[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 21518-21549]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2004

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burgess). Pursuant to House Resolution 
351 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration 
of the bill, H.R. 2989.

                              {time}  1412


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2989) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation and Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with Mr. Dreier 
in the Chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
September 4, 2003, the amendment by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cooper) had been disposed of, and the bill was open for amendment from 
page 53, line 3 through page 157, line 2.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment 
to the bill shall be in order except the amendments designated in the 
order of the

[[Page 21519]]

House, which may be offered only by the Member designated in the 
request, or a designee, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the request, equally divided and controlled 
by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hefley

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Hefley:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Total appropriations made in this Act (other than 
     appropriations required to be made by a provision of law) are 
     hereby reduced by $893,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4, 
2003, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I will not take the 5 minutes. I will try to make this as quick and 
painless as possible in deference to our chairman here.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to cut by 1 percent 
the level of funding in the appropriations bill, which amounts to $893 
million. As most Members are aware, I have introduced similar 
amendments to appropriations bills. The same tiny 1 percent translates 
to one penny of every dollar we spend. Some might ask what we get for 
this penny. My amendments would have saved over $3 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the committee has done a good job; but we do 
have a deficit crisis, I think, and we need to deal with it. I think 
now is the time to deal with it, and this is one little way we can 
approach that.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the gentleman from Colorado, 
and despite my great sympathy with his amendment, I cannot support it. 
The amendment seeks to make across-the-board cuts in this bill, which 
we have carefully crafted to try to balance priorities. That means that 
had we received an allocation of lesser numbers, such as the gentleman 
effectively would create, we would have changed priorities, not done an 
across-the-board cut.
  I certainly appreciate his desire, but let me state that what we have 
done in the bill is to go through and tighten and clamp down on 
everything that it was in my power to do, Mr. Chairman.

                              {time}  1415

  In doing so, we have tried to put as much money as possible where I 
believe we have some of the greatest need in this country and where the 
taxpayers have been paying through their fuel taxes at the gasoline and 
the diesel pump, namely, the highway construction program, which has a 
great backlog. It, unfortunately, would be affected most heavily by the 
gentleman's amendment. Some $428 million from highway construction 
programs would be lost under the gentleman's amendment. That would 
greatly diminish our ability to work upon the $400 billion backlog that 
we have throughout the country, the tens of thousands of dangerous 
bridges that we are trying to address through the funding in this bill.
  There are other impacts upon other agencies, but most especially, it 
would affect the highway program which we have gone to great lengths to 
adjust priorities in this bill to try to give the taxpayers something 
for what they have been paying at the gasoline pump, namely, some 
improvements in the road situation that is costing taxpayers billions 
of dollars a year in lost income and in delays due to the heavy amount 
of congestion and difficulty they have in traffic.
  So I have great sympathy for the proposal that the gentleman offers, 
but I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
       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--
       (1) to acquire manufactured articles, materials, or 
     supplies unless section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 
     10a) is applied to the contract for such acquisition by 
     substituting ``at least 65 percent'' for ``substantially 
     all''; or
       (2) to enter into a contract for the construction, 
     alteration, or repair of any public building or public work 
     unless section 3 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is 
     applied to such contract by substituting ``at least 65 
     percent'' for ``substantially all''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4, 
2003, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in a couple of minutes when I finish speaking, I will 
move to withdraw my amendment from the floor and acknowledge the 
propriety of the point of order and the circumstances.
  This amendment would increase the American-made content of the 
equipment purchased under the bill from 50 to 65 percent. This modest 
increase will strengthen the job-creation benefits of the bill. I am 
all for having a strong construction industry in America, and the 
infrastructure funded by this bill will provide many jobs in that 
industry. At the same time, I want to give our manufacturing industry 
the same boost. Our Nation's industrial workers deserve no less, and 
their need for help is great.
  The Washington Post said on September 3, 2003, ``In his Labor Day 
address, the President signaled that the loss of 2.6 million 
manufacturing jobs during his administration had moved to the top of 
his list of domestic policy concerns.''
  In 1981 Rockford, Illinois, which I have the privilege to represent, 
had an unemployment rate of 25 percent, the highest in the Nation. 
Today it is around 11 percent, and I do not want to see a recurrence of 
1981. This summer we lost two more factories. We are in danger of 
seeing our industrial base irreparably harmed. Many of these well-
paying jobs are leaving forever. How do we get back the jobs once they 
are moved to a foreign-producing country?
  In August, manufacturing employment declined again for the 37th 
consecutive month. That is a record. That is another 44,000 
manufacturing jobs erased from the payroll.
  For the first time in our Nation's history, we have fewer than 10 
percent of our jobs in the manufacturing sector of the labor force. 
That means fewer employees at any time since 1961 when the U.S. 
population was 100 million smaller. Manufacturing & Technology News 
said on May 16, 2003, ``The U.S. manufacturing sector is now producing 
1 billion per day less than its own domestic markets demand as a flood 
of cutthroat-priced imports displaces output and jobs at an 
unprecedented rate. U.S. industry now produces $10 billion less auto 
parts each month than our own markets demand, $3 billion less in 
computer and computer parts, and so on throughout the sector.''

[[Page 21520]]

  Are not our manufacturers deserving of this modest help that we can 
give them here today? Mr. Chairman, we need help in the manufacturing 
sector.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment 
because of the rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  There was no objection.


                Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Sessions

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

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Sessions:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 742. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to operate individual Amtrak routes whose Operating 
     Ratio (defined as expenses divided by revenues, where 
     revenues include State subsidies) is identified as greater 
     than 2.0 in the February 7, 2002, report by the Amtrak Reform 
     Council entitled ``An Action Plan For the Restructuring and 
     Rationalization of the National Intercity Rail Passenger 
     System''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4, 
2003, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a modest attempt to inject an objective 
standard into the Federal Government's Amtrak route funding decisions. 
Under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, Federal 
financial assistance to cover operating losses incurred by Amtrak were 
to be eliminated by the year 2002. Sadly, Amtrak is nowhere near 
eliminating its need for Federal financial assistance to cover its 
operating losses. I cannot say we are any closer to achieving that goal 
now than we were in 1997.
  The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 established and 
provided for an independent commission known as the Amtrak Reform 
Council, which was statutorily charged with evaluating Amtrak's 
performance and making recommendations for achieving further cost 
containment, productivity improvements, and financial reforms. Its work 
has not gone completely unnoticed by this Member. At least I believe 
one amendment and change should be made as a result of its report that 
was made in February 2002 to Members of Congress.
  Appendix V of that report, which I have blown up for Members' 
consideration and will include for the Record, calculates in its last 
column what is known as the operating ratio for each of its 2001 
routes.
  My amendment simply states that based on each route's operation 
ratio, Amtrak either gets fiscal year 2004 Federal funding to operate 
the route or it does not. The routes highlighted in green on this chart 
will make the cut and receive Federal 2004 funding. Those are routes 
that recoup 50 cents in revenue which include State subsidies for each 
dollar in operating costs. The routes highlighted in red on this chart 
will not make the cut and will receive no fiscal year 2004 funding. I 
believe these routes unfairly stretch the pocketbooks of the American 
taxpayer and put the Amtrak system at risk.
  This amendment is an honest and modest attempt to inject some 
objectivity into the Amtrak funding process. As Members can see, the 
lion's share of the corridor trains will stay in business in fiscal 
year 2004 under my amendment. That is because they show the greatest 
potential for ridership and for achieving the goal of the Amtrak Reform 
and Accountability Act of 1997 of eliminating Federal assistance to 
cover Amtrak's operating losses.
  Six of the 19 long-distance trains will receive 2004 Federal funding 
under my amendment. Those that cannot show at least $1 for every $2 in 
cost will not. This amendment is more than reasonable. With it, 
Congress simply says any passenger route that fails to generate just $1 
in revenue for $2 in cost is a route not worth keeping in the upcoming 
financial year. This amendment also involves more than just a 
concentration of funds on the most visible lines of Amtrak. It also 
involves America's trust.
  The public must trust in what Congress is doing with their money. 
Amtrak is not a public welfare project. It provides a real service, it 
buys capital equipment, it owns a significant amount of real estate, 
and it holds substantial quantities of hard assets, all of which were 
once in the hands of the private sector.
  My amendment is also about running a railroad. If we lay any claim to 
being a competent governing body capable of spending taxpayer money 
wisely, then we have to take the responsibility for the money and we 
have to make sure that the way it is spent is put to good use. Putting 
a cap on poor performance and the routes that do not make this revenue 
cut simply is something that Congress must step up to the plate and 
address. Allowing Amtrak to operate any and all unprofitable lines 
without any limitation forfeits far too much of our credibility with 
this body that we can run a railroad or be worthy stewards of the 
taxpayer money.

                                               APPENDIX V: AMTRAK'S 2001 PROFIT/LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL ROUTES
   [From the February 7, 2002, report by the Amtrak Reform Council entitled ``An Action Plan For the Restructuring and Rationalization of the National
                                                             Intercity Passenger System.'']
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                              Operating
                                                                                                                                               ratio,
                                                                         Revenue        Total      Total costs   Profit/Loss                  expenses
                                                          Ridership     excluding   revenue with    excluding      on full      Loss per     divided by
                                                            (000)         State         State     depreciation      costs      rider (full    revenues
                                                                        payments      payments     (millions)    (millions)      costs)      (including
                                                                       (millions)    (millions)                                                 State
                                                                                                                                             subsidies)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corridor Trains:
    Keystone & Clocker................................       3,021            42.4          45.2          65.6        (20.4)        (6.75)          1.45
    Route 1, Metroliner/Acela Exp.....................       2,652           271.2         271.2         220.0         51.3         19.33           0.81
    Route 3, Ethan Allen Exp..........................          42             2.0           2.2           4.5         (2.2)       (52.91)          1.99
    Route 4, Vermonter................................          69             4.3           5.8           6.4         (0.6)        (9.09)          1.11
    Route 5, NE Direct/Acela Regional.................       6,262           328.6         328.6         400.1        (71.5)       (11.42)          1.22
    Route 15, Empire Service..........................       1,304            52.5          52.5          89.0        (36.5)       (27.97)          1.69
    Route 20, Chicago-St. Louis.......................         254             7.8          11.5          27.7        (16.1)       (63.63)          2.40
    Route 21, Hiawathas...............................         424             7.6          12.6          26.0        (13.3)       (31.47)          2.06
    Route 22, Chicago-Pontiac.........................         295             9.7           9.7          30.9        (21.2)       (71.95)          3.20
    Route 23, Illini..................................         105             3.5           6.0           9.1         (3.1)       (29.75)          1.52
    Route 24, Illinois Zephyr.........................         100             2.7           5.5           8.2         (2.7)       (27.09)          1.49
    Route 29, Heartland Flyer.........................          58             1.2           5.8           5.2          0.6          9.93           0.90
    Route 35, Pacific Surfliner.......................       1,716            31.0          52.5          78.6        (26.1)       (15.21)          1.50
    Route 36, Cascades................................         565            15.5          31.8          38.1         (6.3)       (11.21)          1.20
    Route 37, Capitols................................       1,073            11.7          30.2          34.6         (4.4)        (4.11)          1.15
    Route 39, San Joaquins............................         712            19.8          43.0          52.0         (9.0)       (12.62)          1.21
    Route 40, Adirondack..............................         100             4.4           7.1           7.8         (0.7)        (7.29)          1.10
    Route 41, International...........................         105             3.4           7.1          10.0         (2.9)       (27.47)          1.41
    Route 56, Kansas City-St. Louis...................         177             4.5          10.5          12.6         (2.1)       (11.75)          1.20
    Route 65, Pere Marquette..........................          59             1.9           4.1           6.6         (2.5)       (42.61)          1.61
    Route 67, Piedmont................................          51             0.7           4.0           5.0         (1.0)       (20.35)          1.26
          Totals, Corridor Trains.....................      19,146           826.4         946.9       1,137.9       (191.1)        (9.98)          1.20
Long Distance Trains:
    Route 16, Silver Star.............................         266            30.7          30.7          60.8        (30.0)      (112.86)          1.98
    Route 17, Three Rivers............................         134            26.5          26.5          59.3        (32.8)      (244.69)          2.24
    Route 18, Cardinal................................          68             4.4           4.4          17.1        (12.6)      (186.91)          3.85
    Route 19, Silver Meteor...........................         252            28.5          28.5          49.8        (21.2)       (84.12)          1.74

[[Page 21521]]

 
    Route 25, Empire Builder..........................         398            53.3          53.3          98.7        (45.4)      (114.14)          1.85
    Route 26, Capitol Limited.........................         154            21.4          21.4          45.6        (24.2)      (157.33)          2.13
    Route 27, California Zephyr.......................         361            51.7          51.7         103.7        (52.0)      (143.93)          2.01
    Route 28, Southwest Chief.........................         265            65.9          65.9         128.7        (62.8)      (236.76)          1.95
    Route 30, City of New Orleans.....................         187            15.3          15.3          39.1        (23.7)       126.81)          2.55
    Route 32, Texas Eagle.............................         149            22.4          22.4          60.7        (38.4)      (258.25)          2.72
    Route 33, Sunset Limited..........................         110            17.7          17.7          56.1        (38.3)      (347.45)          3.16
    Route 34, Coast Starlight.........................         494            41.2          41.2          87.1        (45.9)       (92.98)          2.11
    Route 45, Lake Shore Limited......................         293            30.6          30.6          72.4        (41.9)      (142.65)          2.37
    Route 48, Silver Palm.............................         219            28.3          28.3          57.0        (28.7)      (131.31)          2.01
    Route 52, Crescent................................         265            30.8          30.8          65.8        (35.0)      (132.37)          2.14
    Route 54, Kentucky Cardinal\1\....................          29             1.4           1.4           7.6         (6.2)      (211.65)          5.39
    Route 57, Pennsylvanian...........................          90             9.2           9.2          35.4        (26.3)      (292.34)          3.87
    Route 63, Auto Train..............................         214            54.6          54.6          66.4        (11.8)       (54.96)          1.22
    Route 66, Carolinian..............................         242            13.5          16.2          20.2         (4.0)       (16.37)          1.24
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Totals, Long-Distance Trains................       4,190.0         547.5         550.2       1,131.4       (581.2)      (138.71)          2.06
                                                       =================================================================================================
          Grand Total, All Trains.....................      23,335.7       1,374.0       1,497.1       2,269.3       (772.2)       (33.09)          1.52
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Kentucky Cardinal classified as a long-distance train because it is an overnight train with sleeping accommodations.
 
Source: Amtrak; excludes special trains and $4.3 million in unallocated labor expense.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's 
amendment. I believe it is a common sense amendment. Amtrak says that 
with the allocation we have for them in this bill, they cannot operate 
at their current level. It is only common sense that they should look 
at the routes where they lose the most money, routes that cost them to 
run that do not have local support and do not have State support 
sufficient to justify the operation. That would enable them to focus 
their operations on the areas of the country where things make more 
sense. So I certainly support the gentleman's amendment, and I 
appreciate his offering it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. This 
amendment would eliminate from the present list of roughly 40 routes 
that Amtrak operates 16 of these routes, including such routes as 
Chicago to St. Louis and Chicago to Pontiac, which are two of the key 
routes within the Chicago hub system, routes which, interestingly 
enough, are part of a hub system, which has been much touted for in the 
long-term high-speed-rail development.
  In fiscal year 2003, Amtrak did not initiate additional changes in 
its long distance routes because the individual long distance routes 
would not result in any significant savings, and no savings at all in 
the first several years. In the interim, severance costs would be very 
costly expenses, estimated up to a billion in the first year for 
taxpayers if one were to eliminate the long-distance routes.
  I have not analyzed whether these routes are exactly the same routes, 
but there is a great deal of overlap between the routes that have been 
considered for long-distance elimination and to what I have said 
applies, that there would be no savings in the short run; and, in fact, 
would have considerable severance costs involved.
  The gentleman's amendment bans the use of States to subsidize these 
routes, routes like the Chicago to St. Louis and the Chicago to Pontiac 
or to Detroit, those represent part of a close-in system where urban 
areas are close to each other and which by every indication the 
President himself has been suggesting that these should be routes that 
ought to be supportable for operating purposes and for some capital 
purposes by the States, that they ought to be involved. This amendment, 
as I understand it, bans the uses of States to subsidize routes.

                              {time}  1430

  I do not know if we should be in the business of telling States how 
to spend their own money. The issue of long-distance trains, and how to 
deal with those, really is one for the authorization committee and not 
for the Appropriations Committee.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Texas. This amendment is designed to 
eliminate virtually all of Amtrak's long-distance train operations. If 
enacted, it would mean the end to our national system of intercity rail 
passenger service. The nation would be left with an unconnected 
collection of corridor-type services and whole regions of the nation 
would lose access to this mode of travel.
  The amendment calls for eliminating any passenger train route where 
operating expenses are twice operating revenues as determined by the 
Amtrak Reform Council in its Final Report. At first blush, this might 
not seem all that unreasonable. The reality is, however, that what this 
amendment would accomplish is highly unreasonable. The gentleman from 
Texas ignores the fact that hardly any passenger train service in the 
world comes close to covering its cost. Most rail transit operators, 
for example, would be thrilled to have a 50 percent cost recovery 
factor. Let's look at the impact of adopting this amendment.
  Intercity rail passenger service between New York City and Chicago 
would be eliminated, as Amtrak would have to drop its Lake Shore and 
Three Rivers services. Service between Washington, D.C. and Chicago 
likewise would disappear with the termination of the Capitol Limited 
and Cardinal trains. There would be no more rail passenger service from 
the East Coast to Amtrak's hub in Chicago, as the Pennsylvanian service 
between Philadelphia and Chicago would also be eliminated.
  Service between Chicago and San Francisco on the California Zephyr 
would be history. As a result, rail travel through some of the most 
scenic parts of North America would be no more. Gone, too, would be the 
fabled City of New Orleans, as all service between Chicago and New 
Orleans would have to crease. Service between Chicago and Los Angeles 
via St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, and San Antonio would end with the 
elimination of the Texas Eagle. Service between Florida and Los Angeles 
on the Sunset Limited through New Orleans and Houston would also be 
axed. Amtrak's popular and scenic train along the West Coast between 
Seattle and Los Angeles, the Coast Starlight, also would be cut, as 
would Amtrak's Crescent train between New Orleans and New York via 
Atlanta and Washington.
  With the exception of Amtrak's Silver services between New York and 
Florida and the Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles via 
Arizona, there would be no rail passenger train service in the Southern 
half of the nation. In fact, the only other long distance train that 
would survive would be the Empire Builder between Chicago and Seattle.
  And the cuts are not limited to Amtrak's long-distance train 
operations. Under the route elimination criterion established by this

[[Page 21522]]

amendment, passenger train services between Chicago and Milwaukee, 
Chicago and St. Louis, and Chicago and Pontiac, Michigan, also would 
have to be discontinued. These are critically important components of 
the Midwest High-speed Rail Initiative. It makes no sense whatsoever to 
stop service today when these corridors are leading candidates for 
significant upgrades for high-speed service.
  If this amendment were to pass, many of America's largest cities 
would be left without any intercity rail passenger service including: 
Birmingham, Alabama; Little Rock, Arkansas; Phoenix, Arizona; Denver, 
Colorado; Atlanta, Georgia; New Orleans, Louisiana; Omaha, Nebraska; 
Reno, Nevada; Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Toledo, Ohio; Austin, Dallas, 
El Paso, Houston, and San Antonio, Texas; and Salt Lake City, Utah.
  And to what purpose? If this amendment were to pass, little, if 
anything, would be saved. Moreover, once these routes were gone, the 
remaining services would have to share a greater part of the cost 
burden. Another round of cutbacks would be sure to follow. There is a 
cascading effect as the connecting revenues lost from these services 
affect the financial performance of the remaining trains.
  It also should be clear that once these routes are eliminated, they 
will be gone forever. The nation's freight railroads will be quick to 
take steps to ensure that passenger train services will not be 
reinstated. The freight railroads have long only grudgingly 
accommodated Amtrak's operations.
  The loss of the long-distance train affects many who rely on these 
trains for trips between online city pairs. It is true that relatively 
few people use the trains for transcontinental travel, but millions of 
riders each year use them to travel between places other than the 
terminal cities. This travel will be lost and we will lose forever the 
ability to develop these intra-route corridors.
  Finally, the approach taken by the Amtrak Reform Council to measure 
the route losses, is, in itself, flawed. Amtrak and the Federal Railway 
Administration have developed a more accurate measure of train 
performance, which takes into account downstream effects of route 
eliminations. Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues that the Amtrak 
Reform Council repeatedly erred in both assumptions and facts in its 
reports. In fact, each year of the ARC's existence, the House cut the 
ARC's budget to indicate its overwhelming displeasure with the ARC's 
clear agenda to attack Amtrak.
  Therefore, this amendment must be rejected. It arrives at the wrong 
solution through flawed analyses. We need positive approaches to 
rebuilding and expanding our nation's intercity rail passenger system. 
We need to find ways to give Amtrak President, David Gunn, and his 
staff the resources needed to correct the years of neglect from a lack 
of funding.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) 
will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Honda

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Honda:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. For an additional amount for new fixed guideway 
     systems under the heading ``Federal Transit Administration--
     Capital Investment Grants'' for the Silicon Valley, CA, Rapid 
     Transit Corridor, and the amount otherwise provided under 
     such heading for the San Francisco, CA, Muni Third Street 
     Light Rail Project is hereby reduced by, $1,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4, 
2003, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and a Member opposed 
each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I offer a simple amendment that subtracts $1 million from the San 
Francisco Muni Third Street Light Rail Project and adds that amount to 
the Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project.
  The Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project is a meritorious 
project that deserves Federal funding. It will connect BART with the 
highly frequented Santa Clara County destinations, including Santa 
Clara County's light rail system, ACE rail system, Cal Train's San Jose 
Station, the planned people mover at the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose 
Airport, and thousands of Silicon Valley employers.
  In addition, this project is the last link needed to complete the 
connection of all the region's rail systems around San Francisco Bay. 
Mr. Chairman, I am honored and thankful that the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) support this effort, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would not claim the 
time in opposition because I do not oppose the amendment. As the 
gentleman indicated, I support it. I appreciate the Members that have 
worked together to transfer funds among some things that are all 
involved in the Bay Area of northern California and I know, as the 
gentleman and I have visited together about this, that there is a huge 
amount of local financial support that predominates far and away over 
any Federal funding anticipated.
  I support the shifting of funds, and I appreciate the cooperation of 
Members toward this effort, knowing that it is all part of that 
interrelated Bay Area system as well.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone seek time in opposition to the Honda 
amendment?
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
       Page 157, insert the following after line 2:
       Sec. 742. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to administer or enforce part 515 of title 31, 
     Code of Federal Regulations (the Cuban Assets Control 
     Regulations) with respect to any travel or travel-related 
     transaction.
       (b) The limitation established in subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to the administration of general or specific licenses 
     for travel or travel-related transactions, shall not apply to 
     section 515.204, 515.206, 515.332, 515.536, 515.544, 515.547, 
     515.560(c)(3), 515.569, 515.571, or 515.803 of such part 515, 
     and shall not apply to transactions in relation to any 
     business travel covered by section 515.560(g) of such part 
     515.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4, 
2003, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each 
will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The Flake-McGovern-Emerson-Dela-
hunt amendment is very simple. It prohibits any funds in this bill from 
being used to enforce the regulations that restrict United States 
citizens from traveling to Cuba. Under current law, ordinary Americans 
cannot travel to Cuba unless they fit into narrowly defined categories 
and endure an arduous bureaucratic application and screening process.
  In March of this year, while a sweeping crackdown in sentencing was 
going on in Cuba, the Office of Foreign Assets Control, under the 
direction of the

[[Page 21523]]

State Department, eliminated the people-to-people category of travel 
licenses to Cuba. This is in direct opposition to the administration's 
stated intent to increase people-to-people contact with ordinary 
Cubans. My amendment would effectively end the travel ban and allow 
ordinary Americans to travel to Cuba and to take their ideals and 
values to ordinary Cubans.
  This is an issue of freedom for Americans. Let me repeat that. This 
is an issue of freedom for Americans. We allow for freedom of travel to 
North Korea, to Iran, to Syria and to other countries where the human 
rights records are despicable and where animosity toward the U.S. is 
the basic foreign policy. Restricting travel to Cuba is not only 
ineffective, it curbs the basic American freedom to travel and to 
export American ideals and values.
  This past March, the Castro regime carried out a sweeping crackdown 
on democracy and human rights activists, journalists, independent 
library operators and other dissidents who were exercising basic 
rights.
  Following the roundup of more than 80 people, they were subjected to 
summary trials that flew in the face of justice and were sentenced to 
several years in the horrible Cuban prisons. These prison sentences 
carried terms of up to 28 years and, given the health of some of these 
individuals, they are in effect death sentences.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) introduced a 
resolution that was quickly brought to the floor after this crackdown. 
Several of my Cuba Working Group colleagues and myself eagerly 
supported the Diaz-Balart resolution and joined him at these podiums in 
condemning the Castro regime and again demanding the release of Cuban 
political prisoners.
  The crackdown left many speculating about Castro's timing and his 
motives. Some expressed shock and utter disappointment, as if Castro 
had at some point turned away from being the oppressive dictator that 
he is. I do not think many of us were surprised because, sadly, Castro 
has been doing this kind of thing for over 40 years.
  There is an old saying, Mr. Chairman, ``if you want to keep getting 
what you're getting, just keep doing what you're doing.'' What we have 
been doing is isolating Cuba for more than 40 years. And what we have 
been getting is this kind of attitude from that regime. I do not think 
any of us ought to be surprised that Castro is not a reformed man. What 
we should not do is emulate Castro's heavy-handedness by curtailing the 
freedom of our own citizens.
  Critics suggest that allowing Americans to travel to Cuba will 
provide the Castro regime with the financial resources it needs to 
sustain itself, but that regime has had enough resources to sustain 
itself for over 40 years, including beyond the post-Soviet era in which 
many predicted a sure demise within only months. That regime will 
sustain itself without American travelers going there, but ordinary 
Cubans will continue to be deprived of contact with Americans.
  Whether we like it or not, Cuba's economic troubles will not lead to 
political instability. We should not base our policy on the hope that 
economic catastrophe will cause suffering, political unrest and 
ultimately political change. If we base our policy on this hope, we 
will be waiting a long, long time over and above the period that we 
have already waited. Instead, we ought to unleash the real source of 
American influence by allowing all Americans to travel freely to Cuba, 
just as Cuban-Americans are currently allowed to do.
  In July of this year, 12 Cubans who fashioned a 1951 Chevy into a 
boat nearly made it to America, but they were sent back to Cuba after 
State Department officials reportedly negotiated 10-year prison terms 
with the Cuban government for these individuals. Upon returning to 
Cuba, I understand that six were promptly sentenced to these 10-year 
terms.
  Keep in mind that this is our own State Department officials, the 
same ones who pore over applications for travel licenses and purport to 
know what is best for ordinary Americans who wish to travel to Cuba. 
Think about it. If you vote against this amendment, you are turning 
over your right as an American to travel to the same bureaucrats who do 
not have enough sense but to negotiate prison terms in Castro's jails 
for the Cubans it sends back to the island.
  Under Democratic and Republican administrations, it has been a 
bedrock principle of American foreign policy that travel is a device 
that opens closed societies. American travelers are our best 
ambassadors. They carry the idea of freedom to people in Communist 
countries.
  It is interesting to note that among the sentencing documents used by 
the Cuban government to consign nearly 80 political prisoners to jails 
in Cuba were written materials like Time Magazine, the Miami Herald, 
speeches by President Bush and other U.S. publications. These were 
considered subversive by the Castro regime.
  Cubans want contact with Americans. Cuban dissidents regularly tell 
us that they oppose the travel ban because they believe that American 
travelers have a positive impact in Cuba.
  It is time to listen to the Cuban people, and it is time to return to 
our basic American values. Americans deserve the freedom to travel to 
Cuba to see the island for themselves. I urge my colleagues to support 
the Flake-McGovern-Emerson-Delahunt amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the number one policy objective of the Cuban 
dictatorship is obtaining U.S. mass tourism and the billions of dollars 
it would generate for the dictatorship.
  Travel to Cuba is now legal, but with a license for humanitarian, 
educational or journalistic reasons. But mass U.S. tourism is the 
dream, the number one goal, of the dictatorship.
  The gentleman from Arizona and those who are pushing for this goal 
here in Congress say that Castro fears tourism. ``Let's adopt a real 
get-tough policy toward Castro. Let's send him tourists and their 
dollars,'' they say. If Castro fears U.S. tourism and its billions of 
dollars, then why is obtaining U.S. tourism his number one objective? 
His views are very public about this goal. What did he have to say just 
1 year ago when these amendments passed this House?
  ``The House of Representatives voted with determination and courage 
for three amendments that bring glory to that institution. We shall 
always be grateful for that gesture.''
  That was the statement of the Cuban tyrant 1 year ago. To say that 
granting the dictator his number one policy goal is to get tough on the 
dictatorship, in my view, constitutes uncalled for cynicism.
  We have an embargo against the Cuban dictatorship, Mr. Chairman, 
because it is in the national interest of the United States for there 
to be a transition to democracy in a country 90 miles from our shores.
  It is in the U.S. national interest for there to be an end to a 
terrorist regime that has had the head of its Air Force indicted for 
murder 2 weeks ago, the head of its Navy indicted for drug trafficking, 
and which carries out aggressive espionage and infiltration operations 
on all branches of the U.S. Government, including this Congress, over 
15 Cuban spies having been arrested in the last years alone, with 
dozens more having been expelled from the U.S. The FBI confirms that 
there is no more aggressive, hostile intelligence service in the United 
States than Castro's operation.
  It is in the U.S. national interest for there to be an end to a 
regime that harbors hundreds of international terrorists and a large 
number of felony fugitives from the United States. And just as Europe 
told the dictatorships in Spain and Portugal in the 1970s that access 
to the European Economic Community, now the European Union, required 
democracy in those countries,

[[Page 21524]]

and that requirement was fundamental to the democratic transitions in 
those countries once the dictator of 40 years, Franco, died in Spain 
and the dictator of even more time in power, Oliviera, died in 
Portugal, our policy of conditioning access to the U.S. market, 
including mass tourism, to the liberation of all political prisoners 
and concrete movement toward free elections in Cuba, in other words, 
retaining the embargo until the Cuban people free themselves from their 
chains, is absolutely fundamental.
  It is in the U.S. national interest, Mr. Chairman, for there to be an 
end to a regime that has systematically attempted to derail and hamper 
U.S. intelligence efforts against international terrorism in the post-
September 11 era, a regime that harbors countless international 
terrorists.
  It is in the U.S. national interest for there to be an end to a 
regime that maintains a biological weapons program 90 miles from the 
shores of the United States.
  In the last 6 months, yes, the Cuban people have witnessed the most 
brutal crackdown on courageous pro-democracy leaders and independent 
journalists, leaders like Marta Beatriz Roque and Dr. Oscar Elias 
Biscet and Jorge Luis Garcia Perez (Antunez), all of them who agree 
that it is fundamental that we maintain the U.S. embargo, including the 
travel restrictions.
  As a consequence of this crackdown, the European Union has imposed 
travel restrictions and other sanctions on the dictatorship's henchmen. 
Important newspapers, such as the Los Angeles Times, have changed their 
prior positions on sanctions.
  For example, the Los Angeles Times wrote, ``After years of calling 
for liberalized relations with Cuba, this editorial page must now urge 
American policymakers to hit the brakes. Fidel Castro has thrown up a 
roadblock that cannot be ignored. He sicced his political police on 
about 90 independent journalists, political dissidents and union 
activists.
  Before Congress even thinks about loosening restrictions, it should 
demand that Castro free those rounded up and demonstrate that his 
nation is moving toward democracy and away from totalitarianism.''

                              {time}  1445

  That change of position by the Los Angeles Times was a call to 
conscience.
  None of the political prisoners, either of the recent ones or those 
serving decades in the torture gulag, have been freed. Over a dozen are 
known to have begun hunger strikes to protest the inhumanity of their 
captivity. Some are near death.
  What this moment calls for, Mr. Chairman, is for this Congress to 
bring glory to itself, but not by spending more dollars to the Cuban 
tyrant. No. Not a tyrant's kind of glory. But to insist on the release 
of all political prisoners and on concrete steps toward free elections 
before a single additional dollar is sent to the enslaved island.
  That is the glory that this moment requires, the glory characteristic 
of the American people, liberator of oppressed nations and their 
sovereign free institution, this people's House, not the glory of a 
tyrant like the quote that we looked at before, a tyrant who dispatches 
his goons to terrorize and imprison unarmed men and women and who sends 
those who dare to dream of freedom to the firing squad after farcical 
sham trials.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank President Bush for his veto threat regarding 
these uncalled-for amendments, but I ask my colleagues here to not make 
it necessary for the President to carry out his threat. I ask my 
colleagues to defeat these sad amendments.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Flake-
McGovern-Emerson-Delahunt amendment to limit funding for the 
enforcement of the travel ban to Cuba. This amendment is offered on 
behalf of the 52-member bipartisan Cuba Working Group.
  For 40 years, U.S. Cuba policy has violated the right of every 
American to travel freely. While Americans may travel to Vietnam, to 
China, and even to North Korea, they may not legally travel to Cuba.
  For 40 years, the American people have been told that the sanctions 
against travel to Cuba, like other economic sanctions, will bring human 
rights and democracy to Cuba and the downfall of the Castro regime. 
This policy has failed, and it has failed miserably.
  Currently, Cuba and the United States are engaged in a dangerous 
spiral of escalation and recrimination. The Cubans engage in a cruel 
crackdown against dissent on the island. The United States tightens the 
restrictions on travel and eliminates people-to-people educational and 
cultural exchanges.
  At the very moment when the Cuban Government was trying to break the 
spirit of Cubans who dare to think differently, the United States 
Government restricted even further the exposure of Cubans to 
individuals and groups who could provide alternative information and 
provoke discussion, the American people. We need a better, more 
rational, more mature approach.
  Mr. Chairman, Americans are a pragmatic and practical people. We like 
things that work, that do the job, that deliver results.
  After 40 years of a failed policy on Cuba, it is long past time to 
try something else. If this policy was going to work, it would have 
worked by now. I believe that ending the ban on travel is one of the 
best steps we can take. I believe the Cuban people can benefit from 
more contact, not less, with the American people. Now is the time to 
invade Cuba with doctors and writers, teachers, students, business 
leaders, bicyclists, grandmothers, activists and more. They are, 
indeed, our very best ambassadors.
  I agree with Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International that the 
40-plus years of a U.S. policy of isolation has not contributed to the 
betterment of human rights in Cuba and, in many respects, has had a 
negative impact on human rights and that the travel ban should end.
  I agree with the vast majority of dissidents living on the island, 
including Vladimiro Roca, president of the Cuban Social Democratic 
Party, and Oswaldo Paya, leader of the democratic reform movement known 
as the Varela Project, who have expressed their full support for an end 
on the ban on travel by Americans to Cuba.
  I agree with independent journalist Miriam Leiva, wife of imprisoned 
dissident Oscar Espinosa Chepe, when she wrote to President Bush this 
May declaring: ``The visits of hundreds of thousands of North Americans 
to Cuba could contribute to the exchange of ideas and the progress of 
democracy.''
  This amendment represents the bipartisan majority of this Congress 
and the majority view of the American people. It represents the 
mainstream view in this country.
  For 3 consecutive years, this House has voted overwhelmingly to lift 
the ban on travel, only to have a small group of Members undermine the 
will of the House in conference committee. I would say to the 
leadership of this House, do not just talk about democracy; respect 
democracy. Respect the will of this House. Respect the Members of the 
greatest deliberative body in the world. Do not hide behind closed 
doors and secret negotiations. Do not hide behind rhetoric that 
questions the integrity of those who disagree with you.
  The current policy has failed. It is time to take a new approach. 
Support the freedom of Americans to travel, support Cubans who want to 
interact and meet with Americans, support the bipartisan amendment to 
end the travel ban on Cuba.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to 
yield 6 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is unconscionable that after the recent arrest and 
the sentencing of close to 80 dissident human right activists and 
opposition

[[Page 21525]]

leaders by the Castro regime, that we would be here seeking to reward 
the dictatorship for its deplorable action, because, make no mistake, 
that is what this amendment seeks to do. It is going to provide it with 
much needed currency to continue this reign of terror.
  It defies all understanding that as the most recent prisoners of 
conscience languish in squalid sells, devoid of any light, 
malnourished, denied medical attention, the response of the United 
States Congress to this would be to bestow to this pariah state another 
victory.
  In the past, as we heard from the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart), the Castro dictatorship, Fidel Castro himself, has 
publicly thanked the U.S. House of Representatives for passing this 
amendment.
  I wonder if Hector Raul Valle Hernandez, a political prisoner at 
Guantanamo, would be as understanding. Hector languishes in a tiny, 
dark, squalid isolation cell. He is malnourished. He is given 
contaminated water. As a result, he has an increasing number of 
parasites in his system and is denied any medical treatment. Since his 
arrest of March of this year, he has lost over 40 pounds. However, he 
does not succumb to this torture. He remains true to his principles and 
beliefs. Would he be as understanding about this vote?
  Like Hector, we have Marta Beatriz Roque, Oscar Espinosa Chepe, 
Victor Rolando Arroyo, Hector Palacios, Omar Pernet Hernandez, Juan 
Carlos Gonzalez Leyva, and scores of other political prisoners, like 
Antunez, Jorge Luis Garcia Perez, and Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet, who truly 
deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
  Their bodies are weak, they are rapidly deteriorating; but their 
courage, their spirit, their commitment to a free Cuba from its 
enslavement is stronger than ever. What message would we be sending to 
these brave souls about our own commitment to their freedom?
  What about our brothers and sisters just 90 miles away? Do they not 
bleed when they are stricken? Do they not cry out? Are they not 
entitled to freedom and democracy? Are they not entitled to security?
  Even the European Union is realizing that its economic entanglements 
with Castro are not sound. In June of this year, the EU began 
restricting its contact with the dictatorship, citing deep concerns 
``about its flagrant violations of human rights and of fundamental 
freedoms of members of the Cuban opposition and of independent 
journalists.''
  Just last week, the Italian foreign minister, whose country, Italy, 
holds the EU presidency, stated, ``We have to say that the Cuban 
Government has not taken a single positive step to meet the goals that 
Europe has set and in fact the situation of human rights has worsened 
yet further.''
  After years of unrestricted travel by these European tourists and 
officials, all of them from EU countries, countries with rich 
democratic traditions, has the situation of human rights in Cuba 
improved? No. They even say it has worsened.
  So this leaves one to question the arguments raised by the proponents 
of this amendment about exporting democracy. Let us look at recent 
examples.
  Georgetown University is planning an educational trip to Cuba. It 
cites as one of its stops El Valle de Vinales. El Valle de Vinales is a 
lush and beautiful valley, an environmental paradise. Not many Cubans 
living there. It is a wonderful tourist stop. How will being in this 
tourist stop help democracy grow in Cuba?
  Then they highlight a tour of Old Havana and a tour of Cuba's 
Revolutionary Museum. Exactly to whom would the participants be 
exporting democracy in these visits?
  And there is also a case of a delegation which traveled to Cuba just 
a few weeks ago. They received a license from OFAC to attend a 
religious retreat. It turns out that several of them were participating 
in a golf tournament. That was exporting democracy? OFAC is 
investigating this further.
  Particularly revealing is the fact that when Members of Congress, 
certain Members of Congress, seek to travel to Cuba in order to visit 
political prisoners in their jail cells, rather than to meet with the 
dictator and his cronies, they are denied visas by the regime.
  Just ask our colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), Members who have made their 
reputation defending human rights and holding dictators accountable for 
their actions. On more than one occasion, they have tried to travel to 
Cuba with the expressed and limited purpose of engaging the peaceful 
and democratic pro-democracy forces within the island. But the regime 
has not allowed them to travel to Cuba.
  Proponents of this amendment have also recently argued that it is 
needed by certain sectors of the U.S. economy which have been seriously 
affected by the terrorist attacks of September 11. My response to that 
is if we wanted to help the tourism industry, come to my district. Come 
visit Key West, come visit Miami Beach.
  Also, we are talking about much-needed currency to a state sponsor of 
terrorism. We are engaged in an international war against terrorism. 
Cuba is engaged in a joint venture with the Iranian regime, having 
built a complex on the outskirts of Tehran to work on biological 
technology. The regime needs money to keep this program going. This 
amendment will help the regime get those funds.
  The Cuban regime is also working in concert with other pariah states 
like Libya and Syria on what it terms ``scientific cooperation.'' Thus 
this amendment runs contrary to President Bush's commitment to deny 
terrorists the financing to carry out the attacks against the Americans 
and our American interests and allies. I ask our colleagues to reject 
this amendment, which will help Fidel Castro.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, through you to my colleagues, it 
has been 43 years that we have had this embargo with Cuba. It has not 
worked. It seems to me we should do one of two things: we should either 
make the pain greater for the Cuban people, as we so with the embargo, 
or we should make some changes to improve communications.
  How do we make those kind of changes? One change that I think of is 
perestroika in Russia. In the late 80s, when more open communication 
was started, when the Russian people started learning about what 
America was and what we were doing, we saw the beginning of change in 
Russia.
  How can we better communicate with the Cuban people? I was down in 
Cuba about a year and a half ago, and most people of Cuba that I talked 
to do not seem to really know what America is all about, what the free 
market and free enterprise and liberty is all about. Of course, because 
under Castro they have not had it.
  I think it should be clear that none of us support Castro. None of us 
disagree that Castro is bad. None of us disagree it would be good to 
have Castro out of the way. The question is, how do we do something 
better than what we have done for the last 43 years?
  We talk about some of the prisoners, saying, keep up the pain and 
keep your embargo going. I would quote one of the prisoners, Espenosa 
Chapa, who said, ``The policy of isolating Cuba, far from bringing 
freedom, has only served to give the regime an alibi that the embargo 
is the cause of all the ills the country suffers, and it has kept Cuban 
society away from a greater flow of democratic ideas and values.''
  The current ban on travel is only one element of the embargo. Mr. 
Chairman, I would say it is somewhat akin to increased free trade 
worldwide where there is freer interaction and more open communication.
  So I just call on my colleagues, do not go along with the status quo. 
Let us make a change, because the last 43 years have not accomplished 
the goals that we want to accomplish. Support the Flake amendment.

[[Page 21526]]



                              {time}  1500

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I have said in the past, doing business 
with Cuba means doing business with Castro. So long as Castro maintains 
his stranglehold on every aspect of Cuban life, lifting any aspect of 
the embargo or allowing Americans to travel to Cuba could mean 
subsidizing Castro.
  Most Cuban tourist operations and resorts are owned and operated by 
fronts for the Cuban military and internal security services. These so-
called ``companies'' funnel money directly into Castro's military, 
earning the regime the hard currency it needs to perpetrate its 
oppressive policies. Is that where Americans should be spending their 
money?
  Castro has come to rely almost solely on his income from tourism; 
formerly profitable industries like sugar now only represent a small 
amount of the island's income. Proponents of travel will lead you to 
believe that if only Americans were allowed to travel to the island, 
then the Cuban people would realize the great freedoms they are missing 
and rise up and demand political and humanitarian reforms from their 
leaders.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the people of Cuba are not ignorant. Most speak 
regularly with their families here in the U.S. and they are fully aware 
of their lack of freedom and opportunities. In fact, the people of Cuba 
have risen up in protest to their government, only to have Castro throw 
over 80 nonviolent opposition leaders behind bars, sentencing many of 
them to life sentences in subhuman conditions in Castro's jails.
  Tourist travel to Cuba will not increase purposeful contact with the 
Cuban people. Europeans and Canadians have been traveling to Cuba for 
years and clearly they have had no positive effect on Cuba's leaders or 
political machine.
  By lifting these sanctions with nothing in exchange from the Cuban 
government, we are betraying the very people these policies were 
designed to help. I urge my colleagues to join with me and oppose any 
amendments that lift travel restrictions or lift the embargo and to 
remain committed to their support of the Cuban people.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a man who has worked tirelessly on this 
issue for years.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to the gentleman from 
Florida for 1 minute regarding his observation that this was Castro's 
priority. I do not necessarily believe the words of Fidel Castro. I 
honestly wonder if this crackdown that we all condemn was a canard to 
continue the policy of the Castro government to use the ban on travel 
and the economic embargo as an opportunity to sustain the government 
and the regime in power. But, as others have indicated, 40 years, more 
than 40 years and counting of a failed policy that has brought about no 
change in Cuba. That cannot be denied.
  The magnitude of the failure of this policy is so colossal that it is 
inconceivable that we continue to pursue it. Because while it has not 
benefited the Cuban people, it has also diminished American freedoms. 
As the former Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once said, and I am 
quoting, ``Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, 
setting us apart. It often makes all other rights meaningful.''
  Imagine travel police who tell you where you can go and how much you 
can spend when you are there, even if you simply want to scatter the 
ashes of a beloved parent like one American citizen did. That does not 
sound like America travel police, but it is. That is the reality. We 
have our own travel police. It is called the Office of Foreign Asset 
Control, or OFAC. They decide who will go to Cuba and who does not. 
They insist that you account to them what you did there when you 
arrived and what you spent. If they do not believe you, they can punish 
you. They have even threatened to garnish Social Security benefits from 
one individual.
  We should all be offended as Americans by this policy.
  So yes, this debate today is about democracy. It is all about 
democracy; our democracy as well as democracy in Cuba.
  This amendment would end this affront to American liberty and 
American rights. What makes the curtailment of this freedom of 
Americans so particularly repugnant is the hypocrisy of the policy. For 
example, and others have alluded to it: Americans can travel today to 
Iran, to North Korea, the remaining members of the axis of evil club. 
And remember when Saddam Hussein was in power, you could go to Baghdad 
and use your American Express card. You cannot do it in Havana.
  Those who would maintain the status quo and continue to deny 
Americans the freedom to travel proclaim that all Cuba has to do is to 
conduct free and fair elections, legalize all political parties, allow 
freedom of the press and association, permit the existence of 
independent labor unions, and then, we will restore to Americans their 
freedom to travel. Those are worthy goals.
  Well, if the rights of Americans to travel are predicated on these 
standards, then how about Egypt, a one-party State where elections are 
a sham, where political and religious dissent is repressed, and freedom 
of the press is restricted. But for Egypt, the penalty, the penalty is 
$2 billion worth of American foreign aid every year.
  What about Saudi Arabia, one of the most repressive regimes on earth 
according to our own State Department, where women can not drive, and 
where American soldiers could not practice their religion openly on 
Saudi soil.
  Well, I have seen women driving in Cuba, and I have attended mass in 
Havana with Cuban dissidents. And 15 of the terrorists who attacked the 
United States on September 11 were from Saudi Arabia. There was not a 
Cuban among them. And yet, some of the most ardent proponents of the 
Cuba travel policy today vote for United States assistance to Saudi 
Arabia. Is it not time to end the hypocrisy? We ought not to be the 
land of the licensed, but the land of the free. Support the amendment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney).
  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to do is to thank my 
good friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who really is a 
great freedom fighter and somebody I admire and respect a great deal. 
But I have a huge difference of opinion in terms of what promotes 
freedom, not just in our hemisphere, but throughout the world with 
respect to this specific issue.
  One of the many arguments I have heard from the proponents of this 
amendment is that the Cuban citizens would be better off if they had 
American tourists. Arguably, Iraqi citizens would have been better off 
if we had a free flow of Iraqi oil throughout the world and the 
prosperity that that might have brought, but not if Saddam Hussein was 
using the profits to terrorize his own people and to export terrorism 
and totalitarianism elsewhere throughout the world.
  That is precisely the predicament we are in. Fidel Castro, as long as 
he is alive and in charge in Cuba, will use every last dollar to 
terrorize his own people, to basically jail dissidents, to execute 
people that disagree with him, and to export terrorism throughout the 
world. He is the single last remnant of the 100-year terrorism that 
communism plagued upon our entire planet in the last century. Yet, he 
stands just 90 miles off of our shores in Florida where he put missiles 
aimed at the people of the United States less than 25 years ago.
  I will tell my colleagues that when the lambs lay down with the 
lions, lambs get slaughtered, and the day to capitulate and to 
acquiesce and to acknowledge Castro as some reality that we have to put 
up with, condone, and even support with tourism dollars is not here and 
it will never be here, as long as those of us who truly believe that 
the way to freedom is to show up and stare down dictators, not 
cooperate with them.

[[Page 21527]]

  I will tell you this one out is the last remnant of communism, 
totalitarianism, repression, and it is the original terrorist state. We 
need to stare down Castro and not succumb to his evil deeds.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I am 
also a proud member of the working group, the Cuban working group that 
was established almost 2 years ago, and I have to tell my colleagues, 
as someone from California, I am on the other side of the country, but 
I know that many in my district in Los Angeles and throughout 
California have had the chance to visit and also meet with people from 
Cuba. One of the things they tell me as a Congresswoman is that they 
would love to be able to go and spend more money there, to interact 
through educational programs, to visit different tourist sites there, 
but to engage with the people there.
  On my visit there 2 years ago, I found it very striking that yes, 
indeed, the free market is working. It is working in Cuba. I visited a 
small restaurant where I sat with the family who owned their own 
restaurant. The money that we gave them in dollars was sufficient at 
the time. Maybe if we did more of that, they would be able to have a 
lot more, but we are not allowing for that. We need to lift the travel 
ban. Even in the State of California, where I served as a member of the 
Senate, our Senate members voted for a resolution to come to this House 
to say that we ought to lift the travel ban. By opening up our doors of 
education, culturally, and also economically, we have a lot to gain as 
well.
  I had the opportunity to meet with other people from different 
countries in Cuba, from Canada and from Europe, and I saw that they are 
indeed taking advantage of helping to create a market base there, in 
different areas, and in agriculture, in the arts, and in the hotel and 
tourism industry. Why is not the United States, why cannot California 
engage in that by lifting this travel ban and allowing for the free 
flow of ideas and exchange, something that all of us here I think 
believe in.
  When you say terrorism, I do not see that when I think about Cuba. I 
see hard-working people who want to be a part of our culture, the 
western civilization. I saw people wearing jeans, clothing that was 
reflective of people on our streets here in Washington, D.C., and I 
think that they are earnestly looking for a lifting of this travel ban. 
I urge Members to do so.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from South Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart).
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am actually amazed 
that we are even here discussing this issue. We are right now in the 
midst of a war against terrorism. Should we take steps that help fund 
anti-American terrorist states, particularly one that is just 90 miles 
away from the United States?
  Mr. Chairman, right after 9-11 during the joint session of Congress, 
President Bush spoke to Congress and he said ``Either you are with us 
or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that 
continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United 
States as a hostile regime.'' And yet, we are discussing an amendment 
that would provide billions of dollars to a terrorist anti-American 
regime, just 90 miles away from the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, I hear, well, but we do business with China. Mr. 
Chairman, there are seven nations on the list of terrorist countries: 
Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, I guess that one is no 
longer on the list, and Cuba, a terrorist, anti-American thug just 90 
miles away from the United States. But yet I hear, well, but if he had 
money, if he only had money, he would change. He would be different. He 
would do really good things with the people of Cuba and also would 
become a friendly nation.
  But, Mr. Chairman, what did Mr. Castro, that terrorist thug, do when 
he did have money, when the Soviet Union gave him the funds, the 
billions of dollars that now this amendment hopes to replace? What did 
he do? He had troops in Africa. He was helping terrorists in Africa. He 
had troops in Grenada, and the U.S. actually invaded Grenada to 
liberate those people and there were Cuban troops there, terrorist 
Cuban troops there supporting that Communist regime. He was helping to 
fight democracies in Latin America. He was funding troops throughout 
the world. That is what he did when he had money.
  Those who say the embargo has not worked, it sure has worked for the 
interests of the United States of America, because that man is not 
doing what he was doing: exporting terrorism. Now, he is limited, he is 
limited. But this amendment wants to give him billions of dollars so he 
can do what he does best: terrorism, anti-American terrorist 
activities. This is amazing to me, Mr. Chairman, that we would be 
discussing it right now.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) said we cannot 
believe what Castro says. I do not believe, I would say to the 
gentleman, what Castro says. I believe his deeds. Yes, he says that he 
wants to get rid of the embargo. Yes, he says that he wants to get rid 
of the travel ban. And yes, he congratulates the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Flake) and others when he helped him in doing that. But his deeds 
also show that, Mr. Chairman.
  Here, for example, he has sent out hundreds of thousands of flyers to 
travel agents, spending thousands and thousands of dollars on glitzy 
brochures saying, please get rid of the travel ban.

                              {time}  1515

  No, the record is clear. Let us not fund anti-American terrorist 90 
miles away. Let us not fund a person who has said in Iran that he wants 
to get the United States to be on its knees. Let us not fund an enemy 
of the American people 90 miles away. Let us not support this 
amendment. Let us stand tall with the Cuban people who want to be free. 
Let us stand with the President of the United States in his war against 
international terrorism.
  The way to do that is not by helping Castro, which is what this 
amendment will clearly do.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has 11 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has 
9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Flake amendment 
which would prohibit funds in the underlying bill to enforce the 
current ban on travel to Cuba.
  I believe it is the right of all Americans to be able to travel 
wherever they choose. It is unAmerican to prohibit our citizens from 
choosing where they want to travel.
  And why? Why should we single out Cuba? We have a right to travel 
almost anywhere. This is clearly not about whether U.S. citizens should 
travel to an undemocratic or militarily repressive country. If that 
were true, then Americans would not be able to travel to countries such 
as China, Sudan, Syria, Iran, North Korea. And do you know what? 
Americans are able to travel freely to these countries. Yet, they are 
forbidden to travel to Cuba.
  Thus, the real question is why do we continue to prohibit travel to 
Cuba? Why do we deny American citizens a right Cubans are denied in 
Cuba, to travel freely? Human rights activists Elizardo Sanchez and 
Vladimiro Roca have said it best, and I quote, ``Just as we insist on 
the right of Cubans to travel, to leave and return to our country 
freely, a right now denied to us, so do we support the right of 
Americans to travel freely, including travel to Cuba.''
  The travel ban is an archaic part of our archaic foreign policy on 
Cuba. We are not defending the Cuban government or its poor human 
rights record, especially in light of the most recent crackdown on its 
dissidents. We must always speak strongly against the

[[Page 21528]]

abuse of human rights in this world and hold these repressive 
governments accountable.
  But Cuban dissidents regularly tell us that they oppose the travel 
ban because they believe American travelers would have a positive 
impact on Cuba. Further, Human Rights Watch reports that the U.S. 
embargo has not only failed to bring about human rights improvements in 
Cuba, it has actually, and I quote, ``become counterpro-
ductive to achieving this goal.''
  Current U.S. policy towards Cuba hurts the 11 million innocent Cuban 
men, women and children who could benefit from our travel, our new 
ideas, our steadfast belief in democratic ideals, freedoms and way of 
life. We will not advance rights to the Cuban people by embracing a 
policy of isolation that has failed for 40 years.
  Further, the more we normalize relations with Cuba, the faster Fidel 
Castro will lose his grip on the Cuban people. It has worked in 
Vietnam. It has begun to work in China, and it can work in Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Our 
policies have failed, and this is the right thing to do for the Cuban 
people.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my good friend.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleagues, if you voted in 
favor of the Flake amendment in the past, I respectfully ask you today 
to reconsider your vote this year.
  While I make no secret of the fact that I have opposed, and will 
continue to oppose, lifting the travel ban until all political 
prisoners are released and other modest human rights forums are 
initiated. Today is clearly not the time to be embracing an easement on 
travel.
  The outrages of last spring, the brutal arrest, conviction and 
incarceration for up to 28 years of approximately 80 of Cuba's best and 
brightest and bravest is just the most the visible and the most recent 
act of hate and cruelty by Fidel Castro. For decades to come, these 
individuals, these reformers will now join approximately 400 other 
political prisoners in Cuba's infamous Gulags, which the U.S. State 
Department has described as ``harsh and life threatening'', where there 
is torture, physical and psychological. Don't get sick in one of those 
Gulags because if you do, you will likely not get medical treatment and 
your condition will be permitted to fester.
  Just read the U.S. State Dept's Country Reports of Human Rights 
Practices for this year and see how horrific those conditions are. The 
treatment of political prisoners is a scandal.
  Look at what the L.A. Times said recently, and I would quote them 
briefly. This is an editorial in the L.A. Times, ``After years of 
calling for liberalized relations with Cuba, this editorial page must 
now urge American policymakers to hit the brakes.'' Hit the brakes my 
colleagues. Do not liberalize and allow Castro to reep upwards of $5 
billion of profit--money that goes directly into Castro's coffers. We 
need to hit the brakes and at least say, not now.
  Reference was made earlier about how the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) and I tried to visit Cuba. We were turned down. We wanted to 
visit prisoners. We wanted to see Dr. Biscet and others and do what the 
International Committee of the Red Cross cannot do. As we know, the 
ICRC has been denied, repeatedly, access to prisoners. We tried to do 
it, and we were turned down. And what did Fidel Castro say in one of 
his speeches? Because we wanted to go into the prisons and assess the 
situation firsthand we were ``provocateurs.''
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and I have 
visited many political prisons around the world, from Perm Camp 35 in 
the Soviet Union, when it was the Soviet Union, to China, Beijing 
Prison Number 1, where convicts from Tiananmen Square were being 
mistreated. I have even gotten into prisons in Indonesia, and met with 
East Timoree leader Xanana Gusmao, and yet we cannot get into Cuba. 
Yet, some Members want to lift the travel ban. Lifting the ban now 
sends a clear message to those who are suffering from Castro's hate and 
abuse that we do not care.
  I know this is not the maker of this amendment's intention, but that 
is the message nonetheless, and I hope Members will vote no on this 
amendment. Stand with the oppressed in Cuba, not the oppressor.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) for yielding me time.
  Let us face it. This is not a problem about Castro. This is a problem 
about us. We made this law. And this administration wants to enforce 
this law. This is not about Fidel Castro. This is about the present 
administration and Members of Congress.
  It is very interesting that those who do not want to lift this ban 
are also exempt from it. Cuban-Americans, can travel freely back 
without our country's permission. And as Members of Congress, you can 
travel to Cuba, but you cannot do that as a regular American citizen.
  What has this law done? Has it prevented Americans from going to 
Cuba? Absolutely not. It is estimated 100,000 Americans went to Cuba 
last year, 75 percent of them went illegally. Why are they going to 
Cuba? It is only 90 miles off our coast. That is probably why they are 
not going to Iraq and North Korea and other places which the President 
identifies as the axis of evil, and our government does not ban you 
from going there.
  They are also fascinated by the history Cuba played in the American 
Revolutionary War. They are fascinated by a country that wins music 
Emmys. They are fascinated by a country and culture that produces good 
rum and cigars, yet it is illegal for Americans to drink that rum or 
smoke those cigars. It is illegal for Americans to have fun. That is 
what this law says.
  It is so un-American. It is so unpatriotic. It is so unenforceable. 
What are we going to do? Put everybody who went down there to ride 
bicycles, to dance, to drink mojitos in jail? That is not what our 
country can do. We cannot enforce this law. And to say that nobody can 
travel there, and when they will go illegally you will stop that, what 
you are doing is stopping the legitimate travel of educators, of 
doctors, of people in professions that want to go to try to upgrade 
humanity.
  Human rights organizations are certainly going to know more about the 
abuses in Cuba by sending people who are interested in human rights as 
good ambassadors. The law now does not allow that to happen.
  This is a good amendment. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Flake) for introducing it, and I urge that all of us pass this 
amendment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), my good friend.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose the Flake 
amendment. I would like to make a series of points in response to some 
of what I have heard.
  First, what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) does is, in 
essence, invite lawlessness. It says that we will prohibit the Treasury 
Department from doing what the law says. It does not undo the law. It, 
in essence, prohibits the Treasury Department from enforcing the law. 
So this Congress would promote lawlessness.
  Yes, it is illegal to travel to Cuba under certain circumstances, but 
we will look the other way. We will not allow that element of law 
enforcement within the Treasury Department to enforce our laws. What a 
slippery slope that is when we begin a process that says the law is the 
law, but we are not going to allow it to be enforced. What a slippery 
process that is.
  To my dear friends who talk about the Soviet Union and how they fell 
because we went over there, the reality is the Soviet Union fell 
because they could not keep up with the arms race with the United 
States, and they decided internally on Glasnos and Perestroika. And 
when they unleashed those forces of opening, then the people

[[Page 21529]]

of what was the Soviet Union began to move. But that crumbling began 
with from within, not from without.
  I hear about failed policy, let me tell you about a failed policy. 
The failed policy is millions of visitors, millions upon millions of 
visitors from Canada and Mexico and Spain and other part of Europe and 
Latin America in the last decade and what has happened? Not one 
positive action towards democracy and human rights has taken place. 
That to me is a failed policy. It is a failed policy when prostitution 
flourishes inside of Cuba so that foreign tourists can take advantage 
of Cuban women. That to me is a failed policy.
  It is a failed policy when we believe that by having millions of 
Americans go to Cuba and sun themselves on the beaches of Varadero, 
smoking a Cuban cigar, and sipping Cuban rum is the way in which we are 
going to liberate the Cuban people. What is incredible to me is the 
deafening silence of those who advocate these amendments, but when 
repression takes place in Cuba, they are virtually silent, and their 
silence is deafening.
  I say that a vote for this amendment, particularly at this time, 
flies in the face of all of those who languish inside of Cuba who 
risked their liberty and their lives to make change within their 
country.
  A vote to support this amendment is a vote to fund the Cuban economy 
and Cuban tyranny. A vote to support this amendment is a vote to 
support a regime that executed three men by firing squad after closed-
door summary trials. A vote for this amendment is a vote to continue to 
fund the regime that brutally arrested and jailed over 75 activists 
this spring for doing nothing more than demanding human rights for 
their people.
  A vote for this amendment is to say to those who languish in Castro's 
jails, we will go visit the beaches of Cuba, we will smoke the cigars 
that were mentioned here, but you will continue to languish in Castro's 
jail.
  The Cuban government sentenced many of these innocent dissidents to 
14 to 27 years in Cuban jails after holding one-day, closed-door 
summary trials. Our answer to that is, let us have a grand old time on 
Varadero Beach. That is our answer to all those who languish.
  A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the jailing of 
these activists who suffer without clean water, edible food, sanitary 
conditions and who languish in Castro's jails.
  The tales emerging from their prison cells include allegations of 
beating, psychological torture, solitary confinement in jail cells 
infested with rats and scorpions.

                              {time}  1530

  The prison conditions are so deplorable that 15 Cuban dissidents who 
were jailed in the crackdown started a hunger strike to protest the 
inhuman conditions. In a letter explaining the protest, family members 
said that the prison conditions had led them, the prisoners, to make 
the terrible decision to declare themselves on a hunger strike that 
compromises their health and, in many cases, even their lives.
  So let us recall Raul Rivero, Miriam Leiva, Gisella Delgado and 
others that, in fact, their suffering and their languishing in those 
jails are responded to by us having more tourism.
  Vote against this amendment. Vote against such an infamy and let us 
begin to speak up for those people who are risking their lives and 
liberty.


                          Travel Ban Amendment

  To prohibit the use of funds to enforce the ban on travel to Cuba by 
U.S. Citizens.
  Congress has already passed the law that supports the travel ban. 
This amendment would only create sloppy legislation. The amendment 
doesn't change the underlying law. Instead, the amendment would prevent 
Treasury from supporting the existing law.
  The belief that Americans can change Castro through tourism flies in 
the face of evidence that millions of visitors from Canada, Mexico, 
Spain and other parts of Europe and Latin America visited Cuba in the 
last decade, without impacting one iota of positive change toward 
democracy and human rights.
  Cuba Travel restrictions are constitutional, according to the Supreme 
Court [Regan vs. Wald 1984]. Other courts: the 9th Circuit 1996, and 
the 11th Cir. 2000, agreed.
  Cuba has been on the list of state-sponsored terrorism since 1982 and 
remains on the list for supporting Foreign Terrorist Organizations, for 
providing safe haven to U.S. designated foreign terrorist organizations 
including the ELN and the FARC from Colombia. Cuba also continues to 
harbor fugitives from the U.S. justice system.
  Due to the end of Soviet Subsidies and his disastrous economic 
policies, Castro is bankrupt. His lack of cash restricts his ability to 
engage or support anti-American actions around the world. Castro has 
used American tourist dollars to take the place of Soviet payments.
  The money obtained from tourism is not invested to benefit the Cuban 
people. It is invested to reinforce a state security apparatus that is 
used in developing a tourism infrastructure which only benefits the 
government.
  The tourism infrastructure doesn't benefit average Cubans. Instead, 
Castro sets aside hotels, beaches, stores, restaurants, even hospitals 
for foreigners, prohibiting Cubans from staying in those hotels and 
patronizing those facilities. American tourism under current conditions 
would freeze in place Castro's tourist apartheid.
  The infusion of U.S. tourist dollars will provide the regime with a 
lifeline. Lifting the travel ban without securing meaningful changes in 
Cuba will: (1) Guarantee the continuation of the current totalitarian 
structures, and (2) Strengthen Castro's security forces.


                      amendment to end the embargo

  Why would members of Congress even suggest ending the embargo at a 
time when we are seeing the worst wave of repression in Cuba since 
right after the Revolution? The State Department calls this new wave 
``the most despicable act of political repression in the Americas in a 
decade.''
  A vote to support this amendment is a vote to fund the Cuban economy 
and Cuban tyranny.
  A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support a regime that 
executed three men by firing squad, after closed door summary trials.
  A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support a brutal 
government which arrested and jailed over 75 activists this spring for 
doing nothing more than demanding human rights for their people.
  A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support this massive 
crackdown and Cuban style justice, or more accurately, injustice. The 
Cuban government sentenced these innocent dissidents to 14 to 27 years 
in Cuban jails after holding one-day, closed door, summary trials.
  A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the jailing of 
these activists who suffer without clean water, edible food, and 
sanitary conditions and who languish in Castro's jail. The tales 
emerging from their prison cells include allegations of beatings, 
psychological torture, solitary confinement and jail cells infested 
with rats and scorpions.
  The prison conditions are so deplorable that 15 Cuban dissidents, who 
were jailed in the crackdown, have started a hunger strike to protest 
the inhuman conditions. In a letter explaining the protest, family 
members said that the prison conditions, ``have led them (the 
prisoners) to make the terrible decision to declare themselves on a 
hunger strike, which compromises their health and even their lives.'' 
While the names of the dissidents on the hunger strike have not been 
published, the letter in support of the strike was signed by the wife 
of poet and dissident journalist Raul Rivero (sentenced to 20 years in 
jail), Miriam Leiva, wife of economist Oscar Espinosa Chepe (sentenced 
to 20 years in jail), and Gisella Delgado, the wife of activist Hector 
Palacios (sentenced to 25 years in jail).
  A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the government 
that has jailed Oscar Manuel Espinosa Chepe. Mr. Chepe, a Cuban 
economist and independent journalist, was sentenced to 20 years in jail 
for criticizing the Cuban government. At age 62, Mr. Chepe, according 
to the Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights, is suffering from a chronic 
kidney condition, a thoracic hernia, persistent hypertension, and 
severe weight loss. The Cuban government refused to provide him with 
medical treatment. Only when he was near death and only after intense 
international pressure, was he transferred to a hospital.
  A vote to support this amendment is a vote to allow funds to flow to 
the government that jailed Oscar Elias Biscet. Dr. Biscet founded the 
Lawton Foundation for Human Rights, one of the first independent civic 
groups in Havana. On February 27, 1999 he was arrested for hanging the 
national flag sideways at a press conference and was sentenced to three 
years in jail. After his release, he organized seminars on the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights for Cubans. And he was arrested 
again in December of 2002 for organizing these seminars. In April of 
this year he

[[Page 21530]]

was sentenced to 25 years in jail and sent to a special state prison.
  A vote to support this amendment is a vote to support the jailing of 
Marta Beatriz Roque Cabello. She is an economist and director of the 
Cuban Institute of Independent Economists and is the only woman who was 
detained. She is the recipient of the 2002 Heinz R. Pagels Human Rights 
of Scientists Award of the New York Academy of Sciences. In April, she 
was sentenced to 20 years in jail for her opposition work. She is in 
acute pain, has nausea attacks and the left part of her body has become 
numb, according to the opposition news agency CUBANET. In spite of her 
pain, she must sit on a stool throughout the day since prisoners are 
not allowed to stay in bed during the daytime.
  I'll say again, a vote to support this amendment is a vote to support 
the tyranny and brutality of the Cuban government. The embargo is our 
strongest weapon against the Castro regime. Vote, ``no''' to this 
amendment. Show the men and women who suffer in Cuban jails for the 
right to freedom that we stand with them in their fight for human 
rights, justice, and a country free of dictatorship.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I just heard that those who support this amendment were silent when 
Castro jailed over 80 dissidents in Cuba just months ago. I would 
remind the gentleman from New Jersey that the same individuals who are 
here in support of this amendment came to the floor and argued on 
behalf of the Diaz-Balart amendment condemning Castro for this action. 
So we have stood firm, the Cuba Working Group, and others who support 
this amendment against the atrocities that have happened there.
  I also wanted to respond to whether or not this is a good use of 
taxpayer dollars to actually use these dollars to enforce the travel 
ban as opposed to actually wage the war on terrorism.
  The Office of Foreign Assets Control at the Treasury Department 
currently spends between 10 and 20 percent of its resources actually 
enforcing the Cuba travel ban. This is the office charged with the task 
of tracking down al Qaeda money, to actually shutting down the 
international war on terrorism, the financial war; yet they are 
spending over 10 percent of its resources tracking down, in essence, 
grandmothers from Iowa who are going on a biking trip to Cuba or the 
gentleman from Washington who spent less than 24 hours in Cuba to 
scatter his parents' ashes at the churches they built in the 1950s. The 
man returned home to a fine, enforced by the Office of Foreign Assets 
Control.
  I would submit that if we are serious about the war on terrorism then 
we will stop this charade of actually limiting Americans' ability to 
travel.
  Let us stipulate that Fidel Castro is a bad guy. He is a horrible 
guy, he is a thug, I have said it many times from this podium; but our 
hatred for Castro should not cause us to punch ourselves in the face, 
and that is what we are doing in essence here, by imposing upon the 
American people a ban on their right to travel. We simply should not do 
that.
  It has been mentioned through here that some of the dissidents 
actually support what we are doing and with regard to travel. I should 
note here that many do not. In fact, I would submit that a majority do 
not. As Oswaldo Paya has mentioned, the leader of the Varela Project 
and leading democracy activist said, we appeal to all foreigners who 
come to our country as tourists to show solidarity, to take part in 
demonstrations to support the opening up of Cuba.
  Members have mentioned that some people go to Cuba just to lay on the 
beaches of Varadero. This is certainly true. Some of them, however, go 
down to protest or some go down to take books to independent libraries. 
We do not know who is going to. We should not pretend that we know, and 
for us to pretend that we do makes us look like Fidel Castro. Let him 
do this.
  It is often submitted that if we lift this travel ban that surely 
Fidel Castro will impose his own. I have no doubt that he will, that he 
will try to limit those who are coming down to Cuba. He will try to 
determine who is a sunbather and who is a protestor. That is a policy 
befitting of Fidel Castro. It is not a policy befitting of this great 
country.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I want to point out that I find it somewhat ironic that when 
we speak of the wives of Oscar Chepe and Hector Palacios, prominent 
leaders in the dissident movement in Cuba who are currently 
incarcerated in Cuban jails, for whom my colleague and I and members of 
the Cuba Working Group have advocated strenuously for their release and 
will continue to do so, that when references to their spouses are made, 
it is left to be suggested that they support the ban on travel, when 
the contrary is true.
  Let me quote from Miriam Leiva, the wife of Oscar Espinosa Chepe: 
``The visits of hundreds of thousands of North Americans to Cuba could 
contribute to the exchange of ideas and the progress of democracy.'' I 
know we all share that. Let us support this.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Just a few points to clarify. Let us be clear, to remind our 
colleagues, for example, of who Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet is. There is no 
one more respected in Cuba today than Dr. Biscet. Dr. Biscet, because 
he is so respected by the Cuban people, has been sentenced to 25 years 
in the gulag. Dr. Biscet says that it would be unconscionable to lift 
the embargo, to alleviate the embargo in any way and to send the 
resources to the dictatorship.
  This young man Antunez is serving 18 years because ever since he has 
been in high school he has been fighting for democracy in Cuba, and he 
says it would be unconscionable to send resources to the dictatorship.
  Let us be clear and on and on, Marta Beatriz Roque, the leaders who 
represent the Cuban people, who are in prison, do not want resources 
sent.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), who keeps on saying that he 
knows that the dictator is a bad guy but he keeps on introducing 
amendments that would have the effect of sending billions of dollars to 
the dictator, has said this time that the dictator, and others have 
said, that he should not be believed, the dictator should not be 
believed when he says, yes, I want billions of dollars, I want billions 
of dollars. Imagine if the Flake theory would hold and every enemy of 
the United States now received billions of dollars from the United 
States because they are enemies of the United States and they cannot be 
believed because since they are really enemies of the United States, 
but we cannot believe enemies of the United States, it is good to send 
them billions of dollars. Imagine that theory.
  Imagine that theory. That is the Flake theory and of the United 
States, billions of dollars. Do not believe enemies of the United 
States, billions of dollars. Let us vote down this amendment; and let 
us stand with the people in the Cuban prisons, and let us vote to 
support the sanctions until there are free elections in Cuba, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, has all time expired for the other side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has 2 minutes 
remaining, and the time of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) has expired.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  I appreciate the comments from the other side. I would maintain that 
none of us really know when Fidel Castro is telling the truth and when 
he is not.
  I do not think that we should pretend that we do. I do not think we 
should even try. Therefore, we simply ought to adopt a policy that is 
right and consistent with our objectives. That is what ending the 
travel ban is all about. It is doing what is good policy regardless of 
whether we think Fidel Castro supports it or whether he does not.
  I should mention there are others that have called for an end to the 
travel ban, other dissidents. Oscar Espinosa Chepe has been cited here 
a couple of times. This is a man I met just weeks

[[Page 21531]]

before he was imprisoned in what for him may be a life sentence. He 
said, ``When the travel of Americans to Cuba is approved, the struggle 
for democracy and freedom will by no means end. To the contrary, these 
measures create better conditions to achieve these objectives.''
  That is what we are trying to do here. We are trying to comport with 
the wishes of the dissident community in Cuba and to do what is right 
for us as well, to lift the ban on Americans to travel.
  We need today to strike a blow for freedom. We can do that by 
allowing Americans to travel freely as they wish.
  If it is freedom that we want for the Cuban people, let us start by 
exercising a little more of it ourselves by allowing our citizens to 
travel to Cuba and to take their values with them.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Flake 
amendment regarding the Treasury Department's limitation of the right 
of Americans to travel.
  This amendment is based on a core principle--that the policy of 
limiting the right of ordinary Americans to travel to Cuba, is an 
infringement of all Americans' right to travel anywhere they want at 
any time they choose.
  Nevermind that the U.S. Cuba policy has been an outright failure for 
the last forty years. Nevermind that the travel ban prevents American 
businesses from creating jobs in Cuba and the United States, that it 
prevents Americans from sharing their best ideas and ideals with a 
close neighbor; and it does nothing to advance the cause of freedom and 
social justice.
  The travel ban runs counter to the core Constitutional concept that 
the American right to travel is an absolute and non-negotiable right, a 
reflection of the free and open nature of our society.
  If you believe in our constitutional rights, if you believe in the 
power of travel and trade, if you believe our citizens are the best 
ambassadors of American values, and if you agree with President Bush 
that engagement is the engine of liberty--then we need to pass this 
amendment legislation to legalize travel by Americans to Cuba.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Flake 
Amendment to end the unnecessary and counterproductive ban on travel to 
Cuba, and I want to recognize and applaud both Mr. Flake and Mr. 
Delahunt for their outstanding leadership on this issue and the agenda 
of the House Cuba Working Group. In fact, I am a proud sponsor of H.R. 
2071, the Working Group's Export Freedom to Cuba Act, which would 
accomplish the same objective as this amendment, and would allow travel 
between the United States and Cuba. I have long supported normalizing 
relations with Cuba and frankly, Mr. Chairman, find it embarrassing 
that our policy has remained unchanged and stagnant in the 26 years 
since I first got involved in efforts to normalize relations. I wonder 
when the Administration will realize that November 9, 2003 marks 14 
years since the end of the Cold War.
  Americans do not need a license to travel half-way around the world 
to North Korea, Iraq and Iran, but the ``dangerous'' island nation of 
Cuba 90 miles off the coast of Florida requires stricter regulation. 
This policy seems particularly absurd when there is bi-partisan, bi-
cameral support to end the embargo; most Americans oppose the trade and 
travel ban. Even Cuban Americans are divided on the issue.
  In 2000, a Florida International University poll showed that 63 
percent of Americans nationally and 75 percent of Americans of other 
than Cuban descent in Miami-Dade favor unrestricted travel to Cuba. We 
constantly seem to be moving backwards in our foreign policy, when our 
constituents are saying the opposite. Where is the logic in punishing 
Americans? A significant number of Representatives from both sides of 
the aisle actually agree on ending the travel ban. However, we are 
still unable to normalize travel and trade. In 1999 we granted 
permanent normalized trade relations to China, but are still unable to 
travel and trade with Cuba freely. Whether or not other nations agree 
with the practices of the Cuban regime, they believe that our policy is 
ridiculous and outdated.
  Mr. Speaker, the obsession with Cuba is two-fold: Those who support 
the travel ban are driven by 44-year-old memories of the revolution. 
Americans, who are eager to travel, are drawn to the rich, vibrant 
Cuban culture. Along with most of my constituents, I belong to the 
latter group which believes that we have much to learn from each other.
  The Oakland City Council in 1998 passed a resolution to eliminate the 
trade sanctions against Cuba and the Bay Area has numerous sister-city 
relations with Cubans; these exchanges benefit students, arts 
initiatives, encourage humanitarian projects and research sharing for 
important diseases like HIV/AIDS, kidney failure and high blood 
pressure.
  Farmers across the country are eager to engage in trade with Cuba as 
the U.S. economy continues to plummet.
  The recent elimination of the people-to-people category, within the 
OFAC regulations, proves again how the administration is more concerned 
with maintaining a grudge than reinstating the American right to 
travel.
  Mr. Chairman, not only does the travel and trade embargo undermine 
and contradict the values upon which our great country is based, but 
they are also very costly and logistically difficult to administer 
between the Departments of State, Treasury, and Commerce. We should not 
be persecuting Americans who are guilty of nothing more than a sense of 
curiosity and eagerness to learn and explore our island neighbor, Cuba.
  Vote ``yes'' to promote democracy, vote for American's freedom to 
travel, vote for the Flake amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, since the early 1960s, U.S. 
policy towards Cuba has consisted largely of isolating the island 
nation through comprehensive economic sanctions. In addition, these 
sanctions were made stronger with the 1992 congressional approval of 
the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA). I feel strongly that it has never been 
in our nation's best interest to recognize countries in our hemisphere 
that rebel against the ideas and freedoms we hold so dear. Some people 
feel that it is time to lift these sanctions.
  I believe it is important to uphold the principles of democracy and 
freedom, human rights and liberty for which our Founding Fathers fought 
so hard. All peoples--including Cubans--have the right to enjoy these 
basic, inalienable rights as well. It is my understanding that once 
again, recently, the Cuban dictatorship took aggressive action to 
stifle the efforts of freedom-loving Cubans. Today is not the day to 
reward this repressive behavior. I urge my colleagues to reject the 
Flake-Delahunt-Davis Amendment.
  Today's proposed amendments, which would open the floodgates of 
American dollars to the Castro dictatorship, would only prolong and 
strengthen the dictator's grip on the people of Cuba. To allow the 
American travel industry to engage Castro would send the worst of all 
messages to the freedom-seeking Cuban dissidents who rely on the United 
States not to give into this regime.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 14 offered by Mrs. Maloney

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

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mrs. Maloney:
       At the end of title II insert the following new section:
       Sec. 213.(a) In General.--None of the funds appropriated by 
     this Act may be used to assess or collect any tax liability 
     attributable to the inclusion in gross income of amounts paid 
     (from funds referred to in subsection (b)) to any person as 
     assistance on account of any property or business damaged by, 
     and for economic revitalization directly related to, the 
     terrorist attacks on the United States that occurred on 
     September 11, 2001.
       (b) Funds.--The funds referred to in this subsection are 
     amounts appropriated by--
       (1) Public Law 107-206 under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, Community Planning and 
     Development'',
       (2) section 434 of the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-73),
       (3) amounts appropriated by Public Law 107-38 and 
     designated by the President for community development block 
     grant purposes, and
       (4) amounts appropriated by Public Law 107-117 for the 
     Community Development Fund under the heading ``DEPARTMENT OF 
     HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNITY PLANNING AND 
     DEVELOPMENT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND''.
       (c) Coordination with Certain Means-tested Programs.--None 
     of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used to treat

[[Page 21532]]

     amounts to which subsection (a) applies as income or 
     resources for purposes of--
       (1) the United States Housing Act of 1937,
       (2) title V of the Housing Act of 1949,
       (3) section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 
     1965,
       (4) sections 221(d)(3), 235, and 236 of the National 
     Housing Act,
       (5) the Food Stamp Act of 1977, and
       (6) the Social Security Act.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and a Member in opposition to 
the amendment each will control 5 minutes.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first I would like to thank my colleagues for their 
leadership on behalf of New York following the tragedy of 9/11.
  I have never seen Congress so united and determined. We responded 
with a national commitment to help New York City rebuild. Part of this 
rebuilding effort was Federal grants to businesses and individuals in 
Lower Manhattan near Ground Zero.
  Just yesterday the New York Times wrote of problems getting all of 
the aid to those who needed it most. But what is more disturbing is 
that after deserving victims of 9/11 got the aid, the IRS in a surprise 
announcement decided to take part of it away in taxes.
  Many grant recipients accepted the aid and spent every penny, not 
knowing that they would have to pay taxes on it.
  It is just unfair for these cash-strapped businesses and individuals 
to take another financial hit, a financial hit that the Joint Committee 
on Taxation estimates to be $268 million.
  The IRS is taking back $268 million in Federal aid that the President 
pledged to New York City. This IRS decision has also had a ripple 
effect on other Federal benefits that survivors of 9/11 may receive.
  Since many agencies rely on the IRS decision and definition of gross 
income, some recipients' eligibility for programs like Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Social Security may be in jeopardy.
  The amendment that I am offering today with my colleague from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) would bar the use of any of the funds for 1 year for 
the IRS to enforce the decision to collect taxes on these grants to 
Lower Manhattan. After all, the Federal Government is supposed to be 
sending aid to disaster victims, not taking it away.
  Taxing the grants violates the spirit of Federal disaster aid. This 
is not the first action that I and others have taken to right this 
wrong. Actually, it is the latest in a series of actions.
  Along with others in the New York delegation, we have written IRS, 
the Secretary of Treasury, we have written the President, Speaker 
Hastert, and the leadership of the other body.
  I have introduced bipartisan legislation. The Committee on Ways and 
Means is aware of the problem. The Congressional Research Service has 
done a memo. I have gone before the Committee on Rules seeking to add 
it as an amendment to H.R. 1308. And I am on the floor today with this 
amendment.
  I ask my colleagues, who have the ultimate authority to decide who 
gets taxed, for their help. I am confident that it was never this 
Congress's intent to tax this disaster aid.
  Making this amendment subject to a point of order means that this 
Congress has made a decision to continue to tax this 9/11 aid 2 days 
before the second anniversary of these attacks.
  Mr. Chairman, I call upon my colleagues to support me with this 
amendment. It is fair. It was the intent of Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
that the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and I are offering, 
which corrects an incredible injustice faced by some victims of the 9/
11 attacks.
  Shortly after the attack, which occurred in my district on September 
11, Congress moved quickly to ease the economic suffering of businesses 
and residents in Lower Manhattan.
  Over $3 billion was appropriated through the Community Development 
Block Grant program specifically to assist residents and businesses in 
Lower Manhattan through a variety of grant programs to try to recover 
from the tremendous economic damage inflicted by the terrorists.
  While such programs could never make these individuals and businesses 
whole after the devastating losses they suffered, these funds are an 
important first step in, and my constituents are truly grateful to the 
country for coming to their aid.
  Incredibly, the Internal Revenue Service has announced that much of 
this money is subject to Federal taxation, effectively withdrawing some 
of the aid after it has already been given.

                              {time}  1545

  When we appropriated these funds in this House, it was 
incomprehensible that the Federal Government might provide assistance 
with one hand and take it away with the other. These funds are not 
profit. They are not income that should be taxed. They are funds 
intended to begin to defray some of the damages incurred by these 
businesses which were closed for months because guards stood on Canal 
Street saying ``You cannot go to these businesses. You cannot pass 
here.''
  The aid that these businesses are getting are a tiny fraction of the 
economic damage they suffered because of the terrorists. Twenty percent 
have already closed their doors. Twenty percent of the small businesses 
in Lower Manhattan have gone bankrupt because of the inadequacy of the 
aid that we gave them to make them whole from the terrorists, and now 
we are taking away some of the money that we gave them.
  Recipients of these funds were never asked to prepare a budget with 
the prospect of paying taxes on it in mind. Already near financial 
ruin, to place further economic demand on their budgets is simply 
cruel. This is an issue of fairness and common sense and decency to the 
people who took the hit for this country. I do not believe that anybody 
on either side of the aisle who voted for the economic aid to try to 
help the victims of the terrorism anticipated this taxation, and we 
ought to get rid of it.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
pending Maloney amendment No. 14 to H.R. 2989 on the grounds that this 
provision violates clause 5 of House rule XXI because it proposes a 
limitation on funds in a general appropriations bill for the 
administration of a tax or tariff.
  The gentlewoman from New York is seeking to change existing law and 
prohibit taxes from being collected on payments made to those affected 
by the September 11 terrorist attacks. While, Mr. Chairman, we 
certainly all have tremendous sympathy for those who suffered losses 
from this tragic event, we should not be using appropriation bills, or 
seeking to use them, to establish new tax policy concerning payments to 
them or to any other individuals.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  I very much respect my colleague's point of order, but could the 
gentleman please tell me how and when is this Congress going to act to 
return the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid promised to them 
after 9/11?
  We have legislation before this House; we have been before the 
Committee on Rules with amendments trying to attach this to other 
legislation. We know that many on the other side of the aisle are 
calling for permanent tax relief in certain areas. We are asking for 
tax relief for the victims of 9/11.
  It was truly not the intent of this Congress to tax their aid benefit 
packages. In fact, the IRS did not even tell them they were going to do 
this until the last minute. Most of them spent the money and now are in 
trouble taking out loans to repay. And, really,

[[Page 21533]]

when they got the grants, they were well below what they lost. Now to 
come back and tax roughly a third of the grant is terribly unfair.
  So I respectfully ask my colleagues, When will we be able to act on 
this legislation and return hundreds of millions of dollars in aid 
promised to the victims of 9/11?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  I would agree, obviously, with what the gentlewoman from New York, my 
coauthor of this amendment, just said. We have tried every different 
way.
  The aid to small businesses is roughly about $539 million. This tax 
is taking it back about $268 million. I will concede that technically 
the point of order may stand, but the Committee on Rules of this House 
routinely waives all points of order; routinely waives most points of 
order. I would appeal to my colleague to withdraw his point of order. I 
appeal to my colleague to exercise discretion and not press his point 
of order so as not to victimize the victims a second time. Because that 
is what we are talking about here.
  We have tried, the gentlewoman from New York and I and others in the 
New York delegation, to try to press this point to the Committee on 
Rules, in separate legislation, and to the IRS. I do not believe 
anybody anticipated that someone might come along and say this aid 
should be taxed. We would have put a sentence in the initial aid 
legislation 2 years ago, no one would have opposed it, and that would 
have been that.
  No one anticipated this. This was completely shocking. No one 
anticipated the IRS would say that this money, which was a small 
recompense, with the average aid being about 10 to 15 percent of the 
loss, there is no profit or income here, it is 10 to 15 percent of the 
economic loss; but no one anticipated this would be taxed, so I urge 
that the point of order be withdrawn
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist on his point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma raises a point of order against the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York for violating clause 
5(a) of rule XXI. Clause 5(a) provides a point of order against 
amendments proposing limitations on general appropriation bills for the 
administration of a tax or tariff.
  The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York proposes a 
limitation on a general appropriation bill for the assessment or 
collection of tax liability attributable to the inclusion of certain 
economic assistance in the taxpayer's gross income. The amendment 
therefore imposes a limitation on funds for the administration of a tax 
in violation of clause 5(a) of rule XXI. The point of order is 
sustained.
  The amendment is not in order.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Delahunt

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Delahunt:
       Page 157, insert the following after line 2:
       Sec. 742. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce any restriction on remittances to 
     nationals of Cuba or Cuban households, including remittances 
     for emigration expenses, covered by section 515.570 or 
     515.560(c) of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, other 
     than the restriction that remittances not be made from a 
     blocked source and the restriction that no member of the 
     payee's household be a senior-level government official or 
     senior-level communist party official.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4, 
2003, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and a Member in 
opposition to the amendment each will be recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This is a very simple amendment, Mr. Chairman. It does exactly the 
same thing as the one that I and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) 
and others offered last year and which passed the House overwhelmingly. 
It prohibits enforcement of the cap on remittances that can be sent to 
families in Cuba.
  Not many people, I believe, are aware that an aspect of current 
policy regarding Cuba imposes limits on family charity. Let me just say 
that again. It is American policy to restrict the amount of financial 
support that Cuban Americans can send to their families on the island. 
U.S. law prohibits Americans from giving more than $1,200 a year to 
their Cuban families. I would suggest that this is shameful, especially 
for a Nation of immigrants like we have here in the United States.
  Is there anything that defines American history or our heritage more 
than a first-generation family sending money back to the old country to 
buy food or medicine or clothing for loved ones in need? Such 
assistance is particularly critical in Cuba. Dollars from American 
relatives can make a huge difference in the quality of life for a Cuban 
family. One would think that American policy would be to encourage 
family assistance; but instead, the law, our law, views Cuban Americans 
who give too much help to their families as common criminals who can be 
fined up to $55,000 and sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.
  Now, as the Treasury Department will readily tell us, the limits on 
remittances are rarely enforced. And after the House spoke so clearly 
last year on this particular amendment, the administration began to 
allow Cuban Americans who visit the island to bring more money with 
them. I think the amount is some $10,000, although it did retain the 
$1,200 limit per household per year. So I would suggest or conclude 
that even the White House recognizes that this policy is a pointless 
charade, which begs the question: Why have any limits on remittances at 
all?
  It is important to understand this policy does nothing to hurt the 
Cuban Government. Nothing. Instead, it punishes American citizens by 
forcing them to violate the law, and as we have heard elsewhere today, 
causes disrespect for the rule of law. And it punishes their relatives 
in Cuba by denying them the opportunity for a better life because, and 
it cannot be repeated often enough, this money does not go to the Cuban 
Government. Remittances are direct aid to families in Cuba from 
ordinary people who care to ordinary people in need.
  It is the official policy of the United States that you should only 
do just so much. This is wrong and it is unacceptable. Last week, 
President Bush said, and I am quoting him, ``Millions of acts of 
decency and kindness help define the true worth and the true strength 
of this great American Nation.'' We all agree with those sentiments. 
Our government should never seek to limit the kindness and the decency 
of the American people.
  Ending the limit on remittances is one of the most kind and decent 
things we can do for the people of Cuba and for Cuban Americans here in 
the United States. We should do this. Support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the 
time in opposition, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Florida for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Delahunt 
amendment.
  While well-intentioned, in practice this amendment would only serve 
as yet one more vehicle for the regime to get its hands on much-needed 
and much-valued hard currency. The goal of the existing controls on 
remittances is so that the average Cuban, who is denied access to basic 
necessities by the regime, in order for the dictatorship to provide it 
to foreign tourists, it is so that that average Cuban receives 
sufficient funds to survive.
  Let me reiterate that the goal of the existing controls is to help 
the average

[[Page 21534]]

Cuban receive funds for his needs. Certainly Castro does not care for 
his needs.
  The amount has been carefully calibrated and reviewed at this moment, 
taking into consideration the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar 
relative to the economic realities on the island, the same realities 
and economic context which has prompted this Chamber time and time 
again, Mr. Chairman, to limit microcredit lending to small amounts 
benefiting the poorest of the poor. And they apply to the controls 
currently in place with respect to remittances in Cuba.
  Removing the financial caps, as the Delahunt amendment seeks by 
prohibiting their enforcement, means more money for the corrupt regime 
to pocket. In removing all but one of the controls on the recipients of 
these remittances, the amendment creates an opening for individuals 
involved in illicit activities, for example, to receive U.S. currency. 
This amendment removes the safeguards that have been put in place and 
that are aimed at ensuring that transactions benefit those in need and 
cannot be manipulated by a terrorist regime starved for foreign 
currency.
  In practice, this amendment redirects some of our U.S. currency flows 
to Cuba, which in turn the dictatorship can direct towards its friends, 
that is, rogue states such as Iran, Libya, and Syria. Denying 
terrorists and their sponsors the resources to continue their 
activities has become a critical pillar of U.S. policy in the aftermath 
of the deplorable acts of September 11.
  If we really want to help the Cuban people, then deny their oppressor 
and vote ``no'' on the Delahunt Amendment.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
important amendment forward. We should not be in the business of 
limiting family charity. We should not tell Cuban Americans in this 
country how much they can send to their families in Cuba.
  As the situation now is, individuals in Cuba are only given a certain 
amount that they can get through the government ration card. That does 
not allow for some to have meat in their diet. Allowing individuals to 
send money to their families simply allows that basic necessity. Unless 
there is a child under the age of 7, for example, you are denied milk. 
There is no powdered milk available for families without children under 
7. This allows Cubans as a humanitarian gesture to obtain that.
  Also, it should be mentioned, this is rarely enforced. I doubt 
anybody in opposition to the amendment believes that families sending 
in excess of $1,200 a year ought to be prosecuted. If we want respect 
for the law, let us bring the law into conformity with what is 
happening on a humanitarian basis.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and we are working on a series of 
crucial issues in Latin America; but I have a fundamental disagreement 
with the gentleman certainly on the issue of Cuba and particularly on 
this amendment.
  My two points that I want to make, number one, we hear a lot about 
Cuban-American families and their families in Cuba, and those of us who 
are Cuban Americans struggle with this all the time, the desire to help 
our families, at the same time propping up a regime that oppresses 
them.
  But the amendment goes beyond that because the law permits 
remittances from non-Cuban Americans, from ordinary Americans who have 
no relationship to Cuba whatsoever, to make remittances into any Cuban 
individual inside of Cuba. Now that means that the potential for 
unlimited amounts of money by nonfamily members having no relationship 
with Cubans on the island to send monies into Cuba would be unlimited.
  And when we know of Castro's history of his support of terrorism, of 
his harboring fugitives from the United States, imagine those who 
support those who think about that in our own country being able to 
send U.S. dollars into Cuba without restriction as to amounts or 
process, not for Cuban families, but ultimately for those who wish us 
harm. That is the risk with the gentleman's amendment and that is the 
law of the land today. We, in fact, as Americans, can send money into 
Cuba, and you do not have to have any family inside of Cuba. To now 
permit unlimited amounts of that happening is against the national 
interest of the United States and the national security of the United 
States.
  Finally, I would point out that yes, this does help the regime 
because not only can nonCubans send money, but at the same time what 
does Castro do, in order to be able to grab those dollars and for him 
to control its use inside of Cuba, the only way those dollars work are 
at government dollar stores which are at inflated prices and in 
essence, gouge the Cuban people. He does get the money and resources, 
and he gouges the Cuban people in doing so, but it is their only remedy 
under this totalitarianism. So ultimately, yes, the regime gets the 
money we are sending. Sending unlimited amounts without limitation and 
sending it to dollar stores inside of Cuba does not make sense. The 
amendment does not make sense.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, what is the time remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sessions). Both the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining, with the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) reserving the right to close.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be a cosponsor of this 
amendment that would end the limit on remittances that Americans can 
send to households in Cuba.
  I had a chance to visit Cuba, and I met several people there doing 
business on their own. I met a taxi driver, and I asked him a lot of 
questions. One of the things he told me was yes, he has to give a 
portion of that money to the government, but much of it stayed with 
him. I said, Really, how is that done?
  He said that is how it is done. He pulled out a wad, maybe this 
thick, of dollars. And this is what is going on right now in Cuba. 
There is nothing wrong with that. This young man, in my opinion, was 
very happy that tourists like myself and others were able to visit and 
spend our dollars.
  And yes, there are people right now who would love to send not only 
dollars but medical equipment to Cuba to help those that are ailing; 
but because of restrictions, we cannot do that. We cannot do that 
through normal channels. We are hurting the Cuban people, not the 
government, but the people. In my opinion, $300 every 3 months is not 
enough. $1,200 a year is not enough. $100 a month does not do it. I 
would say that we need to support this amendment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, just to respond to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), Cuba does receive medical 
equipment. The U.S. can send medical equipment. The gentlewoman might 
want to look at the law before she speaks in front of us.
  Mr. Chairman, nobody wants to help the Cuban people more than the 
families of those Cuban people. And by the way, no one wants to help 
those people more than those Members who represent the families of 
those Cuban people here in Congress, and a few of us represent the bulk 
of them, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart) and myself, and we get elected

[[Page 21535]]

by those family members that these Members of Congress are saying that 
they want to help.
  But what they understand is there is only one solution for the 
suffering of the Cuban people, and that is getting rid of the anti-
American terrorist dictator, Fidel Castro. When we send more money that 
has to be sent to the government stores and goes to the government 
coffers so they can further their terrorist activities, that does not 
help the United States of America. It makes no sense to help fund a 
terrorist regime.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, debate has been brief, but I think informative on this 
matter. The reality is that every dollar that is sent in remittances is 
spent in stores. Since the economy is owned by the regime, the stores 
are owned by the regime. So obviously this is a delicate issue in the 
sense that many people obviously send remittances to their families 
knowing that their families have to spend the remittances in the dollar 
stores, and thus the remittances will end up in the hands of the regime 
that oppresses the Cuban people, including the families that receive 
the remittances.
  But since it is a terrorist regime that engages in terrorist 
activities in addition to repression of its people, that is why these 
regulations, this balance, is in place. So again, there is a pattern 
here. The pattern is let us increase revenues to this dictatorship. 
Notice we are seeing on the floor today measures to increase revenues 
to the dictatorship. Whether they come on the floor and say the 
dictator is a bad guy, look at the actions. What are the effects of 
these amendments, to increase revenues for the dictatorship?
  So we should vote down these amendments and take further steps. For 
example, when we asked in the resolution that has been alluded to 
before that the prisoners be released and elections be held, not one 
prisoner has been released, much less has an election been held. Let us 
insist on what we asked for, and not help the regime.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I agree with the gentleman, those prisoners should be released, and 
we will continue to work hopefully to secure their release. At the same 
time, the gentleman cannot deny the level and magnitude of the human 
rights abuses in Saudi Arabia, and we have to be equally as ardent and 
vociferous in our condemnation on what occurs in that society. We have 
to have a policy that is devoid of hypocrisy.
  Let me go to the amendment very briefly. The reality is that Cuban 
Americans who travel to Cuba, and there are many of them and they go 
there frequently, they pour out of the Jose Marti Airport and embrace 
their relatives there. And the reality and truth is they do bring 
dollars with them far in excess of $1,200 a year, and I know if I had 
family in Cuba, I would do the same because family is first.
  I recognize the Cuban community and the Cuban-American family believe 
in a sense of fairness. This is not to increase revenues for any 
government, it is to take care of people, families. When you are in 
Cuba and you are there and you are visiting not just with dissidents 
but ordinary Cubans, they tell you this is a life line to survive, and 
that is why we bring this amendment to legitimatize what is going on. 
We know the Treasury Department does not enforce this particular 
remittance, but it is to legitimatize the reality and support families 
everywhere.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. 742. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to assist in overturning the judicial ruling contained 
     in the Memorandum and Order of the United States District 
     Court for the Southern District of Illinois entered on July 
     31, 2003, in the action entitled Kathi Cooper, Beth 
     Harrington, and Matthew Hillesheim, Individually and on 
     Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated vs. IBM Personal 
     Pension Plan and IBM Corporation (Civil No. 99-829-GPM).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
September 4, 2003, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and a 
Member opposed each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this tripartisan amendment is cosponsored by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) who is the ranking member 
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht). This amendment also has the 
strong support of the AARP, the largest senior citizen group in this 
country representing over 35 million Americans, it has the support of 
the Pension Right Centers, and the IBM Employees Benefit Action 
Coalition.
  This amendment is simple and straightforward. Five weeks ago, the 
Federal District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ruled that 
IBM's cash balance pension conversion violates Federal age 
discrimination law. The conversion, Judge Murphy found, violated the 
age discrimination provisions of ERISA because it discriminates against 
older workers.

                              {time}  1615

  This court decision confirms what millions of American workers have 
been saying for years and what hundreds of Members of Congress have 
also gone on record as stating. Conversions to cash balance pension 
plans discriminate against older workers, are illegal and must not be 
allowed to happen. This amendment would simply prevent the Federal 
Government from using any funding to assist in overturning the Federal 
district court ruling. That is what this amendment does.
  By passing this amendment, we would not only be upholding the law, 
which is the least we can do, but we will also be standing with 
millions of workers who have lost, and are in danger of losing, 20, 30, 
40, 50 percent of the pensions that they have been promised by their 
employers.
  Mr. Chairman, why did Judge Murphy rule against the company and 
decide in favor of IBM employees? Let me just read a brief excerpt of 
what he wrote:
  ``In 1999, IBM opted for a `cash balance formula.' The plan's 
actuaries projected that this would produce annual savings of almost 
$500 million by 2009. These savings would result from reductions of up 
to 47 percent in future benefits that would be earned by older IBM 
employees. The 1999 cash balance formula violates the literal terms of 
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, that is, ERISA. IBM's own 
age discrimination analysis illustrates the problem.'' That is from 
Judge Murphy.
  Mr. Chairman, I became involved in this issue several years ago when 
many hundreds of IBM employees in Vermont contacted my office and told 
me that the pensions they had been promised by the company had been cut 
by 30 to 50 percent. Imagine that. Workers staying at a company through 
good times and bad times, providing loyalty to their employers, and 
then one day the company sends out a message which says, in so many 
words, thank you for your years of dedicated service, but forget about 
the promises that we made to you regarding the retirement that you and 
your family were anticipating. Thank you very much, but

[[Page 21536]]

we've changed our minds, we've pulled the rug out from underneath you, 
we're cutting your pensions by up to 50 percent.
  Yes, IBM had enough money to pay out a $260 million compensation 
package to former CEO Lou Gerstner, $260 million to one man, but they 
just could not keep their word to their long-term, dedicated employees. 
And, of course, it is not just IBM that we are talking about today. It 
is hundreds of companies that have done exactly the same thing. It is 
companies that have broken the law, discriminated against older 
American workers and slashed the pensions that those workers were 
promised.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no secret that the middle class in this country 
is hurting. Americans are working longer hours for lower wages. Their 
health benefits are being cut. Corporate America has thrown millions of 
American workers out on the street as they move our manufacturing 
sector to China, to Mexico and anyplace that they can find where they 
hire people for pennies an hour. Meanwhile, in many instances, the CEOs 
of these very same companies make out like bandits.
  Mr. Chairman, a segment of corporate America have destroyed American 
jobs, destroyed health care benefits and now they want to destroy the 
pension benefits that were promised to their workers. We must not allow 
that to happen. Even corporate America, even major campaign 
contributors, even folks who can spend huge sums of money by placing 
full-page ads in the New York Times and elsewhere, even those people 
have got to obey the law. That is what this amendment is about. It is 
about obeying the law and not engaging in actions that violate Federal 
age discrimination statutes. In our country, we have come a long way by 
ending discrimination based on race, gender and disabilities. And today 
we have got to make it crystal clear that we will not allow 
discrimination against older American workers. We will not allow the 
Treasury Department to use taxpayer dollars to support age 
discrimination.
  Mr. Chairman, let us not forget that companies with defined benefit 
pension plans receive $89 billion a year in tax breaks to set up 
pension plans for their workers. Out of all of the tax breaks that 
companies in America receive, the tax break for pension plans is far 
and away the most generous. Congress and the Federal Government should 
not be providing taxpayer dollars for companies to commit age 
discrimination against its workers.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very important for the House to support this 
amendment today. It is important, Mr. Chairman, because despite the 
fact that cash balance conversions have been found to be illegal in the 
courts, the Treasury Department is still pushing proposed regulations 
that, if enacted, would give the green light to these very same cash 
balance pension plans that the Federal court has ruled are illegal. 
Clearly, the Treasury Department is intent on pushing these illegal 
conversions by all means at its disposal, and we must not allow that to 
happen.
  Mr. Chairman, just last year, over 300 Members of the House voted to 
require the Treasury Department to protect older workers in cash 
balance pension conversions. I thank all of them for their support for 
older American workers. In addition, over 200 Members of Congress 
recently wrote a letter to urge President Bush to withdraw the proposed 
cash balance regulations that are at issue here. Today we have the 
opportunity to once again show our support for American workers and 
oppose a plan which is unfair, immoral and illegal. I urge strong 
support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, knowing no other Member to do so, I will 
claim the time in opposition, although I do not intend to speak on the 
amendment myself, but I will claim it for the purpose of yielding to 
any other Members that may wish to do so.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sessions). Is the gentleman seeking 
time in opposition?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman reserves the balance of his 
time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just tell my colleagues how I came into this issue in the 
State of Vermont. I came into this issue when, several years ago, my 
phone lines bounced off the hook because large numbers of workers at 
the Vermont IBM plant in Essex Junction, Vermont, suddenly learned for 
the first time that the pensions that had been promised to them were 
going to be cut substantially and in some cases by up to 50 percent.
  I became involved with these workers who stood up and said to the 
company, you made us a promise and when times were bad, we stayed with 
you, we didn't go someplace else. One of the reasons that we stayed 
with you is because you had promised us a certain pension that we were 
basing our family retirement on. That is the promise that had been 
made. What these workers did is stood up, talked to their fellow IBM 
workers all over America and they fought back and they won some partial 
benefits as IBM made some rescissions in what they did, but they 
continued the fight. What they have said, and workers all over America 
have said, is we cannot discriminate against workers simply because 
they are old and move to cash balance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time. I want to thank him so much for his battle 
on behalf of American working families and retirees for pension 
protection and safety that he has led in this Congress now for a number 
of years.
  Mr. Chairman, we are here again because of the relentless effort of 
this administration to empower corporations to cut the pensions of 
older workers in this country. If this amendment does not pass, the 
Treasury Department will go forward and provide a ruling that will make 
it safe for corporations to cut the pensions, the defined pension plans 
of older workers. Hundreds of corporations already have filed notice 
that they want to do this, they are simply waiting for the Treasury 
Department to make the ruling. We were here once before, and the 
Congress made a determination that this was unfair, it was inequitable, 
it was mean-spirited and it was damaging the economics of retirees and 
their ability to provide for their retirement.
  The last time the gentleman led this effort, the General Accounting 
Office came forward and studied the impact of that effort and found 
that, in fact, many of these pensioners risked losing half of their 
pension. So the situation today is much the same as when the gentleman 
from Vermont first sounded the alarm a couple of years ago. But what 
has changed is, in fact, we now have a court opinion from the Federal 
District Court in the Southern District of Illinois that ruled, in 
fact, that IBM had violated the age discrimination protections when it 
changed its pension plan to accept a cash balance plan. What they did 
there was they ruled against older workers. They were going to deny 
older workers the pension benefits that they were entitled to, and they 
were going to get far less than younger workers were going to get, and 
that is age discrimination, because that is what they are doing. They 
are discriminating against older workers, 50, 55 years old, who have 
15, 20 years at a company. Now, all of a sudden, they are going to find 
out that their pension plans have been cut in half.
  What does that mean? That means that those people who have worked 
hard, made their plans for retirement, tried to develop their 
retirement nest egg so they could have a standard of living to carry 
them through their retirement years. All that is now threatened, and, 
essentially, it is gone. Because where does an older worker go to get 
back that pension benefit when they are 50, 55 years old with that 
company? They cannot do that. They cannot do that. That is the 
unfairness of this. That is why AARP, the American Association of 
Retired Persons, supports our amendment. That is why the

[[Page 21537]]

Pension Rights Center supports the Sanders-Miller amendment. That is 
why they support this effort to bring equity to this effort.
  What are we trying to say? Let the worker make a choice. Let the 
worker choose which benefit would help them the most. Companies under 
our legislation would still be allowed to convert to cash balances, but 
what they would not be allowed to do is to harm older workers and their 
families in the effort to do that. That is a significant amount of 
money to these workers. We have heard from workers all over the country 
who have e-mailed our office because they have heard that their company 
is thinking about this. We have heard from people in the financial 
industry, in the airline industry that have been through this, the 
telecommunications industry, industrial companies from all over the 
country who are now being made aware of the fact that they may lose 
their pensions.
  Mr. Chairman, American families are reeling in this economic 
downturn. They are reeling from long-term unemployment, from rising 
health care premiums, from steep declines in their savings and the 
401(k) investments that were lost in the bursting of the stock market 
bubble. These people are scrambling to keep their health care benefits, 
to keep their pension benefits and to keep their jobs. This Congress 
should not now come along and tell them that we are going to put their 
pensions at risk. We know that Americans, the baby boomers, people my 
age and others, who are thinking about retirement over the next 10 or 
15 years are now starting to focus on whether or not they will be able 
to do that. The pension plans that the administration has in order, 
that the Treasury Department is trying to put in place, put all that at 
risk.
  I would urge my colleagues, as they have in the past on a bipartisan 
basis, to support the Sanders-Miller-Emanuel-Gutknecht amendment to 
make sure that, in fact, those pension plans are not put at risk and 
those families are not put in that economic difficulty.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the great passion, and it is 
passion that is well-placed, when we talk about the issue of pension 
plans for workers and trying to make sure that there is stability and 
some surety in those plans.

                              {time}  1630

  So I appreciate that, and I realize that this is an issue that is 
being hotly contested in court.
  Now, I do not know enough about the intricacies of the argument to 
know whether I agree or disagree that the judge has properly followed 
the law or not. I do know, however, that it is really going to be 
questionable whether this amendment will accomplish the intended 
objective.
  We have seen several amendments on this bill like that, Mr. Chairman, 
where people offer an amendment and they tell everybody this will be 
the effect of my amendment. But that does not make it so.
  If you look at the text of the amendment actually offered, it says, 
and here we are talking about the Transportation and Treasury 
appropriation bill: ``None of the funds appropriated by this act may be 
used to assist in overturning the judicial ruling contained,'' and then 
it recites this court order that was issued out of the U.S. District 
Court for the Southern District of Illinois in this particular case 
regarding the pension plan of IBM.
  Now, when the amendment says you cannot use funds from the 
Transportation-Treasury appropriation bill to assist in overturning the 
judicial ruling, what does that mean? Because, you see, Mr. Chairman, 
it is the Department of Justice that is involved in representing the 
government in this litigation.
  The funds that are used to potentially file an appeal of this ruling 
are the funds of IBM, and they are the funds of the Justice Department. 
It is not the Treasury Department directly that is involved in this, 
although obviously anything that has to do with pension plans and tax 
rulings has implications for the Treasury Department.
  But this amendment is not going to control what happens in that case. 
I realize it presents an opportunity for different Members to stand up 
and say what their position is about that particular ruling about 
pension plans, but I do not think this amendment is going to bring 
about the result that people desire.
  This amendment does not control what the appellate court may or may 
not do with the order issued in this case. That is beyond us. We are 
not here to dictate to a court that this is what you must find. We are 
here to determine what the law is. The courts interpret the laws. If 
they do not do a good job, sometimes we will change the laws or do 
something related to that court.
  But this bill is not ultimately going to control the disposition of 
that lawsuit. It ultimately will not control whether the underlying law 
is going to be changed or not. As the Committee on Appropriations, we 
do not make the tax laws. We do not make the pension laws. We have 
other committees in this Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, have roles in part of this. But it is not going to be decided 
in this bill.
  So I think it is important for Members to understand that whether 
this amendment is adopted or not adopted is not going to control what 
the underlying pension law of the United States is. It is consuming 
time for the House to take up the debate, but we will take it as 
Members want to. There may be other Members who want to come down to 
the floor and talk about the amendment, to oppose it, just as we have 
some Members that have come to the floor to speak in favor of it. But I 
would not want anyone to think that we are actually deciding what will 
be the pension laws or the outcome of that particular litigation when 
we vote on what will happen with this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, having said that by way of explanation, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who has played a very active role in this 
issue.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, just over a month ago, the Federal court 
ruled that IBM violated Federal anti-age discrimination laws when it 
converted from its traditional pension plan to a cash balance plan in 
the 1990s. As a result, over 130,000 of IBM's longest-serving workers, 
including many in my home State of Illinois, moved one step closer to 
receiving the retirement benefits they rightfully earned. Despite the 
court's decision, this administration is pushing regulations allowing 
companies to switch to cash balance.
  Let us be honest: cash balance plans can work. We can create a win-
win situation here just along the model that the Secretary of Treasury 
did at CSX, where you grandfather in older workers. We do not need to 
create a win-lose situation that only benefits employers and harms 
employees. There is a way to create a win-win situation that reflects 
the commitment of long-serving workers and older workers who are 
nearing retirement, and also gives younger workers a plan like a cash 
balance retirement plan that is a hybrid between both the defined 
benefit and the defined contribution plans.
  When Secretary Snow was at his confirmation, he talked about what 
they had done at CSX when he was CEO and chairman. We always around 
here laud the private sector as a model. Well, I present to you a 
model, what CSX did for its own employees. It created a win-win 
situation for the company and for the individuals there, whether they 
were 58 and near retirement, or 38 and started as new workers. That 
should be the way we approach this situation.
  I am a proud original cosponsor of this legislation. I think it 
reflects our values of rewarding work, loyalty, and taking 
responsibility. Thousands of companies are awaiting this decision.
  I, along with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my colleagues, went to 
testify when there were hearings for this rule change.
  It would be wrong to pull the carpet from underneath employees who 
are

[[Page 21538]]

nearing retirement, relying on that retirement, planning on that 
retirement. As we say in our own legislation, if this is good enough 
for the private sector, let us adopt it here in Congress. Let us have a 
cash balance plan.
  We all know the study that was done. It would affect older-serving 
Members who have years of service here who have relied open that 
retirement plan. If it is good enough for people in the private sector 
who are older workers, should we try it here in Congress? The answer 
resoundingly would be ``no.''
  But, again, we are not going to debate today the principles 
underneath this bill. What we are going to say is while this decision 
is moving through the court, the funds through this appropriation 
process cannot be used to go around the court and implement this plan.
  Yes, later on we will debate a pension plan and reform the system. We 
have the right values in this legislation. I believe it is correct to 
withhold the funds to ensure Treasury does not go around the court and 
have this decision work its way so we do not in any way send a signal 
to other employers to pull the rug out from underneath their employees. 
Let the court decision go its way. Do not allow them to fund this 
process and go around the court ruling.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht), who has been a very active leader on this 
issue.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Vermont for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, it has been my privilege since I have been in public 
life to represent thousands of IBM employees in Rochester, Minnesota. 
In fact, approximately 6,000. I do not know how much of the story has 
been told, but this is a serious subject.
  Now, I come at this not only as a representative of over 6,000 
IBMers, but I come at this as a former member of the Legislative 
Commission on Pensions and Retirement. So I am not saying I am an 
expert on pension policy, but this is something I probably know a 
little more about than the average Member of Congress.
  As the gentleman from Illinois just said, the concept of these cash 
balance plans or defined contribution plans, modified defined 
contribution plans, is not necessarily a bad idea. For many younger 
employees who are going to change careers and jobs throughout their 
careers, this probably makes some sense. But the bottom line for older 
workers, workers who have been with a company for perhaps 20 years, 
this is a shameless attempt to try and steal pension money. Part of the 
reason that IBM lost that lawsuit in southern Illinois is because the 
facts did not support their position.
  I want to talk a little bit about a different dimension to this, 
because I do also agree with the gentleman from Illinois; we can craft 
a plan that is a win-win situation, that would allow companies to 
convert their pension plans, with one caveat: that you give vested 
employees a choice.
  Let me just read from the dictionary the definition of the term 
``vested.'' The definition is ``settled, fixed or absolute; being 
without contingency, as in a vested right.''
  The way you do this, Mr. Chairman, is you literally say to those 
employees who have been vested that you get a choice. The companies can 
make a conversion, if they want, for any new hires. They can even make 
a conversion for those employees who have not vested. But at the least, 
we ought to agree with this amendment that the Federal Government and 
its resources should not be used to appeal this particular case. This 
is a very important case.
  Let me just talk to the Republicans for a minute. Understand, I am 
not sure that Republicans understand what is at stake here and who 
really is involved. We are not just talking about 6,000 IBMers; we are 
talking about literally hundreds of thousands of other people, most of 
them who are 45 years of age or older, who have been with a company for 
a very long time, many of them what we would call professional people, 
college-educated, technically trained people. Let me be very blunt: 75 
percent of them vote Republican. They understand this issue, if it has 
happened to them or if they are afraid that it will happen to them.
  In fact, go back to the issue of vested. TIAA-CREF, when they put out 
a questionnaire or they put out some questions and answers when people 
sign up for their various pension plans, let me read Question 7 and the 
answer. I do not have to read the answer.
  The question is, ``When do my plan contributions become vested?'' And 
then in parentheses it says ``i.e., owned by me.''
  Now, what 6,000 IBMers found out, I should say probably 5,000 of them 
at least who were vested, what they found out is there is no legal 
definition of the word ``vested.''
  They came into work one day and they had calculators. As part of 
their computer tool kit on their computers, they had pension 
calculators which would literally calculate for them how much their 
pension would be worth if they stayed with the company until they 
retired at age 65 or 66, whatever the age was. They could do their 
little calculation of how much their pension was worth.
  All of a sudden they came in one day and IBM changed the pension 
plan. For a few days IBM made a huge mistake. They left the calculators 
on the employees' computer screens. They could very quickly do the 
calculations in terms of how much the old pension plan was worth to 
them and then how much the new pension plan was worth to them.
  They did not have to be computer experts to begin to figure out that 
all of a sudden they had lost, in some cases, hundreds of thousands of 
dollars' worth of pension benefits that they thought were vested.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not mess with this. I agree with the chairman 
from Oklahoma. I do not think the Congress should be messing with this. 
I do not think the administration should be messing with this. I think 
this should be left to the courts.
  He said, well, this is not pension law. But, understand, and I hope 
the gentleman from Oklahoma is paying attention here, because pension 
law is set in several different ways. First of all, it is what is in 
statute. It is also what is in rule. That is what we are concerned 
about.
  The other thing we are concerned about that is really at issue today 
is in terms of precedent in the courts. In some respects, this 
administration is taking a wrong turn by getting involved in this 
issue. This is an explosive political issue. If you do not believe it, 
I would ask you to come to my hometown and have a town hall meeting, or 
have a committee meeting, if you want to hear from 6,000 IBMers.
  This is a good amendment. This is the right thing to do. It ought to 
be included in this bill.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Houghton).
  Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), wherever he is, I am going to suggest a vote against his 
amendment. I have been around business many years, and I have been in 
and out of pension plans in many different corporations, and this is a 
dangerous amendment. I am not going to talk a long time on this thing; 
I just have to tell my colleagues how I feel.
  Also, I am on the Committee on Ways and Means, and I would like to 
feel that we would have an opportunity to understand this and look at 
it. There has been no notice on this thing whatsoever.
  But the bottom line is this: the Cooper ruling threatens to drive 
employers out of the pension system. Pension plans nationwide will be 
burdened with huge additional liabilities, leaving workers worse off. 
Is that what we want?
  As a result of the Cooper decision, we understand the voluntary 
pension system itself would be in danger. Is this

[[Page 21539]]

the protection workers need? I do not think so.
  Frankly, I would urge people to vote against the Sanders amendment. 
It is not going to help the people I know, the people I have worked 
with, particularly the senior employees of various corporations who are 
so dependent upon our defined benefit plan.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  This is an ad, I say to my colleagues, that ran in today's New York 
Times and it ran in some other newspapers I think here on Capitol Hill 
as well. It says, ``Don't destroy America's pension system. Vote no on 
the Sanders amendment.'' It says, the Sanders amendment to the Treasury 
Appropriation bill threatens to outlaw vast numbers of pension plans.'' 
Well, that is just outrageous. That is simply not true. We do not 
outlaw any pension plans.
  It goes on to say, ``Prevent pension plans from protecting employees' 
pensions against inflation while they wait to receive their benefits.'' 
That is not true. The Sanders amendment does not do that.
  All this amendment does, I say to my colleagues, is it says the 
Federal Government, the Federal taxpayers should not join in this 
lawsuit against workers. I mean, these workers literally have had 
pension benefits stolen from them and we are saying, at least the 
administration should be kept from joining sides with the company. This 
is the most outrageous ad since the prescription drug ads that they 
were running a few weeks ago.
  Now, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and I agree on almost 
nothing, but twice a year we agree on two things. One is the 
prescription drug prices and the other is pension policy.
  This is a good amendment. It ought to be included in this bill. It is 
outrageous for the administration to join sides with companies that are 
trying to steal from pensions.
  I say to my colleagues, we have to understand, pensions are in trust. 
We had this when I was on the pension commission back in Minnesota. One 
year there was a firefighter from Winona who embezzled something like 
$200,000 from the Winona Firefighters Pension Fund. And both sides came 
in and said, it is not my money. It is not my money. The money that was 
embezzled belonged to the city, or it was not our money that was 
embezzled. And then, when the pension fund started to get better rates 
of return and they were making more money than they needed, then the 
groups were coming in and saying, wait a second. That is our money.
  The fact of the matter is pension money does not belong to the 
company and it does not belong to the employees. It is in trust. And 
when they make these conversions, the real purpose is to take that 
money, in effect, out of the trust and put it on to the bottom line of 
the companies.
  This is a good idea. This amendment should be added to this bill.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sanders Amendment.
  This amendment is simple and straightforward. It would simply prevent 
the Federal Government from using any funding to assist in overturning 
the federal district court ruling that declared IBM's cash balance 
pension conversion to be in violation of the pension age discrimination 
laws that are on the books.
  This amendment would protect millions of American workers throughout 
the country who have been negatively impacted by illegal age 
discriminatory cash balance pension conversions.
  This amendment has the strong support of the AARP, the largest senior 
citizen group in this country representing over 35 million Americans, 
the Pension Rights Center and the IBM Employees' Benefits Action 
Coalition.
  A federal district court in Illinois has already ruled this practice 
as illegal. In the case of IBM, 130,000 employees have seen their 
pensions slashed as a result of IBM's cash balance scheme. The message 
was clear. These cash balance plans--which slash the pension benefits 
of older workers by as much as 50%--are illegal.
  Despite this court ruling, it appears that the Treasury Department is 
still moving ahead with proposed regulations that would give the green 
light to the very cash balance pension plans that the federal court 
ruled are illegal. This is wrong.
  Just last year, over 300 Members of the House voted to require the 
Treasury Department to protect older workers in cash balance pension 
conversions, and over 200 Members of Congress recently wrote a letter 
to urge President Bush to withdraw the proposed cash balance 
regulations that are at issue here. Congressional intent is clear--
these conversions hurt our nation's pensioners and this practice must 
stop.
  But, there are some in Congress who may believe that cash balance 
plans are good for American workers. Well, according to a CRS report 
the Speaker of the House, the distinguished Majority Leader and others 
would see their pensions slashed by as much as 69% under a cash balance 
plan.
  We do not tolerate discrimination against workers based on race, 
based on gender and based on other criteria, and we must not tolerate 
discrimination based on age.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Sanders Amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Van Hollen

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Van Hollen:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to implement the revision to Office of Management and 
     Budget Circular A-76 made on May 29, 2003.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
September 4, 2003, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and a 
Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to ensure that we have an 
even playing field when the Federal Government decides to hold a 
competition to contract out Federal jobs and services to private 
contractors. It has been the long-standing policy of our government to 
allow for public-private competitions for those services that can be 
appropriately performed in the private sector, and that process is 
known as competitive sourcing and it is a good process. But as part of 
an ideologically-run agenda to contract out more and more Federal 
Government jobs, the Office of Management and Budget, on May 29, issued 
a new circular, a new ruling, and they rewrote the rules to tilt the 
playing field in favor of private contractors at the expense of Federal 
employees.
  Now, Federal employees are happy to submit to competition. I have 
thousands of Federal employees in my congressional district and they 
are willing to compete with the private sector. But it is unfair to ask 
them to compete with one hand tied behind their back, and that is what 
the most recent OMB rewrite of the circular does; it stacks the decks 
against our public employees.
  There are going to be 416,000 Federal employees that will have to 
submit to the new privatization process.
  Now, under the current system, about 60 percent of the times when we 
have these private-public competitions, about 60 percent of the time, 
the Federal employees have won the bid. But according to the Private 
Contractors Association, the association that represents those who 
would be receiving the private contracts, according to

[[Page 21540]]

them in their own written statements, if the rules are rewritten, the 
number of times the Federal employees could win would drop from about 
60 percent to 10 percent of the time. Now, how can we predict that in 
advance if we have a fair process?
  Well, the reason we can predict it in advance is it is not a fair 
process. It rigs the process against Federal employees, and it is a bad 
deal for taxpayers, because as taxpayers, what we want is the best deal 
for all of us, and to get the best deal, we want an even playing field. 
And if we rig the process in one way, it is not just unfair to Federal 
employees, it is unfair to taxpayers around this country, because they 
are not getting the best bang for their buck.
  So what does this amendment do? What this amendment does is it gives 
the OMB, officials at the Office of Management and Budget, another 
chance to rewrite the rules. It would keep in place the A-76 rules that 
have governed the process right up to May 29 of this year. So it does 
not get rid of private-public competitions, it just says let us have a 
time out and take another look at these rules to make sure that they 
are fair.
  In fact, it does not go as far as we have gone in this House earlier 
this year. In the Interior Appropriations, there was an amendment added 
that got through this House that actually prohibits the Department of 
the Interior from new contracting out in this coming year, to do new 
reviews in this year. This amendment does not go this far. This does 
not say no new contracting out. It just says let us play by the rules 
that we have been playing with up until May 29 until we have an 
opportunity to visit the flaws, revisit the flaws and look at the flaws 
in the new process.
  What are some of those problems? Number 1, the new OMB circular does 
not even allow the Federal employees to submit their best bid. You have 
a streamlined, fast-track process. Now, the pro-contractor commercial 
activities panel have themselves said that Federal employees should 
have the right to submit their best bids because of the so-called most 
efficient organization process, the process by which Federal employees 
can also organize themselves flexibly so that they can compete on an 
even playing field, that that is designed to achieve efficiencies and 
promote higher levels of performance.
  Well, if the new A-76 process is about performance and efficiencies 
and more competition, why is it designed so it does not allow Federal 
employees the ability to organize themselves to submit their best bids 
in the competition?
  Another problem: The new circular does not require contractors to at 
least show as part of their bids that there are going to be appreciable 
savings. It would not require the contractors as part of the bidding 
process to at least promise the taxpayers some financial benefit, and 
that is a change. Up until May 29 of this year, we required that the 
private contractor submitting that bid show that they are going to 
achieve at least a 10 percent savings, or $10 million, whichever is 
less, over what is being done by the Federal employees. These 
contracting-out processes, these competitions cost us a fair amount of 
money and time and resources to organize it. We should, at the end of 
the day, at least be able to show the taxpayers that we are going to 
get a better deal than at the beginning of the day. That is what the 
old OMB circular did. The new one does not do that.
  Another problem: It artificially inflates the cost of the Federal 
employees' bids. So right off the bat, if you are the Federal employees 
group, you are at a disadvantage because it arbitrarily assumes about a 
12 percent overhead as part of your bid. Now, the Inspector General of 
the Department of Defense has said that the 12 percent overcharge 
arbitrarily slapped on in all the in-house bids is insupportable, and 
that either a new overhead rate must be established or an alternative 
methodology must be devised to allow overhead to be calculated on a 
competition-specific basis. In fact, there has been an egregious case 
recently showing how Federal employees, that their bid would have saved 
the taxpayers millions of dollars over a private sector bid, and the 
private sector company got the award, but it turned out that because 
they had miscalculated the overhead for the Federal employees, the 
taxpayers got burned.
  So if the new A-76 process is being written to promote fair public 
competition, why does it so dramatically inflate the overhead cost for 
the in-house bids by Federal employees?
  Another problem: It discourages the private sector from providing 
adequate health care benefits to its employees. In other words, in 
order to get the contract, the bid from the Federal Government, you in 
the private sector, in order to get yourself a better deal, you submit 
a package as part of your bid, it does not contain adequate health care 
benefits for your employees. Obviously, that saves you money. It 
essentially allows the jobs to be shipped out to somebody else who does 
not provide adequate benefits.
  If that is not the intention, we in this body should do exactly what 
the Senate did on a bipartisan basis earlier this year in the Senate 
Defense Appropriations bill, where they said that if you are the 
private sector company and you are offering a bid that does not have 
adequate health care benefits, then the cost of health care benefits 
should not be considered as part of either bid. In other words, it 
should not be factored into the Federal employees' bid, and it should 
not be factored into the private contractor bid. That way, the private 
contractor would not achieve an unfair advantage by providing little or 
no health benefits to its employees.
  So those are just some of the problems, Mr. Chairman. As I said, all 
we need to do is take a time out, let us play by the rules that were in 
effect up until May 29 of this year, and provide a little time to do 
the rest.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, as I understand this 
amendment, it basically strikes the new OMB circular A-76 and would be 
replaced by the old OMB circular A-76, which all the parties were 
complaining about prior to this time. So the question really before the 
House is, is the new circular which was met, after getting input from 
all of the stakeholders, with a number of unanimous agreements on how 
this should be changed and incorporated into this, after literally 700 
comments were received in developing the guidelines, if this should be 
changed or should we go back to the old circular A-76.
  Is that a correct understanding?
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, there are certainly problems with the 
old A-76 that I believe should be corrected, but I also believe that 
the new A-76 is, in many parts, worse and creates a more unfair playing 
field for Federal employees.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, I understand the 
gentleman's position. To be sure, all of us who have dealt with these 
issues, and I have, for a number of years, there are concerns about the 
way the administration has gone about competitive sourcing. Two major 
problems that come in: One we have fixed with this bill, and that is 
when the administration goes to competitive sourcing, there is a cost 
to that because you have to hire people to evaluate it. There are costs 
of the government looking and revamping how they would produce a 
service. You are evaluating the private sector to see how they would 
provide the service. There are costs to that, and right now those costs 
are not currently recaptured.
  We have put language into the underlying legislation here through our 
committee that will, for the first time, have the Federal Government 
report on

[[Page 21541]]

those costs so that they can be adequately waived.
  The second is issue is, I think in some cases the administration is 
moving too fast, doing too much competitive sourcing, more than they 
can adequately handle and evaluate. We have heard there have been a 
couple high-profile instances where the administration has come forward 
and the evaluations have probably not been appropriate, and I think 
they are biting off more than they can chew. But I do not think that 
goes to the base of the A-76 reasonable or reasonable. I like the new 
procedure, or if there are revamps, I would prefer not to do it through 
this process. I would rather go back and evaluate it in committees. We 
have held hearings and are continuing to look at this.
  Remember, competitive sourcing is not the same as out-sourcing or 
privatization. Its purpose is neither to downsize the workforce or to 
contract jobs out. It is about harnessing the benefits of competition 
to produce superior performance for the taxpayer, regardless of who 
performs a service. And in almost every instance where competitive 
sourcing is applied, the government ends up with a savings. Sometimes 
this is done by the government employees and the government groups who 
have gotten together and have retooled the way they provide the service 
and do it more efficiently. Sometimes it is done by an outside party 
coming in and showing that they can do it better.
  There is no way to measure efficiency in government when you are a 
monopoly. But if you can go out, occasionally, to the private sector 
and say, what can you perform, it gives us a standard of performance, a 
measurement of efficiency that we would not have otherwise.
  Now, there is a problem with this that I readily concede, and it 
troubles me, and it is one that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen) and I have wrestled with. And that is, who wants to come work 
for the Federal government and dedicate a career to civil service if 
your job is going to be up for evaluation every 5 years, which is what 
the guidelines in last year's bill called for. Twenty percent every 
year was going to be looked at, of inherently non-governmental services 
that the government is providing, and we would see if it could be 
competitively sourced. And, basically, that meant on average every 5 
years a person's job would be evaluated, and that hurts our 
recruitment. It hurts our retention.
  Now, the fact of the matter is, in most cases where the outside 
parties win, Federal employees are offered rights of first refusal. In 
fact, that is spelled out better in the new A-76 circular. That if, in 
fact, the government is displaced by an outside firm, jobs are offered 
to the Federal employee government to provide that service so they are 
not out of work. They are no longer Federal employees. They lose some 
benefits; they pick up some benefits in some particular cases. But to 
be sure, there are instances that we wrestle with.
  Now on May 29, the OMB published its final revisions of the A-76 
process. These revisions were the first major overhaul to the 
competitive sourcing process in 20 years. And this came after all 
parties, but particularly Federal employees, were complaining about the 
old system, a system that we return to if this amendment passes.
  What we have now is a product of a 2-year effort that includes 
discussions and negotiations with all stakeholders including Federal 
employee groups, private sector companies. As I stated before, more 
than 700 comments were taken into account in developing these new 
guidelines. They also incorporated the core recommendations of the 
Commercial Activities Panel. This panel, headed by the Comptroller 
General, conducted a year-long review of the competitive sourcing 
process and issued recommendations, most of them unanimous, for 
comprehensive changes to process. And I think we have to give that 
revamped process a chance to work before we willy-nilly throw it out 
and go back to the old process, which everyone was complaining about.
  I think the new process is, in many ways, fair. The gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) and I disagree. I will address more of this 
later. I urge that we oppose the Van Hollen amendment which would take 
us back to the days that everyone was complaining about and just were 
not working efficiently.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me respond briefly to a few of those points. There 
is no doubt that whenever we do these competitions, and I think these 
competitions are a good thing if done fairly, when we do these 
competitions, it does cost the taxpayer money just to set them up and 
run them. Just as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has said, 
that is an expense.
  That is why it is baffling to look at the new circular and see that, 
unlike the old version, the new circular does not require that the 
private contractor show some savings is going to be achieved from their 
bid. It used to be you had to show at least a 10 percent savings or $10 
million or whichever is less. That is not part of it any more. And yet 
we will go through the expense of setting up these competitions and 
taking out the one provision that ensured some kind of savings for the 
taxpayer.
  Number two, I share the gentleman's concern about the Federal 
employee who is planning a career, investing time and energy and 
knowledge in the Federal Government because the Federal employees can 
win the bid and the next day they could be subjected to another round. 
And within 5 years, it is required after 5 years that they be subjected 
to another round of competition. There is no such requirement placed on 
the private contractor.
  There are many other issues. I just think it is time to send them 
back to the drawing board. They may have spent a lot of time on it, but 
they did not get it right. Let us let them get it right.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman), the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, 
someone who has spent a lot of time working on this issue as well and 
who has been pushing the issue of fairness to Federal employees.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Van Hollen amendment to the 
Transportation, Treasury Appropriations bill.
  The amendment of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) blocks 
the administration from using Federal funds to implement revisions to 
the A-76 process. In effect, it prevents the administration from paying 
politics with the civil service system, and it deserves my colleagues' 
strong support.
  Now, this week the Brookings Institution reported on the true size of 
government. Unfortunately, the report is not surprising to those of us 
who have watched this administration's assault on the Federal 
workforce.
  The Brookings Institution found that the shadow workforce of private 
contractors working for the Federal Government is now 16.7 million, 
which is 9.5 times as large as the civil service workforce.
  This administration is not satisfied with a private contractor 
workforce of 16.7 million, so it is launching yet another attack on 
Federal employees.
  Let me say to those conservatives who say, we want to shrink 
government, contracting out does not shrink government. It is public-
funded jobs, but it is public-funded jobs in the private sector. 
Taxpayers are paying for it, but these people may not have any of the 
benefits, and they may not be saving us any money.
  This administration is launching yet another attack on Federal 
employees because the vehicle for this assault is this obscure OMB 
circular called A-76, which the administration recently revised to 
accelerate the transfer of Federal jobs to the private sector.
  This mad rush to privatize civil service is dangerous. When the 
government turns to poorly supervised private contractors, the 
potential for waste, fraud, and abuse soars.

[[Page 21542]]

  This is not just my assessment. Just read the countless GAO reports 
on contractor abuses. The problem is so bad that contract management at 
DOD, the Department of Energy, and NASA, the three agencies that most 
heavily rely on private contractors, is on the GAO's list of high-risk 
Federal programs.
  Mr. Chairman, the Office of Management and Budget's Statement of 
Administration Policy alleges that the Van Hollen amendment prohibits 
funding for public-private competitions. It does not. The Van Hollen 
amendment simply prohibits these competitions from being conducted 
under the newly revised rules giving it an unfair advantage to private 
contractors.
  The Washington Monthly wrote last month, ``Even the Federal payroll 
can become a source of patronage. . . . Bush has proposed opening up 
850,000 Federal jobs, about half of the total, to private contractors. 
And while doing so may or may not save taxpayers much money, it will 
divert taxpayer money out of the public sector and into private sector 
firms, where the GOP has a chance to steer contracts toward 
politically-connected firms.''
  This is not shrinking government. This is using government for 
patronage. It does not create new private sector jobs. It creates 
private sector public-taxpayer-funded jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop this destructive effort to give 
Federal jobs to private contractors who are campaign supporters. Vote 
yes on the Van Hollen amendment and stop this administration's war on 
Federal employees.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Istook) allowing me to stand in opposition to the Van Hollen 
amendment.
  Today what we are talking about really is the opportunity for the 
taxpayer to be the winner in the work that is performed by and for the 
government. This amendment obviously would require that all public-
private competitions be conducted under the old and wisely distrusted 
A-76 circular.
  We, in Congress, had a hand in forming not only this Commercial 
Activities Panel, but I think that Congress needs to listen to the 
changes that took place back in May from this body.
  Essentially, what they did is they went and looked at other areas of 
government that had been doing outsourcing in a positive way; what I 
might call best practices, a way to look at the way things should be 
done that would be better for not only government employees and also 
good for those who might be bidding, but, more importantly, to really 
get them up to date with the leading edge practices.
  Essentially what happened was there were a lot of transparencies, a 
lot of things that were recognized that needed to be changed. Some of 
them had a time frame so that these competitions did not stretch on 
forever. But perhaps the most important part of applying this, and 
these changes, is that it is going to really offer a level playing 
field. That is entirely different than the old A-76 process.
  Mr. Chairman, the old A-76 was essentially a competition where 
everyone bid and then the government was a part of that. These changes 
will create a level playing field that I think is better for government 
employees. Because what will happen is the competition will now be 
under the Federal acquisition regulations, which means that government 
will be able to respond to the best offer from the private sector. So 
the government will be able to now respond.
  Those employees will now be given an opportunity to see that bid and 
to compete against that, which gives government employees a chance, not 
in the whole mix, but rather specifically against the best offer to 
where it is a real competition.
  These are things that have been done in the Department of Defense for 
a number of years.
  So instead of allowing the mix where government employees would be 
participating against eight or ten different proposals, they now have 
an opportunity, under the revision that came from this Commercial 
Activities Panel, to update the process and make it better. Government 
employees now have an opportunity to compete against what is seen as 
the best offer.

                              {time}  1715

  I disagree with the gentleman from Maryland. I think really what is 
trying to happen here is they are just trying to kill the whole 
process, cause a smoke screen when, in fact, we, as Members of 
Congress, should recognize that through a series of acts, that we have 
talked about and debated on the floor of the House of Representatives 
that we determine that the taxpayer needs the best that can come from 
these competitions. If it is government employees, so let it be. If it 
is not government employees, in a part of the business that is not 
inherently governmental, then it should go to whoever can do that best, 
who can do it at the best cost, who can provide it day in and day out 
to the best effort of what the taxpayer is.
  I will tell my colleagues that I oppose the Van Hollen amendment 
because I believe that the commercial activities panel who offered many 
unanimous recommendations, unanimous recommendations from people all 
over, not only unions, but also other commercial bodies, people who 
know the business, people who know the marketplace, people who know 
what is fair so that the taxpayer can get the best dollar for what they 
paid for, they are the people who studied this, they are the people who 
made the recommendations, and they said they want to be fair, fairer, 
best practices, not only to government employees, but also those 
employees who might be in another company who are competing for 
something that is part of the business of the United States government 
that is not inherently governmental.
  So the gentleman from Oklahoma, who is standing up today to oppose 
this unwise amendment, I stand with him, also. I stand with the 
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform who understands that we 
must defeat the Van Hollen amendment.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Chairman, I think one thing we agree on is that what we want is 
the best deal for the taxpayer, and the way to get the best deal for 
the taxpayer is to have a fair competition process between the Federal 
employees and between private contractors who are competing for that. 
That is how we get the best deal.
  What this new circular does is tips the playing field in favor of 
private contractors. That is the only way the association of private 
contractors would be able to predict in advance now before any of the 
bids have been placed that Federal employees will only win 10 percent 
of the contracts in the future, in contrast to about 60 percent now.
  I outlined a specific series of fatally flawed problems with the new 
circular. I have not heard any response to any of them. One, Federal 
employees are not given the opportunity to come forward with their best 
bids; two, we are not guaranteed any savings under the new process, 
although we were under the other process; three, artificially inflated 
overhead costs in Federal employee bids that put them at a 
disadvantage. Many other problems, unfairness with regard to health 
benefits. Those are all problems.
  I represent many Federal employees, and I know that the organization 
that represents Federal employees, the American Federal Government 
Employees Group, is against this new circular. They speak for their 
fellow Federal employees. This is a bad idea, and all we are asking in 
this amendment, not to get rid of the process. The idea of having a 
competitive process is a good one. It is good for the taxpayers, and 
when it is done fairly, it is good for everybody.
  Let us go back to May 29. It still had problems but this does not fix 
it. This makes it worse. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
amendment.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment. If my colleagues want to try 
to kill the bill, and all that it does for

[[Page 21543]]

transportation in the United States, sure, go ahead and vote for the 
amendment because the amendment will be the reason for a veto of this 
bill if that amendment is part of the final product.
  The statement of administration policy issued concerning this 
legislation reads as follows: ``The administration understands that an 
amendment may be offered on the House floor that would effectively shut 
down the administration's competitive sourcing initiative. If the final 
version of the bill contained such a provision, the President's senior 
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.''
  This bill is too important for that, Mr. Chairman. Anyone who does 
not think they are serious should look at the current dispute over the 
aviation reauthorization bill where there is much of the same issue, 
where people that are Federal employees want to guarantee that work 
that does not have to be performed by Federal employees nevertheless 
must be performed by them, and we are having fights over that. That is 
unfortunate because the taxpayers save money every time we go through 
the competitive sourcing process.
  Typically, most of the time, the Federal employees get to keep the 
work, but they have to agree to do it in a manner that gets around some 
of the normal red tape that makes everything cost more typically when 
it is done by the Federal Government. This is our chance to get around 
that, but the amendment that is before us will kill that opportunity. 
It will kill the savings for taxpayers. And if this bill were to be 
vetoed because the amendments exceed it, bulldozers across the country 
would stop. Transportation projects would come to a halt if we did not 
have this bill done in time to have those continue.
  Effectively, this amendment would kill competitive sourcing. The 
President's initiative will have real cost savings to the taxpayers. 
Recent A-76 competitions have resulted in savings of 20 to 30 percent. 
The Department of Defense alone expects to save $11 billion between 
1997 and 2005 as a result of these competitions.
  There are more savings like that in other agencies, but most of the 
Federal workforce will not ultimately be affected by these things, but 
we need the chance for the savings for the taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I 
ask that this amendment be defeated.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government 
Reform.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, again, my friend from 
Maryland and I have fought a lot of battles on behalf of Federal 
employees. I represent a lot of Federal employees, as he does. We 
disagree about this particular amendment. I also represent a lot of 
contractors, and I also represent taxpayers who at the end of the day 
should be the major beneficiary from this because competitive sourcing, 
I think, means not less government or more government, it means more 
efficient government, and that is the goal of this. I hope the 
gentleman understands that it is a question of how we get to that.
  Let me make a couple of comments. I believe this is better for 
Federal employees in the sense that the new OMB circular A-76 allows 
the government instead of just providing cost estimates that are 
compared against competition among the private sector, it almost puts 
the government at a disadvantage. This allows them to compete on the 
same field. It allows them to be more innovative in competing with the 
outside companies, and I think, therefore, more likely to prevail. 
Government basically has a chance to respond to the private sector on 
the same grounds, something they do not get under the current A-76 
circular and something in our hearings has been something they have 
complained about. That is thrown out the window with the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Secondly, since OMB circular A-76 is not a regulation but it is 
simply an OMB circular, OMB can put out another provision tomorrow with 
minor revisions that we cannot touch. It could be worse, it could be 
better, but they do not have to go through the hearing process that 
they did by law to arrive at the conclusion they did here. So they 
could come back, issue a new circular tomorrow that would be very 
similar, could be more onerous, and we could not stop that, and that is 
also a fear I have.
  Right now we are in a mode where we are working with them where they 
are communicating with us, where they are making changes and reacting 
to some of the results of our hearings and congressional input. I fear 
if this goes, that the executive branch will exercise their 
prerogatives and will move ahead in something that I think could be 
more disadvantageous to Federal employees.
  Finally, this process is fair in the sense that if the private vector 
wins a competition, the contractor has to give any displaced Federal 
employees a right of first refusal for jobs. The process provides for a 
10 percent cost evaluation adjustment to the incumbent services 
provider, Federal employees in most instances, and Federal employees 
offers do not have to comply with small business requirements or in 
many cases have their past performance evaluated. Private sector 
companies do.
  This is not about campaign contributions. I would add to the 
gentleman on the other side, contributions from unions have gone to the 
people who are for this amendment and for other dissimilar amendments. 
There are interest groups on all side of this issue, but let us do what 
is right for the taxpayers, let us do what is right for this country. 
Let us defeat the Van Hollen amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen) will be postponed.


           Amendment Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), who has not arrived yet, I offer an 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, for 
     necessary expenses to carry out the essential air service 
     program pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41742(a), there is hereby 
     appropriated $63,000,000, to be derived from the airport and 
     airway trust fund and to remain available until expended.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
September 4, 2003, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  When 9/11 hit this country, our airline industry had a crushing blow, 
and the part of it that is probably hurting the most is the commuter 
system out there that serves much of rural America. It is vital that we 
continue the essential air service program that helps them maintain 
service until they can build their business back up.
  Currently, though inadvertently, this bill no longer has funding for 
essential air services. My amendment is very simple. I will keep it 
very short. My amendment restores the funding that was in the original 
committee markup, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition?
  If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Pennyslvania (Mr. Peterson).
  The amendment was agreed to.

[[Page 21544]]




           Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.__. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used by the Office of Management and Budget, under OMB 
     Circular A-76 or any other administrative regulation, 
     directive, or policy, to require agencies--
       (1) to establish an inventory of inherently governmental 
     activities performed by Federal employees;
       (2) to establish or implement any streamlined competition 
     procedures;
       (3) to require any follow-on competition; or
       (4) to implement the tradeoff source selection process for 
     any activities other than information technology activities.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
September 4, 2003, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a 
Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that, if adopted, 
will ensure Federal employees are given an opportunity to compete on a 
level playing field during the Office of Management and Budget's 
continued efforts to privatize the Federal workforce.
  In early 2001, the Office of Management and Budget directed all 
agencies, regardless of their needs or missions, to review for 
privatization at least 425,000 Federal employee jobs. More than 32,000 
Federal employees, I should note, reside and work in south Florida.
  On May 29, 2003, OMB finalized its controversial rewrite of the 
privatization process. It is referred to and has been talked about here 
as OMB circular A-76. Unlike previous revisions, this latest effort has 
generated an enormous amount of bipartisan criticism because of the 
significant changes that have been wrought which put Federal employees 
at a competitive disadvantage.
  Mr. Chairman, taking jobs away from Federal employees without giving 
them the chance to compete is wrong, period. Yet circular A-76 does 
just that. In fact, contractors have said in writing that they believe 
as a result of OMB's revisions to circular A-76, the number of 
competitions won by Federal employees will dramatically decrease from 
60 percent to perhaps 10 percent.
  The amendment that I am offering today ensures that Federal employees 
receive a fair shake in any public private competition. It is fair, 
balanced and is supported by the American Federation of Government 
Employees, the AFL-CIO and other major labor groups throughout the 
country.
  Specifically, the amendment prohibits the use of funds appropriated 
by the Act to be used by OMB to require agencies to establish an 
inventory of inherently governmental activities performed by Federal 
employees or establish or implement any streamlined competition of less 
than 6 months.
  The amendment also prohibits the use of funds to be used by OMB to 
conduct follow-up competitions for public-private competitions won by 
Federal employees, something not required in instances where services 
are contracted out, and the amendment still allows Federal agencies to 
experiment with outsourcing of information technology activities.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment does not impose a suspension on 
contracting out.

                              {time}  1730

  Instead, it is a fair compromise between the new OMB Circular A-76 
and a complete prohibition against its use. I certainly hope that my 
colleagues will agree with me and vote ``yes'' on my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). Does anyone seek time in 
opposition?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is 
recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we just went through much of this same debate. Whether 
you are saying you are totally restricting it or partially restricting 
it, we are really talking about the same thing on the competitive 
sourcing process, the A-76 process. First, the amendment the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) offers is not going to become law, because 
if it is in the bill, the President will veto the bill.
  We have gone through this argument before in prior years. This is a 
very important initiative to the administration and to the taxpayers of 
the United States to allow the opportunity for government to be more 
efficient; to allow competitive sourcing that tells the private sector 
and the government sector, each of you sharpen your pencils and find 
the most cost-effective and efficient and successful way to do the 
work.
  And typically we are not talking about things that are inherently 
governmental. We are talking about everything from food service 
contracts to building maintenance contracts, the kind of work that does 
not require someone to be a government employee either for issues of 
performance or safety or security. We are not competitive sourcing jobs 
that involve those areas.
  If we want the taxpayers to save billions of dollars, if we want the 
typical savings of 20 to 30 percent, we should not be trying to 
restrict competition. Government too often claims a monopoly. We do 
this because we are the government and nobody has a chance to find a 
better way to do it. Give people that chance. Give people the 
opportunity. We should be defeating this amendment and allowing the 
administration to go forward with what is a very modest effort to 
improve the competitive sourcing process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Oklahoma, the chairman of this 
committee, is most sincere, as have been other persons. The gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), for example, was here when the Van 
Hollen amendment was on the floor, which I might add I support very 
vigorously. That is the Van Hollen amendment. Both of them, and others, 
and I see the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) rise again, are 
likely to speak of wasteful government spending. I agree with them; 
this government has its fair share of wasteful spending. What I do 
disagree with, what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) just said 
is that if this measure is to pass that it will not become law because 
the President and his administration have indicated that they will veto 
the measure.
  Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) that 
we have a constitutional responsibility here, as does the President. 
The President can veto anything he wants to; and if we are of a mind, 
with two-thirds of the vote, we can override a Presidential veto. So it 
can be overridden and can become law, and there is a substantial number 
of people who feel it ought to become law.
  Now then, I also would ask the chairman to take into consideration 
when he and I came to the United States Congress in 1992. Shortly 
thereafter, in 1994, the majority won the right to control the House of 
Representatives. And among the things that they said that were going to 
cost less by privatizing were such things as the printing that is done 
here at the House of Representatives, or at least was at that time, and 
the folding offices and other offices that have now been outsourced.
  In addition to the inherent danger that exists by not having an in-
house family, I defy anybody in the House of Representatives to tell me 
that the printing of their newsletters and other matters does not cost 
more now that it has been privatized. And there are

[[Page 21545]]

other examples of that. One of the worst would be the Federal Aviation 
Authority. I am here to tell my colleagues that all of us that fly do 
not want to get on airplanes knowing that the people on the ground 
controlling that airplane's direction went to the lowest bidder.
  Somewhere along the line, we have to come to our senses. Auctioning 
off 425,000 Federal employee jobs to the lowest bidder is not the way 
to produce savings. If we are to say that public-private competitions 
will produce savings, then that is fine. But Federal employees have the 
right to compete for their jobs in a nonpredetermined way, where real 
savings win out over cutthroat politics.
  Federal employees do not want a free ride. They want a fair shot. My 
amendment does not halt the administration's efforts to reduce wasteful 
government spending. And every one of us uses that rhetoric ought to be 
about the business of trying to reduce wasteful government spending, 
including that done by the House of Representatives. In fact, it allows 
agencies to move forward with the implementation of Circular A-76.
  What my amendment does do is ensure that Federal employees are given 
equal footing to the contractors they are bidding against in public-
private competitions. It is time for open hunting season on Federal 
employees to end. Only then will we fully recognize what best value and 
cost savings really are.
  I challenge the subcommittee Chair, my good friend, and he is my good 
friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), to tell me how it 
is that we here in the House of Representatives know more about what is 
good for Federal employees than the American Federation of Government 
Employees, AFL-CIO, the American Federation of State, County, and 
Municipal Employees, the Communication Workers of America, the 
International Association of Firefighters, the International 
Association of Machinists, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 
the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, 
the Service Employees Union of America, the National Association of 
Government Employees, National Treasury Employees Union, Professional 
Airways Systems Specialists, Service Employees Union, and the United 
Auto Workers.
  Somewhere along the line, some of us need to recognize that these 
people who are Federal employees probably know at least as much as 
those of us who are Federal employees by election know. I suggest among 
other things that not only does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis) represent contractors, but so do I and 433 other Members of the 
House of Representatives. And not only he represent Federal employees, 
but so do I and 433 other House of Representatives Members. We all 
represent the constituency in America that should have a fair shot at 
low-cost and less wasteful spending, which their A-76 does not 
guarantee. And so, Mr. Chairman, I ask support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do not know where to start 
with my friend from Florida on this. I guess we can compare 
endorsements of his position on this and mine. He has listed a group of 
unions, some of them Federal employee unions, some who have nothing to 
do with Federal employment who are interested, obviously, in protecting 
their membership. We understand that, and that is a noble purpose.
  Our purpose here is not to protect contractors; it is not to protect 
employees. It is to protect the taxpayers. And that is what competitive 
sourcing is all about, and trying to do it in an appropriate way that 
does not destroy the Federal workforce. In some cases, as I have said 
before, I am not comfortable with every aspect of what the 
administration has done. But we are working hard and we have language 
in this underlying legislation that addresses some of those concerns.
  The Aerospace Industries Association, the American Congress on 
Surveying and Mapping, American Electronics Association, U.S. Chamber 
of Congress, American Institute of Architects, Associated General 
Contractors of America, Business Executives for National Security, 
Contract Services Association of America, Design Professionals 
Coalition, Electronic Industries Alliance, and I can go on and on with 
National Defense Industrial Council and the National Federation of 
Independent Businesses support and oppose the gentleman's amendment. So 
we have groups on both sides that add value to this, and our job is to 
try to synthesize this.
  Last year, I was part of a group in the House that struck down the 
administration's quotas, their goals that they were going to go out and 
competitively source a certain percentage. I thought that was wrong. I 
thought that was an overreach. I thought they were biting off more than 
they could realistically chew and manage. And I think in some cases 
where they are today that issue can be addressed, but I do not think 
the gentleman's amendment addresses those concerns.
  This would hamstring the Office of Management and Budget's new 
competitive sourcing process that was arrived at after weighing 700 
comments, after going through the union recommendations of a council 
that included labor leaders and other government personnel.
  Competitive sourcing, also known as public-private competition, is 
simply a process of determining if the government's commercial 
functions, like computer services, food services or maintenance, should 
be performed by Federal agencies or by private sector companies. Our 
job is to try to get the best services for the taxpayer, the best 
value, the lowest-cost value, the overall best value. One of the 
problems with the gentleman's amendment is it strikes at the heart of 
best-value determinations.
  The Hastings amendment limits the agency's use of best value in 
determining whether a commercial function should be performed in-house 
or by the private sector. This does not make sense in my judgment, 
because under our acquisition system, the government buys its more 
sophisticated goods and services using this best-value method. It 
permits the government to consider quality as well as cost, and that 
helps Federal employees, because the quality element has to be clearly 
set forth in the solicitation. And cost, of course, has to be a factor, 
but value is not new. It has been used for decades by the government, 
and it makes no sense to limit its use here.
  Our Federal employees ought to be able to use their experience and 
their expertise in high-quality performance to their advantage in 
public-private competition, and the gentleman's amendment takes that 
away. That is a concern. I think it is well meaning, but I think it 
takes away the advantage that incumbents who were performing this have 
in terms of quality. Commercial entities and private citizens would not 
buy services without considering the quality, so why should the 
government? And the gentleman's amendment strikes that.
  Now is not the time to tinker with these revisions in this setting, 
in my opinion. Again, the revisions are the product of more than 2 
years of efforts. Seven hundred comments were considered in the 
development of the new procedures. They incorporated the core 
recommendations of the Commercial Activities Panel. This panel, again, 
headed by the Comptroller General in a year-long effort, reviewed the 
competitive sourcing process, which was clearly flawed, and which all 
sides, from Federal employees to contractors to taxpayers, everyone 
felt it was flawed and needed revamping. They issued recommendations, 
this panel did, for comprehensive changes to the process. These efforts 
resulted in the revisions to Circular A-76, which the gentleman now 
wishes to strike. It was issued on May 29.
  We have held hearings on this. I have some concerns, as the gentleman 
does, about this as well; but I would rather

[[Page 21546]]

not throw literally the baby out with the bath water, good things like 
competitive sourcing that come with this. We recently held a hearing to 
examine the recent revisions to the competitive sourcing A-76 process, 
and the Comptroller General testified that significant savings result 
no matter who wins the competition.
  The Office of Management and Budget has just submitted a report to 
Congress on the methods used by the administration to measure agency 
progress in implementing the competitive sourcing initiative. OMB has 
pledged to keep Congress fully apprised of that progress and to conduct 
the initiative in an open and transparent manner. Let us give them a 
chance.
  And, again, we have put some underlying language in this bill that 
puts some strict reporting requirements on the costs to the government 
of competitive sourcing so we can come back and properly evaluate this. 
This is something we did not have before.
  The Hastings amendment derails the administration's efforts to 
increase the efficiency of government operations. You can say you are 
for efficiency, you can say you are against wasteful spending, but if 
you cannot compare how the government is providing a service to how 
someone else may be able to provide that same service, I do not know 
how you get at the waste, fraud and abuse. Because waste, fraud and 
abuse does not come in neatly tied packages in line items and budgets. 
It is marbled throughout the bureaucracy in the way we do business.
  Competitive sourcing, particularly the new A-76 Circular, gives our 
government employees an opportunity to compete on an even basis under 
the Federal Acquisition Regulation, something they cannot do now. Right 
now they have to come up with projections and respond to competitive 
sourcing on the part of the private sector; the private sector winner 
is then compared against the government price. This allows them to 
compete even up, to be more innovative, and to, in many cases, improve 
the way employees deliver that service.
  In my experience, I have found that some of the best savings and 
efficiencies we get do not come from the managers in the Federal 
Government or the higher-ups. They come from that employee out the 
window who is doing the job every day that may come up with that key 
idea or innovation in the way we can do this.

                              {time}  1745

  The new A-76 circular takes that into account and basically gives 
additional empowerment to that employee at the window to be able to 
come forward with their ideas and incorporate those into the government 
bid. Under the old circular, that was not really the case.
  I understand the gentleman's frustration. I think all of us feel a 
frustration, as I have said before. Our concern is constant competitive 
sourcing can hurt the recruitment and retention abilities to develop a 
strong Federal workforce, and yet it is a useful tool that needs to be 
employed. I think perhaps it has been overemployed. There are probably 
costs that we are not aware of at this point, but we have tried to get 
at this with underlying language, but I think the gentleman's amendment 
goes too far.
  We want to harness the benefits of competition to produce superior 
performance for the taxpayer, regardless of who performs the service 
because at the end of the day, our job is to make sure that taxpayers 
are getting the best value for their dollar. The gentleman's amendment 
undermines our ability to do that, so I urge we vote against the 
Hastings amendment.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hastings amendment.
  I support this amendment because it will allow agencies to move 
forward with the implementation of Circular A-76.
  This amendment does not end efforts to reduce wasteful government 
spending as many Republicans claim. It simply ensures that Federal 
employees are on a level playing field with the contractors they are 
bidding against.
  Under the current draft of A-76, Federal employees are severely 
disadvantaged during any public-private competition.
  This amendment is a moderate approach toward reforming the 
administrator's privatization process by prohibiting funds from being 
spent to penalize Federal employees and stifle the competitive process.
  Federal employees don't want to be given an advantage, they simply 
want a fair shot.
  I stand by Congressman Hastings and the Democrats who have 
consistently stood with Federal employees.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Davis of Florida

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Davis of Florida:
       Page 157, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec. 742. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the 
     amendments made to section 515.565(b)(2) of title 31, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (relating to specific licenses for 
     ``people-to-people'' educational exchanges), as published in 
     the Federal Register on March 24, 2003.
       (b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to the 
     implementation, administration, or enforcement of 
     515.560(c)(3) of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
September 4, 2003, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and a Member 
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, in March of this year, the Department of Treasury, 
Office of Foreign Asset Control, OFAC, proposed a regulation which 
would end licenses for travel to Cuba for educational purposes unless 
the travel consisted exclusively of students taking formal case work. 
This amendment blocks that proposed regulation from taking effect by 
blocking any funding to enforce it.
  Earlier this year I traveled to Cuba with the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe). We met with governmental officials, the Bishop of the 
Methodist Church, leading dissidents, including Vladimir Roca, Espinosa 
Chepe, and others.
  I left there struck by the horrific plight of the Cuban people who 
are living of abject poverty deprived of any freedom or liberty we tend 
to take for granted here. I left there struck by the enormous talent 
and potential of the Cuban people; and finally, I left there struck by 
how much we have in common, folks in my home, the Tampa Bay area and 
Florida, with the Cuban people.
  I also left there with the resolve that because of the miserable 
relationship between the two countries, it is more important than ever 
that we as United States citizens reach out to the Cuban people to help 
them deal with this very horrific plight they are living in today. 
Shortly after I returned, the relationship between the two governments 
deteriorated even further with an unprecedented really horrific 
crackdown by Fidel Castro of some of the people I met with. Three of 
the people I met with have been sentenced to prison, perhaps for the 
rest of their lives, and countless others were sentenced to prison 
simply because of their fight for freedom.
  I believe today what we need to do as the House of Representatives is 
to preserve the ability of United States citizens to travel to Cuba for 
purposeful contact with the Cuban people to help them help themselves. 
Educational institutions, churches, not-for-profits have been engaged 
in this type of travel for years under the educational license that 
OFAC provides.
  The proposed regulation was proposed to punish Fidel Castro for the

[[Page 21547]]

horrific things he has done. I think the House of Representatives 
should block that regulation because it, in effect, punishes the Cuban 
people. Let me cite some examples why: There are universities that are 
taking teachers down to meet with teachers in Cuba to have an exchange. 
That could be potentially blocked if this new regulation is not 
stopped. There are cultural exchanges where people in my community are 
trying to encourage artists and other creative people from Cuba to 
travel to the United States and people from the United States to travel 
to Cuba to build bridges. There are doctor-to-doctor exchanges focused 
on women health that have been taking place, and lawyer-to-lawyer 
exchanges focused on helping improve the civil justice system.
  All these exchanges which clearly benefit the Cuban people could 
effectively be brought to an end if this regulation is not blocked. 
These are the type of exchanges and the purposeful type of travel to 
Cuba we should be encouraging at this time when Fidel Castro is engaged 
in a horrific crackdown of his own people. We should not be afraid to 
export democracy to Cuba, and I urge the House to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Davis 
amendment. Earlier this year after careful review and examination of 4 
years of data of so-called educational exchanges, the Departments of 
State and Treasury determined that nondegree travel is subject to 
manipulation and control by the Castro dictatorship and its tourism 
industries in order to meet the regime's political and economic agenda. 
The objective of the new regulations is for travel to support the Cuban 
people and not the dictatorship that enslaves and oppresses them day in 
and day out.
  The Davis amendment seeks to repeal this restriction and allow the 
facade to continue. The regulations implemented in March of this year 
and which this amendment seeks to repeal are to prevent what Members 
see here. This is Varadero Beach in Cuba. This article, which appeared 
in the September 3 edition of the Washington Post Express goes on to 
say, ``The rumba party is not over yet for U.S. travelers to Cuba, but 
it may be time to grab that last dance.'' The article explains how the 
March regulations have sent the so-called nonprofits ``scrambling to 
redesign their tours'' to qualify under the legitimate categories of 
people-to-people exchanges. Just doctor up the brochures, they are 
still junkets, they are still for tourists, just dress it up so it 
appears to be an educational exchange, people to people.
  Again, this picture is worth a thousand words because it clearly 
unveils what this amendment and others offered here today are truly 
about. It is not to educate the Cuban people about freedom and 
democracy, it is to have tourism dollars flow to Fidel Castro, and this 
is people-to-people contact. This is education. When tourists meet the 
cabana boy and he gives them a beach towel, they are going to export 
democracy to Cuba? No, they are going to fuel the Castro dictatorship 
regime which goes to oppress the Cuban people. Vote against the Davis 
amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 
minutes.
  What the March regulations by President Bush have sought to do is to 
eliminate fraud and abuse by those who, under the guise of promoting 
educational travel, and of course, that is legal to the communist 
island have used that as a subterfuge for other reasons, fraudulently 
abusing the regulations.
  For example, here is a brochure. This is precisely what President 
Bush sought to eliminate in the March regulations. This is an 8- or 9-
year-old girl with makeup, eyeliner, and lipstick. Unfortunately, the 
regime in Cuba encourages child prostitution and there is significant 
trafficking in that tourism. That is something that President Bush has 
sought to eliminate by entities using the guise of educational travel, 
for example, which promote this kind of sickening tourism.
  Our colleague from Florida pointed out how blatant tourism also is 
encouraged under the guise of educational travel. Again, educational 
travel, cultural travel, that is legal, but what President Bush's 
regulations in March sought to do was to end the fraud and abuse of 
entities that are simply seeking to encourage revenue for the regime 
and in the process do horrendous things such as this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear this is not a debate about tourism, 
and it is not a debate about illicit activity. It is about whether 
certain kinds of educational activities can occur. It is fair to point 
out that there is abuse as the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) noticed.
  I think both sides can agree that OFAC is perfectly willing to deny 
applications for licenses where they see fit. That is painfully clear. 
And where there is abuse and fraud, OFAC can do its job and deny a 
license. OFAC has the authority conferred upon it by Congress to impose 
both civil and criminal penalties in cases of fraud. That is not the 
issue.
  The question is whether the types of examples I have cited, the 
exchanges where universities are taking teachers down there who do not 
happen to be students engaged in formal case work, instances where 
doctors or lawyers are going down there on a peer-to-peer basis should 
be allowed to continue. There can be no basis to deny that does benefit 
the Cuban people, and should be something that ought to be allowed to 
continue.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance 
of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the issues that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) mentioned are still legal without 
his amendment. The rule change was to get rid of abuses, and the abuses 
we are talking about are very unfortunate. They include pedophilia and 
sex tourism, and those are the abuses that the new rules were 
implemented to stop.
  Let me be very clear. All these amendments that we are seeing today 
basically have one effect and one effect alone, to send more dollars to 
anti-American terrorist just 90 miles away from the United States who 
has said that he wants to destroy the United States, who has shot down 
unarmed American airplanes in international air space, and who has done 
everything in his power to enslave his people and to try to hurt the 
United States. All these amendments do is send more money to this 
terrorist regime at a time when we are at war with terrorists around 
the world.
  I agree with our President when he said you are either with us or 
with the terrorists. These amendments, with all due respect, 
unfortunately, are sending more funds to a terrorist regime and this 
particular amendment gets rid of some regulations to stop abuse, 
including those that go to Cuba with the excuse of going for 
educational reasons, and they go unfortunately in many cases for sexual 
tourism, including the most tragic and savage of them all, including 
pedophilia, which is sanctioned by the government of Cuba.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I think it is perfectly clear this is not a debate about the types of 
illicit activity that have been mentioned on the other side. It is not 
a debate about terrorism. It is a debate about whether certain types of 
educational activities should be allowed to continue which I believe 
benefit the Cuban people, and there has been no suggestion to the 
contrary, a peer-type relationship.

[[Page 21548]]

  We need to begin to help the Cuban people plant the seeds of 
democracy in their country. Goodness knows, it is a terrific task for 
them to undertake given how repressive this regime is. I saw firsthand 
the plight of the Cuban people. My heart went out to them. We cannot 
ignore that. We need to reach out and use United States citizens to 
help build democracy, the same way democracy was built in this country.

                              {time}  1800

  Ultimately, people are the bridges between countries. It is those 
relationships that will once again, once Fidel Castro is gone, bring us 
closer to Cuba and help us grow together as democracies. We cannot 
build those relationships, we cannot see them grow unless we continue 
to have the type of purposeful travel, the type of contact that I have 
described today. And I would urge my colleagues to adopt this 
amendment, so we can continue, at a minimum, to allow people who are 
trying to help the Cuban people travel to Cuba to do so.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Davis) will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Mica

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mica:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 742. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 
     unless the Corporation submits all quarterly and annual 
     reports required by law in accordance with the standards 
     applicable to reports under Public Law 107-204).

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of September 4, 2003, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a simple amendment. It says that none of the funds made 
available under this act may be used by the National Railroad Passenger 
Corporation unless the corporation submits all quarterly and annual 
reports required by law in accordance with the standards applicable to 
reports under Public Law 107-204.
  Public Law 107-204 is basically the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate 
reporting legislation that was passed after the Congress and the 
American people realized the extent of the problems brought about by 
the Enron scandal. In Enron, we had an instance where about $600 
million, less than $1 billion, of investor money was lost through 
private investments in a corporation.
  We have a corporation that was created, again the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation, also known as Amtrak, almost every year for the 
last 4 or 5 years, they have lost $1 billion or in that neighborhood. 
Much of this is subsidized by the taxpayer. Hardworking Americans send 
their dollars to Washington, and not a whimper has been heard about the 
lost money or unaccounted-for money in Amtrak.
  We passed a law that required corporations across the land, and 
Amtrak is a corporation, this rail corporation, even by its name I just 
cited, is a corporation and all this says, that existing current law, 
nothing new, nothing greater, that was passed by this Congress for 
transparency, for accountability, be also known and be it clear that 
Amtrak is required to report on the same basis.
  We think it is very important. I will tell you why it is important. 
Again, as a member of the Subcommittee on Railroads under the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure, let me just cite some of the 
things that the General Accounting Office 2000 report gave to our 
committee and to Congress. It found that Amtrak did not know its route-
by-route costs of its mail and express program because it never 
separately identified these costs. It said in the report, according to 
an Amtrak official, Amtrak still has a long way to go in producing 
reliable mail and express financial information and in understanding 
the true cost of this business.
  Again, Amtrak is a corporation that has a board of directors, it has 
an employee stock ownership plan, it has assets and liabilities, and it 
also has taxpayer money coming into the program. We cannot tell, 
according to the GAO report, its finances. So I think it is long 
overdue that we take a step such as this and require that they comply 
with existing law that all other corporations must comply with. The 
report further went on and looked at a review of Amtrak's expenditure 
of $2.2 billion in Federal funds from the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act. It 
found that Amtrak could not determine how it was spending its Federal 
funds, nor was Amtrak able to ensure that its spending was allowed 
under Federal law.
  So Amtrak, according to the Inspector General, does not even know 
what it is required to do under existing law. This is merely a 
clarifying, enunciating statement by this Congress that the same 
disclosure, the same standards that we require for corporations, it is 
clear that Amtrak as a corporation must also comply with. In fact, the 
report goes on to say that at one time Amtrak did not even have a 
process in place to review its spending practices. So we have questions 
again raised, and this is not something I made up. This is a General 
Accounting Office February 2000 report, telling us that there is not 
clarity in which laws or even which standards of reporting at Amtrak.
  We are not creating any new law under this particular provision. What 
we are doing is saying that Amtrak, that is taking a huge amount of 
taxpayer money, in the billions, going into debt in addition to the 
money that Congress is appropriating in the billions, and we are not 
able to say that it even complies with existing law. So this is a 
requirement to have Amtrak comply with existing law.
  Why should Amtrak not be held to the same standards and 
accountabilities and reporting requirements that Congress has imposed 
on corporate America? That is the question I leave before the House.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts 
insist on his point of order?
  Mr. OLVER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is that this proposes 
to change existing law and constitutes legislating in an appropriation 
bill, and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
  I insist upon my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does anyone wish to speak on the point of 
order?
  Mr. MICA. To the point?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Yes, to the point of order. The gentleman 
from Florida wishes to speak on the point of order. The gentleman is 
recognized.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, on this point, I am an authorizer, and I am 
very much aware that we do not want to authorize on appropriations 
measures, so we tried to craft this measure very carefully. In crafting 
it, we have used language that says, and again I quote from my 
amendment, in accordance with standards applicable to reports under 
Public Law 107-204. Public Law 107-204 is a law that applies to 
corporations in the United States of America. I have a copy of that 
here. Amtrak is the National Passenger Rail Corporation. It has a board 
of directors. It has an employee stock ownership plan. It has assets 
and liabilities. Additionally, it is taxpayer-funded. We

[[Page 21549]]

have not gone outside of the parameters of existing law. There is a 
question, it appears from the General Accounting Office reports that I 
have cited, that Amtrak does not know what the bounds of the current 
laws are. This particular report was done prior to the passage of the 
Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, Public Law 107-204. Again we are not 
requiring any new legislation, any new law. We are stating again that 
none of the funds made available under this act would be used by this 
corporation unless the corporation submits their quarterly and annual 
reports as required by law and in accordance with the standards of an 
existing law, merely clarifying, and I think it is an important point 
here that we make, that we do not go beyond any existing law 
requirements.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does anyone else wish to speak on this 
point of order?
  It is the opinion of the Chair that the gentleman from Florida has 
been unable to carry his burden of proving that the standards in the 
relevant statute are already applicable to reports by the Corporation. 
Barring that proof, the Chair is constrained to find that the amendment 
would make these standards applicable. By making standards apply that 
are not otherwise applicable, the amendment changes law in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. The amendment is 
not in order.
  Are there further amendments?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Mica) having assumed the chair, Mr. Terry, Chairman pro tempore 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. 2989) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 
Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2004, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________