southeast Corridor
Projects.
Houston is the Nation's fourth largest city and the region is
becoming increasingly congested. We have a critical need for a
comprehensive rapid transit system.
The funds that have been allocated for the New Starts Program will
improve mobility and transportation options for my constituents and
benefit the greater Houston area.
This bill also contains funding for an Economic Development
Initiative for the Harris County Community and Economic Department's
Community Transit Study.
This funding will allow HUD to study two areas in our district, the
Northshore area and city of Galena Park, for transit improvements such
as sidewalks, street lights, and transit shelters.
Unfortunately, this bill does not provide funding for several
projects that I strongly support.
These projects are: the Harrisburg Grade Crossing, Texas Department
of Transportation's Design and Construction of Direct Connectors from
Beltway 8 to U.S. 59 North, the city of Baytown's Texas Avenue
Streetscape Program, the Brays Bayou Bike/Pedestrian Bridge at Mason
Park, the Houston Zoo's Enhanced Zoo Interpretives Project, and the
Houston Port Region's Economic Recovery Task Force.
While it is impossible to fund all of the projects that we request, I
believe that these programs need Federal funding.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with House earmark reforms,
I would like to place into the Record a listing of Congressionally-
directed projects in my home State of Idaho that are contained within
the report to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
Subcommittee. I am grateful for their inclusion in this bill.
I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these
projects and why they are valuable to the Nation and its taxpayers.
The bill contains $900,000 for the City of Rocks Back Country Byway
in my Congressional District. This 16.7 mile long project is located on
the popular City of Rocks Back Country Byway in Cassia County, Idaho,
and provides the only direct access to the City of Rocks National
Reserve. When fully completed, the project will pave a 1.0 mile gravel
segment, reconstruct 15.7 miles of deficient roadway, correct
deteriorated road and slope conditions, provide a wider road with
shoulders and guardrail, and improve the road's alignment by reducing
the number and severity of sharp curves and steep grades. These
improvements will increase safety for the driving public and provide
safer access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. These improvements
will also significantly reduce the amount of on-going maintenance
required to keep the route usable. This project has received Federal
funding in previous years. This project was requested by the Idaho
Transportation Department.
The report contains $300,000 for the I-84, Curtis Road to Broadway IC
Widening. This project would widen I-84 through east Boise, adding
eastbound and westbound fourth lanes. This widening is needed to
alleviate congestion and safety issues caused by the continued fast
growth in the Treasure Valley. This project was requested by the Idaho
Transportation Department.
The report contains $500,000 for the Idaho Transit Coalition's
program to improve bus and bus facilities all across the State of
Idaho. The funding will assist Ada County Highway District's
Commuteride, Boise State University, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the City
of Ketchum, the Ketchum/Sun Valley Transit Authority, KART, the City of
Moscow, the City of Pocatello, the University of Idaho, and Valley
Regional Transit. The majority of these projects are identified in the
``Idaho Statewide Public Transportation Needs and Benefits Study''
compiled by the Idaho Transportation Department in 1996 and subsequent
local studies and plans. All projects are identified in the
Transportation Improvement and the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Plan. The current request represents only a small amount of what will
be needed to maintain and expand Idaho's public transportation capital
system to meet the demands of the State's rapidly growing population.
This project has received federal funding in previous years. The
funding was requested by the Idaho Transit Coalition.
[[Page H8387]]
The report contains $150,000 for the Historic Wilson Theater
Restoration Project in Rupert, Idaho. The Wilson Theater was built in
1920 and is on the National Register of Historic Places. The Theater is
also part of Rupert's Historic Business District. Rupert is a
predominandy rural community that recently experienced the closure of
its largest employer, Kraft Cheese. The restoration of this theater is
one aspect of the community's effort to revitalize itself, attract new
employers and generate interest in the community. The community thus
far has raised over $1 million in private donations to restore the
building, and federal funds will be only a small part of overall
expenses. This project was requested by the non-profit Renaissance Art
Center, Inc. in Rupert, Idaho.
The report contains $50,000 for the Custer County Economic
Development Initiative in Custer County, Idaho. The vast size of Custer
County presents enormous financial challenges for a county that is
overwhelmingly owned by the federal government. Custer County has a
very small tax base with very large costs for maintaining roads and
service over a very large area. This funding will permit the county to
purchase and renovate an old middle school in Challis that would become
a government and business center housing the offices of the City,
County, and Economic Development offices and making them ADA compliant.
Additionally, funding would help to provide for improvements to a
multi-government complex in the City of Stanley and the rodeo grounds
in the City of Mackay. This project would relieve an enormous strain on
the limited yearly budget of Custer County and allow it to more
efficiently deliver services to residents and visitors alike. This
project was requested by Custer County, Idaho.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally
directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for
them: 1.) $150,000 for Historic Wilson Theater Restoration Project;
Rupert, Idaho; 2.) $50,000 for Custer County Economic Development
Initiative; Custer County, Idaho; 3.) $900,000 for City of Rocks Back
Country Byway, Idaho; 4.) $500,000 for Idaho Transit Coalition buses
and bus facilities; and 5.) $300,000 for I-84, Curtis Road to Broadway
IC Widening, Boise, Idaho.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the FY08 Labor/
HHS & Education Appropriations bill. I want to commend the Chairman and
the staff for an excellent bill which signals a new direction and
reflects our priorities as a Nation.
The goal of this bill has always been to make a strong investment in
our future--to take seriously our responsibility to the American
public, on the issues that affect people every day from our health to
our children's education to the scientific research that will find the
cures of tomorrow, from protecting workers to providing the training
they need to make it in today's economy. I must say that this time
around, our bill does not disappoint.
To help States serve 6.8 million unemployed and 13 million
jobseekers, the bill provides a $227.4 million or 1.9 percent increase
over fiscal year 2007 for employment, training, and worker protection
programs. On worker protection, the bill provides a $45.5 million
increase to key programs to improving safety and health for 113 million
workers.
On education, the bill provides historic increases in No Child Left
Behind, 8.4 percent above 2007, including $1.9 billion more for Title I
grants to schools. For students with disabilities, the President's
budget proposed to cut IDEA Part B grants by $291 million or 2.7
percent below the fiscal year 2007 level. In contrast, this bill
provides a $299 million or a 2.8 percent increase over last year. More
importantly, this bill reverses a 2-year decline in the federal
contribution toward the rising costs of special education for 6.9
million children with disabilities.
It also makes real progress toward college affordability with a
significant increase in Pell Grants, allowing us to raise the maximum
Pell Grant by $390 to $4,700 and benefiting over 5.5 million students
without reducing or eliminating other student financial assistance
programs.
In the area of medical research, the bill provides continued
investment at the NIH and CDC for innovative programs that save lives.
With a $750 million increase over last year, NIH will be able to
support another 545 new and competing research grants over last year's
level and 1,262 over the President's request.
The bill also provides much-needed investments in programs that
support low income people: An increase of $500.8 million or 23.2
percent above last year for LIHEAP to secure energy assistance for
approximately 1 million more low-income seniors and families than last
year. $660.4 million for the Community Services Block Grant allowing
states to expand critical services, such as housing, home
weatherization, parenting education, adult literacy classes, and
emergency food assistance. And a down payment of $75 million or 3.6
percent in child care assistance, the first increase in discretionary
spending for this program in more than five years.
Mr. Chairman, this bill reflects a real commitment to our
longstanding responsibilities and true fiscal responsibility. Each of
us should support the FY08 Labor/HHS & Education bill--a bill each of
us can take home and proudly share with our constituents.
We will accomplish a lot of good with this bill, but I especially
want to highlight and commend Chairman Obey, for the ``Reducing the
Need for Abortion Initiative'' included in the bill, which parallels
legislation spearheaded by Representative Ryan and myself.
With close to $650 million in increased funding over last year and
approximately $1.4 billion for programs such as Title X, Healthy Start,
teen pregnancy prevention, adoption awareness, after school programs,
and child care programs for new parents attending college, just to name
a few, we are promoting policies so critical to reducing the need for
abortion in this country.
This bold initiative represents a considerable investment in
preventing unintended pregnancies and supporting new parents. It is
strong on prevention, strong on family income supports, and it makes
clear that we are serious about addressing the issue of abortion head
on. That, for all of us, it is a matter of conscience.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a Member of this subcommittee,
its Members, and the work we have done this year. With this bill, we
make opportunity real for millions of Americans and we give people the
tools they need to grow and thrive tomorrow.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bill and, in
particular, its provisions to help families obtain affordable housing
with Section 8 vouchers and to help people with HIV/AIDS to secure
housing with the assistance of the HOPWA program.
I want to thank the chairman for including $300 million in this bill
for Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS, the highest funding
level ever for this program; and for providing $403 million more than
current funding for the Section 8 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance
program. For years, we have had to fight for every nickel of funding
and offer amendments for modest increases. It is a true pleasure to be
working with a Chairman who better understands the needs of the
American people and who is able to dedicate resources to areas of great
need.
Rising housing costs and stagnating incomes have created serious
housing affordability problems for growing numbers of low-income
families. Years of Republican budget cuts have seriously damaged our
public housing stock and forced thousands of people onto waiting lists
for assistance. The list in NY grew so long that they stopped accepting
applications. They have only recently announced their intention to
reopen it, and they have been inundated by qualified people seeking
help. To reduce the number of low-income families with severe housing
affordability problems, it is critical that Congress increase Section 8
funding and resume funding for incremental vouchers, which I am pleased
this bill does. The section 8 housing voucher program provides safe
affordable housing to approximately 2 million American families in
urban and rural communities in every State across our country. These
vouchers are often the only resource for low-income families confronted
by our Nation's affordable housing crisis.
In the past, my colleague Representative Velazquez and I, often with
the support of Chairman Frank, have offered amendments that have passed
with bipartisan support to increase the Section 8 program. We were
successful in passing amendments in 2003, 2005, and 2006 to increase
funding so that more families would be able to obtain affordable
housing. While we can always do more and clearly there are still many
unmet needs, I am pleased by the increases in today's bill.
[See Roll Call 267, 109th Congress 2nd Session (243-178), Roll Call
339, 109th Congress 1st Session (225-194), Roll Call 453, 108th
Congress 1st Session (217-208)].
HOPWA is the only Federal housing program that specifically provides
cities and states with the resources to address the housing crisis
facing people living with HIV/AIDS. Americans living with HIV/AIDS are
often forced to choose between expensive drug treatments and
necessities such as housing. According to the National AIDS Housing
Network, rates of new HIV diagnoses among the homeless are 16 times the
rate in the general population, and HIV/AIDS death rates are five to
seven times higher. People with AIDS who are homeless are more likely
to be uninsured, use an emergency room, and be admitted to a hospital.
Inadequate housing is not only a barrier to treatment, but also puts
people with HIV/AIDS at risk of premature death from exposure to other
diseases, poor nutrition, stress and lack of medical care. Tragically,
at any given time, one-third to one-half of all Americans with HIV/AIDS
are either homeless or in imminent danger of becoming homeless.
[[Page H8388]]
There is a desperate need for HIV/AIDS housing, and HOPWA answers
this need. By providing suitable, reasonably-priced housing, HOPWA
enables cities and states to design and provide community-based, cost-
effective housing for thousands of people living with HIV/AIDS and
their families. It provides maximum flexibility so that states and
communities can implement strategies that respond to local housing
needs and shortfalls. In addition, the administrative costs of the
program are capped, ensuring the money goes directly to serving people
with HIV/AIDS.
Providing supportive housing is crucial to the well-being of
thousands of people living with HIV/AIDS, and is a cost-effective
approach to the AIDS housing crisis. Again, I thank the chairman for
supporting HOPWA and Section 8.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as
amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
McNulty) having assumed the chair, Mr. Weiner, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, he reported the bill
back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that
the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 558, the previous
question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Lewis of California
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. LEWIS of California. In its present form, I am.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Lewis of California moves to recommit the bill, H.R.
3074, to the Committee on Appropriations to report the same
promptly with an amendment to prohibit the Department of
Housing and Urban Development from deriving any portion of
the $1,300,000,000 rescission included in title II of the
bill from recaptures or other reductions of funds previously
appropriated for the following:
(1) the Homeless Assistance Grants Program account
(including funds provided to make grants to programs which
assist homeless veterans);
(2) the Housing for Persons with Disability Program account
(including funds provided for grants to programs which assist
disabled veterans); and
(3) the Housing for the Elderly Program account.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, title II of the bill requires
HUD to rescind $1.3 billion in the funds that the Congress provided in
2007 or prior years. Frankly, HUD cannot meet this rescission without
doing great harm to the most vulnerable of our population, those low-
income individuals who are elderly, low-income, disabled persons and
homeless families and individuals. As much as 40 percent of the
homeless population in this country, Mr. Speaker, as much as 40
percent, are veterans.
Congress has always provided the section 8 program with full funding,
knowing that if not all the funds were used, they would be recaptured
and rescinded and used by the Congress for other high priority
programs. However, this bill states categorically that if funds for the
section 8 program are more than actually get used by the Public Housing
Authority, they may not be recaptured or rescinded, even though they
are clearly in excess.
Let me quote the report accompanying this bill: ``The Department is
not permitted to recapture these reserves for the rescission.''
Just where is the Department expected to go to get these funds? The
answer is very simple and very unfortunate. They would, first and
foremost, eliminate funding for the construction of facilities that
provide assisted living for low-income elderly persons, for low-income
disabled individuals and homeless shelters, as well as other permanent
housing for the homeless.
{time} 2245
Let me repeat, other permanent housing for the homeless, as much as
40 percent of the homeless population are veterans.
These funds are not in excess. Quite to the contrary, they are very
much in use. But construction programs spend out slowly and so the
funds are there waiting to be applied towards various stages of
construction. Unlike the section 8 funds, these funds would never be in
excess. They are simply in the pipeline, fully obligated or committed
to specific projects and ready for use.
So when HUD takes these funds, it means that facilities for these
vulnerable groups will be eliminated. HUD has no other choices since
there are no other programs with this much money still available from
2007 or prior years.
Mr. Speaker, however you look at it, this is a very bad outcome and
every measure must be taken to prevent cutting programs that serve the
most vulnerable, especially programs that serve the homeless veterans.
My motion to recommit does just that. It protects those programs from
being slashed as sacrificial lambs to a new policy that says excess
voucher funds are more important than building facilities to house the
elderly and disabled and homeless, especially homeless veterans.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Walsh), the former chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee and a
tireless advocate for housing programs that serve vulnerable
populations.
Mr. WALSH of New York. I am entirely familiar with the long-standing
practice of Congress to fully fund the section 8 voucher program to be
sure all vouchers could be used but recognizing that this rarely
happened and that excess funds would be recaptured and rescinded in the
next fiscal year.
I am also very familiar with the fact that HUD programs serve the
most vulnerable of our populations, and that veterans are one of the
most impacted by the HUD programs in general, and especially the
homeless program.
I was disappointed to hear that this cycle has been broken, that this
Congress has decided that keeping the funds at the public housing
authorities is more important than funding facilities for low-income
elderly and disabled. But that is exactly what this bill does. It
imposes a rescission of a magnitude that would be in excess of the
section 8 program need each year, and then precludes the recapture of
those funds. The report specifically tells HUD that section 8 funds are
off limits for rescission or recapture.
To put this in perspective, section 8 voucher funding is 40 percent
of HUD's entire project. So HUD is now forced to take the entire amount
of the $1.3 billion from a small universe of programs.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and
protect the poorest in our communities.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, there are two problems with the motion to
recommit, one major and one tricky. First, I will take the major one. I
want to point out to the Members of the House that the adoption of the
motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from California will derail
the bill. The motion instructs the committee to report the bill back
promptly rather than forthwith. Unlike a motion to recommit with
instructions to report back forthwith, a motion with other than
forthwith instructions proposes to take the bill from the floor without
reaching the question of passage.
Mr. Speaker, section 1002(b) of the House Manual states, ``Unlike the
case
[[Page H8389]]
of the motion to recommit with instructions to report back forthwith,
the adoption of which occasions an immediate report to the floor, the
adoption to a motion to recommit with instructions to report back other
than forthwith sends the bill to committee whose eventual report, if
any, would not be immediately before the House.''
Mr. Speaker, a vote for this motion to recommit takes the bill off
the floor. A vote against the motion will allow the bill to go forward
to final passage. For that reason, I urge defeat of the motion to
recommit.
Secondly, the bill before us includes a rescission of $1.3 billion,
which is exactly the same size that the President proposed for the 2008
budget and which is, in fact, lower than what was rescinded last year.
HUD refuses to tell specifically where it will take the rescission
from, but the President obviously believes that HUD can meet the
rescission. The motion purports to disallow rescission from certain
accounts, but HUD has traditionally not used those accounts, so the
President must have believed that he could meet the rescission without
rescinding funds from those three specific accounts.
So again, this one is the tricky one, and I would say that given the
trickiness of it, that we should defeat the motion to recommit and go
on to passage of the bill. For both reasons, I urge the Members to vote
against recommittal of the bill.
I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Once again we are confronted with politics, not substance.
The groans you hear are those of the self-indicted. If you were
serious, if you were concerned about the veterans, if you were
concerned about those in need, then this would be a substantive
amendment subject to consideration now, not later, not tomorrow.
My friend will ask the rhetorical parliamentary question in a few
minutes that he has asked every time we have done this, and every time
this process is political only.
If it were substantive, I tell the gentleman from New York, if you
wanted to accomplish this objective, you may get the votes on this
side, but you will not get the votes on this side to kill this bill.
We have now taken 50 hours longer on consideration of appropriation
bills than we did last year with unanimous consents from Mr. Obey. You
can groan, but the people who are looking for these funds, the people
who want the benefits of this bill, the people who understand the work
on both sides of the aisle that has gone into fashioning this bill, the
people who have seen us vote on rejecting amendment after amendment on
substantive grounds that you offered, and you could have offered this
amendment, of course, as well, know full well this is a political
process, not a substantive process. Reject this process. Let us move on
with the business of the American people. Let's do what they sent us
here to do. Let's act. Reject this motion.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that, if indeed this
motion passed, this bill could be reported back to the committee it was
assigned to and that bill could be reported back to the House tomorrow?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk read the motion. The Chair is
confident that the Members understand its portent. As affirmed by the
Chair on May 24, 2000, and reaffirmed as recently as July 19, 2007,
unlike a motion to recommit with instructions to report forthwith, a
motion with ``non-forthwith'' instructions proposes to take the bill
from the floor without reaching the question of passage.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that having reported
this bill back to the committee from which it was designated, that it
could be brought back to the floor as early as tomorrow?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has ruled and is not in a position
to interpret the gentleman's understanding.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201,
noes 220, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 714]
AYES--201
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
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
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
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 (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
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
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--220
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
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)
[[Page H8390]]
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
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--10
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Honda
King (IA)
LaHood
Marshall
Young (AK)
{time} 2312
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 268,
nays 153, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 715]
YEAS--268
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
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
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
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)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
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)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
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
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
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)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NAYS--153
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Walberg
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
NOT VOTING--10
Bachus
Bishop (UT)
Clarke
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Honda
LaHood
Marshall
Meeks (NY)
Young (AK)
{time} 2318
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________