[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18377-18433]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 770 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 5025.

                              {time}  1640


                     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 consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 5025) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation 
and Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2005, and for other purposes, with Mr. Gillmor in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I am pleased to present to the House the appropriations bill H.R. 
5025, making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 
Treasury, and independent agencies for fiscal year 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most fiscally responsible bills that 
we have considered this year. It is a large bill. It is a diverse bill. 
It includes funding for the Department of Transportation, the Treasury 
Department, the General Services Administration, the Executive Office 
of the President, National Archives, Office of Management and Budget, 
Office of Personnel Management and many other agencies that are 
critical to the functioning of our Federal Government.
  This measure is also one that includes a number of government-wide 
general provisions that are there to facilitate efficiency and 
effectiveness in the day-to-day functions of large and small Federal 
agencies.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of budget constraints this year. In 
examining the budget picture for this particular bill, it is important 
to note that this bill is within the budget that has been produced by 
this House of Representatives and the allocation that has been provided 
to this subcommittee.
  Of course, the Congress, working with the President and his 
administration, has rightfully put a priority on spending for the 
ongoing conflict in Iraq and the war on terror. At the same time, we 
have a serious Federal deficit. These have forced this body and our 
Committee on Appropriations and our subcommittee to make many difficult 
and challenging choices. This bill reflects the difficulty of those 
choices.
  In fact, if you look at this bill, Mr. Chairman, and compare it with 
last year's parallel bill, you will find that this particular measure 
is $3 billion below the amount that we spent on the same accounts last 
year. There are reasons that it is not a pure apples-to-apples 
comparison, but, nevertheless, the bill is below what the similar 
funding was for last year. That reflects, again, the priority choices 
and the tough choices we have made.
  So we will hear, during debate upon this measure, many people say, 
``Oh, I wish we had more money for this program or that or some 
other.'' But the answer is that we do not. We are in deficit spending 
already, and this is about as fiscally responsible a bill as you will 
find before this body this year.
  Overall, the bill provides a total of $89.9 billion for the 
Department of Transportation, for the Treasury Department, the Internal 
Revenue Service, highways, transit, rail programs, seafaring programs, 
and the heart of the executive branch, including the White House 
itself.

                              {time}  1645

  Overall, for salary and expense accounts, the bill does provide 
increases, some 2.6 percent, but that is within the context of a bill 
that overall is $3 billion less than the bill last year, so many 
agencies will have to do some belt tightening. We have tried to give 
them the maximum flexibility to manage those resources.
  I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young) did not have the funds he would have liked to have had to put 
into highways and other forms of transportation, but he gave us a fair 
allocation and I am grateful for it. Not only is it $3 billion below 
last year's spending on these accounts, it is below the amounts 
requested by the President in his budget.
  There were some highly controversial provisions we did not include. 
Some Members said if you can put a provision in the bill to end a 
process known as dumping, which has to do with reparation payments to 
industry to offset unfair trade practices, then you can grab over a 
billion dollars to put back into the bill. That would not have been 
good because whatever Members' position on dumping is, it has not 
passed the House and we cannot assume we will have the money.
  Despite the budget constraints we have, I am pleased we have been 
able to improve the most important part of our transportation network, 
and that

[[Page 18378]]

is funding for highways. The $34 billion in this bill for highway 
funding is a billion dollars above the funding level for highways last 
year. So in the context of a bill that itself is $3 billion below last 
year, when we are still able to improve highway funding, that shows we 
have addressed priorities and tried to put the money where it is most 
important.
  That money for highways is going to be good news for the economy 
because each billion dollar investment is estimated to create some 
40,000 jobs.
  There is also some confusion in the context of this bill, Mr. 
Chairman, because we have a two-stage process. We have still pending in 
the conference committee a surface transportation highways and transit 
reauthorization bill. I do not want to confuse this bill with that. The 
reauthorization bill establishes a framework for spending 
transportation dollars, but this bill actually provides the money. We 
do not have a new framework created, so we have had to assume the old 
framework remains in place, but we are going to have some controversy 
over that because we have not been able to achieve passage into law of 
a highway reauthorization bill. We have some technicalities, some rules 
of this House, and I know many Members are going to come forward and 
raise points of order. They are going to say you have to strike this 
part out of the bill because we have not authorized it.
  Well, we have been waiting a year for an authorization bill which has 
not happened. We had to do our work anyway. Some Members may want to 
pick the bill apart and say you are putting money into something that 
is not authorized. Under the rules of the House they may be successful 
in doing that. But I want to reassure every Member of this body that we 
are going to repair those things when it gets to conference. We are 
going to have the same kind of responsible bill that the Committee on 
Appropriations has produced that comes out of conference regardless of 
how Members may want to pick at it with parliamentary tactics on the 
House floor today.
  It is not the fault of the Committee on Appropriations that a 
reauthorization measure has not passed as the rules of the House 
dictate it should have been a year ago.
  Looking at some other details of the bill, the FAA, the Federal 
Aviation Administration, will receive a 3 percent increase for its 
operations, less than they requested, but more than the government-wide 
average for nondefense, nonhomeland security programs. That again is 
because we have put priority into aviation funding, just as we have in 
highway funding, and we have put cuts in place elsewhere in the bill to 
compensate for that.
  The bill meets the aviation funding guarantees mandated by 
authorizing legislation which has passed this body. It provides the 
budget request for the capital investment programs of the FAA and 
grants-in-aid for airports all across America.
  The essential air service program, which I am not personally fond of, 
but one which is important to many Members of this body, receives the 
same funding as it did in fiscal year 2004. And there is $20 million 
for the small community air service program.
  Amtrak is always a point of controversy in this House. The bill 
proposes $900 million for Amtrak, the same amount suggested by the 
administration in their budget proposal, and I believe it is a 
responsible number for Amtrak because Amtrak still has not resolved its 
long-term problems, and we have not developed the kind of partnerships 
that we need with States and communities that want Amtrak service 
investing in Amtrak service. The administration believes and I agree 
that realistic Amtrak reform has to be enacted before we start putting 
more money into that passenger rail service.
  The Secretary of Transportation and the President and his 
administration believe the amount in this bill is sufficient to keep 
that rail service operating in the next year, and I agree with them.
  Funding for transit in the bill is essentially at the level of fiscal 
year 2004, also the same as the administration requested, but we have 
done some adjustment inside of the numbers. Within the overall total, 
we have put more of the transit funding into the formula grant program 
that goes into every community in every State in the country on a 
formula basis. That benefits everyone. We put more money through the 
formula and less in the so-called new starts program which is fixed 
guideway and light rail programs, and so forth, which only benefit a 
handful of communities. We have tried to put the transit funding more 
than ever before into a formula that benefits everyone, not just select 
areas of the country.
  I want to make one more comment about the new starts program. We do 
not know how much money is going to be available over the next 5 years 
to fund these expensive rail systems that a lot of communities want and 
often do not do the necessary cost-benefit analysis. The Department of 
Transportation Inspector General told us this year there are far more 
systems being proposed than we will ever have money to pay for. The 
requests exceed the resources by billions of dollars, so this bill 
takes a prudent step to slow down that program, put money instead into 
the formula grants instead of making some decisions that we might 
regret tomorrow on how we prioritize the new starts program. But the 
bill does fund all of the existing full funding grant agreements on new 
start programs that are between different communities and the Federal 
Transit Administration.
  In the Treasury Department of this bill, which includes the Internal 
Revenue Service, we essentially have funded it at the same level of 
fiscal year 2004. Some of the proposals we believe need further 
refinement. New initiatives such as the IRS initiative to increase its 
hiring to improve collections are too financially ambitious for the 
budget climate we have.
  One of the largest increases in the bill, 12.7 percent, goes to what 
is known as FinCEN, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. It is 
part of the Department of Treasury and it is part of counterterrorism 
activities, trying to disrupt the financial basis of terrorists.
  When we look at another part of the bill, the Executive Office, the 
President, the White House and the offices that work with the White 
House, it is actually a little below last year's because we have 
reduced contract programs. The bill includes funding for the majority 
of the construction program of the GSA, General Services 
Administration. That is the landlord for the Federal Government. But 
even though it includes the majority of the GSA construction program 
and GSA says it has something like a $7 billion backlog, we have shaved 
back those requests to meet our budget allocation.
  All 12 border stations that are proposed in the budget request are 
fully funded because of the priority that we have given to homeland 
security. A more complete summary of all of the funding levels in the 
bill, as well as significant provision, is in the committee report at 
pages 3 and 4, and I direct Members to those pages.
  Mr. Chairman, a final comment before I close my debate for now. My 
final comment is about the messiness that I know we are going to 
experience with the points of order and money in the bill being 
stricken. We are probably going to have to offer some amendments on 
what do we do with the money. I would just as soon have it go to pay 
the national debt, but in our protocol that is not how it works in this 
process. So if some money is stricken on points of order, I will offer 
the necessary amendments to park that money into some of the major 
accounts with the understanding that when we get to conference we will 
be overcoming the parliamentary problems of those points of order and 
restoring that money to the transportation programs which I think some 
people are going to try to take it from with their points of order.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), our ranking 
member. The gentleman presents his personal views and the views of the 
minority tenaciously and effectively and is good to work with. I 
appreciate that and his no-nonsense approach to things.
  I also appreciate our staff that has worked so well and will 
reiterate a

[[Page 18379]]

thank you to them later on before we close this debate.
  This is a good, solid bill. It is responsible. It merits and deserves 
the support of every Member of this body, and I ask that Members 
support it when we come to passage of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Chairman Istook) for working so hard to get this bill to the floor. I 
suspect from the comments the gentleman has made and what I know about 
what is likely to go forward today, he is going to be working even 
harder to keep this bill moving in the days ahead.
  I would also like to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for 
their work on the bill: On the minority side, Mike Malone and Bob 
Bonner from our appropriations staff; and on the majority side, Rich 
Efford, Cheryle Tucker, Leigha Shaw, and Kurt Dodd. I may be missing 
somebody, but at least those for the majority. This bill has become 
more complex than any of us thought it would, and I appreciate all of 
their efforts and all of the efforts that they will be asked to make.
  As Members know, the Congress has not adopted a budget resolution for 
fiscal year 2005. Instead, the deemed resolution under which the House 
is operating and which placed tax cuts number one among all priorities, 
resulted in a severely constrained 302(b) allocation for this 
subcommittee, along with several other subcommittees of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  I give credit to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) to 
distribute the pain broadly, if not totally evenly, and for making 
significant adjustments during the subcommittee and full committee 
deliberations, particularly in regard to hiring additional air traffic 
controllers in anticipation of the impending wave of controller 
retirements which everyone except the Department of Transportation 
seems to know is coming, and in regard to better funding the Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network, one of the Treasury Department's front 
lines against terrorism, yet the subcommittee's abysmal allocation 
precluded us from fixing several more serious problems with the bill.
  On the transportation side, Mr. Chairman, every major account in the 
Department of Transportation is underfunded. The bill only provides 
$900 million for Amtrak, which I would say parenthetically, to parse 
the chairman's words, is another program of which he is not 
particularly fond. At this level there should be no surprise next 
spring when Amtrak must curtail services. And furthermore, as critical 
maintenance is further deferred, we risk serious to catastrophic 
accidents on the very trackage for which Congress has direct 
responsibility in our budgetary process.
  Transit programs are also underfunded. The new starts transit account 
is $300 million below the President's request.

                              {time}  1700

  There are so many new urban areas growing in this country, areas that 
are rising in population at substantially larger than the average 
population increase year by year in this country where it is becoming 
totally unthinkable to simply add additional lanes of highways and 
where more and more of them are thinking about how to use bus transit, 
rail transit, various kinds of programs, under the transit 
administration; and the new starts transit account is $300 million 
below the President's request to deal with those needs.
  The FAA's operations account is well below the President's fiscal 
year 2005 request and the FAA facilities and equipment account is 
nearly $400 million below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level. The two 
highway safety agencies, the Motor Carrier Safety Administration and 
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, taken together, are 
cut by 25 percent below the President's request. Those are two major 
highway safety programs. They are not terribly large, but they are cut 
from the President's request by 25 percent, one much higher than the 
other.
  Even the Federal Highway Administration, which is up 1.5 percent from 
the enacted fiscal year 2004 budget, is underfunded because 1.5 percent 
is well below the standard overall inflation rate. Fifteen percent of 
our whole economy comes from the transportation industry, broadly 
taken, and the chairman has already pointed out that construction in 
transportation infrastructure produces, he used the number 40,000 jobs 
per $1 billion. My understanding is that the Department of 
Transportation typically uses 45,000 jobs per $1 billion of 
construction, but we do not need to quibble about that. I will accept 
his number and he probably would accept my number as being in the 
ballpark.
  So that moneys in the transportation budget and in the Federal 
highway budget, particularly vitally important for infrastructure 
improvements all over the country, construction in every mode of 
transportation costs more every year as the population and congestion 
increase.
  I do not understand what the benefit is to us as individuals in our 
districts and to the people of America in general cutting below 
inflation, at least below inflation and in some cases far beyond below 
inflation, of programs in the transportation area.
  On the Treasury portion of this budget, the IRS tax law enforcement 
account is $286 million below the President's request and nearly half a 
billion dollars below what the IRS oversight board says is needed to 
properly enforce tax laws in fiscal year 2005.
  Since we have had sworn testimony that moneys expended properly on 
tax law enforcement brings in on average a six-to-one return, thereby 
the proper use of $286 million would bring in nearly $2 billion of 
additional revenue. In effect, we are giving tax cuts to tax cheaters 
by not fully funding the tax law enforcement request that the President 
made.
  Secondly, on the Treasury portion, language is included that bars the 
use of matricula consular identification cards, language which is 
harmful to homeland security and the Department of Treasury's fight 
against terrorist financing. I am hopeful that that language will be 
taken out of this bill before it becomes law.
  On the floor today and in conference, I hope we will be able to 
rectify these problems and have strong bipartisan support for the end 
product that we hope to produce as expeditiously as possible.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak on this bill, and I do appreciate the hard 
work that the subcommittee has been grappling with. Clearly, there is 
not enough money that is allocated to meet all of the varied 
transportation interests that we have. I also appreciate that this is a 
dynamic process and that there is going to be probably more give and 
take on top of the give and take that has occurred.
  I would like to speak briefly on behalf of three simple points. 
First, I heard the chairman talk about the new starts being 
oversubscribed and talked about how there is more in the pipeline than 
is likely to be funded at current levels for some time. I agree 
wholeheartedly, but I would think that that is a signal, a signal about 
the popularity and the importance of these programs across the country, 
the way the chairman a moment ago talked about the need for more 
highway funding because of the need for highways.
  We have an extraordinarily popular and important program for 
communities across the country, including some that may not leap to 
mind for people thinking about multimodal transportation systems, like 
in Houston, Texas, where the voters there just this last fall, actually 
against formidable political opposition, the voters decided that they 
were going to extend that program. It simply as yet does not keep pace 
with demand, but we have a broad and growing range of interest around 
the country.
  I would suggest that unlike the highway projects which are basically 
an entitlement that are not subjected to rigorous analysis in terms of 
cost-benefit,

[[Page 18380]]

I know of no projects in the Federal arena in terms of major capital 
outlay that are subjected to more aggressive cost-benefit analysis than 
what we do now to the new starts. I think they meet the test. They are 
in community after community proving to be the most cost-effective ways 
of reducing congestion, far more effective than spending a similar 
amount simply widening roads as has been the case in the past. That is 
why it is popular. That is why it has been supported by Republican and 
Democratic administrations. That is why we see it in communities large 
and small across the country.
  I am concerned, because I know that there has been some report 
language that talks about how to deal with the weighing of land-use 
considerations. I would respectfully suggest that this is an area that 
I think the FTA can, in fact, improve its performance; but it is 
rather, I would suggest, looking at the value of land use rather than 
to undervalue land-use criteria.
  What community after community is finding is that if you do not look 
at supportive land uses around transportation facilities, without 
proper land use you can have them be ineffective, you can have a road 
project that is basically producing congestion the day it is opened if 
you are not careful with what the land uses are there. We ought to 
strengthen the land use provisions, not weaken them. That was part of 
the original ISTEA. That was part of TEA-21. That is part of what is 
going through the process now if we ever reauthorize the Surface 
Transportation Act. This is in TEA-LU.
  I would hope that we could work with the FTA to balance, to 
strengthen, to give more of these choices and, frankly, to provide some 
weight to the economic development potential of these activities. My 
concern is at the FTA now there is not enough weight for the economic 
development potential of transportation. I have seen it, and I can give 
example after example where it has arisen. I would hope that we are 
able to provide proper weight for it.
  The final point that I wanted to raise deals with Amtrak. I am 
concerned that the Republican leadership, with their Rules Committee, 
that we have not been able to protect the spending under Amtrak and 
maybe subject it to a point of order.
  This continues an ongoing drama we have here where the administration 
proposes to undercut it, where there are proposals here in the House to 
chop it down even further, but it is always restored because it is 
something the public understands is an essential part of our 
transportation infrastructure. It is critical in corridors like in the 
Northeast. It is something that we have historically starved and 
underfunded. We have spent less in total of Amtrak's entire history 
than we do in 1 year of highway spending.
  I would hope that we not get involved with that charade this time 
where we go through the motions of cutting Amtrak funding or even 
eliminating it, because the American public will not stand for it. It 
will ultimately be reinstated, but it undercuts the effective 
administration that we see with the new director, Peter Gunn, who is 
the best I have seen since I have been in Congress. They deserve better 
and so does the rail passenger public.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for his generous 
yielding of time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my concern about the funding in 
this bill. I realize the chairman's hands are tied by the allocation 
given to the subcommittee which is in turn driven by the budget 
resolution passed by the House earlier this year, but not passed by the 
Congress. I thank Chairman Young and Ranking Member Obey for doing the 
best they could with the limited resources available to this committee, 
but this committee did not have sufficient funds to meet its 
responsibilities.
  This highlights the fact that the decisions we make about the budget 
and taxes have real consequences. With this bill today, we 
unfortunately see one major result of our decisions. We have failed to 
live up to the commitments we made to our constituents.
  I am, however, pleased in certain instances that we have followed the 
President's recommendation. The FDA consolidation which we are about 
has been included in the bill, an extraordinarily important effort that 
a bipartisan effort of the administration and the Congress has pursued. 
These funds will go a long way in helping to relocate FDA employees 
from their current substandard facilities into modern, state-of-the-art 
facilities. The consolidation would bring to an end the practice of 
extending costly leases for various FDA offices throughout the region. 
We in fact will save money as a result of this.
  On the other hand, I am deeply disappointed that the bill does not 
provide any election reform grants. We have funded the commission. That 
is appropriate. We had a press conference this morning with the 
president of the National Association of Secretaries of State. One of 
the most important things that remains left to do on election reform is 
revising the statewide election system of recording registrants and 
having those registrants available to each and every precinct. The 
grants that are due under the authorization are not included in this 
bill.
  The administration, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, must show a stronger 
commitment to election reform, including calling for more funding, if 
this Nation is to avoid a repeat of the 2000 election debacle. We will 
not do anything between now and November 2 with this money; but very 
frankly the registration that we require in the bill be a statewide 
system must be online by January of 2006. That is a very brief period 
of time, some 14 months from now.

                              {time}  1715

  And if we do not fully fund the authorization, I fear the States will 
not meet that deadline. We made a promise to the States that the 
efforts to address the most serious deficiencies in their electoral 
systems would not turn into another unfunded federal mandate. By 
failing to fund fully the commitment of the authorization bill, we have 
mandated something and we have not helped pay for it.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, I remain concerned that the proposed funding for 
tax law enforcement is insufficient to adequately enforce compliance 
and make our tax system fair and efficient. I am also disappointed 
there are no funds to reimburse small airports in the Washington region 
for the losses incurred when the Federal Government shut them down. I 
have had extensive discussions with the chairman on this issue. There 
is some language in the bill that hopefully will make this a 
conferencable item, but I will tell the chairman once again and I will 
tell the chairman of the caucus it is ironic that small business people 
who have invested and taken a risk in being entrepreneurs, as the 
majority party says it supports, are left hanging in the wind by 
governmental action and, through no fault of their own, none, zero, 
find themselves one of the few people who have not been reimbursed for 
the losses they have incurred. That is, I think, ironic and wrong.
  While the bill recognizes that the Department of Transportation 
should consider ways to reimburse general aviation, the failure to 
provide funds will only leave small airports, specifically College 
Park, Potomac, and Washington Executive, dangling on the brink of 
financial ruin. We should do more for general aviation and small 
business, what we did for the airlines, large airports, and the 
insurance industry in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, help ease 
the burden our actions have caused. Those actions were caused by 
terrorists.
  I urge the chairman to include funds for general aviation 
reimbursement as we move forward to make fair restitution to the small 
airports.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the failure to provide funds for DOT 
headquarters is short-sighted, in my opinion, and leaves the Department 
of Transportation headquartered in an aging building with an 
infrastructure well beyond

[[Page 18381]]

the end of its useful life. I urge the chairman to correct this 
oversight, and we ought to look for the resources to do that.
  I appreciate the committee's hard work, and I hope we can make some 
changes and make this a better bill. And I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, following on the comments of the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I rise to express my disappointment that this 
bill does not fully fund the amounts authorized in the Help America 
Vote Act for Fiscal Year 2005. We were proud to pass, on the eve of the 
2002 election, ground-breaking election reform legislation that 
authorized almost $4 billion in Federal funding that would, among other 
things, improve the administration of elections; provide for increased 
accessibility to voting equipment and polling places for people with 
physical disabilities; fund the replacement of obsolete voting 
equipment; pay for protection and advocacy systems; provide for the 
establishment of State-based administrative procedures to remedy 
grievances, including grievances pertaining to accessibility; call for 
the establishment of an Election Assistance Commission to serve as a 
national clearinghouse and resource for the compilation of information 
and review procedures with respect to the administration of Federal 
elections; and to call for the establishment of a Standards Board, a 
Board of Advisors and a Technical Guidelines Development Committee, all 
of which would assist in the development of good voting systems.
  Although over the past couple of years I have been primarily focused 
on standards for voting systems, specifically the lack of meaningful 
security standards for such systems, the Help America Vote Act funded 
many important things. And considering how important it is to our 
democracy to have fair, accessible, auditable elections and considering 
how many doubts citizens have had about elections in recent years, I am 
deeply disappointed that this appropriations bill provides so little 
HAVA funding, only $15 million, a pittance on the amount yet to be 
funded authorized under HAVA. Fifteen million dollars provided in this 
bill, leaving unappropriated more than $700 million of HAVA's total $4 
billion in authorized sums.
  The absence of consistent funding for HAVA has caused a fundamental 
problem; namely, that Federal funding of election systems outpaced the 
critical need for implementation of meaningful security standards. The 
Committee on Appropriations recognizes this. With respect to the $15 
million appropriated for the Election Assistance Commission, $5 million 
is specified ``to address the desperate need for research and 
standardization of election systems.'' The committee urged the EAC to 
``address standards and technology issues related to voting 
equipment.'' That is their quote. But the committee does not provide 
adequate funding. Forty million dollars was authorized to fund the 
protection and advocacy systems to ensure full participation in the 
election process for individuals with disabilities. Less than a third 
of that amount has been appropriated. One hundred million dollars was 
authorized to fund polling place accessibility and education and 
outreach to disabled voters. Only about a third, less than a third of 
that, has been appropriated. HAVA has called for the establishment of a 
Help America Vote college program and Help America Vote high school 
program. Each of those has received only about half of the authorized 
amount. HAVA called for $3 billion in payments to States to help them 
meet their audit trail, accessibility, language and other voting system 
requirements, and we fall far short of the appropriations in that 
category.
  HAVA, I believe, will have to be amended. There are some improvements 
that need to be made. But that is no excuse for not fully funding this 
central part of the American democratic system to make sure that we 
have fair, accessible, and auditable elections.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding me this time, and I recognize that there is a lot of hard 
work that the chairman and the ranking member have done on this bill 
and we are grateful for the bill despite its horrific shortcomings. The 
subcommittee has worked hard.
  Secretary Ridge was before the Select Committee on Homeland Security 
today, and an issue came forward that I think simply must be discussed 
during this debate. I said to the Secretary, whose hard work I very 
much appreciate, how much it looked like we were fighting the last war. 
The private sector, the business sector does not even have up on the 
website of the Department of Homeland Security some guidance as to what 
they should do, except that is where all the people are and that is 
where all the revenue is raised in our country. And where the people 
are in transportation, on rail, on public transportation, it is not 
even on the radar when it comes to homeland security.
  I have got an act that has a lot of cosponsors called the Safe 
Transportation Act, and I have to tell my colleagues that terrorists 
really do have an open field. Not in aviation anymore. We have shored 
up some of that. But they have an open field in public transportation 
and in rail. That is where the people of the United States spend their 
time going to and from one part of the country and the other and one 
city and the other. We have allocated about $14 billion for aviation 
security, and we are sure we are doing the right thing there. I am on 
the Subcommittee on Aviation. That was the right thing to do. There is 
more still to be done there.
  But even after Madrid, there is something approximating $300 million 
for all of rail and public security. People go down into subways. 
People get on buses. And there is almost a blank slate there. There are 
9 billion passenger trips annually on public transportation. I first 
learned of this problem when Amtrak security here in the Nation's 
capital came to see me, and I tell my colleagues that my hair stood on 
end because Union Station is here, and he told me what his work had 
been with transportation security, and he told me that virtually 
nothing had been done here or in Penn Station or in Philadelphia's 30th 
Street Station. Do not even let us get to the tracks and the tunnels. 
Amtrak accounts for only 22,000 of U.S. rail routes. There are 140,000, 
and sometimes they are a big company like Amtrak. Most of the time they 
are much smaller.
  We are living in the post-Madrid era, not the post-9/11 era. There 
were 200 innocent civilians killed there, 1,500 injured. One-third of 
terrorist attacks in the world target public transportation systems 
because they are the easiest to get at. I sat in on a Subcommittee on 
Railroads hearing a couple of months ago, and I was horrified. There 
were two agencies there who are supposed to be responsible, the Federal 
Railways Administration and the Department of Homeland Security 
official. Nobody is in charge. There is no national security plan for 
rail security, for subways, for buses. There is no assessment of our 
rail security, of our public transportation security. And here we have 
a transportation bill before us. Hey, not a word about it. It simply 
has to be inserted into this debate. It is no way to run a railway, no 
way to run a public transportation system. And we are in mortal danger 
when we leave the major form of transportation used by Americans 
hanging out there with $300 million while we have fought the last $14 
billion war in the air. Let us begin to fight this war.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the help of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) 
in trying to expedite the time for the benefit of everyone.
  Let me just make a couple of responses to things that a couple of

[[Page 18382]]

speakers mentioned on the Help America Vote Act. We have provided 
federally something like a little bit over $3 billion in the last 
couple of years to improve voting systems around the country. A billion 
dollars of that remains unspent. The States are not prepared for us to 
add more money on this bill or any other bill because they have got $1 
billion that has not been spent yet. They are waiting on some voting 
standards that are supposed to be coming from the Federal Commission, 
which has not produced those standards yet. So I do not think it would 
be responsible for us to take away from other urgent and pressing 
priorities to put more money into an account that already has much more 
money than it is able to spend. So I figured it was important to 
mention that.
  Let me, in closing, Mr. Chairman, repeat something I said before, and 
I realize it is confusing to anyone that may be listening as well as to 
Members. We will be having in this bill a number of parliamentary 
tactics, points of order brought up. It is not because we on the 
Committee on Appropriations have not produced a responsible piece of 
legislation, trying to fund the most important priorities in 
transportation and in the Federal agencies that are a part of this 
bill. However, because the authorizing committee has not been able to 
complete its work, it is overdue by over a year now, we have some 
things that technically are unauthorized programs. It is unauthorized 
for this Congress to provide Federal highway transportation dollars.

                              {time}  1730

  Now, it is authorized to collect the gasoline tax that our citizens 
and our constituents pay at the pump. They are paying the fuel tax, but 
it is not authorized with that money to go back into the roads. That is 
not right, so we went ahead and we provided that transportation 
funding. We provided the highway funding and the transit funding and 
the aviation funding, even though the authorizers say, Well, it is not 
authorized.
  So because of that, they are going to come to this floor, and people 
are going to say: Well, strike out this part of the bill. Strike out 
funding for highways. Strike out provisions, some of which spend money 
and some of which, frankly, save money. We are going to have a messy 
process.
  But ultimately, when this committee produces the House-Senate 
conference report, we are going to take care of those things that are 
addressed in this. We will resolve the parliamentary problems because, 
frankly, the points of order, the parliamentary points of order do not 
lie against a conference report as they do against legislation in the 
House.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to clarify on the point that the gentleman just made and 
the example that you just used, that the authorization bill on T&I 
highway programs has an extension. As of the moment, it is an extension 
to September 24. If there is not a full bill, authorization bill that 
has passed by then, there will be another extension into the next 
fiscal year. And the irony is that we would then be operating within 
the authorization of the extension into the next fiscal year in what we 
would be doing.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is certainly correct.
  Reclaiming my time, this Committee on Appropriations is doing its 
work, whether the rest of Congress is able to for whatever reason 
fulfill their work or not. I regret that this is going to be a messy 
process. We are going to have some things stricken out of the bill. If 
the things that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure want 
stricken out of the bill are all out, we would be above our budget 
allocation. We would be in violation of the rules of this House on the 
amount of money that we have to spend. That is pretty bad when we have 
a deficit already to make it worse.
  We are not going to do that. We will make sure appropriate amendments 
are offered and that this bill ultimately is within the amount of money 
that has been allocated to our subcommittee. There may be some money 
that has been shifted about to what essentially will be a holding 
account, just to make sure that we reserve it, and we will resolve 
those things in committee.
  I realize it is confusing, Mr. Chairman, but I appreciate the trust 
and patience of the Members of this body in resolving it.
  I do, in final comment, want to make sure that I express my 
appreciation for the people that work behind the scenes so hard and so 
diligently to help us present this legislation: The chief clerk of our 
subcommittee, Rich Efford; the staff members of the subcommittee, 
Cheryle Tucker, Leigha Shaw, Dena Baron, Kristen Jones; and a member of 
my staff who works on these issues, Kurt Conrad, as well as my chief of 
staff, John Albaugh.
  We are grateful because we, as Members of Congress, could not do our 
work without the good support of these people.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and other Members for their 
comments. I ask every Member to support this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I was ready to yield back the balance of my time, but I 
yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I just want to say that the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury 
and Independent Agencies has done an outstanding job of bringing this 
legislation before the House of Representatives, and it is during some 
very difficult times with some constraints.
  I am going to be here representing the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, raising some points of order, not to object to 
specific actions the subcommittee has taken; I think they have been 
well-intended on behalf of the appropriators, but to offer and preserve 
some of the integrity of the authorization process on behalf of the 
full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), myself, and 
other subcommittee chairs.
  So again, it is a process of give and take, but we do know the 
constraints the gentleman has worked under, and we have to preserve the 
integrity of our jurisdiction. And I think that is important in this 
legislative process.
  So I congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma and the staff on the 
fine job they have done, and we will offer these in that light.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering funds an 
important national security program. The Maritime Security Program 
ensues that a fleet of privately owned, commercially viable and 
militarily useful vessels are available to meet national defense and 
other security requirements.
  A critical new element of the MSP program as reauthorized in the 
Department of Defense FY04 Authorization Act is the construction and 
operation of militarily useful U.S.-flag product tankers, which are 
essential for the carriage of jet fuel and other refined petroleum 
products. To facilitate the construction of U.S.-flag tankers in 
American shipyards for the MSP program, the FY04 Defense Authorization 
Act created the National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Assistance 
Program.
  Implementation of this program has been underway for seven months, 
with seven proposals submitted to the Maritime Administration (MARAD) 
to construct tankers for the MSP program. Final proposals for the 
program are due very shortly--on October 22, 2004--with awards 
scheduled to occur in January 2005. However, a provision in the 
Transportation Appropriations Bill--sec. 187--would bring this vital 
program to a halt by prohibiting any funds from being expended by MARAD 
to administer or ward any of the contracts under the new program.
  On August 24, 2004, the U.S. Transportation Command, the Defense 
Department's logistics arm, identified ``New Tank Vessels . . . 
constructed in the United States after November 25, 2003, and capable 
of carrying militarily useful petroleum products,'' as critical to the 
new MSP fleet. I am concerned about the potential impact this section 
187 prohibition would have on our Nation's military sealift at a time 
when the support of our overseas troops is critical.
  I intend to work with the Committee and Subcommittee in conference to 
ensure that

[[Page 18383]]

this key component of our military sealift is not jeopardized, and I 
encourage my colleagues who share this concern to do the same.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
the Sanders Amendment.
  The Sanders Amendment would ensure that the Treasury department not 
use any of its funds to undermine the federal court decision in Cooper 
v. IBM that held that cash balance conversions violate federal pension 
and age discrimination law.
  We've been here many times before.
  In fact, this is the fourth time that the House is voting to protect 
older workers' pensions under cash balance pension plan conversions. 
The last 2 times the amendment passed by 308-121 and 258-160.
  Instead of voting to prevent the Treasury department from undermining 
workers' pensions, I wish we were voting on affirmative legislation to 
set standards for cash balance plans.
  This issue has been going on since 1999.
  In 1999, IBM converted its pension plan to a cash balance plan.
  Luckily, it's computer savvy workers quickly figured out that the 
conversion would reduce their expected pensions.
  The workers mobilized and got Congress to hold hearings.
  The Clinton administration imposed a moratorium on approvals of 
conversions in September 1999.
  But then, the new Bush administration tried to issue regulations 
lifting the moratorium and permit conversions without any worker 
protections.
  Immediately 218 members of Congress wrote to the President urging him 
to revise the regulations and protect older workers.
  Four times the House and Senate have voted to require Treasury to 
withdraw its regulations and protect older workers.
  Finally, this year, in 2004, the Bush administration relented and 
withdrew the regulations. The administration even sent up a revised 
legislative proposal that contained a modicum of older worker 
protections though it did not go far enough to protect older workers.
  But, still the issue is not resolved.
  Either Congress or the courts must set standards for cash balance 
plans and conversions to such plans.
  The Republican Congress has done nothing on this issue for almost six 
years.
  If anything, Republican leaders would defer to employer lobbying and 
simply permit cash balance conversions without any protections for 
older workers.
  That's why the Courts may have to be the body that resolves some of 
these issues.
  One court, the federal district court for the state of Illinois, 
determined that conversions are illegal. Other courts have disagreed. 
These cases and others still waiting to be heard will take years to 
resolve.
  This amendment makes clear that the Treasury department shall not 
interfere in these cases.
  Today worker pension security is in crisis.
  This administration has done nothing to protect workers' pensions and 
done everything to undermine them.
  They didn't protect workers after Enron and WorldCom from employers 
loading pension plans with employer stock and letting the executives 
protect themselves while leaving the workers stuck with worthless 
stock.
  They didn't protect participants in 401(k) plans from a broad range 
of mutual fund abuses that have decimated retirement nest eggs.
  And they are not protecting workers now from rampant pension 
underfunding. The PBGC, the agency that insures traditional pensions, 
has a $10 billion deficit. And if the airlines go under, the deficit 
will increase by another $30 billion. Over 1,000 pension plans are more 
than $50 million underfunded. And workers don't even know because the 
PBGC is required to keep the information secret.
  The administration and the Republican majority are doing nothing to 
protect worker pensions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote once again and remind the majority that 
it is the will of the Congress that older workers be protected in cash 
balance pension plan conversions.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill will be considered for amendment under 
the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 5025

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Departments of 
     Transportation and Treasury and independent agencies for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, and for other 
     purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Office of the Secretary

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary, 
     $89,000,000, of which not to exceed $2,219,100 shall be 
     available for the immediate Office of the Secretary; not to 
     exceed $704,500 shall be available for the immediate Office 
     of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $15,394,300 shall be 
     available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to 
     exceed $12,639,000 shall be available for the Office of the 
     Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; not to exceed 
     $8,572,900 shall be available for the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Budget and Programs; not to exceed $2,315,700 
     shall be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
     for Governmental Affairs; not to exceed $23,435,700 shall be 
     available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
     Administration; not to exceed $1,928,700 shall be available 
     for the Office of Public Affairs; not to exceed $1,456,000 
     shall be available for the Office of the Executive 
     Secretariat; not to exceed $704,000 shall be available for 
     the Board of Contract Appeals; not to exceed $1,277,200 shall 
     be available for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged 
     Business Utilization; not to exceed $2,052,900 for the Office 
     of Intelligence and Security; not to exceed $3,300,000 shall 
     be available for the Office of Emergency Transportation; and 
     not to exceed $13,000,000 shall be available for the Office 
     of the Chief Information Officer: Provided, That the 
     Secretary of Transportation is authorized to transfer funds 
     appropriated for any office of the Office of the Secretary to 
     any other office of the Office of the Secretary: Provided 
     further, That no appropriation for any office shall be 
     increased or decreased by more than 5 percent by all such 
     transfers: Provided further, That any change in funding 
     greater than 5 percent shall be submitted for approval to the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided 
     further, That not to exceed $60,000 shall be for allocation 
     within the Department for official reception and 
     representation expenses as the Secretary may determine: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, excluding fees authorized in Public Law 107-71, there 
     may be credited to this appropriation up to $2,500,000 in 
     funds received in user fees: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds provided in this Act shall be available for the 
     position of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.

                         office of civil rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $8,700,000.

           transportation planning, research, and development

       For necessary expenses for conducting transportation 
     planning, research, systems development, development 
     activities, and making grants, to remain available until 
     expended, $10,800,000.

                          working capital fund

       Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays 
     of the Working Capital Fund, not to exceed $125,000,000, 
     shall be paid from appropriations made available to the 
     Department of Transportation: Provided, That such services 
     shall be provided on a competitive basis to entities within 
     the Department of Transportation: Provided further, That the 
     above limitation on operating expenses shall not apply to 
     non-DOT entities: Provided further, That no funds 
     appropriated in this Act to an agency of the Department shall 
     be transferred to the Working Capital Fund without the 
     approval of the agency modal administrator: Provided further, 
     That no assessments may be levied against any program, budget 
     activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless 
     notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.

               minority business resource center program

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $500,000, as authorized 
     by 49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the 
     cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $18,367,000. In addition, for administrative expenses 
     to carry out the guaranteed loan program, $400,000.


                       Minority Business Outreach

       For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center 
     outreach activities, $3,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2006: Provided, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 
     332, these funds may be used for business opportunities 
     related to any mode of transportation.

[[Page 18384]]




                        Payments to Air Carriers

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       In addition to funds made available from any other source 
     to carry out the essential air service program under 49 
     U.S.C. 41731 through 41742, $51,700,000, to be derived from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to remain available until 
     expended.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the phrase, 
``to be derived from the airport and airway trust fund,'' beginning on 
page 5, line 24 and ending on line 25. This provision violates clause 2 
of rule XXI. It changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes 
legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the point of order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, the point of order, if I understand it 
correctly, is made against a portion, rather than an entirety, of the 
paragraph. I believe the House rules require the point of order must 
lie against the entire paragraph and not just a portion thereof. I 
believe the point of order is incorrectly offered accordingly.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order may be surgical. Does the gentleman 
from Oklahoma wish to expand the point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. If the gentleman's point of order lies against the entire 
paragraph, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has made a point of order against a 
portion of the paragraph. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma wish to 
expand the point of order?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I believe that we want to raise the point of 
order against a phrase. Again, the point of order which we want to 
raise against is the phrase, ``to be derived from the airport and 
airway trust fund,'' beginning on page 5, line 24, and ending on line 
25.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is permissible to make a point of order against a 
portion of the paragraph, but the gentleman from Oklahoma may expand 
the point of order.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order lie 
against the entire paragraph, that it be expanded against the entire 
paragraph.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is against the entire paragraph.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, just to that point, I do not believe that the 
gentleman would have the ability to expand. I thought that would be my 
prerogative in this case.
  The CHAIRMAN. Any Member may assert the point of order against the 
entire paragraph.
  The Chair will hear argument on the point of order.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, with it expanded to include the entire 
paragraph, I must concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman concedes the point of order. The point of 
order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, for the purposes of clarity, the Chair has 
ruled to strike the entire paragraph?
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is against the entire paragraph, and 
the entire paragraph is stricken.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to raise this, but there are 
apparently different versions, different copies floating around, and I 
would like to know, if I could, what is it that has now been stricken?
  The CHAIRMAN. The paragraph beginning on page 5, line 20 through line 
26.
  Mr. OLVER. All right. I thank the Chair very much, because my 
recollection was that one of the Members on the other side was reading 
from a different section at one point, and the words did not correspond 
to what is in that section, so I got a little confused.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    Federal Aviation Administration


                               operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including 
     operations and research activities related to commercial 
     space transportation, administrative expenses for research 
     and development, establishment of air navigation facilities, 
     the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of 
     aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and 
     maps sold to the public, lease or purchase of passenger motor 
     vehicles for replacement only, in addition to amounts made 
     available by Public Law 108-176, $7,726,000,000, of which 
     $6,002,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $6,160,617,600 shall be 
     available for air traffic services activities; not to exceed 
     $916,894,000 shall be available for aviation regulation and 
     certification activities; not to exceed $224,039,000 shall be 
     available for research and acquisition activities; not to 
     exceed $11,674,000 shall be available for commercial space 
     transportation activities; not to exceed $50,624,000 shall be 
     available for financial services activities; not to exceed 
     $69,821,600 shall be available for human resources program 
     activities; not to exceed $149,569,800 shall be available for 
     region and center operations and regional coordination 
     activities; not to exceed $139,302,000 shall be available for 
     staff offices; and not to exceed $38,254,000 shall be 
     available for information services: Provided, That none of 
     the funds in this Act shall be available for the Federal 
     Aviation Administration to finalize or implement any 
     regulation that would promulgate new aviation user fees not 
     specifically authorized by law after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act: Provided further, That there may be 
     credited to this appropriation funds received from States, 
     counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other public 
     authorities, and private sources, for expenses incurred in 
     the provision of agency services, including receipts for the 
     maintenance and operation of air navigation facilities, and 
     for issuance, renewal or modification of certificates, 
     including airman, aircraft, and repair station certificates, 
     or for tests related thereto, or for processing major repair 
     or alteration forms: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, not less than $7,000,000 
     shall be for the contract tower cost-sharing program: 
     Provided further, That funds may be used to enter into a 
     grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting 
     organization to assist in the development of aviation safety 
     standards: Provided further, That none of the funds in this 
     Act shall be available for new applicants for the second 
     career training program: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for paying premium pay 
     under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to any Federal Aviation Administration 
     employee unless such employee actually performed work during 
     the time corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station 
     in the contiguous United States: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds in this Act for aeronautical charting and 
     cartography are available for activities conducted by, or 
     coordinated through, the Working Capital Fund: Provided 
     further, That of the funds provided under this heading, 
     $4,000,000 is available only for recruitment, personnel 
     compensation and benefits, and related costs to raise the 
     level of operational air traffic control supervisors to the 
     level of 1,846: Provided further, That none of the funds in 
     this Act may be obligated or expended for an employee of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to purchase a store gift card 
     or gift certificate through use of a Government-issued credit 
     card.


                             point of order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the phrase, 
``of which $6,002,000,000 shall be derived from the airport and airway 
trust fund,'' beginning on page 6, line 13 and ending on line 14.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in 
violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.
  First, I believe the point of order would properly lie against the 
entire paragraph. However, in this case, and I want to make sure this 
is agreeable with my counterpart, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica), I intend to offer an amendment after the sustaining of the point 
of order to insert the language, ``of which $4.972 billion shall be 
derived from the airport and airway trust fund,'' effectively 
reinserting the stricken provision but changing the dollar figure from 
$6.2 billion to $4.972, which I believe satisfies the parliamentary 
requirements.

[[Page 18385]]


  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I have no 
objection to that.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I will not ask that the 
point of order be expanded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not permit a colloquy on this, but will 
hear each gentleman in turn. Does the gentleman concede the point of 
order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the 
language identified by the point of order is stricken from the bill.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
       On page 6 of the bill, after ``$7,726,000,000,'' insert: 
     ``of which $4,972,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport 
     and Airway Trust Fund,''.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this simply changes the figure that comes 
from the airport trust fund to satisfy the point of order that was 
raised without doing further damage to this section of the bill. I ask 
that it be adopted.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, we agree with that amendment and urge its 
adoption.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                        facilities and equipment

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     acquisition, establishment, technical support services, 
     improvement by contract or purchase, and hire of air 
     navigation and experimental facilities and equipment, as 
     authorized under part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United 
     States Code, including initial acquisition of necessary sites 
     by lease or grant; engineering and service testing, including 
     construction of test facilities and acquisition of necessary 
     sites by lease or grant; construction and furnishing of 
     quarters and related accommodations for officers and 
     employees of the Federal Aviation Administration stationed at 
     remote localities where such accommodations are not 
     available; and the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft 
     from funds available under this heading; to be derived from 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, $2,500,000,000, of which 
     $2,056,300,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2007, and of which $443,700,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2005: Provided, That there may be credited to 
     this appropriation funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private 
     sources, for expenses incurred in the establishment and 
     modernization of air navigation facilities: Provided further, 
     That upon initial submission to the Congress of the fiscal 
     year 2006 President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall transmit to the Congress a comprehensive capital 
     investment plan for the Federal Aviation Administration which 
     includes funding for each budget line item for fiscal years 
     2006 through 2010, with total funding for each year of the 
     plan constrained to the funding targets for those years as 
     estimated and approved by the Office of Management and 
     Budget: Provided further, That of the funds provided under 
     this heading, not less than $3,000,000 is for contract audit 
     services provided by the Defense Contract Audit Agency.

                 research, engineering, and development


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     research, engineering, and development, as authorized under 
     part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, 
     including construction of experimental facilities and 
     acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant, 
     $117,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2007: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred for research, engineering, and development.

                       grants-in-aid for airports


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                  rescission of contract authorization

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid 
     for airport planning and development, and noise compatibility 
     planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and under other law authorizing such 
     obligations; for procurement, installation, and commissioning 
     of runway incursion prevention devices and systems at 
     airports of such title; for grants authorized under section 
     41743 of title 49, United States Code; and for inspection 
     activities and administration of airport safety programs, 
     including those related to airport operating certificates 
     under section 44706 of title 49, United States Code, 
     $3,200,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway 
     Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds under this heading shall be available 
     for the planning or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $3,993,000,000 in fiscal year 2005, 
     notwithstanding section 47117(g) of title 49, United States 
     Code: Provided further, That none of the funds under this 
     heading shall be available for the replacement of baggage 
     conveyor systems, reconfiguration of terminal baggage areas, 
     or other airport improvements that are necessary to install 
     bulk explosive detection systems: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not more than 
     $69,302,000 of funds limited under this heading shall be 
     obligated for administration and not less than $20,000,000 
     shall be for the Small Community Air Service Development 
     Pilot Program: Provided further, That of the funds made 
     available for the Small Community Air Service Development 
     Pilot Program, $4,000,000 shall be for airports which have 
     been discontinued from the Essential Air Service program 
     since January 1, 2001: Provided further, That of amounts 
     available in this or prior year Acts under 49 U.S.C. 48112 
     and 48103, as amended, $758,000,000 are rescinded.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 11, 
line 13, beginning with in ``for grants,'' through page 11, line 18, 
ending with ``United States Code.''
  This provision violates clause 2 of Rule XXI. It provides an 
appropriation not supported by authorization in violation of House 
rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be 
expanded to lie against the entire paragraph.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is expanded and is pending against 
the entire paragraph.
  Does any Member wish to be heard further on the point of order? If 
not, the Chair will rule.
  The provision proposes to appropriate certain funds in the bill. 
Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be specifically 
authorized by law. The burden of establishing the authorization in law 
rests in this instance with the committee. Finding that this burden has 
not been carried, the point of order is sustained and the paragraph is 
stricken from the bill.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, how far would that strike through, to what 
line and page?
  The CHAIRMAN. It would strike the entire paragraph.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, through page 12, line 15?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  The Clerk will read.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the gentleman from New Hampshire 
(Mr. Bass), the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and Resident 
Commissioner, the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Acevedo-Vila) to 
discuss an issue that is critical to our districts, air traffic control 
training programs.
  As you know, the Air Traffic Collegiate Training Initiative, also 
known as CTI, is a successful program that provides the Federal 
Aviation Administration an educated pool of candidates to meet its air 
traffic controller staffing needs.
  I am proud to inform you that the University of North Dakota's air 
traffic controller program is one of the 13 FAA approved and certified 
CTI programs that graduates exemplary students ready for assignment 
with the FAA.
  As a strong supporter of the Air Traffic Collegiate Training 
Initiative Program, I am concerned that the proposed report language in 
fiscal year

[[Page 18386]]

2005 House, Transportation and Related Agencies appropriation bill may 
effect the current role CTI programs play in the Federal Aviation 
Administration's training process. Some may read this report language 
as requiring all new air traffic controllers to receive their initial 
training at the FAA Academy. I would appreciate the chairman's 
confirmation that this proposed report directive does not jeopardize 
the status of CTI programs as an integral part of the FAA's training 
process.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota for raising this 
important issue. I welcome the opportunity to set record straight.
  As you know, the fiscal year 2005 House Transportation Appropriations 
bill provides the FAA with an additional $9 million for additional 
hiring and training of air traffic controllers. This $9 million is 
above the amount already budgeted by the FAA.
  Our report does not specify how much has to go for salaries and how 
much for training, but we can safely assume the majority will go for 
salaries. Probably no more than $2 million to $4 million more of those 
funds would be for the actual training.
  The base budget for the FAA includes $47.5 million for controller 
training. Our bill allows that money to be used at the discretion of 
the FAA at the CTI programs, at the FAA Academy or elsewhere. Contrary 
to inaccurate press report, this report language does not affect the 
role of CTI programs as a vital source of air traffic control 
candidates for the FAA. The language only directs that the portion of 
the extra $9 million that is used for training is to be used at the FAA 
Academy. But that leaves the overwhelming majority of training funds 
that are in the base budget, $47.5 million, at the discretion of the 
FAA, which can include the CTI programs at the same level as currently.
  This report language does not affect the role that CTI programs play 
in the training process of the FAA. There is nothing in this bill that 
prevents CTI programs such as the one in the gentleman's district at 
the University of North Dakota from continuing in the same level and 
scope as they do currently.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that was a very 
important clarification for us. I thank the gentleman for participating 
in it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to briefly explain what is happening here with 
these points of order that are being raised by the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the subsequent points of order 
that are being raised by the Committee on Appropriations.
  The bill was finely tuned and very well crafted. The gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), of the subcommittee, did a really good job 
bringing out a transportation bill. They could have used more money but 
they had a certain amount available and they used it wisely. But when 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure raises their points 
of order, and when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) concludes 
raising these points of order, this bill will be at least a billion 
dollars over its 302(b) allocation. And, of course, we have committed 
ourselves, since I have been chairman of this committee, to staying 
within our 302(a) allocation and the subcommittees to staying within 
their 302(b) allocations.
  So we are required to raise our own points of order to deal with 
unauthorized projects that we had agreed to fund but that we will no 
longer be able to fund, because the points of order raised by the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will take us beyond our 
302(b) allocation.
  I explain that in advance because very shortly I will raise several 
points of order that will bring the bill back into balance within the 
302(b) allocation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

          general provisions--federal aviation administration

       Sec. 101. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     airports may transfer, without consideration, to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems 
     (along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway 
     visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and 
     performance specifications, the purchase of which was 
     assisted by a Federal airport-aid program, airport 
     development aid program or airport improvement program grant: 
     Provided, That, the Federal Aviation Administration shall 
     accept such equipment, which shall thereafter be operated and 
     maintained by FAA in accordance with agency criteria.
       Sec. 102. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate in excess of 375 technical staff-years under the 
     federally funded research and development center contract 
     between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center 
     for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year 
     2005.
       Sec. 103. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for engineering work related to an additional runway 
     at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Jefferson

  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Jefferson:
       Page 13, strike lines 11 through 14.

  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered because the 
provision is dated by some 3\1/2\ years. It has been carried over year 
after year. It prohibits the use of engineering funds in the program 
for engineering work related to an additional runway.
  It raises an issue of concern on the part of our authority with 
respect to planning. It was ostensibly placed in the bill, in the 
legislation some years ago because of concerns about practices that a 
prior administration that existed some 2 years ago now, which has been 
replaced by a new aviation board, a new mayor, widely regarded as a 
reforming regime, and is simply now in the way of appropriate planning.
  There are issues of safety, issues of security, issues now even of 
evacuation as we try and move people. It is very important our airport 
be permitted to plan as it should. So this provision is dated and I 
urge that it be stricken from the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I do want to speak against the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). This particular language has been 
carried in this bill, I understand, for several years. The airport is 
actually in the district of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), 
who I understand is in the hospital currently, but he strongly desires 
the provision to remain in the bill and not be stricken.
  I am also advised that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), 
another of the Louisiana Members whose district adjoins the airport, 
strongly supports keeping this provision in the bill.
  Members should have the right, Mr. Chairman, to protect their 
district. The runway would not, as I understand it, be in the district 
of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), though I understand 
his concern for his State and for the overall community. I do ask, 
however, that the amendment be opposed, that it remain in the bill, and 
that we respect the wishes of the Members who are most closely involved 
and fully informed on this problem.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. I wish to inform the gentleman that the airport is in 
the district that I represent. It is not in the gentleman from 
Louisiana's (Mr. Tauzin) district or the gentleman from Louisiana's 
(Mr. Vitter) district.
  It may be that a part of the runway may stretch into the area but the 
airport is in my district. It is not in the district of the gentleman 
as you have so stated. So I want that corrected.
  We have a vital interest in this. It is the city's property. It is 
the district's property that I represent and, really, we have the 
greatest interest in the outcome here.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I understand that. I appreciate the gentleman. I do not 
want to be incorrect on any of these things.
  It is obviously a project that affects a multiplicity of districts, 
the way the

[[Page 18387]]

boundaries are configured. I do ask that the language remain in the 
bill.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  If I understand, Mr. Chairman, the argument that was used, the 
reasoning that was used by the chairman and then the correction that 
was made by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), it would 
appear to me that using the gentleman from Oklahoma's (Mr. Istook) 
argument, that this language should be stricken from the bill because 
the area involved is in the district of the member from Louisiana (Mr. 
Jefferson). So I would support the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Jefferson) in his position.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).
  The amendment was rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 104. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport 
     sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration 
     without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities 
     and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for 
     services relating to air traffic control, air navigation, or 
     weather reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in 
     this section does not apply to negotiations between the 
     agency and airport sponsors to achieve agreement on ``below-
     market'' rates for these items or to grant assurances that 
     require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the 
     FAA for air traffic control facilities.
       Sec. 105. None of the funds appropriated or limited by this 
     Act may be used to change weight restrictions or prior 
     permission rules at Teterboro Airport in Teterboro, New 
     Jersey.
       Sec. 106. War Risk Insurance.--Title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended:
       (a) In section 44302(f) by striking ``August 31, 2004, and 
     may extend through December 31, 2004,'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``December 31, 2005''.
       (b) In section 44302(g)(1) by striking ``may provide'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``shall make available''.
       (c) In section 44303(b) by--
       (1) striking ``December 31, 2004'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``December 31, 2005.''
       (2) striking the phrase ``may extend'' in the last sentence 
     of the subsection and inserting in lieu thereof ``shall 
     extend''.

                     Federal Highway Administration


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the 
     Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $346,000,000, 
     shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration 
     together with advances and reimbursements received by the 
     Federal Highway Administration.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  For the reasons that I announced earlier I make a point of order on 
page 14, line 21 to page 15, line 3, because it provides an 
appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates 
section 2(a) of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent 
part, ``An appropriation may not be in order for an expenditure not 
previously authorized by law.''
  Mr. Chairman, this program is unauthorized and I insist on my point 
of order.

                              {time}  1800

  The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified 
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be 
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the 
authorization in law rests with the committee. Finding that this burden 
has not been carried, the Chair sustains the point of order, and the 
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $34,641,000,000 for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal 
     year 2005: Provided, That within the $34,641,000,000 
     obligation limitation on Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction programs, not more than $478,000,000 
     shall be available for the implementation or execution of 
     programs for transportation research (sections 502, 503, 504, 
     506, 507, and 508 of title 23, United States Code, as 
     amended; section 5505 of title 49, United States Code, as 
     amended; and sections 5112 and 5204-5209 of Public Law 105-
     178) for fiscal year 2005: Provided further, That this 
     limitation on transportation research programs shall not 
     apply to any authority previously made available for 
     obligation.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again I rise to offer a point of 
order.
  Mr. Chairman, on page 15, line 4, to page 15, line 22, I raise a 
point of order on that language because it provides an appropriation 
for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates section 2(a) of 
rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part, an 
appropriation may not be in order for an expenditure not previously 
authorized by law.
  Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized, and I insist on my 
point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order? The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified 
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be 
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the 
authorization in law rests with the committee. Finding that this burden 
has not been carried, the Chair sustains the point of order. The 
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          federal-aid highways


                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for carrying 
     out the provisions of title 23, United States Code, that are 
     attributable to Federal-aid highways, including the National 
     Scenic and Recreational Highway as authorized by 23 U.S.C. 
     148, not otherwise provided, including reimbursement for sums 
     expended pursuant to the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, 
     $35,000,000,000 or so much thereof as may be available in and 
     derived from the Highway Trust Fund, to remain available 
     until expended.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the phrase 
``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' on page 16, line 4.
  This phrase violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill, in 
violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any further Members wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this language explicitly supersedes existing 
law. The language, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the phrase 
identified by the point of order is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                          federal-aid highways

                           highway trust fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances of funds apportioned to each 
     State under the programs authorized under sections 
     1101(a)(1), 1101(a)(2), 1101(a)(3), 1101(a)(4), and 
     1101(a)(5) of Public Law 105-178, as amended, $386,000,000 
     are rescinded.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 16, 
line 13, through line 20. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. 
It changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an 
appropriations bill in violation of the House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member desire to be heard on the point 
of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The paragraph identified in the point of order by the gentleman from 
Florida rescinds contract authority provided in a law other than an 
appropriation Act. As such, the paragraph constitutes legislation on an 
appropriation bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of 
order is sustained, and the paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


           general provisions--federal highway administration

       Sec. 121. (a) For fiscal year 2005, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall--

[[Page 18388]]

       (1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for 
     Federal-aid Highways amounts authorized for administrative 
     expenses by section 104(a)(1)(A) and 104(a)(1)(B) of title 
     23, United States Code, for the highway use tax evasion 
     program, and for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
       (2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation 
     for Federal-aid Highways that is equal to the unobligated 
     balance of amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund 
     (other than the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety programs for the previous fiscal 
     year the funds for which are allocated by the Secretary;
       (3) determine the ratio that--
       (A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid Highways less 
     the aggregate of amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1) 
     and (2), bears to
       (B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for 
     Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs 
     (other than sums authorized to be appropriated for sections 
     set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (b) and 
     sums authorized to be appropriated for section 105 of title 
     23, United States Code, equal to the amount referred to in 
     subsection (b)(8)) for such fiscal year less the aggregate of 
     the amounts not distributed under paragraph (1) of this 
     subsection;
       (4) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid 
     Highways less the aggregate amounts not distributed under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) for section 201 of the Appalachian 
     Regional Development Act of 1965, and $2,000,000,000 for such 
     fiscal year under section 105 of title 23, United States Code 
     (relating to minimum guarantee) so that the amount of 
     obligation authority available for each of such sections is 
     equal to the amount determined by multiplying the ratio 
     determined under paragraph (3) by the sums authorized to be 
     appropriated for such section (except in the case of section 
     105, $2,000,000,000) for such fiscal year;
       (5) distribute the obligation limitation provided for 
     Federal-aid Highways less the aggregate amounts not 
     distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts 
     distributed under paragraph (4) for each of the programs that 
     are allocated by the Secretary under title 23, United States 
     Code (other than activities to which paragraph (1) applies 
     and programs to which paragraph (4) applies) by multiplying 
     the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by the sums 
     authorized to be appropriated for such program for such 
     fiscal year; and
       (6) distribute the obligation limitation provided for 
     Federal-aid Highways less the aggregate amounts not 
     distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts 
     distributed under paragraphs (4) and (5) for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs (other than 
     the minimum guarantee program, but only to the extent that 
     amounts apportioned for the minimum guarantee program for 
     such fiscal year exceed $2,639,000,000, and the Appalachian 
     development highway system program) that are apportioned by 
     the Secretary under title 23, United States Code, in the 
     ratio that--
       (A) sums authorized to be appropriated for such programs 
     that are apportioned to each State for such fiscal year, bear 
     to
       (B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for 
     such programs that are apportioned to all States for such 
     fiscal year.
       (b) The obligation limitation for Federal-aid Highways 
     shall not apply to obligations: (1) under section 125 of 
     title 23, United States Code; (2) under section 147 of the 
     Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978; (3) under 
     section 9 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981; (4) under 
     sections 131(b) and 131(j) of the Surface Transportation 
     Assistance Act of 1982; (5) under sections 149(b) and 149(c) 
     of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation 
     Assistance Act of 1987; (6) under sections 1103 through 1108 
     of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
     1991; (7) under section 157 of title 23, United States Code, 
     as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of 
     the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; and (8) 
     under section 105 of title 23, United States Code (but, only 
     in an amount equal to $639,000,000 for such fiscal year); and 
     for Federal-aid highway programs for which obligation 
     authority was made available under the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century or subsequent public laws for 
     multiple years or to remain available until used, but only to 
     the extent that such obligation authority has not lapsed or 
     been used.
       (c) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     after August 1 for such fiscal year revise a distribution of 
     the obligation limitation made available under subsection (a) 
     if a State will not obligate the amount distributed during 
     that fiscal year and redistribute sufficient amounts to those 
     States able to obligate amounts in addition to those 
     previously distributed during that fiscal year giving 
     priority to those States having large unobligated balances of 
     funds apportioned under sections 104 and 144 of title 23, 
     United States Code, section 160 (as in effect on the day 
     before the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
     21st Century) of title 23, United States Code, and under 
     section 1015 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1943-1945).
       (d) The obligation limitation shall apply to transportation 
     research programs carried out under chapter 5 of title 23, 
     United States Code, except that obligation authority made 
     available for such programs under such limitation shall 
     remain available for a period of 3 fiscal years.
       (e) Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     distribution of obligation limitation under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall distribute to the States any funds: (1) 
     that are authorized to be appropriated for such fiscal year 
     for Federal-aid highways programs (other than the program 
     under section 160 of title 23, United States Code) and for 
     carrying out subchapter I of chapter 311 of title 49, United 
     States Code, and highway-related programs under chapter 4 of 
     title 23, United States Code; and (2) that the Secretary 
     determines will not be allocated to the States, and will not 
     be available for obligation, in such fiscal year due to the 
     imposition of any obligation limitation for such fiscal year. 
     Such distribution to the States shall be made in the same 
     ratio as the distribution of obligation authority under 
     subsection (a)(6). The funds so distributed shall be 
     available for any purposes described in section 133(b) of 
     title 23, United States Code.
       (f) Obligation limitation distributed for a fiscal year 
     under subsection (a)(4) of this section for a section set 
     forth in subsection (a)(4) shall remain available until used 
     and shall be in addition to the amount of any limitation 
     imposed on obligations for federal-aid highway and highway 
     safety construction programs for future fiscal years.

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of observations, in a 
sense give a progress report on what has happened on this bill so far, 
given what the Rules Committee did in exposing this bill to these 
points of order. There are a lot of things that have happened to this 
bill so far, but I would like to simply talk about the values that have 
led the House at this point to strike certain programs from the bill, 
while not striking others.
  As I understand the actions that have been taken so far by points of 
order raised by Members of the majority, as I understand it, we have so 
far eliminated formula highway grants to the States; we have done 
serious damage to the essential airline service for small rural 
airports; we have done significant damage to FAA grants for airports, 
all of which will impact States' and localities' ability to develop 
their economies. But let me describe something that has not been 
eliminated from this bill.
  This bill still contains--and it is interesting that this provision 
was not stricken by any of those who lodged their motions--this bill 
contains a provision that extends government-offered reduced rate 
insurance for airlines operating in the domestic United States. 
Premiums are set under that program at no more than twice what 
commercial rates were 3 years ago. This means that airlines only pay 
about one-fifth what they would pay if they were forced to obtain their 
insurance from the private sector.
  My understanding is that this year airlines will pay about $150 
million for government-subsidized risk insurance as opposed to $700 
million they would have to pay on the open market. So, once again, we 
are keeping a let-us-pretend industry afloat, an industry which for all 
practical purposes is bankrupt. All you have to do is watch what has 
happened with USAir, I do not know how many times USAir, Continental 
will go bankrupt before they are bankrupt; but all you have to do is 
watch that to understand that if you are big enough in this society, 
you have a safety net created which holds you up no matter how many 
times you tend to fall. But we do not provide that same kind of safety 
net to average workers in this country.
  What it demonstrates, for instance, is that the Federal Government is 
now willing to provide this huge subsidy in order to provide insurance 
to big airline corporations around the world or around the country, at 
the same time that this Congress continuously refuses to provide health 
insurance for 45 million Americans. I find that distinction 
interesting. I do not find it surprising, given the values of this 
Congress that I have come to expect, unfortunately; but it does say 
something about our national priorities.
  If we are willing to exempt from our parliamentary purity our concern 
about language in this bill when it affects some of the big industries 
in the

[[Page 18389]]

country, but we are not willing to skip over it when it comes to 
inconveniencing and damaging State economies and the transportation 
ability of small units of government, I find it especially interesting 
that while the Congress continues to deny actions that would provide 
health insurance for the 45 million Americans who do not have it, and 
every time we talk about doing that work we are being for socialized 
medicine; yet we are willing to socialize risk when it comes to 
insurance costs for the airline industry. That is a great set of 
values, isn't it?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, but just very briefly in 
response, I did start out the consideration of this bill with the point 
that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has certain 
prerogatives, and that is what we wanted to exercise tonight.
  This House of Representatives works under a set of rules, and that 
rule is our charter of jurisdiction; and if we go outside of the rules 
or outside of the committee's jurisdiction and get into other areas, we 
can create chaos.
  Each of the points of order that have been, in fact, raised, that I 
have raised, tonight deal with the charter that is set forth of 
responsibilities for conduct of legislative business of this House, and 
each of those have been ruled on by the Chair in a favorable manner.
  I chose to propose a narrow scope in some of the limitations and some 
of the points of order that have I raised because we want programs to 
continue; and quite frankly, they are going to continue. I did not 
choose to expand them to wipe out these programs. So I think some of 
the accusations that have just been made are not accurate.
  We are concerned about essential air service. We are concerned about 
airlines that may be going out of business, although I do not support 
the government underwriting losing-business propositions. I do support 
health care for everyone and am concerned about those who may lose 
their benefits if businesses go out of business, but that is not the 
intent of this.
  We have a set of rules by which we operate, by which the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure can operate. I cannot get up here and 
appropriate money. I would love to have that power. These are some of 
the most powerful people in the United States of America. The chairman 
of the full committee I respect from Florida; the gentleman who 
controls a lot of the transportation agenda and appropriations, the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). All are honorable individuals and 
doing their job.
  I am trying to do my job on behalf of the 70-plus members of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and do it in a 
responsible fashion.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 122. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data 
     products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49 
     U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aid highways 
     account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such 
     expenses: Provided, That such funds shall be subject to the 
     obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction.
       Sec. 123. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in 
     section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
     Century, item number 89 is amended by striking ``Construct I-
     495/Route 2 interchange east of existing interchange to 
     provide access to commuter rail station, Littleton'' and 
     inserting ``Ayer commuter rail station improvements, land 
     acquisition and parking improvements''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I stand and graciously and humbly raise a 
point of order against section 123 on page 22, line 20, through page 
23, line 2.
  This provision clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It does, in 
fact, change existing law; and, therefore, it constitutes legislating 
on an appropriations bill, which is in clear violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section explicitly supersedes existing law. 
The section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Section 123 is stricken 
from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 124. Of the $6,000,000 portion of the funds 
     appropriated under the heading ``Highway Demonstration 
     Projects'' in title I of Public Law 102-143 (105 Stat. 929) 
     that was allocated for Routes 70/38 Circle Elimination, NJ, 
     $4,500,000 shall be transferred to, and made available for, 
     the following projects in the specified amounts: Mantua Creek 
     Overpass in Paulsboro, NJ, $2,000,000; Delsea Drive Route 47 
     Timber Creek in Westville, NJ, $787,000; Camden Northern End 
     Parking Garage in Camden, NJ, $1,213,000; and Route 47 Chapel 
     Heights Avenue in Gloucester, NJ, $500,000.
       Sec. 125. Division F, title I, section 115 of Public Law 
     108-199 is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
     the following: ``: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law and the preceding clauses of this 
     provision, the Secretary of Transportation may use amounts 
     made available by this section to make grants for any surface 
     transportation project otherwise eligible for funding under 
     title 23 or title 49, United States Code''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 125 
on page 23, line 14, through line 22.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill, in 
clear violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. The 
section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Section 125 is stricken from 
the bill.

                              {time}  1815

  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 126. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to require a State or local government to post a 
     traffic control device or variable message sign, or any other 
     type of traffic warning sign, in a language other than 
     English, except with respect to the names of cities, streets, 
     places, events, or signs related to an international border.
       Sec. 127. Of the funds available under section 104(a)(1)(A) 
     of title 23, United States Code, $4,000,000 shall be 
     available for environmental streamlining activities, which 
     may include making grants to, or entering into contracts, 
     cooperative agreements, and other transactions, with a 
     Federal agency, State agency, local agency, authority, 
     association, non-profit or for-profit corporation, or 
     institution of higher education.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 127.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 127 
on page 24, line 5 through line 12. This provision clearly violates 
clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law by addressing funds in 
other acts and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations 
bill in violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members wish to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section addresses funds in other acts. The 
section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Section 127 is stricken from 
the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

              Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


                          motor carrier safety

                 limitation on administrative expenses

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

                     (including transfer of funds)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the 
     funds in this Act shall be available for expenses for 
     administration of motor carrier safety programs and motor 
     carrier safety research, and grants, the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $248,480,000 for fiscal year 2005: 
     Provided, That $33,000,000 shall be available to make grants 
     to, or enter into contracts with, States, local governments, 
     or other persons for carrying out border commercial motor 
     vehicle safety programs and enforcement activities and

[[Page 18390]]

     projects for the purposes described in 49 U.S.C. 
     31104(f)(2)(B), and the Federal share payable under such 
     grants shall be 100 percent; $20,000,000 shall be available 
     to make grants to, or enter into contracts with, States, 
     local governments, or other persons for commercial driver's 
     licenses program improvements, and the Federal share payable 
     under such grants shall be 100 percent; and $14,200,000 shall 
     be available to make grants to States for implementation of 
     section 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 
     1999, and the Federal share payable under such grant shall be 
     100 percent: Provided further, That notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, for payment of obligations incurred to pay 
     administrative expenses of and grants by the Federal Motor 
     Carrier Safety Administration, $248,480,000, to be derived 
     from the Highway Trust Fund, together with advances and 
     reimbursements received by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration, the sum of which shall remain available until 
     expended.


                             point of order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 
24, line 15, to page 25, line 20, because it provides an appropriation 
for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule 
XXI.
  Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part, ``An appropriation may 
not be in order for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' 
Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified 
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI such an earmarking must be 
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the 
authorization in law rests with the committee.
  Finding that the burden has not been carried, the chair sustains the 
point of order. The paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                 national motor carrier safety program

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 31102, 31106, 
     and 31309, $190,000,000 to be derived from the Highway Trust 
     Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, That 
     none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $190,000,000 for ``Motor Carrier 
     Safety Grants'' and ``Information Systems,'' and of which 
     $17,000,000 shall be available for grants to States for 
     implementation of section 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety 
     Improvement Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1764-1765) and $1,000,000 
     shall be available for grants to States, local governments, 
     or other entities for commercial driver's license program 
     improvements: Provided further, That for grants made to 
     States for implementation of section 210 of the Motor Carrier 
     Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (113 Stat. 1764-1765), and for 
     grants to States, local governments, or other entities for 
     commercial driver's license program improvements, the Federal 
     share payable under such grants shall be 100 percent.


                             point of order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 
25, line 21, to page 26, line 19, because it provides an appropriation 
for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule 
XXI.
  Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part ``An appropriation may 
not be in order for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' 
Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized by law.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified 
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be 
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the 
authorization in law rests with the committee.
  Finding that this burden has not been carried, the chair sustains the 
point of order. The paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read:
  The Clerk read as follows:


    general provisions--federal motor carrier safety administration

       Sec. 141. Funds appropriated or limited in this Act shall 
     be subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in section 
     350 of Public Law 107-87, including that the Secretary submit 
     a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees 
     annually on the safety and security of transportation into 
     the United States by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.
       Sec. 142. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by this Act may be used to implement or enforce any 
     provisions of the Final Rule, issued on April 16, 2003 
     (Docket No. FMCSA-97-2350), with respect to the operators of 
     utility service vehicles, as that term is defined in section 
     395.2 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 143. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act shall be used to implement or enforce 
     49 CFR subsections 395.3 or 395.8 as they may apply to 
     operators of utility service vehicles as defined in 49 CFR 
     395.2. This prohibition on implementing or enforcing such 
     regulations shall also apply to any State or agency receiving 
     funds pursuant to chapter 311 of title 49 U.S.C.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 
143, on page 27, lines 10 through 17.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the second sentence of section 143 
would prevent any State or agency from enforcing the U.S. Department of 
Transportation hours-of-service regulations for operators of utility 
service vehicles. This provision imposes a new duty on the Department 
and the States and agencies. This section is legislative in nature and 
is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that the sentence beginning on page 27, line 14, 
constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point 
of order is sustained. Section 143 is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

             National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


                        operations and research

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety under 
     chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, and part C of 
     subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, $129,514,000, of 
     which $107,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2007: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act may be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or 
     implement any rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title 
     49 of the Code of Federal Regulations any requirement 
     pertaining to a grading standard that is different from the 
     three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature 
     resistance) already in effect: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds in this Act may be used to augment information 
     technology or computer support funds provided to NHTSA beyond 
     $2,620,000.


                             point of order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 
27, line 19, to page 28, line 10, because it provides an appropriation 
for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule 
XXI.
  Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part ``An appropriation may 
not be in order for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' 
Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized, and I insist on my point 
of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified 
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be 
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the 
authorization in law rests with the committee.
  Finding that the burden has not been carried, the Chair sustains the 
point of order. The paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        operations and research

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, to remain available until 
     expended, $90,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of programs the total 
     obligations for which, in fiscal year 2005, are in

[[Page 18391]]

     excess of $90,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 
     403.


                             point of order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 
28, line 11, to page 28, line 22, because it provides an appropriation 
for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule 
XXI.
  Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part ``An appropriation may 
not be in order for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' 
Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized, and I insist on my point 
of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified 
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be 
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the 
authorization in law rests with the committee.
  Finding that this burden has not been carried, the Chair sustains the 
point of order. The paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                        national driver register

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to the National Driver Register under 
     payment of obligations incurred in carrying out chapter 303 
     of title 49, United States Code, $3,600,000 to be derived 
     from the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That none of the funds 
     in this Act shall be available for the implementation or 
     execution of programs the obligations for which are in excess 
     of $3,600,000 for the National Driver Register authorized 
     under chapter 303 of title 49, United States Code.


                             point of order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 
29, line 1, to page 29, line 14, because it provides an appropriation 
for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule 
XXI.
  Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part, ``An appropriation may 
not be in order for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.'' 
Mr. Chairman, this program is unauthorized, and I insist on my point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The paragraph proposes to appropriate certain funds for specified 
objects. Under clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be 
specifically authorized by law. The burden of establishing the 
authorization in law rests with the committee.
  Finding that the burden has not been carried, the Chair sustains the 
point of order. The paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  Again, I want to explain, for those who did not hear the first 
explanation, that the reason for these points of order is very simple.
  The authorizing committee has decided to raise certain points of 
order in this bill that will make the bill at least $1 billion over our 
302(b) allocation. So in order to bring the bill back down to within 
the 302(b) allocation, we have to raise these additional points of 
order to strike out projects that were not authorized.
  Mr. Chairman, everybody knows the way this system works; that is, we 
have authorizing committees and we have appropriating committees. The 
Committee on Appropriations appropriates for those projects and 
programs that are authorized. In this case, the authorizing committee 
did not pass a bill; did not pass authorizations; and, frankly, are not 
even able to extend the existing transportation authorizations to keep 
the programs going. That is why we find ourselves in this dilemma.
  The system is not working the way it is supposed to. The authorizers 
did not authorize, so the appropriators had to do the best we could 
within our budgetary limitations to make this bill stay within the 
302(b) allocations as set by our 302(a) budget allocation.
  I appreciate the chairman of this subcommittee for yielding to me so 
that I could make this brief explanation.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to note my agreement with the comments of 
the distinguished gentleman from Florida. Even before this bill came to 
the floor, we were faced with the prospect of having a miserable record 
in producing appropriation bills and finishing them before the end of 
the fiscal year before we go home to face our constituents in the new 
elections.
  The House has passed all but, I believe, two appropriation bills, 
this one and the VA-HUD bill. And many of the bills that have passed 
have, I think, been in pitiful shape, but at least they have passed. 
None of them, except Defense, has been signed into law.
  This bill was at least on track to pass in inadequate though 
meaningful form before we leave here for the election, but now, as the 
gentleman from Florida has said, we are facing an even bleaker 
situation. We are going to leave here in October with even less of the 
people's business done than would have been the case if this debacle 
had not occurred on the floor today.
  What has happened is essentially this: The transportation authorizing 
committee, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, or the 
No Transportation, No Infrastructure Committee, as it probably ought to 
be called, their basic highway authorization, for instance, expired 9 
months ago. They have not yet been able to renew that basic 
legislation. The reason for that is that they have a three-corner 
debate going with themselves.
  There is a debate between the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure members in the House, those in the Senate, and the 
wizards in the White House Budget Office, and none of them want to 
give. So, as a result, what do we have here? The authorizing committee 
has not been able to get its job done, so the Committee on 
Appropriations has tried to at least keep these programs afloat while 
we continue to go through this Little League debate between the White 
House and the authorizers.
  But in fact now I guess the situation is that if the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure cannot pass their legislation, they 
do not want anybody else to pass meaningful legislation either, or 
perhaps they somehow think they are producing leverage for themselves 
by shredding this bill. This is, as I said earlier, this is a sad case.
  My great friend and mentor Dick Bolling, who used to be the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules, and in my view is the greatest Member of 
this body who never became Speaker. Dick Bolling used to deride Members 
who practiced what he called dung hill politics, Members who were more 
interested in protecting the jurisdiction of their own committee than 
they were in protecting the legislative reputation and record of the 
House as a whole.

                              {time}  1830

  What we have seen today is a sad, sad example of what Dick Bolling 
worried about when he referred to that practice of ``dung hill 
politics.'' I wish the House were in a more mature mood, and I wish 
that the leadership had led so we could have avoided this point today.
  There is no point, in my view, in proceeding further with this bill. 
I intend to vote against it on final passage because there will be 
nothing left of it except the title. We have a motion around here 
called ``striking the enacting clause.'' Instead, I suggest today we 
should probably strike everything except the enacting clause because we 
will have almost done that by the time we get to the last page of this 
bill. All we will have done is waste a day and a half of the House's 
time when we could have been dealing with more serious business, and 
that, indeed, is a shame.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


[[Page 18392]]

                     highway traffic safety grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     obligations incurred in carrying out the provisions of 23 
     U.S.C. 402, 405, and 410, to remain available until expended, 
     $225,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund: 
     Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of programs the total 
     obligations for which, in fiscal year 2005, are in excess of 
     $225,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402, 
     405, and 410, of which $165,000,000 shall be for ``Highway 
     Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 402, $20,000,000 shall be 
     for ``Occupant Protection Incentive Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 
     405, and $40,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving 
     Countermeasures Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 410: Provided 
     further, That none of these funds shall be used for 
     construction, rehabilitation, or remodeling costs, or for 
     office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private 
     buildings or structures: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $10,000,000 of the funds made available for section 402, not 
     to exceed $2,306,000 of the funds made available for section 
     405, and not to exceed $2,000,000 of the funds made available 
     for section 410 shall be available to NHTSA for administering 
     highway safety grants under chapter 4 of title 23, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 of 
     the funds made available for section 410 ``Alcohol-Impaired 
     Driving Countermeasures Grants'' shall be available for 
     technical assistance to the States.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 
29, line 15 to page 30, line 20, because it provides an appropriation 
for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule 
XXI.
  Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may 
not be in order for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
  Mr. Chairman, this program is not authorized by law, and I insist on 
my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating 
authorization has not been met.
  The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

   general provisions--national highway traffic safety administration

       Sec. 151. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     States may use funds provided in this Act under section 402 
     of title 23, United States Code, to produce and place highway 
     safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema, 
     and print media, and on the Internet in accordance with 
     guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation: Provided, 
     That any State that uses funds for such public service 
     messages shall submit to the Secretary a report describing 
     and assessing the effectiveness of the messages: Provided 
     further, That $10,000,000 of the funds allocated under 
     section 157 of title 23, United States Code, shall be used as 
     directed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator 
     to purchase national paid advertising (including production 
     and placement) to support national safety belt mobilizations: 
     Provided further, That, of the funds allocated under section 
     163 of title 23, United States Code, $7,000,000 shall be used 
     as directed by the Administrator to support national impaired 
     driving mobilizations and enforcement efforts, $12,000,000 
     shall be used as directed by the Administrator to purchase 
     national paid advertising (including production and 
     placement) to support such national impaired driving 
     mobilizations and enforcement efforts.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 31, 
line 6, beginning with ``provided further'' through line 19.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in 
violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist the point of order be expanded to 
lie against the entire paragraph; and as so expanded, I would concede 
the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is expanded; and the point of order 
being conceded, it is sustained. The section is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 152. Funds appropriated or limited in this Act to 
     educate the motoring public on how to share the road safely 
     with commercial motor vehicles shall be jointly administered 
     and implemented by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
     Administration.

                    Federal Railroad Administration


                         safety and operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, $137,738,000, of 
     which $15,350,000 shall remain available until expended.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 32, line 
2, through page 32, line 6, because it provides an appropriation for an 
unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating 
authorization has not been met.
  The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:


                   railroad research and development

       For necessary expenses for railroad research and 
     development, $33,289,000, to remain available until expended.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 32, line 
7, to page 32, line 10, because it provides an appropriation for 
unauthorized programs and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating 
authorization has not been met.
  The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            railroad rehabilitation and improvement program

       The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations 
     pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as 
     amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be 
     necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the 
     guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under 
     sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist 
     as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding: 
     Provided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act, as 
     amended, no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments 
     shall be made using Federal funds for the credit risk premium 
     during fiscal year 2005: Provided further, That within thirty 
     days of enactment of this Act, the National Railroad 
     Passenger Corporation shall make full payment of all 
     principal and interest to the Federal Railroad Administrator 
     in satisfaction of the Corporation's July 3, 2002, direct 
     loan from the Federal Railroad Administration.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, page 32, line 26, through page 33, line 
5, I would make a point of order against the last proviso of the 
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program paragraph. The proviso 
begins on page 32, line 26, and ends on page 33, line 5. This proviso 
would require Amtrak to repay its loan and interest in full to the 
Federal Railroad Administration within 30 days; it is legislative in 
nature and in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order?

[[Page 18393]]


  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be 
expanded to lie against the entire paragraph; and as so expanded, I 
would concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is expanded to the entire paragraph.
  The point of order is conceded and is therefore sustained. The 
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                    next generation high-speed rail

       For necessary expenses for the Next Generation High-Speed 
     Rail program as authorized under 49 U.S.C. 26101 and 26102, 
     $11,000,000, to remain available until expended.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 33, line 
6, to page 33, line 10, because it provides an appropriation for an 
unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating 
authorization has not been met.
  The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

               pennsylvania station redevelopment project

                          (transfer of funds)

       Of the unobligated balances of funds made available in 
     section 232 of appendix E of Public Law 106-113, $39,827,000 
     are hereby transferred to and merged with funds for the 
     Federal Transit Administration, Capital Investment Grants, 
     for the purposes of constructing the New York Long Island 
     Rail Road East Side Access (Extension).


         grants to the national railroad passenger corporation

       To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make quarterly 
     grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 
     $900,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2005: 
     Provided, That not less than $500,000,000 shall be provided 
     in quarterly grants for capital expenses: Provided further, 
     That the Secretary of Transportation shall approve funding to 
     cover operating losses and capital expenditures, including 
     advance purchase orders, for the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation only after receiving and reviewing a grant 
     request for each specific train route: Provided further, That 
     each such grant request shall be accompanied by a detailed 
     financial analysis, revenue projection, and capital 
     expenditure projection justifying the Federal support to the 
     Secretary's satisfaction: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary of Transportation shall reserve $60,000,000 of the 
     funds provided under this heading and is authorized to 
     transfer such sums to the Surface Transportation Board, upon 
     request from said Board, to carry out directed service orders 
     issued pursuant to section 11123 of title 49, United States 
     Code to respond to the cessation of commuter rail operations 
     by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary of Transportation shall make the 
     reserved funds available to the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation through an appropriate grant instrument during 
     the end of the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2005 to the 
     extent that no directed service orders have been issued by 
     the Surface Transportation Board as of the date of transfer 
     or there is a balance of reserved funds not needed by the 
     Board to pay for any directed service order issued through 
     September 30, 2005: Provided further, That not later than 60 
     days after enactment of this Act, Amtrak shall transmit, in 
     electronic format, to the Secretary of Transportation, the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation a 
     comprehensive business plan approved by the Board of 
     Directors for fiscal year 2005 under section 24104(a) of 
     title 49, United States Code: Provided further, That the 
     business plan shall include, as applicable, targets for 
     ridership, revenues, and capital and operating expenses: 
     Provided further, That the plan shall also include a separate 
     accounting of such targets for the Northeast Corridor; 
     commuter service; long-distance Amtrak service; state-
     supported service; each intercity train route; including 
     Autotrain; and commercial activities including contract 
     operations and mail and express: Provided further, That the 
     business plan shall include a description of the work to be 
     funded, along with cost estimates and an estimated timetable 
     for completion of the projects covered by this business plan: 
     Provided further, That not later than October 1, 2004 and no 
     later than 30 days following the last business day of the 
     previous month thereafter, Amtrak shall submit to the 
     Secretary of Transportation and the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations a supplemental report, in 
     electronic format, regarding the pending business plan, which 
     shall describe the work completed to date, any changes to the 
     business plan, and the reasons for such changes: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act may be used for 
     operating expenses, including advance purchase orders, and 
     capital projects not approved by the Secretary of 
     Transportation nor on the National Railroad Passenger 
     Corporation's fiscal year 2005 business plan: Provided 
     further, That Amtrak shall display the business plan and all 
     subsequent supplemental plans on the Corporation's website 
     within a reasonable timeframe following their submission to 
     the appropriate entities: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds under this heading may be obligated or expended until 
     the National Railroad Passenger Corporation agrees to 
     continue abiding by the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 
     9, and 11 of the summary of conditions for the direct loan 
     agreement of June 28, 2002, in the same manner as in effect 
     on the date of enactment of this Act: Provided further, That 
     the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to retain up to 
     $4,000,000 of the funds provided to be used to retain a 
     consultant or consultants to assist the Secretary in 
     preparing a comprehensive valuation of Amtrak's assets to be 
     completed not later than September 30, 2005: Provided 
     further, That these funds shall be available to the Secretary 
     of Transportation until expended: Provided further, That this 
     valuation shall to be used to retain a consultant or 
     consultants to develop to the Secretary's satisfaction a 
     methodology for determining the avoidable and fully allocated 
     costs of each Amtrak route: Provided further, That once the 
     Secretary has approved the methodology for determining the 
     avoidable and fully allocated costs of each Amtrak route, 
     Amtrak shall apply that methodology in compiling an annual 
     report to Congress on the avoidable and fully allocated costs 
     of each of its routes, with the initial report for fiscal 
     year 2005 to be submitted to the House and Senate Committees 
     on Appropriations, the House Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, and the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation before December 31, 2005, and 
     each subsequent report to be submitted within ninety days 
     after the end of the fiscal year to which the report 
     pertains.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 33, line 
20, through page 37, line 20, because it provides an appropriation for 
an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule 
XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order?
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) is recognized on the 
point of order.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I think we now have reached a second level 
of ignominy at this point because here we are now into a whole second 
bill which has not been authorized. It has not been authorized. It is 
not a bill that is only 9 months or 11 months late of authorization, 
but rather the bill for the Federal Rail Administration and Amtrak is 
one that is a year and 11 months late at least, if not 2 years and 11 
months late.
  So while earlier items which have been stricken by the points of 
order dealt with highway administration programs and obviously will 
also apply to FTA, Federal Transit Administration programs, and have 
already stricken the two major safety programs that I mentioned earlier 
in my opening remarks which had been already cut by the Committee on 
Appropriations to only 75 percent, cut from the President's request, a 
dollar figure had been cut 25 percent or giving them only 75 percent of 
the President's request, those highway safety programs have already 
been stricken from this legislation. That is also carried with the 
general highway administration T&I authorization.
  But here we are now in the Amtrak and highway administration bill. I 
just want to point out that this is an area where I intended to offer 
two different versions of an amendment to add funding.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) will 
confine his remarks to the point of

[[Page 18394]]

order. The gentleman may proceed on the point of order.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I will defer my comments to a striking of 
the last word immediately after the Chair sustains this point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the 
point of order?
  The gentleman from Oregon is recognized to speak on the point of 
order.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I must confess I share the frustration 
of the gentleman from Massachusetts. We produced out of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure a bipartisan bill a year ago that 
has never been brought to floor action.
  The CHAIRMAN. I remind the gentleman from Oregon that we are on the 
point of order and debate on other issues may be taken up after the 
Chair disposes of the point of order.
  Are there further Members wishing to be heard on the point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
  As previous stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating 
authorization has not been met.
  The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to express some of my frustration, and maybe 
then the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) will do the same.
  We have now stricken what was already an appropriation of $900 
million which was the President's request, true, but which was already 
low by $300 million, lower than what each of the last 2 years had 
appropriated after the final operation of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the conference committee reports for the operation 
of Amtrak.
  It is silly to think they even could have operated within $900 
million in this year without ending up in a shutdown situation, or 
without leaving us with an ever-worsening deferred maintenance problem.
  I want to use this time to point out that Amtrak is a hybrid program. 
It runs on 600 miles of the Northeast Corridor roughly, which is owned 
by Amtrak and is the direct responsibility of that governmental agency. 
That 600 miles of trackage takes more than half of all of the 
passengers that are being dealt with by Amtrak.
  Now that is the part that we have direct responsibility for. The rest 
of the Amtrak lines operate on some 20,000 other miles of trackage that 
is run by private freight carriers and Amtrak has contracts with them 
and has priority to use that trackage. But we do not have specific 
direct maintenance of those. We have the responsibility of making 
certain that on the 600 miles the use of that track and that 
commutation that is involved will be safe, and we have some 
responsibility to make certain that the maintenance of that trackage 
does provide safety for the people who are using it.
  Now Congress has said several times by appropriating, has said, keep 
the national rail system open; and Congress has not suggested that any 
particular lines are supposed to be cut out even though they are not 
profitable or ever may be profitable. We are waiting for an 
authorization; there is no authorization. But the use of Amtrak 
remains, and it is an exceptionally important use which moves a very 
large number of people, 20 million people or thereabouts, on the 
northeast line itself.
  Furthermore, we have now eliminated by points of order that one thing 
that many people think is a wonderful idea for the future, namely high-
speed rail. High-speed rail was already reduced by two-thirds from last 
year's appropriation, more than two-thirds; but it also now has been 
stricken and is not authorized either.
  So high-speed rail, which is a process used in various parts of the 
world, in Japan, Europe, running 120 to 150 miles an hour, where one 
moves large numbers of people for relatively short distances between 
large metropolitan areas, manages to move people that otherwise would 
have to be in the air, and it is done that way much more efficiently.

                              {time}  1845

  Now we take out that possibility as well in the motions that have 
occurred.
  Mr. Chairman, the Congress has appropriated $1.3 billion in the year 
2003, $1.2 billion in the year 2004, an average of $1.1 billion over 
each of the last 5 years, some of which came under authorizations that 
were in effect, but the last two of which apparently occurred after 
there was no authorization, but we managed to get the job done; and the 
important thing is that we managed to get the job done. Even at the 
level of funding that Amtrak was appropriated for over the last couple 
of years, they cannot provide for the critical capital investments that 
are particularly needed on the Northeast Corridor where we are directly 
responsible for the maintenance and for the safety of the people who 
are using that program.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is well understood at this point that we 
should be appropriating at least what has been out there for the last 
couple of years, or we are not doing the duty that we have to the 
passengers who are using that system at the present time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an ongoing debate that I find somewhat ironic. 
There is, on behalf of some of my colleagues, an almost theological 
belief that the United States should be the only industrialized country 
in the world that does not have subsidized passenger rail service, that 
it is not an integral part of our transportation system. We have Amtrak 
today because the private sector that had rail passenger service from 
the 1830s until 1970 and was mammothly subsidized by the Federal 
Government to do so, reached the point where it was not particularly 
profitable for them to do it. Then the private rail roads with Congress 
and the Nixon administration, created Amtrak so that there would be a 
rail passenger alternative.
  Some people now think that somehow the private sector is going to 
step in and run a national system so that we would not be actually the 
only country without passenger rail. Even most Third World countries 
have rail passenger service as well as all the developed countries that 
surpasses the United States. I find that somewhat ironic because this 
Congress year after year after year puts billions of dollars into the 
air passenger service which in its long illustrious history of being 
force fed by Federal subsidies, starting with airmail, dealing with air 
traffic control and the construction of airports, in its entire history 
has a net profit of zero. And we continue, appropriately, to put 
billions of dollars into it because it is an important part of the 
Federal transportation infrastructure.
  Now there are those that want to pull the plug on Amtrak. We passed 
out of our Rail Subcommittee and then our Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee a year ago with broad bipartisan support, 
there may have been one or two people who voted against it, in the 
largest committee in Congress, maybe one or two, but I cannot remember 
them, that bill has been languishing for 1 year because the Republican 
leadership cannot somehow bring it to the floor and allow the will of 
Congress to be worked.
  So we have this travesty today where we have a program that is not 
authorized despite the fact that the authorizing committee did its work 
a year ago.
  This embarrassing charade, and I am embarrassed for the majority 
party that we are going through this, is not going to be sustained. As 
George Will pointed out in his column of June 2003 when we were going 
through the last shutdown charade, that support for Amtrak is strong 
enough among all regions, ages, education levels, and income groups. A 
CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll put it, at the height of last year's funding 
crisis, at 70 percent American public support. No indication of 
anything that that is not even stronger today.
  So ultimately we will bump along, we will go through this, we will 
fund Amtrak. Unfortunately, the inability of this Congress to move 
forward to meet the other body in a responsible fashion

[[Page 18395]]

and put a reasonable authorizing bill on the floor means Amtrak is 
going to continue to be hamstrung. You will not kill it because the 
public will not let you. When we will have a crisis like 9/11 where if 
we did not have our rail transportation system, the east coast would 
have been shut down in gridlock from Alexandria to New Haven. 
Ultimately, this bill will fail, but it continues to cut away at the 
ability of the new administration in Amtrak to move forward, to build 
on the strong ridership increase and to build the private and public 
partnerships with State and local government that will be necessary, 
ultimately, to have a successful program.
  I as a Member of Congress am embarrassed that we are going through 
this again. As somebody who cares about a balanced transportation 
system, transit, air, road and rail, I am embarrassed because we need 
this as a critical component. We will get there, but today's failure 
makes it harder, more expensive, as Congress is increasingly 
marginalized.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, of course the effect of the point of order raised is to 
take the money that was in the bill, $900 million, the amount requested 
by the administration for Amtrak, and to remove it. I regret that the 
people who are staunch proponents of Amtrak want to continue it the way 
that it is running now.
  The administration opposes any more than $900 million for Amtrak 
without reforming it. Amtrak has not been authorized since December of 
2002 when the prior authorization bill expired. I think it is important 
that we recognize why it has not been reauthorized. Until a couple of 
years ago, Amtrak was still telling us, oh, they are about to start 
making a profit and not to need Federal subsidies anymore.
  After operating for 30 years, Amtrak has received over $40 billion in 
Federal subsidies. It still only provides one-half of 1 percent of all 
inner city transportation. Half of it is in the Northeast Corridor. In 
the last 5 years, the subsidies by taxpayers through the appropriations 
process have gone up 71 percent. In the same time, Amtrak's ridership 
is only up 11 percent. It is a huge gap.
  It continues to operate with substantial losses. Why? Because we do 
not apply business principles. We do not apply proper principles to it. 
Amtrak is only, I think, about 5 percent of all the rail passenger 
service in the country. Most of the rail passenger service is commuter 
rail. Amtrak functions in many areas actually as commuter rail and the 
subsidies are astounding. If Amtrak is operating to provide commuter 
rail passenger service, why is all the subsidy dumped on the Federal 
taxpayer? Where are the States? Where are the cities? The 
administration wants to create partnerships with them to have 
participation of the people who benefit from Amtrak and who want a 
subsidized rail service which is limited to certain parts of the 
country. Those parts of the country need to be the ones that come to 
the table and say we want this and therefore we are willing to pay for 
part of it.
  Amtrak passengers in some cases on some routes receive hundreds of 
dollars per passenger in taxpayer subsidies. There are plenty of 
examples where it is cheaper to hire a private limousine and driver to 
pick up somebody at their door in one city and transport them to 
another city to the door of their destination; it is cheaper to hire a 
limo and a driver and give them personal service than to have them ride 
Amtrak in some situations.
  We are not taking a realistic look at this. We should not be 
bemoaning the fact that Amtrak is not being given more taxpayers' 
money. If you want subsidized rail travel, you need to get your mayors, 
you need to get your Governors, you need to get your local communities 
and officials willing to pay for some of the costs of what operates for 
many of them as a commuter rail service.
  If you take the train, as I have done, between Washington and New 
York City, so often you will find when it leaves Washington it does not 
have that many people on it. When it gets to Baltimore it still does 
not have that many people on it. Only when you get to the outskirts of 
New York City do you start picking up a lot of passengers because it is 
a commuter rail to them.
  Why are we not talking to the communities about saying, you have a 
role in Amtrak if you want it. Do not tell us it is all a Federal 
responsibility. I know that the people feel passionately about it; but 
we have a failed approach to Amtrak, and it is time that we recognize 
it. If we want to do something about rail passenger service, we need a 
lot more realistic model than we have with Amtrak. I support the 
administration's proposal, which is to say we should not be increasing 
funding for Amtrak until such time as we have reform legislation that 
brings local and State people to the table and the private sector as 
partners in that.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the 
chairman that in every place, in every metropolitan area, at least that 
I know of in this country, that has commuter rail, those commuter rail 
systems are subsidized. None of them operate on a profitable basis. So 
the real unreality here has been always the concept that Amtrak, that 
our passenger rail system could operate and would operate on a 
profitable basis. There has been no passenger rail system that has been 
run in any industrialized country anywhere in the world that has 
operated on a profitable basis.
  The rest of the unreality here is that at the same time that we are 
saying they should do that while leaving Amtrak with the mandate of 
providing a national rail system with routes which have been designated 
and mandated by the Congress and then blaming them for not being able 
to do this in a profitable way, the ultimate unreality, it seems to me, 
is what we started in the direction of high speed rail where we have 
created 10 corridors, hopefully in the belief that there may be some 
way of providing high-speed rail, which is extremely costly in its 
infrastructure development in the first place, in its capital cost, 
that that can possibly be done; and I do not disagree with the chairman 
that there are things that probably ought to be done in dealing with a 
rail system and in trying to make them more efficient.
  We are being totally unrealistic, but we still have a very large 
number of commuters who are using the system as we have it, and this 
Congress has not managed to pass an authorization suggesting how it is 
otherwise to be done. So we still have the problem; we still have 
people who are operating every day in an ever less safe manner because 
we are funding as low as we are and here we have stricken the money 
from the legislation. The unreality here is monumental.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to deal with just the 
notion that somehow Amtrak had promised that it was going to turn a 
profit. I sat in committees and watched people browbeat the previous 
administration; but what people made clear is that it was going to be 
necessary to fund the capital requirements of Amtrak.

                              {time}  1900

  There is a planned infrastructure improvement over 5 years, 
reconstructing interlockings; installation of almost a million concrete 
ties to improve efficiency; 423 miles of track undercutting; new rail, 
352 miles; rebuilding of major bridges; cable signal replacement. These 
are things that will improve the efficiency of the operation.
  Congress has never fully funded the capital requirements, making it 
inherently inefficient and chipping away at it. The Amtrak 
administration has requested a reasonable capital budget to be able to 
move it forward to meet the mandate that Members of Congress had for 
more efficiency.
  I would respectfully suggest when we look at the funding that we 
lavish on

[[Page 18396]]

the capital for airlines, what we do for highways, only a portion of 
which comes from the user fee, only a portion of which comes from the 
user fee, that we are selling this important element short at a time 
when, if we would enhance it, it would actually reduce demand on the 
roads. We would also reduce demand in congested airports when now a 
third of our flights are 350 miles or less. We are not thinking this 
through in a proper fashion.
  I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me because I wanted to make 
that point about its capital investment, which is critical if it is 
ever going to operate the way my friend on the other side of the aisle 
knows I would like to see, but we cannot starve Amtrak first.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

          general provisions--federal railroad administration

       Sec. 161. For the purpose of assisting State-supported 
     intercity rail service, in order to demonstrate whether 
     competition will provide higher quality rail passenger 
     service at reasonable prices, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, working with affected States, shall continue 
     to develop and implement a procedure for fair competitive 
     bidding by Amtrak and non-Amtrak operators for State-
     supported routes: Provided, That in the event a State desires 
     to select or selects a non-Amtrak operator for the route, the 
     State may make an agreement with Amtrak to use facilities and 
     equipment of, or have services provided by, Amtrak under 
     terms agreed to by the State and Amtrak to enable the non-
     Amtrak operator to provide the State-supported service: 
     Provided further, That if the parties cannot agree on terms, 
     the Secretary shall, as a condition of receipt of Federal 
     grant funds, order that the facilities and equipment be made 
     available and the services be provided by Amtrak under 
     reasonable terms and compensation: Provided further, That 
     when prescribing reasonable compensation to Amtrak, the 
     Secretary shall consider quality of service as a major factor 
     when determining whether, and the extent to which, the amount 
     of compensation shall be greater than the incremental costs 
     of using the facilities and providing the services: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary may reprogram up to $2,500,000 
     from the Amtrak operating grant funds for costs associated 
     with the implementation of the fair bid procedure and 
     demonstration of competition under this section.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 
161, which begins on page 37, line 23, and ends on page 38, line 25. 
Section 161 would require the Department of Transportation to develop 
and implement a procedure of competitive bidding for State-supported 
passenger rail routes, to require Amtrak to provide service in some 
routes and a compensation determined by the Secretary and to allow the 
Secretary to reprogram up to $2.5 million from Amtrak operating funds 
to support this effort. This is clearly legislative in nature and is in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this provision includes language imparting 
direction. The provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation 
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 161 is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 162. Section 24315(b) of title 49 U.S. Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Amtrak Annual Report and Budget Request.--(1) Not 
     later than February 15 of each year, Amtrak shall submit to 
     the President and Congress a complete report of its 
     operations, activities, and accomplishments, including a 
     statement of revenues and expenditures for the prior fiscal 
     year. The report--
       ``(A) shall include a discussion and accounting of Amtrak's 
     success in meeting the goal of section 24902(b) of this 
     title; and
       ``(B) may include recommendations for other legislation.
       ``(2) Not later than May 1st of each year, Amtrak's Board 
     of Directors shall submit to the Secretary of Transportation 
     Amtrak's budget request for the fiscal year commencing 17 
     months later.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall annually submit to Congress an 
     approved budget request for Amtrak as part of the President's 
     annual budget request to Congress.
       ``(4) Amtrak shall not submit any other requests for 
     funding unless such requests have been approved by the 
     Secretary of Transportation.''.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 162 
on page 39, line 1 through 23.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI, changing existing law 
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in 
violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this provision directly amends existing law. The 
provision therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 162 is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 163. Notwithstanding any provisions of this or any 
     other Act, during the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, 
     and hereafter, the Federal Railroad Administration may use 
     funds appropriated by this or any other Act to provide for 
     the installation of a broadband high speed internet service 
     connection, including necessary equipment, for Federal 
     Railroad Administration employees, and to either pay directly 
     recurring monthly charges or to reimburse a percentage of 
     such monthly charges which are paid by such inspectors: 
     Provided, That the Federal Railroad Administration certifies 
     that adequate safeguards against private misuse exist, and 
     that the service is necessary for direct support of the 
     agency's mission.

                     Federal Transit Administration


                        administrative expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of 
     title 49, United States Code, $15,100,000: Provided, That no 
     more than $75,500,000 of budget authority shall be available 
     for these purposes: Provided further, That of the funds 
     available not to exceed $424,565 shall be available for the 
     Office of the Administrator; not to exceed $6,715,000 shall 
     be available for the Office of Administration; not to exceed 
     $4,061,000 shall be available for the Office of the Chief 
     Counsel; not to exceed $1,200,000 shall be available for the 
     Office of Communication and Congressional Affairs; not to 
     exceed $7,600,000 shall be available for the Office of 
     Program Management; not to exceed $6,700,000 shall be 
     available for the Office of Budget and Policy; not to exceed 
     $2,750,000 shall be available for the Office of Civil Rights; 
     not to exceed $4,000,000 shall be available for the Office of 
     Planning; not to exceed $19,982,000 shall be available for 
     regional offices; and not to exceed $19,557,000 shall be 
     available for the central account: Provided further, That the 
     Administrator is authorized to transfer funds appropriated 
     for an office of the Federal Transit Administration: Provided 
     further, That no appropriation for an office shall be 
     increased or decreased by more than a total of 3 percent by 
     all such transfers: Provided further, That any change in 
     funding totaling an amount greater than 3 percent during the 
     fiscal year shall be submitted for approval to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That 
     any funding transferred from the central account shall be 
     submitted for approval to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided further, That none of the funds 
     provided or limited in this or any other Act may be used to 
     create a permanent office of transit security under this 
     heading: Provided further, That of the funds in this Act 
     available for the execution of contracts under section 
     5327(c) of title 49, United States Code, $3,000,000 shall be 
     reimbursed to the Department of Transportation's Office of 
     Inspector General for costs associated with audits and 
     investigations of transit-related issues, including reviews 
     of new fixed guideway systems: Provided further, That 
     $2,500,000 shall be for the National transit database to 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That upon 
     submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2006 
     President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     transmit to Congress the annual report on new starts, 
     proposed allocations of funds for fiscal year 2006: Provided 
     further, That the amount herein appropriated shall be reduced 
     by $20,000 per day for each day after initial submission of 
     the President's budget that the report has not been submitted 
     to the Congress.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against page 40, 
line 13, to page 42, line 15 because it provides an appropriation for 
an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule 
XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.

[[Page 18397]]

  As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating 
authorization has not been met.
  The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, was the previous point of order against the 
language of the entire paragraph?
  The CHAIRMAN. The entire paragraph was stricken.
  Mr. PETRI. Including all of page 41 and page 42 through line 16?
  The CHAIRMAN. All of page 41, yes.
  Mr. PETRI. And page 42 through line 16, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. Page 42 through line 15.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                             formula grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5308, 
     5310, 5311, 5327, and section 3038 of Public Law 105-178, 
     $767,800,000 to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $4,039,000,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on page 42, line 
16, to page 42, line 21 because it provides an appropriation for an 
unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating 
authorization has not been met.
  The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                   university transportation research

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5505, 
     $1,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $6,000,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against page 42, 
line 22, to page 42, line 26 because it provides an appropriation for 
an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule 
XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating 
authorization has not been met.
  The point order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     transit planning and research

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304, 
     5305, 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322, 
     $25,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $126,000,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes: Provided further, That 
     $5,250,000 is available to provide rural transportation 
     assistance (49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)); $4,000,000 is available to 
     carry out programs under the National Transit Institute (49 
     U.S.C. 5315); $8,250,000 is available to carry out transit 
     cooperative research programs (49 U.S.C. 5313(a)); 
     $60,386,600 is available for metropolitan planning (49 U.S.C. 
     5303, 5304, and 5305); $12,614,000 is available for State 
     planning (49 U.S.C. 5313(b)); and $35,500,000 is available 
     for the national planning and research program (49 U.S.C. 
     5314).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. HEFLEY. I make a point on page 43, line 1, to page 43, line 16 
because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and 
therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating 
authorization has not been met.
  The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 5303-5308, 
     5310-5315, 5317(b), 5322, 5327, 5334, 5505, and sections 3037 
     and 3038 of Public Law 105-178, $6,047,200,000, to remain 
     available until expended, and to be derived from the Mass 
     Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That 
     $3,271,200,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's formula grants account: Provided further, 
     That $100,800,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's transit planning and research account: 
     Provided further, That $60,400,000 shall be paid to the 
     Federal Transit Administration's administrative expenses 
     account: Provided further, That $4,800,000 shall be paid to 
     the Federal Transit Administration's university 
     transportation research account: Provided further, That 
     $100,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's job access and reverse commute grants 
     program: Provided further, That $2,510,000,000 shall be paid 
     to the Federal Transit Administration's capital investment 
     grants account.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase 
``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 43, line 20.
  This phrase violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in 
violation of House rules.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order must be 
expanded to lie against the entire paragraph and, as so expanded, 
concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is expanded. The point of order is 
conceded. The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken 
from the bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                       Capital Investment Grants

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308, 5309, 
     5318, and 5327, $342,647,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That no more than $2,852,647,000 of 
     budget authority shall be available for these purposes: 
     Provided further, That there shall be available for fixed 
     guideway modernization, $1,214,400,000; there shall be 
     available for the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase 
     of buses and related equipment and the construction of bus-
     related facilities, $607,400,000, and there shall be 
     available for new fixed guideway systems $1,030,827,000, 
     which shall include $39,827,000 transferred from the 
     ``Federal Railroad Administration, Pennsylvania Station 
     Redevelopment Corporation'', together with $4,307,395 in 
     unobligated balances made available in Public Law 106-69, 
     $26,259,689 in unobligated balances made available in Public 
     Law 106-346, and $127,347,021 in unobligated balances made 
     available in Public Law 107-87, to carry out section 3037 of 
     Public Law 105-178, as amended, to be available as follows:
       Atlanta, Georgia, North Springs Extension, $260,000;
       Baltimore, Maryland, Central Light Rail Double Track, 
     $29,010,000;
       Chicago, Illinois, Douglas Branch Reconstruction, 
     $85,000,000;
       Chicago, Illinois, Metra Commuter Rail Expansions and 
     Extensions, $52,000,000;
       Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood Line Extension, $40,000,000;
       Denver, Colorado, Southeast Corridor LRT, $80,000,000;
       Fort Lauderdale, Florida, South Florida Commuter Rail 
     Upgrades, $11,210,000;
       Las Vegas, Nevada, Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway Project, 
     $36,800,000;
       Los Angeles, California, Eastside Light Rail Transit 
     Project, $60,000,000;
       Los Angeles, California, North Hollywood Extension, 
     $660,000;
       Minneapolis, Minnesota, Hiawatha Light Rail Project, 
     $33,110,000;
       New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street Corridor Project, 
     $16,460,000;
       New York, New York Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, 
     $92,000,000;
       Northern New Jersey Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS1, 
     $310,000;
       Northern New Jersey Hudson-Bergen Light Rail MOS2, 
     $100,000,000;
       Northern New Jersey Newark-Elizabeth Rail Line MOS1, 
     $1,340,000;
       Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail, 
     $69,000,000;
       Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Stage II Light Rail, $1,121,000;

[[Page 18398]]

       Portland, Oregon, Interstate Max Light Rail Extension, 
     $23,480,000;
       Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT, $1,130,000;
       Salt Lake City, Utah, Medical Center Extension, $8,680,000;
       San Diego, California, Mission Valley East Light Rail 
     Extension, $81,640,000;
       San Diego, California, Oceanside-Escondido Rail Corridor, 
     $55,000,000;
       San Francisco, California, BART Extension to San Francisco 
     International Airport, $100,000,000;
       San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano Rapid Transit System, 
     $54,820,000;
       Seattle, Washington, Central Link Initial Segment, 
     $80,000,000;
       St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair Extension, 
     $60,000;
       Washington, DC/MD, Largo Metrorail Extension, $75,430,000; 
     and
       Hawaii and Alaska Ferry Boats, $10,296,000.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on page 44, line 
15, to page 47, line 19 because it provides an appropriation for an 
unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating 
authorization has not been met.
  The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 3037 of the 
     Federal Transit Act of 1998, $50,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That no more than $150,000,000 of 
     budget authority shall be available for these purposes: 
     Provided further, That up to $300,000 of the funds provided 
     under this heading may be used by the Federal Transit 
     Administration for technical assistance and support and 
     performance reviews of the Job Access and Reverse Commute 
     Grants program.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on page 47, line 
20, to page 48, line 3 because it provides an appropriation for an 
unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  As previously stated by the Chair, the burden of demonstrating 
authorization has not been met.
  The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
       On page 48 of the bill, line 4, insert the following:

                   ``General Services Administration


                        real property activities

                         federal buildings fund

       For an additional amount to be deposited in, and to be used 
     for the purposes of, the Fund established pursuant to section 
     210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services 
     Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 592), $1,775,261,000.''

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, due to the points of order that have been 
raised, we have many amounts, of course, that have been stricken from 
the bill. Some of the amounts would have added money to the bill 
through the point of order strikings. Some would have subtracted money 
from the bill. The net of those is this $1.7 billion figure. We need a 
place to put that. I know it might be nice to put it on the national 
debt or such, but that would still under parliamentary procedures allow 
people to offer an amendment to spend it someplace else.
  We have in the General Services Administration the Federal Building 
Fund, an unmet backlog of I believe some $7 billion in unmet Federal 
construction needs. Although it is not my intent to keep this money 
back when this bill goes to conference, it is my intent essentially to 
restore and to resolve the parliamentary problems and to restore it to 
the accounts of which it was taken.
  Nevertheless, for the purpose of this bill today, I offer this 
amendment to take this money that has been stricken from the bill and 
put it in the Federal Building Fund.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I do not.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) withdraws his 
point of order.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

           General Provisions--Federal Transit Administration

       Sec. 171. The limitations on obligations for the programs 
     of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for 
     obligation, or to any other authority previously made 
     available for obligation.
       Sec. 172. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made 
     available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration, 
     Capital investment grants'' for projects specified in this 
     Act or identified in reports accompanying this Act not 
     obligated by September 30, 2007, and other recoveries, shall 
     be made available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
       Sec. 173. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 2004, under any section 
     of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain 
     available for expenditure may be transferred to and 
     administered under the most recent appropriation heading for 
     any such section.
       Sec. 174. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     the purpose of calculating the non-New Starts share of the 
     total project cost of both phases of San Francisco Muni's 
     Third Street Light Rail Transit project for fiscal year 2005, 
     the Secretary of Transportation shall include all non-New 
     Starts contributions made towards Phase 1 of the two-phase 
     project for engineering, final design and construction, and 
     also shall allow non-New Starts funds expended on one element 
     or phase of the project to be used to meet the non-New Starts 
     share requirement of any element or phase of the project: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds provided in this Act 
     for the San Francisco Muni Third Street Light Rail Transit 
     Project shall be obligated if the Federal Transit 
     Administration determines that the project is found to be 
     ``not recommended'' after evaluation and computation of 
     revised transportation system user benefit data.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 174 
on page 48, line 25, through page 49, line 15.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriation bill in 
violation of the rules of this House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members desiring to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this language explicitly supersedes existing 
law. The language therefore constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 174 is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 175. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to any Federal transit grantee after February 1, 2004, 
     involved directly or indirectly, in any activity that 
     promotes the legalization or medical use of any substance 
     listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812 et seq.).
       Sec. 176. From unobligated balances in the Federal Transit 
     Administration's Discretionary Grants account, not to exceed 
     $72,792,311 shall be transferred as follows: to the Federal 
     Transit Administration's Formula Grants account, not to 
     exceed $42,190,828; and to the Interstate Transfer Grants--
     Transit account, not to exceed $30,601,483: Provided, That 
     these unobligated balances are used, together with Formula 
     Grant funds that are available for reapportionment in such 
     account, to restore obligation authority reduced due to a 
     prior deficiency.

[[Page 18399]]

       Sec. 177. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     unobligated funds designated to the Oklahoma Transit 
     Association on pages 1305 through 1307 of the Joint 
     Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference for 
     Public Law 108-7 may be made available to the Metropolitan 
     Tulsa Transit Authority and the Central Oklahoma 
     Transportation and Parking Authority for any project or 
     activity authorized under section 3037 of Public Law 105-178 
     upon receipt of an application.

                              {time}  1915


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against this 
section.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 177 
on page 50, line 7 through line 15.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in 
violation of the rules of this House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do any further Members desire to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair finds that this language explicitly supersedes 
existing law. The language, therefore, constitutes legislation in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 177 is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

       The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds and borrowing authority available to the Corporation, 
     and in accord with law, and to make such contracts and 
     commitments without regard to fiscal year limitations as 
     provided by section 104 of the Government Corporation Control 
     Act, as amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the 
     programs set forth in the Corporation's budget for the 
     current fiscal year.


                       Operations and Maintenance

                    (harbor maintenance trust fund)

       For necessary expenses for operations and maintenance of 
     those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and 
     maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation, $15,900,000, to be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662: 
     Provided, That, of this amount, $1,500,000 shall be for the 
     concrete replacement project and related expenses at the 
     Eisenhower and Snell Locks.

                        Maritime Administration


                       Maritime Security Program

       For necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag 
     merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the 
     United States, $98,700,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


                        operations and training

       For necessary expenses of operations and training 
     activities authorized by law, $106,400,000, of which 
     $23,753,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2005, 
     for salaries and benefits of employees of the United States 
     Merchant Marine Academy; of which $13,138,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for capital improvements at the 
     United States Merchant Marine Academy; and of which 
     $8,090,000 shall remain available until expended for the 
     State Maritime Schools Schoolship Maintenance and Repair.

                             ship disposal

       For necessary expenses related to the disposal of obsolete 
     vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet of the Maritime 
     Administration, $19,116,000, to remain available until 
     expended.


          Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed 
     loan program, not to exceed $4,764,000, which shall be 
     transferred to and merged with the appropriation for 
     Operations and Training.


                           Ship Construction

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $1,979,000 are rescinded.


              General Provisions--Maritime Administration

       Sec. 185. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     the Maritime Administration is authorized to furnish 
     utilities and services and make necessary repairs in 
     connection with any lease, contract, or occupancy involving 
     Government property under control of the Maritime 
     Administration, and payments received therefore shall be 
     credited to the appropriation charged with the cost thereof: 
     Provided, That rental payments under any such lease, 
     contract, or occupancy for items other than such utilities, 
     services, or repairs shall be covered into the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts.
       Sec. 186. No obligations shall be incurred during the 
     current fiscal year from the construction fund established by 
     the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, or otherwise, in excess of the 
     appropriations and limitations contained in this Act or in 
     any prior appropriations Act.
       Sec. 187. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to implement or make an 
     award pursuant to the National Defense Tank Vessel 
     Construction Assistance Program Request for Proposals issued 
     by the Maritime Administration on February 20, 2004.

              Research and Special Programs Administration


                     Research and Special Programs

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Research and Special Programs Administration, $46,790,000, of 
     which $645,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety 
     Fund, and of which $3,025,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2007: Provided, That up to $1,200,000 in fees 
     collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall be deposited in the 
     general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts: Provided 
     further, That there may be credited to this appropriation, to 
     be available until expended, funds received from States, 
     counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 
     private sources for expenses incurred for training, for 
     reports publication and dissemination, and for travel 
     expenses incurred in performance of hazardous materials 
     exemptions and approvals functions.


                            Pipeline Safety

                         (pipeline safety fund)

                    (oil spill liability trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the 
     pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a 
     pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107, 
     and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the 
     Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $68,466,000, of which $14,000,000 
     shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2007; of which 
     $54,466,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, 
     of which $22,901,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2007: Provided further, That not less than $1,000,000 of 
     the funds provided under this heading shall be for the one-
     call state grant program.


                     Emergency Preparedness Grants

                     (emergency preparedness fund)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5127(c), 
     $200,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2006: Provided, That 
     not more than $14,300,000 shall be made available for 
     obligation in fiscal year 2004 from amounts made available by 
     49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 5127(d) 2007: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i), 
     5127(c), and 5127(d) shall be made available for obligation 
     by individuals other than the Secretary of Transportation, or 
     his designee.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, as amended, $58,000,000: Provided, That the Inspector 
     General shall have all necessary authority, in carrying out 
     the duties specified in the Inspector General Act, as amended 
     (5 U.S.C. App. 3) to investigate allegations of fraud, 
     including false statements to the government (18 U.S.C. 
     1001), by any person or entity that is subject to regulation 
     by the Department: Provided further, That the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be used to investigate, 
     pursuant to section 41712 of title 49, United States Code: 
     (1) unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of 
     competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket 
     agents; and (2) the compliance of domestic and foreign air 
     carriers with respect to item (1) of this proviso.

                      Surface Transportation Board


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $20,771,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     not to exceed $1,250,000 from fees established by the 
     Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board shall be 
     credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and 
     used for necessary and authorized expenses under this 
     heading: Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated 
     from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar 
     basis as such offsetting collections are received during 
     fiscal year 2005, to result in a final appropriation from the 
     general fund estimated at no more than $19,721,000.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 56, line 
6, to page 56, line 20, because it provides an appropriation for an 
unauthorized program and, therefore, violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.

[[Page 18400]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Do further Members desire to be heard on the point of 
order?
  If not, as previously stated by the Chair, the burden of 
demonstrating authorization has not been met.
  The point of order is sustained. The paragraph is stricken from the 
bill.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

            General Provisions--Department of Transportation

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 188. During the current fiscal year applicable 
     appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability 
     insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries 
     on official department business; and uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 189. Appropriations contained in this Act for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available for services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals 
     not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an 
     Executive Level IV.
       Sec. 190. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for salaries and expenses of more than 106 political and 
     Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation: 
     Provided, That none of the personnel covered by this 
     provision may be assigned on temporary detail outside the 
     Department of Transportation.
       Sec. 191. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 192. (a) No recipient of funds made available in this 
     Act shall disseminate personal information (as defined in 18 
     U.S.C. 2725(3)) obtained by a State department of motor 
     vehicles in connection with a motor vehicle record as defined 
     in 18 U.S.C. 2725(1), except as provided in 18 U.S.C. 2721 
     for a use permitted under 18 U.S.C. 2721.
       (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall not 
     withhold funds provided in this Act for any grantee if a 
     State is in noncompliance with this provision.
       Sec. 193. Funds received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal 
     Railroad Administration from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training may be credited 
     respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's 
     ``Federal-Aid Highways'' account, the Federal Transit 
     Administration's ``Transit Planning and Research'' account, 
     and to the Federal Railroad Administration's ``Safety and 
     Operations'' account, except for State rail safety inspectors 
     participating in training pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.
       Sec. 194. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, rule 
     or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized 
     to allow the issuer of any preferred stock heretofore sold to 
     the Department to redeem or repurchase such stock upon the 
     payment to the Department of an amount determined by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 195. None of the funds in title I of this Act may be 
     used to make a grant unless the Secretary of Transportation 
     notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
     not less than 3 full business days before any discretionary 
     grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant 
     agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the 
     department or its modal administrations from: (1) any 
     discretionary grant program of the Federal Highway 
     Administration other than the emergency relief program; (2) 
     the airport improvement program of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration; or (3) any program of the Federal Transit 
     Administration other than the formula grants and fixed 
     guideway modernization programs: Provided, That no 
     notification shall involve funds that are not available for 
     obligation.
       Sec. 196. Rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees 
     and other funds received by the Department of Transportation 
     from travel management centers, charge card programs, the 
     subleasing of building space, and miscellaneous sources are 
     to be credited to appropriations of the Department of 
     Transportation and allocated to elements of the Department of 
     Transportation using fair and equitable criteria and such 
     funds shall be available until expended.
       Sec. 197. Amounts made available in this or any other Act 
     that the Secretary determines represent improper payments by 
     the Department of Transportation to a third party contractor 
     under a financial assistance award, which are recovered 
     pursuant to law, shall be available--
       (1) to reimburse the actual expenses incurred by the 
     Department of Transportation in recovering improper payments; 
     and
       (2) to pay contractors for services provided in recovering 
     improper payments: Provided, That amounts in excess of that 
     required for paragraphs (1) and (2)--
       (A) shall be credited to and merged with the appropriation 
     from which the improper payments were made, and shall be 
     available for the purposes and period for which such 
     appropriations are available; or
       (B) if no such appropriation remains available, shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: 
     Provided, That prior to the transfer of any such recovery to 
     an appropriations account, the Secretary shall notify the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of the amount 
     and reasons for such transfer: Provided further, That for 
     purposes of this section, the term ``improper payments'', has 
     the same meaning as that provided in section 2(d)(2) of 
     Public Law 107-300.
       Sec. 198. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
     transfer the unexpended balances available for the bonding 
     assistance program from ``Office of the secretary, salaries 
     and expenses'' to ``Minority business outreach''.
       Sec. 199. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Department of Transportation may be obligated for the 
     Office of the Secretary of Transportation to approve 
     assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds 
     appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, except 
     for activities underway on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     unless such assessments or agreements have completed the 
     normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                          Departmental Offices


                         Salaries and Expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the departmental offices 
     including operation and maintenance of the Treasury Building 
     and Annex; hire of passenger motor vehicles; maintenance, 
     repairs, and improvements of, and purchase of commercial 
     insurance policies for, real properties leased or owned 
     overseas, when necessary for the performance of official 
     business; not to exceed $2,750,000 for official travel 
     expenses; not to exceed $3,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2006 for information technology modernization 
     requirements; not to exceed $75,000 for official reception 
     and representation expenses; not to exceed $258,000 for 
     unforeseen emergencies of a confidential nature, to be 
     allocated and expended under the direction of the Secretary 
     of the Treasury and to be accounted for solely on his 
     certificate, $177,000,000: Provided, That the Office of 
     Foreign Assets Control shall be funded at no less than 
     $22,511,000 and 120 full-time equivalent positions: Provided 
     further, That of these amounts, up to $2,900,000 is for 
     grants to State and local law enforcement groups to help 
     fight money laundering; $3,393,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2006, shall be for the Treasury-wide financial 
     statement audit program, of which such amounts as may be 
     necessary may be transferred to accounts of the Department's 
     offices and bureaus to conduct audits: Provided further, That 
     this transfer authority shall be in addition to any other 
     provided in this Act.

        Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For development and acquisition of automatic data 
     processing equipment, software, and services for the 
     Department of the Treasury, $36,072,000, to remain available 
     until September 30, 2007: Provided, That these funds shall be 
     transferred to accounts and in amounts as necessary to 
     satisfy the requirements of the Department's offices, 
     bureaus, and other organizations: Provided further, That this 
     transfer authority shall be in addition to any other transfer 
     authority provided in this Act: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated shall be used to support or 
     supplement ``Internal revenue service, information systems'' 
     or ``Internal revenue service, business systems 
     modernization''.

                      Office of Inspector General


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978, as amended, not to exceed $2,000,000 for official 
     travel expenses, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; 
     and not to exceed $100,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a 
     confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the 
     direction of the Inspector General of the Treasury, 
     $16,500,000.

           Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Treasury Inspector General 
     for Tax Administration in carrying out the Inspector General 
     Act of 1978, as amended, including purchase (not to exceed 
     150 for replacement only for police-type use) and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 1343(b)); services 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at such rates as may be 
     determined by the Inspector General for Tax Administration; 
     not to exceed $6,000,000 for official travel expenses; and 
     not to exceed $500,000 for unforeseen emergencies of a 
     confidential nature, to be allocated and expended under the 
     direction of the Inspector General for Tax Administration, 
     $129,126,000.

            Air Transportation Stabilization Program Account

       For necessary expenses to administer the Air Transportation 
     Stabilization Board established by section 102 of the Air 
     Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act

[[Page 18401]]

     (Public Law 107-42), $2,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended.

           Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration


                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Treasury 
     Building and Annex, $20,316,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2007: Provided, That up to $2,000,000 of the 
     amount provided under this heading shall be transferred to 
     and merged with ``Office of Inspector General, salaries and 
     expenses'' for costs associated with the audit of this 
     account.

                 Expanded Access to Financial Services


                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $4,000,000 are rescinded.

                    Violent Crime Reduction Program


                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading, 
     $1,000,000 are rescinded.

                  Financial Crimes Enforcement Network


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the financial crimes enforcement 
     network, including hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel 
     expenses of non-Federal law enforcement personnel to attend 
     meetings concerned with financial intelligence activities, 
     law enforcement, and financial regulation; and for assistance 
     to Federal law enforcement agencies, with or without 
     reimbursement, $64,502,000, of which not to exceed $7,000,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2007; and of which 
     $8,354,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2006: 
     Provided, That funds appropriated in this account may be used 
     to procure personal services contracts.

                      Financial Management Service


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the financial management service, 
     $230,930,000, of which not to exceed $9,220,000 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2007, for information systems 
     modernization initiatives.

                Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of carrying out section 1111 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002, including hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, $82,542,000; of which not to exceed $50,000 
     for cooperative research and development programs for 
     laboratory services; and provision of laboratory assistance 
     to State and local agencies with or without reimbursement.

                           United States Mint


               united states mint public enterprise fund

       Pursuant to section 5136 of title 31, United States Code, 
     the United States Mint is provided funding through the United 
     States Mint Public Enterprise Fund for costs associated with 
     the production of circulating coins, numismatic coins, and 
     protective services, including both operating expenses and 
     capital investments. The aggregate amount of new liabilities 
     and obligations incurred during fiscal year 2005 under such 
     section 5136 for circulating coinage and protective service 
     capital investments of the United States Mint shall not 
     exceed $41,100,000.

                       Bureau of the Public Debt


                     administering the public debt

       For necessary expenses connected with any public-debt 
     issues of the United States, $179,566,000, of which not to 
     exceed $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended for 
     systems modernization: Provided, That the sum appropriated 
     herein from the general fund for fiscal year 2005 shall be 
     reduced by not more than $4,400,000 as definitive security 
     issue fees and Treasury direct investor account maintenance 
     fees are collected, so as to result in a final fiscal year 
     2005 appropriation from the general fund estimated at 
     $175,166,000. In addition, $60,000 to be derived from the Oil 
     Spill Liability Trust Fund to reimburse the Bureau for 
     administrative and personnel expenses for financial 
     management of the Fund, as authorized by section 1012 of 
     Public Law 101-380.

                        Internal Revenue Service


                 Processing, Assistance, and Management

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     pre-filing taxpayer assistance and education, filing and 
     account services, shared services support, general management 
     and administration; and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 
     3109, at such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner, 
     $4,071,824,000, of which up to $4,100,000 shall be for the 
     Tax Counseling for the Elderly Program, and of which 
     $7,500,000 shall be available for low-income taxpayer clinic 
     grants.


                          Tax Law Enforcement

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     determining and establishing tax liabilities; providing 
     litigation support; conducting criminal investigation and 
     enforcement activities; securing unfiled tax returns; 
     collecting unpaid accounts; conducting a document matching 
     program; resolving taxpayer problems through prompt 
     identification, referral and settlement; expanded customer 
     service and public outreach programs, strengthened 
     enforcement activities, and enhanced research efforts to 
     reduce erroneous filings associated with the earned income 
     tax credit; compiling statistics of income and conducting 
     compliance research; purchase (for police-type use, not to 
     exceed 850) and hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 
     1343(b)); and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at 
     such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner, 
     $4,278,107,000, of which not to exceed $1,000,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2007, for research: 
     Provided, That up to $10,000,000 may be transferred as 
     necessary from this account to the IRS Processing, 
     Assistance, and Management appropriation or the IRS 
     Information Systems appropriation solely for the purposes of 
     management of the Earned Income Tax Credit compliance program 
     and to reimburse the Social Security Administration for the 
     cost of implementing section 1090 of the Taxpayer Relief Act 
     of 1997 (Public Law 105-33): Provided further, That this 
     transfer authority shall be in addition to any other transfer 
     authority provided in this Act.


                          Information Systems

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service for 
     information systems and telecommunications support, including 
     developmental information systems and operational information 
     systems; the hire of passenger motor vehicles (31 U.S.C. 
     1343(b)); and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, at 
     such rates as may be determined by the Commissioner, 
     $1,622,093,000, of which $200,000,000 shall remain available 
     until September 30, 2006.

  Mr. OLVER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I am not sure where we 
have gotten here. I was standing and thought I had spoken when the tax 
law administration and tax law enforcement item came up. Where are we 
now?
  The Clerk had called information systems, I think, or had moved to 
there and moved right on.
  The CHAIRMAN. We have read through page 70, line 3, at this point.
  Mr. OLVER. Page 70, line 3?
  The CHAIRMAN. Page 70, line 3.
  Mr. OLVER. Well, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to 
page 68, line 16.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, as I did in my earlier comments in 
the opening statement, that the IRS tax enforcement program has been 
underfunded by $286 million compared with the President's 
recommendation.
  Mr. Chairman, the tax law enforcement program is an exceedingly 
important program. The President has requested $286 million more than 
the bill before us provides, and the Commissioner of the IRS has given 
us sworn testimony that the proper use of that money would afford us at 
least a 6-to-1 margin on revenue gained for the use of the $286 
million.
  Now, in fact, in my discussion with the IRS Commissioner, he has made 
it clear to me that that is an average over all of the administrative 
uses of the tax law enforcement program; and that, at least, if one 
were to use that in some areas of enforcement, that one might be able 
to get as much as a 15- or 20-to-1 return for the amount of money; but 
that in the process of trying to organize an orderly program for the 
enforcement, that you try to balance that program, as we have been 
talking about a balanced transportation program, and only enforce very 
hard in one area or another; but that it is possible in some areas to 
mix what would be enforcement gains of as much as 15- or 20-to-1 with 
other places, so that we really ought to put some effort into where the 
gain may be only 2- or 3- or 4-to-1 and end up with an average in the 
range of approximately 6-to-1.
  Now, with that money, the revenue gained by the use of such 
enforcement monies, which the President requested, of just under $300 
million, then we have an opportunity to gain $2 billion of revenue, 
which can be used in a variety of ways: to cut the debt; to take care 
of problems such as we have in this bill even before the charade of all 
of the points of order that have been added here or have been taken 
here; or for what I originally called the most serious problems of lack 
of funding for things like transit new-starts for Amtrak and other 
things in the Highway Safety Administration.

[[Page 18402]]

  Besides that, one has to think of exactly where this money is coming 
from. The Commissioner of the IRS points out that there is at least 
$300 billion every year of money which is owed under the law to the 
Government, which is not collected, which is evaded, in essence, 
evaded. And every time there is that kind of evasion, since that is 
roughly $1 of $6 or $7 of tax revenue that the whole Government raises, 
that when that happens, that people, honest people who have paid their 
taxes, as they ought to, in what is basically a voluntary system that 
we have, when those people pay their taxes, then the six out of seven 
or so that do pay the taxes that are owed under the law end up 
subsidizing the one out of seven that is evading the taxes and not 
paying any.
  So those people, that six out of seven, have to put in a sum of money 
which is 10 percent higher or 15 percent higher by the rate in order to 
make up for those who are not paying taxes at all.

                              {time}  1930

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to page 
66 of this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Kelly) to return to the last paragraph that begins 
on page 65?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I reserve the right to object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) reserves the 
right to object.
  To what paragraph did the gentlewoman wish to return to on page 66?
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has reserved the right to object to the 
unanimous consent request. Does the gentleman wish to exercise his 
right?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I was trying to grant the gentlewoman the courtesy to 
state her intent, but I do intend to assert my objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) object?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request is not agreed to.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, my unanimous consent request has been turned down. 
However, that unanimous consent request was for an amendment to be 
considered as the Kelly - Oxley - Frank - Gutierrez - Royce - Maloney - 
Lowey amendment.
  Today I have a solidly bipartisan amendment to offer to this bill on 
page 66 to increase funding for the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
Network within the Treasury Department also known as FinCEN. FinCEN is 
probably not one of the more well known agencies within our government, 
but it is an increasingly important one as we continue to sharpen our 
government's abilities to fight terror finance.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) because I 
know that he recognizes the important role of FinCEN which he did by 
meeting the level of the administration at the start of this year. I 
offer this amendment, however, because I believe that a relatively 
modest increase for FinCEN above the current House level would 
significantly improve our government's efforts to combat terrorist 
financing and other financial crimes.
  Mr. Chairman, I have held 3 years of hearings on following terrorist 
crimes and terrorist financing. As many Members know, FinCEN is the 
Treasury bureau responsible for administering our anti-money laundering 
system. They are also the bureau responsible for collecting, analyzing 
and when necessary sharing information with law enforcement and 
intelligence agencies regarding illicit financial activity.
  The importance of these responsibilities to our national security is 
very clear. As Secretary Snow pointed out earlier this year, our 
ability to combat terrorist financing is linked with our ability to 
combat money laundering. And as many of my fellow members of the 
Committee on Financial Services will remember, 9/11 Commissioner Vice 
Chairman Lee Hamilton recently testified before our committee about the 
critical importance of enforcing our anti-money laundering law. I am 
quoting his statement.
  ``Vigilance in this area assists in preventing notorious and open 
fund-raising. It forces terrorists and their sympathizers to raise and 
move money clandestinely, therefore raising the costs and risks 
involved.''
  Unfortunately, it has become clear that we are not doing as well in 
this fundamental aspect of our fight against terror finance. In spite 
of this important role in our fight against terrorism, FinCEN still 
lacks important resources it sorely needs to be an effective center 
point in combating terror financing and money laundering.
  It must be understood by Members that FinCEN while responsible for 
our anti-money laundering law has few tools of its own. It is reliant 
on eight different regulatory bodies, most of which do not fall within 
the Treasury Department's jurisdiction, and as we have found through 
the Inspector General reports and highly publicized regulatory failures 
such as Riggs Bank, this fragmented system has had a serious 
interaction problem which has prevented the synchronized effective 
regime that circumstances clearly want.
  This amendment would bring forth more effective and streamlined focus 
to our efforts to trace money laundering and combat terrorist 
financing. Progress can only be made through a strong, substantive 
commitment to equipping FinCEN with new assets, which is what this 
amendment would do.
  I would like to point out that the President's request of FinCEN was 
made prior to several high profile regulatory failures. This 
legislation before us was considered in committee prior to the 9/11 
Commission's report and the Commission's subsequent testimony to the 
Committee on Financial Services on terrorist financing. Since then, 
there has been significant evidence that our government has made many 
improvements to combat money laundering. However, we must enhance the 
tools that we have to combat terrorist financing and FinCEN is one of 
those.
  The authorities have all indicated it requires new and different 
tools. That is why there is such strong bipartisan support for my 
amendment. Increasing funding for FinCEN by a small amount will have a 
significant impact on our government's ability to fight the war against 
terrorism in a more negative way than it would if my amendment were 
accepted. In fact, it is estimated that the agency needs $25.5 million 
to expand and improve its capabilities. This additional funding will 
help FinCEN secure the appropriate application of state of the art 
technology that would dramatically improve its ability to track 
terrorist financing. It will also enable the agency to hire much needed 
full-time employees to support more effective and extensive 
examination.
  That being said, having heard my plea, I would again ask unanimous 
consent to return to page 66.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I object to the unanimous consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous 
consent that the gentlewoman from New York and others be allowed to 
submit statements on this subject of this amendment that has been 
objected to.
  The CHAIRMAN. That request would have to be made in the full House.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the presentation by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  FinCEN financing in this measure is already increased by 12.7 percent 
over the last fiscal year. We have added significant dollars in the 
full committee to the FinCEN appropriations, and the FinCEN 
appropriations is at the level that was requested by the 
administration. However, for the gentlewoman from New York and other 
Members who are concerned, we will continue to work with them on this 
issue to make sure that we do not disagree, have a disagreement with 
the administration, and might perhaps be persuaded that there might be 
some different number that should be in the final vote of conference.

[[Page 18403]]

  However, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be constantly in this process 
with a long night ahead of us going back and reopening different parts 
of the bill that have been closed. We all know it is a slow moving 
process as it is. And if we start accepting every unanimous consent, we 
would not be completed.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Are 
we at the point of the bill dealing with section 216?
  The CHAIRMAN. The reading has not progressed to that section.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                     Business Systems Modernization

       For necessary expenses of the Internal Revenue Service, 
     $285,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007, 
     for the capital asset acquisition of information technology 
     systems, including management and related contractual costs 
     of said acquisitions, including contractual costs associated 
     with operations authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided, That 
     none of these funds may be obligated until the Internal 
     Revenue Service submits to the Committees on Appropriations, 
     and such Committees approve, a plan for expenditure that: (1) 
     meets the capital planning and investment control review 
     requirements established by the Office of Management and 
     Budget, including Circular A-11 part 3; (2) complies with the 
     Internal Revenue Service's enterprise architecture, including 
     the modernization blueprint; (3) conforms with the Internal 
     Revenue Service's enterprise life cycle methodology; (4) is 
     approved by the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of 
     the Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget; (5) 
     has been reviewed by the General Accounting Office; and (6) 
     complies with the acquisition rules, requirements, 
     guidelines, and systems acquisition management practices of 
     the Federal Government.


               Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration

       For expenses necessary to implement the health insurance 
     tax credit included in the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
     210), $34,841,000.


         Administrative Provisions--Department of the Treasury

       Sec. 201. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service may be 
     transferred to any other Internal Revenue Service 
     appropriation upon the advance approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 202. The Internal Revenue Service Shall maintain a 
     training program to ensure that Internal Revenue Service 
     employees are trained in taxpayers' rights, in dealing 
     courteously with the taxpayers, and in cross-cultural 
     relations.
       Sec. 203. The Internal Revenue Service shall institute and 
     enforce policies and procedures that will safeguard the 
     confidentiality of taxpayer information.
       Sec. 204. Funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the Internal Revenue service shall be available for improved 
     facilities and manpower to provide sufficient and effective 
     1-800 help line service for taxpayers. The Commissioner shall 
     continue to make the improvement of the Internal Revenue 
     Service 1-800 help line service a priority and allocate 
     resources necessary to increase phone lines and staff to 
     improve the Internal Revenue Service 1-800 help line service.
       Sec. 205. Appropriations to the Department of the Treasury 
     in this Act shall be available for uniforms or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901), including 
     maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of insurance for 
     official motor vehicles operated in foreign countries; 
     purchase of motor vehicles without regard to the general 
     purchase price limitations for vehicles purchased and used 
     overseas for the current fiscal year; entering into contracts 
     with the Department of State for the furnishing of health and 
     medical services to employees and their dependents serving in 
     foreign countries; and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
       Sec. 206. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriations in 
     this Act made available to the Departmental Offices--Salaries 
     and Expenses, Office of Inspector General, Financial 
     Management Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 
     Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and Bureau of the 
     Public Debt, may be transferred between such appropriations 
     upon the advance approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations: Provided, That no transfer may increase or 
     decrease any such appropriation by more than 2 percent.
       Sec. 207. Not to exceed 2 percent of any appropriation made 
     available in this Act to the Internal Revenue Service may be 
     transferred to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
     Administration's appropriation upon the advance approval of 
     the Committees on Appropriations: Provided, That no transfer 
     may increase or decrease any such appropriation by more than 
     2 percent.
       Sec. 208. Of the funds available for the purchase of law 
     enforcement vehicles, no funds may be obligated until the 
     Secretary of the Treasury certifies that the purchase by the 
     respective Treasury bureau is consistent with Departmental 
     vehicle management principles: Provided, That the Secretary 
     may delegate this authority to the Assistant Secretary for 
     Management.
       Sec. 209. None of the funds appropriated in this Act or 
     otherwise available to the Department of the Treasury or the 
     Bureau of Engraving and Printing may be used to redesign the 
     $1 Federal Reserve note.
       Sec. 210. The Secretary of the Treasury may transfer funds 
     from ``Financial management service, salaries and expenses'' 
     to ``Debt services'' as necessary to cover the costs of debt 
     collection: Provided, That such amounts shall be reimbursed 
     to such salaries and expenses account from debt collections 
     received in the Debt Services Account.
       Sec. 211. Section 122(g)(1) of Public Law 105-119 (5 U.S.C. 
     3104 note), is further amended by striking ``6 years'' and 
     inserting ``7 years''.
       Sec. 212. The Treasury Department Appropriations Act, 1997 
     under the heading ``Treasury Franchise Fund'', as amended, is 
     further amended by striking ``October 1, 2004'' and inserting 
     ``October 1, 2005''.
       Sec. 213. (a) Section 3333 of title 31, United States Code, 
     is amended as follows:
       (1) By amending subsection (a)(1) to read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury is not liable for a 
     payment made by the Secretary or depositary in due course and 
     without negligence, of--
       (A) a check, draft, or warrant drawn on the Treasury or the 
     depositary;
       (B) an electronic payment issued by the Treasury or the 
     depositary; and
       (C) a debt obligation guaranteed or assumed by the United 
     States Government.'';
       (2) By inserting after paragraph (2) of subsection (a) the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(3) The amount of the relief shall be charged to the 
     Check Forgery Insurance Fund (31 U.S.C. 3343). A recovery or 
     repayment of a loss for which replacement is made out of the 
     fund shall be credited to the fund and is available for the 
     purposes for which the fund was established.''.
       (b) The Check Forgery Insurance Fund (31 U.S.C. 3343) shall 
     be available to fund amounts relating to the payment of items 
     listed in 31 U.S.C. 3333(a)(1), as amended above, prior to 
     the enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 214. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act may be used by the United 
     States Mint to construct or operate any museum without the 
     explicit approval of the House Committee on Financial 
     Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs.
       Sec. 215. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this or any other Act or source to the 
     Department of the Treasury, the Bureau of Engraving and 
     Printing, and the United States Mint, individually or 
     collectively, may be used to consolidate any or all functions 
     of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the United States 
     Mint without the explicit approval of the House Committee on 
     Financial Services; the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs; the House Committee on Appropriations; and 
     the Senate Committee on Appropriations.

  Mr. ISTOOK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the text of the bill through page 76, line 2 be considered 
as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order to that portion of the 
bill?
  Are there any amendments to that portion of the bill?
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 216. None of the funds made available in this Act to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury may be used to publish, 
     implement, administer, or enforce regulations that permit 
     financial institutions to accept the matricula consular 
     identification card as a form of identification.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Oxley

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Oxley:
       Strike section 216 (relating to identification accepted by 
     financial institutions).

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1 hour and that the 
time be equally divided.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to 
object, I just want to point out there is a

[[Page 18404]]

difference between ending in 1 hour and 1 hour of debate; namely, 
whether or not the clock stops.
  I would agree if we are talking about 1 full hour of debate, but if 
we are talking about 1 hour on the clock I would object.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, that is satisfactory.
  The CHAIRMAN. The unanimous consent request is that all debate cease 
after 1 hour of debate.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, equally divided, I assume?
  The CHAIRMAN. It will be divided and controlled equally between the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield the time in opposition to the 
gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Oxley) amendment to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Culberson), a member of the subcommittee to let him control that 
debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)?
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that half of my time be 
allocated to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Financial Services.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley)?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time is divided, one-fourth to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Oxley), one-fourth to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) and one-half to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) is recognized.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and the 
ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, as well as a 
respected member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).

                              {time}  1945

  Our amendment will strike ill advised language adopted in the 
Committee on Appropriations that, if allowed to remain in the bill, 
would prevent the Treasury Department from enforcing regulations 
implementing customer identification provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act 
that are critically important to combating money laundering and 
disrupting the financing of terrorism.
  I note at the outset that the Bush administration has issued a 
strongly worded statement of administration position opposing the 
language that the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment would strike from this 
legislation.
  My colleagues are going to hear a lot in today's debate about what 
whether one form of ID is better than another; but as the author of the 
USA PATRIOT Act's anti-terrorist financing provisions and as a former 
FBI, agent, let me set the record straight. Today's debate is not about 
good or bad ID. It is about whether we are going to ask financial 
services customers for any ID at all. My amendment says yes; and the 
bill, as currently constructed, says no.
  By way of background, the regulations that the bill seeks to block 
were issued by the Treasury Department last year under section 326 of 
the USA PATRIOT Act, which I authored. That provision was intended to 
enhance the ability of financial institutions to detect and prevent 
money laundering and the financing of terrorism by requiring those 
institutions to develop comprehensive procedures for verifying customer 
identity at the time of account opening. Among other things, the 
provision requires financial institutions to consult lists of known or 
suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations when opening accounts 
for new customers.
  In implementing section 326, the administration ultimately decided to 
give institutions the flexibility to tailor their customer 
identification programs to the risks of money laundering or terrorist 
financing posed by their products, services, and customer base. 
Consistent with this risk-based approach, the final regulations give 
financial institutions the discretion to determine which forms of 
identification issued by foreign governments they will accept and under 
what circumstances.
  Make no mistake, the regulations do not mandate or require the 
acceptance of the matricula consular card. If financial institutions 
are concerned about their validity, they are free to reject the use of 
those cards as identification.
  These regulations were finalized only after two lengthy public 
comment periods, which included extensive input from the financial 
services industry, law enforcement agencies, and a host of other 
interested parties, and after careful analysis and study by the 
Treasury Department and other financial regulators. The regulations, 
effective last year, are currently being enforced by Treasury and the 
Federal financial regulators and implemented by financial institutions 
across the country.
  The so-called Culberson amendment throws into question the obligation 
of financial institutions to verify the identities of their customers 
and ties Treasury's hands in enforcing one of the centerpieces of the 
post-September 11 congressional response to the terrorist financing 
threat.
  Indeed, when he appeared before our committee last month, 9/11 
Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, a former distinguished colleague 
of ours, singled out section 326 for particular praise, calling it a 
``significant tool to assist fast-moving terrorism investigations.''
  Failure to adopt this amendment will result in this critical tool 
being taken from the Government's hands. I would suggest to my 
colleagues that now is not the time to be unilaterally disarming in the 
financial war against terrorists.
  The Bush administration and the Treasury Department have registered 
their strong support for this amendment, arguing that denying access to 
the mainstream financial system serves only to drive consumers into the 
underground financial economy, making it virtually impossible to track 
their financial activity and frustrating the Government's efforts to 
enforce antimoney laundering and antiterrorist financing laws. In the 
words of Secretary Snow, if the section my amendment seeks to strike 
becomes law, ``it will be a step backwards in the financial war on 
terror.''
  Let us be very serious and understand that that is what the PATRIOT 
Act is all about. This is an effort to repeal part of the PATRIOT Act 
that has worked so successfully in protecting American citizens.
  Finally, let me express my frustration with this kind of back-door 
legislating in appropriations bills. This is simply not the way we 
should be operating in this House.
  My colleagues have a simple choice before them: vote for our 
amendment and give our financial regulators the ability to track, 
seize, and freeze terrorist funds or vote against us and drive 
terrorist money laundering even further underground. The choice is 
clear.
  Support our fight against the funding of terror. Support the Oxley-
Frank-Kolbe amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  With immense respect to my good friend, the Chairman of the Committee 
on Financial Services, the Congress has already passed the PATRIOT Act. 
The Secretary of the Treasury was required under the PATRIOT Act to 
prescribe regulations that set forth minimum standards for financial 
institutions to open a bank account. The authorizers have already 
spoken on this, and the law requires the minimum requirements for banks 
to verify the identity of a person opening the account, to maintain 
records of that person's identity, and consult lists of known or 
suspected terrorists.
  I would not have offered this amendment in subcommittee and full 
committee, and the Committee on Appropriations would not have felt it 
necessary to put this in the bill, had the

[[Page 18405]]

Treasury Department honored the PATRIOT Act. In the opinion of the 
Committee on Appropriations, in the opinion of the Chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman 
Sensenbrenner) has objected to the Treasury Department's rule.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) stated that he 
believes the reference to regulations adopted by Treasury are 
insufficient to address the intention of the PATRIOT Act to accurately 
identify and track individuals opening bank accounts. The law could not 
be any clearer. Yet the Treasury Department yielded to pressure from 
the banks, although the banks were required to verify identity, keep 
documents of records used to open the account. The Treasury adopted a 
rule which specifically allows the banks to shred photocopies of the 
person's identifying documents. So there is no record being kept.
  I am quoting directly from the rule, in violation of the PATRIOT Act, 
the Treasury rule says that any foreign government-issued document that 
evidences nationality, as long as it bears a photograph, is valid to 
open a bank account. That is in complete violation of the PATRIOT Act. 
So the regulation the Treasury Department adopted does not even meet 
the express letter of the law in the PATRIOT Act. So we had no other 
choice but to cut off the funding to this regulation.
  The parents of the families of the victims of September 11 have 
written a letter in opposition to this amendment because the parents, 
and I am quoting from the 9/11 Families For a Secure America, all of 
our members are aware of the fact that the 9/11 murderers relied upon 
government-issued identification to open bank accounts and charge 
accounts, rent cars and apartments and maintain an aura of legitimacy 
during the months that they planned, rehearsed, financed and carried 
out their conspiracy. Finally, on the morning of 9/11, government-
issued IDs permitted them to board the planes they used to murder our 
loved ones.
  For that reason, the parents of the families of 9/11 are scoring this 
vote. The parents of 9/11 are asking that Members vote against the 
Oxley-Frank amendment.
  This is a straight-up national security vote because the FBI has 
testified, the Department of Justice also has objected strongly to this 
Treasury Department regulation. The Department of Homeland Security, 
all Federal law enforcement, uniformly objected to this Treasury 
Department regulation because, number one, these consular ID cards that 
foreign nationals would use to open bank accounts are widely known to 
be easily forged.
  The FBI and the Department of Justice have concluded that the 
matricula consular is not reliable. It is not a reliable form of 
identification due to the nonexistence of any means of verifying the 
true identity of the cardholder.
  So we have a situation today, Mr. Chairman, where we know the 
terrorists are coming back to hit us again between now and the 
election. The FBI agent in charge of the southern border in Texas has 
seen a large number of countries with al Qaeda connections that are 
exploiting the southern border, utilizing long-established and well-
disciplined alien smuggling organizations in Mexico to transit 
individuals, foreign nationals through Mexico, into the United States. 
It was brought to my attention by Federal law enforcement authorities 
in Texas that they have now identified a number of individuals from 
Islamic countries changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic surnames, 
coming across the border with all the illegals crossing the border.
  So we have a situation where we are about to be hit. We have 
individuals using false identities, and we have a rule adopted by 
Treasury that essentially, according to the Committee on the Judiciary 
chairman and the FBI, is making it easier for individuals to create 
false identities and open bank accounts.
  The Treasury regulation is so wide open that an Iraqi listed on the 
50 Most Wanted List but who is not yet apprehended could open a bank 
account using an ID card printed in Arabic, issued in 2001, and the 
bank would still be in compliance. So the Treasury Department's already 
had their chance to comply with existing law, and they did not. So the 
appropriators had no choice.
  If I could, if my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Istook), is available, I will be sure to yield to him.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much for 
the time, and I rise in strong opposition to the Oxley-Frank amendment.
  This is the quintessential example of an interest group, namely, this 
time, financial interest groups, the banks, et cetera, putting 
themselves over the well-being of our country. In this case, we are 
talking about an interest group putting its self-interests, its profits 
above the safety of our country. Yes, it would make it easier for these 
banks to do business with illegal immigrants, and they would make a 
profit from it; but our country would be far less safe, and our 
children will be less safe if we do this.
  Let us note that the matricula consular cards have no other purpose 
than providing identification for illegal immigrants. Anyone in the 
country lawfully can present a visa, a passport, or other government-
issued identification to do financial transactions. What we have got 
here is an effort to make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in 
this country and to be in this country at the expense of the safety of 
our very people. During a time when there are terrorist acts being 
threatened in our country and throughout the world, this is an insane 
proposition.
  Hundreds and hundreds of soldiers have sacrificed their lives to win 
the war against terror. It is not too much to ask our banks to 
sacrifice a little bit of profit to make sure that our country is safe. 
This is a disgrace. These financial institutions are putting themselves 
above the well-being and safety of the United States of America, and 
that is what this amendment is all about.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds 
to point out that the last I looked, no bank was sitting in the White 
House. We are talking about a policy issued under the authority of the 
President of the United States and supported by the Justice Department. 
So this very transitory populism on the part of some of my Republican 
colleagues, denouncing the bank, may sound right; but this is not any 
bank's policy we are talking about.
  These are regulations issued by George Bush's Department of Treasury, 
supported by George Bush; and the George Bush administration supports 
this particular amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Pastor).
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the language of the bill only 
deals with one identification card. It is the matricula consular. So it 
is specific to a card that is issued by the Mexican consulate, and the 
Mexican consulate has been issuing this card since 1871.
  A Mexican resident has to go to the consulate, show proof of 
citizenship, Mexican citizenship, a photo ID to show that that is the 
person, and thirdly, proof of the residence that they are having in 
this country. That is the requirement.
  Since 9/11, the Mexican Government has made this card harder to get 
and also more authentic in terms of a fraud-free card to the best of 
their ability.

                              {time}  2000

  Since 9/11, because of the USA PATRIOT Act, according to section 219, 
the Treasury, in cooperation and consultation with the various 
departments, Department of Justice, FBI, et cetera, accepted a 
regulation that allows this card to be used as primary identification 
for a bank or financial institution.
  Now, we have heard a number of allegations. All throughout this 
debate, at the subcommittee and the full Committee of Appropriations, 
the only letter that has come to the Committee on

[[Page 18406]]

Appropriations has been the letter signed by the Secretary of the 
Treasury. The FBI has not sent a letter. Today, we have a letter before 
us that is signed by the Deputy Attorney General from the U.S. 
Department of Justice saying that they agree with the regulation of the 
Treasury and would like to continue the use of its card.
  I have to tell my colleagues that when we talk about terrorist acts, 
and I also am concerned about them. But I must say that there are a 
number of cities and towns in this country who have accepted this 
consular card as a form of I.D., because it allows an entity, city, 
county or State, to know the residence of a person who is here 
undocumented. If that person did not identify themselves through this 
card, we would never know where they live. So sheriffs, police 
departments, city governments, county governments, because of the fear 
of terrorism, accept this card because they now know where an 
undocumented person resides in this country. So it is not only the 
financial I.D. aspect of this card but it is also the security provided 
by this card that we must vote for the amendment.
  The allegations that have been made that the FBI did not support this 
card and Homeland Security did not support this card, was done months 
ago, and the only notification that we have from this administration is 
the Treasury saying they want to keep the regulation and now from the 
Department of Justice saying they support the regulation.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to briefly say that the Department of Justice is on record in 
opposition to these regulations before they were issued, and then when 
they were issued the Department of Justice issued strong objections.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce).
  Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition, and I thought what 
I might do is simply quote some of the testimony before this Congress, 
starting with Steve McCraw of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the 
Office of Intelligence, and he says of these cards: ``It is the 
terrorist threat presented by matricula consular that is most 
worrisome. The ability of foreign nationals to use the matricula 
consular to create a well-documented but fictitious identity in the 
United States provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely 
within the United States without triggering name-based watch lists that 
are disseminated to local police officers.'' Now, that is problem 
number one.
  Problem two, as the FBI says, ``It also allows them to board planes 
without revealing their true identity.'' Mr. McCraw goes on to say that 
``Federal officials have discovered individuals from many different 
countries in possession of matricula consular cards, and that is 
because the documents are easy to forge.'' He testified that ``An 
individual of Middle Eastern descent has also been arrested and was in 
possession of a matricula consular card.''
  What we are doing here, if we pass this amendment, is legalizing a 
method that would make it easy for terrorists to gain access to our 
financial system, thereby enabling the next group of terrorists to 
freely move money around the United States and finance their 
operations. This flies in the face of the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations to strengthen I.D.'s.
  I do not know how many of my colleagues sat through the hearings and 
heard the chairman and cochairman say that instead of permitting the 
use of new forms of I.D.'s from other countries that are not secure and 
not verifiable, we should be strengthening our own I.D. and visa 
systems. We heard the testimony like that from Lee Hamilton, former 
chairman of our Committee on International Relations, that we should 
adopt biometric identification systems for everyone who comes into the 
country. And, frankly, this flies in exactly the opposite direction.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I would 
just like to further quote from the FBI document. ``A September 2002 
bust of a document production operation in Washington State illustrated 
the size of this trade. A huge cache of fake Mexican birth certificates 
was discovered. It is our belief that the primary reason a market for 
these birth certificates exists is the demand for fraudulently obtained 
matricula consular cards. In some locations, when an individual seeking 
a card is unable to produce any document whatsoever, he will still be 
issued a card by the Mexican Consular official if the official feels 
that he filled out the questionnaire and satisfies the official that he 
is who he purports to be.''
  That is another problem. In addition to being vulnerable to fraud, 
the matricula consular is also vulnerable to forgery. As this FBI agent 
says, ``There have been several generations of the card and even the 
newest version can be easily replicated despite its security features. 
It is our estimate that more than 90 percent of these cards now in 
circulation are the earlier versions of the cards, which are little 
more than simple laminated cards without any security features.''
  As a result of these problems, as the FBI says, ``There are two major 
criminal threats posed by the cards and one potential terrorist threat. 
The first criminal threat stems from the fact that the cards can be a 
perfect breeder document for establishing a false identity. Such false 
identities are particularly useful to facilitate the crime of money 
laundering, as the criminal is able to establish one or more bank 
accounts under completely fictitious names. Accounts based upon such 
fraudulent premises greatly hamper money laundering investigations once 
the criminal activity is discovered.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds 
to say that I agree we have a forgery problem, but it is greater than 
Members may think. It is not of the matricula consular. Apparently 
someone has forged a letter from the United States Department of 
Justice. Because I have a letter today, I know my chairman has it, 
signed by a man who purports to be James B. Comey, the Deputy Attorney 
General, and it is on the letterhead of the U.S. Department of Justice 
and it supports this amendment. And it says, ``The Department of 
Justice fully supports the administration's current policy under the 
USA PATRIOT Act that requires banks and financial institutions to 
establish reasonable procedures. Therefore, the Department supports the 
Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment that preserves these regulations.''
  So it is not just the matricula consular that is being forged. 
Apparently there is somebody forging letters from the Department of 
Justice. So maybe we should suspend the proceedings and send out the 
Sergeant of Arms. Contempt of Congress.
  Now, I think, frankly, that forgery has been somewhat exaggerated in 
this debate, but the biggest exaggeration is this: So, yes, a couple of 
years ago people said various things, but there has been an evolution 
and we now have the policy of President Bush, supported by the 
Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury, and that is what 
is being assailed here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Hinojosa).
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of and as 
a proud cosponsor of this amendment. I want to thank my colleagues for 
all their support, especially the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Oxley) for offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been working on the matricula consular I.D. card 
issue for quite some time with a number of different groups and 
individuals. I want to express my particular appreciation for all the 
assistance that the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and their 
staff have provided during that time.
  On February 13, 2003, I introduced H.R. 773, entitled the 21st 
Century Access to Banking Act. My legislation would authorize U.S. 
financial institutions to accept the matricula consular

[[Page 18407]]

I.D. card as valid forms of identification for the purpose of opening 
an account, thus bringing unbanked individuals into the U.S. banking 
system and resulting in a more efficient regulation of currency in the 
United States.
  My legislation would result in an increased infusing of cash into our 
banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions and, ultimately, 
our economy on the whole.
  This legislation would allow hardworking families to enter the 
mainstream U.S. financial system. It would enable them to open checking 
and savings accounts, establish a credit history and possibly even 
eventually purchase a car or home. It would help improve our sagging 
economy by enabling these struggling families to avoid being preyed 
upon by sometimes unscrupulous check cashers and payday lenders.
  The chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and 
Consumer Credit, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), was kind 
enough to hold the first hearing on the importance of the matricula 
consular card to the U.S. economy and to the economies of our trading 
partners, And I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Bachus 
for holding this hearing at my request and for supporting the card.
  I was also pleased when Treasury promulgated its rule on section 326 
of the USA PATRIOT Act, allowing financial institutions to accept the 
matricula card as a form of identification. However, I was deeply 
disappointed when the House Committee on Appropriations adopted an 
amendment to this legislation that would ban certain Hispanics from 
using their matricula consular I.D. card to open an account at a 
financial institution in the United States.
  When it is adopted, this amendment we offer today will right that 
wrong. Because the United States is a party to the Vienna Convention on 
Consular Relations, we do not have the authority to prevent Mexican 
consulates from issuing the matricula consular I.D. card to Mexican 
nationals residing in this country. Similarly, foreign countries do not 
have the right to prevent United States consulates from issuing similar 
cards to its citizens overseas.
  I want to stress this latter point. Our United States does issue 
cards similar to the matricula card to its own citizens in foreign 
countries. It seems to me that the question then becomes whether or not 
we should allow financial institutions in the United States to accept 
the card as a valid form of I.D. to open an account. The answer to that 
question is a very simple yes.
  Should my colleagues vote to overturn the misguided anti-matricula 
card language currently in this bill? The answer is yes. The card is a 
safe, reliable form of identification. The card has over a dozen 
security features, including a hologram and infrared band. As the 
Washington Times reported in 2002, the matricula card is ``A high-tech 
I.D. that is more fraud proof than many State driver's licenses.''
  Approximately 163 counties, 1,180 police departments, 377 cities, 33 
States and 178 financial institutions accept the matricula card as a 
valid form of identification.
  The police departments support the use of the card because it helps 
undermine the market for illegal identification and fraudulent 
documents. It helps them to quickly identify witnesses, victims, and 
suspects.
  Immigrants with consular identification are more likely to report 
crimes and cooperate in police investigations. These police departments 
do not believe that the acceptance of the card by financial 
institutions will increase immigration.
  Despite what its detractors and opponents might claim, the card does 
not legalize the status of any immigrant.
  It cannot be used to obtain any immigration or citizenship benefits 
such as work authorization or to obtain public benefits. It cannot be 
used to cross the U.S./Mexico border, and it is only available to 
foreign nationals already in the United States. Moreover, Mexican 
consulates clearly explain the nature of the document to assure their 
Nationals know that the card does not regularize their immigration 
status.
  If we allow financial institutions to continue to use the card, with 
consultations between the U.S. and Mexican governments, the result will 
not only be an improvement in the U.S. economy. It will also lead to 
increased transparency and strength in our line of defense against 
terrorists gaining access to our financial institutions.
  For these reasons and more, I strongly encourage my colleagues to 
support and vote ``yes'' on the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe-Pastor-Hinojosa 
amendment.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment. 
This language that is included in the Transportation-Treasury bill 
regarding the matricula consular card is a classic case of confusion 
about an issue.
  Let me take my time for a moment here to tell my colleagues what this 
is not about. This is not about giving driver's licenses to illegal 
aliens. This is not about giving social services to any illegal aliens. 
This is not about allowing any other illegal aliens to enter this 
country. It is not about an I.D. card that may be used to obtain any 
government service. In fact, what the language does, in effect, is 
limit the ability of the Federal Government, the language that is in 
the bill now, that was adopted in committee, limits the ability of the 
Federal Government to track the money of people who are in this 
country. We do not even know who they are. At least we ought to know 
something about where their money is going.
  Now, if this legislation were adopted with this language in it, the 
Treasury Department would be prohibited from issuing any regulations 
about identification to the banks, because the language specifically 
does not speak about any particular document and, therefore, the 
matricula consular card could be included in it and, therefore, they 
could not issue any kind of documentation about it.
  The administration is not confused about this. There has been a lot 
of talk today about this. I have been hearing this going around here, 
that, oh, really and truly the FBI and the Justice Department supports 
this. Well, they do not support this. They have sent a letter which 
makes it very clear that the Justice Department does not support the 
language that is in the bill. They support the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe 
amendment.
  Secretary Snow made that very clear when we debated this in the 
Committee on Appropriations. They do not support adding such language 
that prohibits the use of the matricula consular card, because it is 
one form of identification that we do not have.
  This is not a Department of Homeland Security issue. This is a 
Department of Treasury issue that has to do with private banks 
identifying people so that they can open bank accounts. And DHS, 
Department of Homeland Security, has not said anything about whether 
these cards should be used for banking purposes or not.
  Treasury does not use a list of particular documents. They set the 
standard for what the verification ought to be. The standard 
accommodates local conditions as well as innovations of verification 
techniques. And the government ought not to be in the business of 
saying yes to this document, no to that document, because any document 
can be forged or counterfeited. What we need to do is set standards for 
verification of those documents, and banks need to have some kind of 
standard for that.

                              {time}  2015

  They look to this as one more piece of documentation they can use. 
Police departments like it very much because it is one more piece of 
documentation they can use when they pick up somebody and the person 
does not have a driver's license, for example. It is an added piece of 
identification that can help to identify an individual.
  This decision ought to be left to the Committee on Financial 
Services, if we are going to get into the business at all of trying to 
micromanage the regulation being written by the Treasury Department.
  The real argument is over whether we are going to have a secure form 
of ID. Should we be in the position of saying no to private 
institutions? If banks are to be secure, I urge us to vote in favor of 
the Oxley-Frank amendment.

[[Page 18408]]


  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
  Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the 
ranking member.
  No matter how we spin it, the fact of the matter is this amendment is 
not about banking, it is about making it easier for illegal immigrants 
to remain in the United States.
  U.S. immigration authorities have said the matricula consular is 
virtually worthless as an identity document. In fact, if Members do not 
believe them, all one has to do is look at the reputation of these 
cards in Mexico. Mexican banks themselves do not recognize the 
matricula consular card as a valid identity document. In fact, no bank 
in Mexico accepts this card to open a bank account.
  Despite the fact that its own banks do not accept this card, for 3 
years, the Mexican government has aggressively lobbied U.S. banks to 
accept the document. Mexico's actions to advance acceptance by U.S. 
banks is a blatant attempt to make illegal immigrants in Mexico as 
inconspicuous as possible, while facilitating uninterrupted 
transmission remittances back to Mexico.
  According to the FBI, matricula consular cards are almost exclusively 
used by illegal immigrants. Anyone here legally has valid identity 
documents they can present to open a bank account, such as a driver's 
license, Social Security number or passport.
  As a representative from part of the country that bears much of the 
burden of illegal immigration, it is $5 billion a year in California, I 
feel compelled to tell Members who do not represent areas impacted by 
illegal immigration about the impact this amendment will have on those 
who are forced to live with the problem on a daily basis.
  Illegal immigration places a strain on our society, and I want every 
Member in this body to understand, California bears the brunt of the 
burden of the failed immigration policies of the Federal Government. 
California has the highest number of illegal immigrants residing within 
its borders. The estimated number of illegal residents in California is 
2.2 million people, or 32 percent of the total number of illegal 
immigrants in the United States.
  The cost of illegal immigration in terms of governmental expenditures 
for education, criminal justice and emergency medical care are 
significant. For emergency health care, California spends the most of 
any State treating illegal immigrants in our hospitals. The cost of 
health care costs for illegal immigrants for California are nearly $650 
million per year. For education in California, $2.2 billion each year 
is spent on educating the children of illegal immigrants.
  While incarceration of illegal immigrants while securing our Nation's 
borders falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal 
Government, it is State and local government who must bear the cost 
when illegal immigrants are incarcerated, and California incurs greater 
cost than any other State. In fact, 15 percent of California's inmates 
are illegal immigrants, costing the State over $500 million a year.
  It is always easy to come to Washington and speak about compassion 
for those less fortunate, but when it comes to illegal immigration, the 
price California pays for Congress's so-called compassion is steep, and 
it is unacceptable. The fact that States must bear the cost of the 
government's failed immigration policies make illegal immigration an 
unfunded mandate.
  If Congress wants to continue to pass policies to encourage illegal 
immigration, then we must be willing to reimburse the States for the 
high costs they incur as they are forced to live with the impact of 
Congress's unfunded mandate. This amendment should be accompanied by a 
$5 billion check each year to California for problems of illegal 
immigration. I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to record my support for the 
position of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson). I think the use 
of these cards is very misleading. It facilitates money laundering, and 
it is completely out of the spirit of the PATRIOT Act.
  Therefore, with extreme regret because I do not think I have ever 
disagreed with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and only two or 
three times have I disagreed with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank), but I think this matter should stay in the bill and should not 
be taken out because it is so important that we close down their 
financial money laundering.
  I am pleased to support the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds 
to make one point.
  The notion that people will stop coming here illegally if they do not 
have a matricula consular is totally at variance with logic and 
experience. People who want to stop illegal immigration have a very 
good point, but the notion that people will come to the border and say, 
Oh, my God, I forgot my matricula consular, I am staying home, has no 
basis in reality.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to 
strike the Culberson provision. It says something that this amendment 
is supported by such a diverse coalition, the Bush administration, the 
banking industry, immigration groups, Members from both sides of the 
aisle joining together to remove language that is at its heart designed 
to keep immigrants out of the regulated banking system.
  This issue is one that I have worked on since I was elected 12 years 
ago to the Congress of the United States, and that is, how do you 
transfer money back to loved ones that really need it?
  If we want to have a debate on immigration, let us have a debate on 
immigration. I think that is a substantive debate we should have. As a 
matter of fact, it was the President of the United States who, on 
January 7, said we should take people who live in obscurity and are 
exploited; the leader of the Republican Party, as I saw him at the 
convention in New York, in command of the Republican Party and your 
candidate for President, who said we should deal with this immigration 
issue.
  As a matter of fact, it is President Bush who Members are attacking 
here tonight who are saying is making our system unfair because it is 
President Bush and his administration that supports this amendment. Let 
us make that absolutely clear and have no quibbles about whose policy 
this is. This is the Bush administration's. Since the PATRIOT Act, we 
dealt with the regulation and the Treasury Department for more than a 
year before these provisions were enacted.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know how Members of the President's party can 
say the banking industry is trying to sugarcoat this.
  Members know what they get with the matricula consular. Ten million 
people live in the United States who are probably undocumented. We 
should know something about them. Where is the political will in this 
country and the requisite resources to deport those 10 million people? 
This Congress has never had a serious debate about deporting and 
putting the resources towards 10 million people. We never will.
  Some Members walk up here and say there are 2 million undocumented 
Mexicans in California as if they are just there. Do Members know what 
they are doing? They are cleaning bathrooms. They are picking the 
grapes. They are doing the arduous work that many of us born in this 
country will not do. Let us face up to it, they are working, and they 
are contributing to our economy. They are not just here stagnant.
  Let us have a real debate, but the matricula consular is not the 
place to have debate on immigration policy. They are going to continue 
to come. They came before the matricula consular; they will come after 
the matricula consular. Let us give an identification that local 
economies and local administrations want. That is the matricula 
consular.

[[Page 18409]]


  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus), a subcommittee chairman of the Committee on 
Financial Services.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I think if the Members back in their 
offices were listening to this debate, they would be sufficiently 
confused. I think the reason they would be confused is because 
something said by both the opponents and the proponents of this 
amendment is true. I think there is a great deal of frustration over 
the use of these cards, and I think that is the reason that the 
gentleman from Texas and others are supporting this amendment.
  Unfortunately, the amendment does not accomplish what they want to 
accomplish, and that is to make our Nation more secure. I do not 
question the sincerity of the gentleman and the frustration of he and 
the supporters of this amendment, but I simply ask us all to take a 
deep breath and to actually look at what this amendment does.
  Now, the underlying section is section 326, and it has been called 
the cornerstone of our money laundering efforts. We have letters from 
the Department of Justice and from the Treasury Department saying it is 
absolutely essential for an effective anti-money laundering program. 
Section 326, it is there.
  Now, because of frustration with these cards, the gentleman from 
Texas has offered an amendment which stops the Treasury Department and 
FinCEN from issuing regulations or carrying out regulations or 
enforcing the provisions of 326.
  Now, just 2 weeks ago, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission came to 
this Congress and testified before our committee and commended our 
committee for the passage of 326. Unfortunately, what we are all caught 
in here tonight is that section 326 is not self-executing. It requires 
regulations to be issued.
  So the gentleman from Texas has offered, and successfully in the 
subcommittee, an amendment which really prevents Treasury from 
administering or enforcing regulations pursuant to section 326. Now 
that is what the gentleman's amendment does. I hope we can all agree to 
that. It basically shuts down 326. For that reason, I have to oppose 
it.
  Several of the things the gentleman said tonight, I think, are true. 
I think there are problems with this card. I think some of the things 
that the proponents have said are also true about the policy of 
excluding a certain nationality. That is also very troublesome.
  In conclusion, I cite a letter from the Department of Justice which 
also says, ``including the FBI''; this letter is signed by the deputy 
attorney general. And I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) 
was probably caught off guard because when he first rose in this body, 
he said Treasury was on one side, and law enforcement and Justice was 
on the other side. That is really not true.
  I think, had the gentleman gotten an effective remedy, that is true, 
but the Department of Justice, including the FBI, asked that we defeat 
this and says, if we do not, there will be many dangers associated.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, the FBI and Justice want us 
to pass this amendment.
  Mr. BACHUS. If the gentleman from Ohio will continue to yield, that 
is right, they are in favor of the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment, and I 
include for the Record this letter to that effect.

                                  Department of Justice, Office of


                                  the Deputy Attorney General,

                               Washington, DC, September 14, 2004.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Justice fully supports 
     the Administration's current policy under the USA PATRIOT Act 
     that requires banks and other financial institutions to 
     establish reasonable procedures for the identification and 
     verification of new account holders, which is set forth in 
     regulations of the Department of the Treasury. Therefore the 
     Department supports the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment to H.R. 
     5025 that preserves these regulations.
       One concern addressed by the regulations is the danger 
     associated with driving sectors of the population into 
     unregulated, underground financial service providers, such as 
     unregulated hawalas, where persons may be more exposed to 
     elements involved in money laundering and terrorist 
     financing. In order to counter this concern, the Justice 
     Department supports the Administration's determination to 
     permit--but not encourage--the acceptance of Matricula 
     Consular cards by financial institutions, under circumstances 
     where financial institutions reasonably believe they can 
     properly identify the new customer. Of course, the 
     Administration will continue to evaluate the security and 
     reliability of identification documents, including Matricula 
     Consular cards, that potentially are subject to misuse.
       The Department of Justice, including the FBI, continue to 
     work closely with the Treasury Department on this and other 
     issues related to halting all financing of terrorists. If we 
     can be of further assistance regarding this or any other 
     matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
           Sincerely,
                                                   James B. Comey,
                                          Deputy Attorney General.

  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Had the Department of Treasury actually implemented the PATRIOT Act, 
the Committee on Appropriations would not have shut off funding to this 
regulation.
  The Treasury-Transportation bill, and this is within our jurisdiction 
and the full Committee on Appropriations, cut off funding to implement 
or enforce the Treasury regulation which is on the books, and let me 
quote from it again, ``The Treasury regulation authorizes banks to open 
a bank account for any non-U.S. citizen who can produce any foreign 
government issued document with a photograph.''
  Now that rule that Treasury adopted is in complete violation of the 
PATRIOT Act. That is the opinion of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. Statute 
326 has not been complied with by the Treasury Department. It requires 
Treasury to adopt a rule that requires banks to verify identity, 
maintain records of the person's identity and consult lists of known 
terrorists.

                              {time}  2030

  This rule is so bad and so broad, the banks can shred photocopies of 
the person's identifying documents as soon as you make the deposit. So 
the Appropriations Committee had no choice but to shut off funding to 
this regulation. And before the regulation was adopted, the Justice 
Department and the FBI and Homeland Security were all opposed to it. 
The Department of Justice was on record.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think there has been 
a very broad misunderstanding about the destruction of those 
photographs and/or records. The law clearly requires that the financial 
institutions keep those documents for 5 years. That is not a change in 
policy. Treasury has recognized that for a number of years. The law has 
recognized that for a number of years. Financial institutions have 
recognized that for a number of years. It is simply not accurate to say 
that those records are destroyed immediately by the banks. They are 
required by law to keep those records for 5 years.
  Mr. CULBERSON. I certainly agree under current law, but the rule 
adopted by Treasury, and again I am quoting from the Department of 
Justice, the Department of Justice objected very strongly to these 
last-minute changes in the Treasury rule because Treasury did change 
the rule at the last minute to allow these records to be destroyed and 
that is in the rule which is why we cut off the funding. This is the 
only way that we could stop the implementation of this rule which 
violates the spirit of the PATRIOT Act by cutting off the funding, 
because the Treasury ignored the PATRIOT Act's very clear requirements.
  Mr. OXLEY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, let me just quote 
from the letter from the Department of

[[Page 18410]]

Justice: ``The Justice Department supports the administration's 
determination to permit the acceptance of matricula consular cards by 
financial institutions under circumstances where financial institutions 
reasonably believe they can properly identify the new customer.''
  That is from the letter of the Justice Department.
  Mr. CULBERSON. From the Justice Department today. Yes, the Justice 
Department is being a good team player. The Justice Department 
testified formally in objection to this rule July 31 when it was 
adopted. Quoting from the Justice Department:
  ``The Department of Justice believes that consular identification 
cards issued by foreign governments should not be among the documents 
that could be accepted by financial institutions.''
  Once the Department of Justice made that argument, they lost that 
argument. Treasury adopted this very broad rule that allows anybody 
from a foreign country to walk in the door with any kind of photo ID 
and open a bank account. The Justice Department lost that argument, and 
obviously they have gotten on board.
  Mr. OXLEY. That letter was dated today. The Justice Department 
clearly supports the Oxley amendment.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio knows good and 
well, so does my counterpart on the Democrat side, we have testimony 
before the committee from the Justice Department, from the FBI, from 
law enforcement that this is not a good idea. And you know under 
President Clinton or President Bush, if they say this is what we want 
out of the White House, those Secretaries and those Department heads 
are going to say, Aye-aye, three bags full. That is what they have done 
in your letter today.
  You are putting this country at risk today. FBI has testified that 
these matricula cards, some individuals have up to 30 of these things. 
You say Mexico requires a birth certificate. Have you ever tried to get 
something in Mexico? I have been down there a lot, and a few dollars 
will get you anything. There is no database.
  You want to work on a bipartisan bill? You want to work something 
bipartisan? Let us have our U.S. Government with a database issue a 
card, I will support it, that is controlled by our homeland security, 
our FBI; but to take a Costco card out of Mexico and risk our national 
security, I am disappointed in this White House, I am disappointed in 
my own party, and I am disappointed in those on the other side that 
support this amendment.
  The gentleman from Ohio is my friend, but he is wrong on this. I have 
been here 14 years and nothing has ever bothered me as much from my own 
party to put us at risk. These cards are fake. Every single day they 
use these cards illegally. It is not about financial services. The FBI 
testified, they use these cards to gain driver's licenses. And guess 
what? They can get on an airplane, and they can blow it up. FBI has 
testified to this. Justice Department. I do not care what letter you 
got out of the White House or these guys that are going to say, okay, 
Mr. President, we'll give you a letter to support your position. It 
means nothing. You look at today's situation, with these folks coming 
over that are illegal, with these cards, using them every day, and that 
is wrong. I am so disappointed in my own party, I cannot believe it.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. OXLEY. I thank my good friend from California for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say, this bill was drafted in our committee. I 
was the lead sponsor of the legislation. We have fully determined the 
efficacy of using these matricula consular cards. By the way, it is not 
the only form of identification. As a matter of fact, matricula 
consular is not even mentioned in the statute, nor is it mentioned in 
the rules and regulations from Treasury Department.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Taking my time back, why do we not do a U.S.-side 
card that has a database? Mexico has no database whatsoever. You can go 
from area to area and get a different matricula card like this. Why do 
we not work this out to where a U.S.-side matricula card that has a 
database that can actually control the services and not allow 
additional IDs to be formed so that these guys can drive airplanes and 
bomb this country? Why do we not do that?
  Mr. OXLEY. I would invite the gentleman and the gentleman from Texas 
to introduce a bill and to have it referred to the appropriate 
committee, the Committee on Financial Services.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will be happy to. In the meantime, I do not want to 
support your amendment which in my opinion is a disaster to national 
security in this country. Special interests in banking, a caucus over 
on this side and people that want to support this, I disagree 100 
percent. If you say I am fighting the White House, you are absolutely 
100 percent right.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds 
to make what I think is a central point. Whether or not the card 
exists, whether or not it is honored by banks will have zero effect on 
immigration. No one gets to the border deciding to come here without 
legal authorization and says, Whoops, I can't cross that river without 
my matricula consular.
  Illegal immigration is a problem, but it is a wholly irrelevant one 
to this.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member on the 
immigration committee in Judiciary, we have been asking this Republican 
Congress to give us comprehensive reform on immigration. To the 9/11 
families, let me tell you that this is post-9/11. We understand the 
concern, and we have changed things in America. My understanding is 
there was no person of Mexican descent on the 9/11 planes. And so this 
issue of juxtaposing terrorism and threatening on this very point is 
really misusing this debate.
  First of all, I am confident that the matricula card is a secure form 
of identification. You do not get the card in Mexico. You get it in the 
United States. The consular office of Mexico is in my congressional 
district. I know their intensity and their sincerity in making this 
card secure. The person requesting a card must produce an original 
birth certificate and an official Mexican identification card, such as 
a passport or a Federal electoral card. There is a computer system to 
this that requires a fluorescent light that reveals the letters ``SRE'' 
across the front of the card. An infrared band appears on the upper 
back of the card.
  Mr. Chairman, these are wrong arguments. This is wrong and 
misdirected. This card is for people in the United States, it is issued 
right here in the United States, and we should support the Oxley 
amendment and dismiss this irrelevant debate.
  I rise in support of this amendment, which would strike Sec. 216 of 
the Transportation, Treasury Appropriations bill, H.R. 5025. That 
section prohibits the Department of Treasury from implementing 
regulations which provide for Mexico's matricula consular card to be 
used as a form of identification when opening a bank account or renting 
a safe deposit box.
  Opponents of the Matricula will argue that the documents is not 
secure. I disagree. I am confident that the Matricula is a secure form 
of identification. The person requesting a Matricula must produce an 
original birth certificate and an official Mexican identification card 
such as a passport or a federal electoral card, and his photograph will 
be taken by the consulate office, on the consulate premises.
  In addition, the Matricula has been modernized with the use of new 
technologies to improve its security features. The Mexican government 
uses security standards in making the Matricula that are similar to the 
ones by the United States Government in its own official documents.
  It has visible security features such as green security paper with 
the official Mexican seal printed in a special security pattern, and a 
colored hologram with a seal that appears over the holder's photograph 
and changes color from green to brown.
  It also has security features that are visible only under fluorescent 
light. The fluorescent

[[Page 18411]]

light reveals the letters ``SRE'' across the front of the card. An 
infra red band appears on the upper back of the card.
  In case this is not enough, there are security marks visible only 
with the use of a special decoder. The decoder reveals the word 
``Mexico'' printed on the left side of the card, next to the holder's 
photograph. ``Matricular Consular ID Card'' is printed at the bottom. 
And, ``SRE'' is printed three times on the right side.
  Consequently, I see no reason why matricula consular cards should be 
prohibited from use as a form of identification when opening a bank 
account or renting a safe deposit box. I urge you therefore to vote for 
this amendment to strike Sec. 216 of the Transportation, Treasury 
Appropriations bill, H.R. 5025.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time, and I rise in opposition to the Oxley-Frank amendment. 
By accepting these cards as legitimate forms of identification, banks, 
State, and local governments are undermining the intent of the USA 
PATRIOT Act and our national security. The Mexican consulate is issuing 
matricula consular by aggressively marketing these documents, often to 
individuals living in the United States illegally.
  According to the October 21, 2002, report to Congress, in accordance 
with section 326(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, serious weaknesses exist in 
the acceptance of foreign documents to verify identity. The Treasury 
report identified several problems related to foreign documents, 
including forgery, lack of uniformity, recognition, reliability, and 
legitimacy issues.
  Accepting matricula will provide safe harbor for foreign nationals 
residing in the United States illegally. The rule makes no distinction 
between non-U.S. persons who are here legally and those who are here 
illegally. Furthermore, it allows documents issued by any government, 
including a foreign government, to be utilized to verify 
identification. The rule would allow noncitizens who are in the U.S. 
illegally to utilize documents issued by a foreign government with the 
intended purpose of bypassing U.S. security laws. We should not allow 
this.
  Through the acceptance of matricula consular, significant immigration 
and national security policy would be undermined. It weakens the very 
mechanisms that Members of Congress put in place to prevent identity 
theft, fraud, and money laundering. Therefore, I rise in opposition to 
this amendment. I support the underlying bill with the original 
Culberson language.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I frankly cannot think of another time when I have 
disagreed with my friend from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), but I do oppose this 
amendment. We simply should not put the private interests of a few 
financial institutions ahead of the public good and the security of the 
American people.
  This amendment would allow matricula cards, which are primarily used 
by illegal immigrants, to be accepted in the United States. Giving 
illegal immigrants an identification card encourages them to come to 
the United States and, of course, makes it easier for them to stay. 
That is why the FBI has testified against the use of these matricula 
cards and why they pose a grave threat to the security of the United 
States.
  How regrettable that at the very time when we should discourage 
illegal immigration and deter those who would enter our country to do 
us harm, we would consider an amendment to undermine the PATRIOT Act 
and give terrorists and others the opportunity to exploit our laws for 
their own evil purposes.
  As a former chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, I recommend 
that my colleagues oppose this amendment and put the interests of 
Americans first.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
bipartisan amendment and thank my colleagues for bringing it up.
  When we passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we asked the Department of 
the Treasury to develop customer identification programs subject to 
evaluation. This was done to tighten security to our banking systems 
and to improve our ability to monitor.
  Since these rules were established, matricula consular ID cards have 
widely been accepted as a legitimate form of identification at a bank. 
Similar cards are issued by our consulates for our citizens who live in 
other nations. These cards do not confer citizenship. They do not 
confer the right to a driver's license. All they do is say that Gene 
Green lives at a certain address, whether it be in Guadalajara, Mexico, 
or Frankfurt, Germany.
  My concern about this, without adopting this amendment, we are going 
to limit our own consular office's ability to do this for our citizens. 
I would expect retaliation from countries who we are doing this to 
their consulates to do the same thing to us. I have some concern about 
it because we have thousands of our residents who retire to Mexico, 
retire to lots of places who may need this assistance from our own 
consulates. But in all honesty, we do need to have some type of 
identification for our local law enforcement to be able to deal with 
people that they can show.
  Mr. Chairman and fellow Members, I rise today to support this 
amendment and I thank my colleagues for bringing it to this floor with 
bipartisan support.
  When we passed the PATRIOT Act in 2001, we asked the U.S. Department 
of the Treasury to develop customer identification programs subject to 
evaluation. This was done to tighten security to our banking systems 
and to improve our ability to monitor financial transactions.
  Since these rules were established, Matricula Consular I.D. cards 
have been widely accepted as a legitimate form of identification to 
open a bank account. Similar cards are issued by our consulates for our 
citizens who live in other nations.
  If we do not amend this bill to keep the Matricula Consular 
identification card as a legal form of identification, it will be the 
only identification document explicitly banned as proof of identity in 
opening a bank account.
  What bothers me most about the provision that we are trying to amend 
is it specifically targets a form of I.D. issued by the Mexican 
government. We could see retaliation against cards issued by our 
government.
  Businesses in my home state of Texas conduct billions of dollars of 
business with Mexican companies. The need for Mexican nationals to come 
to the United States and establish legitimate bank accounts is 
imperative to the success of our state's economy.
  The Department of the Treasury has examined this issue thoroughly and 
decided that a flexible standard which accommodates local conditions is 
the best and most secure for our nation.
  Matricula Consular I.D. cards allow authorities to pursue those who 
are breaking our banking laws and then prosecute them diligently.
  Without these I.D. cards, it will be more difficult for Treasury. I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I have argued very 
vocally that the Federal Government should not accept matricula 
consular. That is a different issue altogether. But should we be 
telling banks what they can and cannot accept? It is their own risk. 
They ought to be able to accept this, and we ought to be able to track 
and have a better idea where the money is and where it is going. If 
this language stays in without the amendment, I fear that it will 
impact on that.
  I come from Arizona where we face the impact of illegal immigration 
very strongly. We bear the brunt of the Federal Government's failure to 
enforce and to secure the border. But this does not fix the situation 
at all. It may seem something like a fix, but it is not. I commend 
those who have brought this amendment forward, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman

[[Page 18412]]

from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and 
in support of the language that is in this bill which was adopted in 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  Certainly the arguments that are being heard today played out in the 
committee, and we decided that this was indeed an issue that relates to 
financial institutions, sure, but it relates to homeland security as 
well. The gentleman from Arizona that spoke before me, talking about 
the problems with porous borders, look at the latest issue of Time 
Magazine if they want to look at challenges of it and remember that we 
have adopted a great amount of legislation telling financial 
institutions they need to know their customer. We are talking about the 
financial center that is in the Treasury Department to track terrorism 
money. And if we do not have valid identification for the people when 
we are trying to track foreign assets in the United States and spot 
those that are using phony IDs to cover up terrorism, then why are we 
spending all the tens of millions and hundreds of millions and billions 
of dollars on homeland security if we say, oh, this is just a matter 
for the federally chartered, federally regulated financial 
institutions? We are going to put a loophole in the Federal law and all 
of our efforts to track foreign and potentially terrorism money are 
going to be undone because we can use unreliable identification. In the 
name of political correctness, we are going to accept the matricula 
consular? I think not.
  I oppose this amendment. I ask that the Members reject the amendment 
and keep in the language that is put in this bill by the committee.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe the number of misstatements 
I have heard tonight. I think this is an argument between dumb and 
dumber. This is a debate about ID.
  Let us look at the facts. Mexico has a national statistics ID 
program. The United States does not. Mexico uses the exact same ID 
protections in their ID form that the FBI uses for their badges. We do 
not have that for American civilians at all. Mexico has a database on 
life, death, divorce. It has a base that they can rely upon. We do not.
  So what happens in retaliation? What happens the next time you want 
to go to a foreign country, you want to rent a car, you want to cash a 
check? Where is your national ID? Are you going to pull out your voter 
card? That is not recognized as an international ID. It is probably the 
only thing we have closest to it. It would not even be recognized at an 
airport. You pull out your California driver's license? That is not a 
national ID. What are you going to show as your national ID? A Social 
Security card? It does not even exist.
  Allow a program that has assurances for protection, moderate 
protection. The propriety of this protection in this card is owned by a 
United States company. It is the same propriety that is used in our top 
security cards. That is what they want to use, and all this is, is an 
ID card. All this is, is an ID card. Let this amendment pass.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gallegly), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights.
  Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  The amendment guts the section of the PATRIOT Act that Congress 
enacted to restrict terrorists' ability to open bank accounts, transfer 
funds, and otherwise use the banking system to further terrorist acts. 
This amendment would uphold ill-advised Treasury regulations that 
permit banks to accept nonsecure identification, including the 
matricula consular, to meet the requirements of the PATRIOT Act. 
Unfortunately, nonsecure IDs do not establish identity, at all, 
rendering identification requirements to the PATRIOT Act useless.
  The FBI and Department of Justice have concluded that matricula 
consular is not a reliable form of identification. Forgeries are 
rampant. An Iranian national trying to cross a U.S.-Mexican border was 
caught with one. Smugglers have been caught carrying several 
matriculas, each with the same photo with different names.
  Because matricula consulars are not reliable identification, a 
terrorist can use them to assume an alias, or several. He can use the 
banking system to further terrorist plans. PATRIOT Act requirements 
that banks check customer names against terrorist lists become useless.
  Money is key in carrying out the acts of terrorism. The 9/11 
terrorists had to pay tuition. They had to rent apartments. They had to 
rent cars and eventually had to buy plane tickets.
  It is absurd for Congress to pass laws that attempt to cut off the 
funding of terrorist groups, as we did in the PATRIOT Act, and then 
allow regulations to create an end run around the law through tax 
identity requirements.
  Mr. Chairman, in my 18 years in this body, I have seen no piece of 
legislation that presents a greater threat to national security than 
this amendment, and I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I want to thank him and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley) for offering the amendment.
  Let me very briefly say this is not about terrorism and homeland 
security. This is about immigration. That is the bottom line, because I 
saw the Republican Convention, as I think many others did, and I heard 
the number one fighter against terrorism was George W. Bush. If that is 
true, then the statement of administration policy that all of us have 
says under the heading of matricula consular card, the administration 
objects to the provision that would prevent the Treasury Department 
from spending any funds to issue or enforce regulations that do not 
preclude acceptance by financial institutions of the matricula consular 
card as a form of identification. It goes on to say the administration, 
including the Department of Justice and the FBI, believe that it is 
appropriate that these regulations provide a flexible standard that 
accommodates local conditions as well as innovation and verification 
techniques, not a list of documents or methods that must or must not be 
used. The administration strongly opposes this provision and supports 
efforts to remove it from the bill during floor consideration. Hence 
the administration supports the Oxley-Frank amendment and understands 
this is not about terrorism. This is ultimately about immigration.
  We have seen this siege time and time again, and what it is about 
really is not only about immigration. It is about targeting Mexican 
nationals. And why do I say that? Because only the matricula consular 
out of all of the identity documents in the United States would be 
explicitly banned by this section of the bill. And yet those of us who 
want to fight terrorism understand that it is in the ultimate interest 
to have an identification of who is here and it is the ultimate 
interest to make sure that we cannot use the banking services unless we 
have information on who is using it.
  Support the Oxley-Frank amendment. Understand that the administration 
supports it and support our fight against terrorism.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his comments because he is 
absolutely correct. This is about immigration. It is about immigration. 
I know it is because I see the apologists for illegal immigrants come 
to the floor and give speech after speech after speech. And the people 
over on this

[[Page 18413]]

side of the aisle want to open the borders and allow as many illegals 
in because they think they can get them to vote for their guy. And the 
people over on this side making the argument are multinational 
corporation apologists who want to get as many people in because it is 
cheap labor. That is the equation.
  In the middle are the patriotic Americans who believe that we have to 
have cultural continuity in this country and the rule of law.
  That is the core of this argument and this debate. I thank the 
gentleman for bringing his opposition to the Oxley amendment.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa and the 
gentleman from New Jersey, who certainly disagree, but they both have 
one thing in common: They are both wrong.
  This is about 326, which is a terrorist financing bill. That is what 
it is about. And to try to unscramble this egg, I do not think I have 
ever seen this body so confused, but let us say we took the gentleman's 
amendment off and we took 326 off because that is what will happen 
either way tonight, and then what we will have is we will go back to 
the present system where 350 banks today are accepting these cards. So 
if the gentleman's amendment passes, we will have no regulations, no 
monitoring, and they will continue to accept the cards. If the 
gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Oxley) amendment passes, then the banks can 
accept the cards. The 350 will probably go ahead and accept them. The 
others will not, and as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) said, 
nothing in the regulations say that a bank has to accept these cards. 
Some of them are doing it now, and they can continue to do it. And the 
Members need to know that. They are accepting them today, and these 
regulations are not in force.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, for my part in closing, I first want to say it has been 
a pleasure to work with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), 
my ranking member.
  I do not think any of us take a back seat, I know I do not, in 
fighting terrorism. And our committee was in the thick of passing the 
PATRIOT Act, and one of the proudest moments I have had as chairman was 
the section 326 and what we did in the Act, and to see the President 
sign that was indeed a real honor.
  This provision that we had is important in the fight on terrorism. 
And I regret some of the arguments that indicate otherwise because our 
committee had it right the first time, and what I regret, frankly, is 
the Committee on Appropriations stepping into an area that the 
authorizing committee has the knowledge and the expertise in.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding to me.
  I would just stress no one who understands what drives immigration, 
legal or illegal, thinks that illegal immigration will decrease by one 
person if they do not have the matricula consular. I have never heard 
anyone argue that it is the ability to have the matricula consular that 
brings people here illegally. So the question is, as the chairman has 
phrased it, whatever we can do or not do to stop illegal immigration, 
this has nothing to do with it. There will be people here. This is part 
of an effort to try to identify some of the people who are here. It is 
a separate question. And, again, I would ask does anyone really think 
that if we get rid of the matricula consular that this would decrease 
illegal immigration by as much as one person? I see no argument for 
that. And then once we accept that fact, the chairman's argument is 
correct, that it is a way of dealing with facts that are here, while we 
try to diminish them to other means, that do have the support of law 
enforcement because better information is helpful.
  Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a national security issue. The Congress has 
already spoken through the PATRIOT Act. Section 326 requires the 
Treasury Department to adopt rules requiring banks to verify the 
identity of persons opening an account, to keep records of that 
person's identity, and to consult lists of known terrorists.
  The Treasury Department did not do that. The rule adopted by 
Treasury, against the advice of the FBI, against the advice of the 
Department of Justice, the rule that the Committee on Appropriations 
has cut off funding for, the rule the Treasury Department adopted, says 
that a bank can open an account of a non-U.S. citizen as long as that 
person shows any government-issued document with a photograph.
  This is why the families of 9/11 have come out strongly in opposition 
to the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Oxley) amendment. This is why the 
Committee on Appropriations voted to cut off funding for this rule. To 
quote the families of 9/11, I think they say it so well: All the 
Members are aware that the 9/11 murderers relied upon government-issued 
IDs.'' The Committee on Appropriations cut off funding to this rule 
because the rule does not require banks to keep records. The rule does 
not allow banks to accept any kind of foreign government-issued 
identification. So it is important that Members understand that they 
need to vote ``no'' against this amendment in the interest of national 
security to ensure that Congress' intent in the PATRIOT Act is 
enforced. It is the only way to stop this Treasury rule from being 
implemented.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, as we all learned just over three years 
ago, on September 11, 2001, protecting the American people from 
terrorist attack has become the highest priority of all of us here in 
the House of Representatives. Shortly after that terrible day, this 
body came together and passed the USA Patriot Act to enable our law 
enforcement agencies to more effectively investigate and apprehend 
foreign terrorists on U.S. soil.
  One of our goals when crafting the Patriot Act was to strengthen the 
ability of our government to track and eliminate funding sources and 
illicit bank accounts which we know terrorists have used to carry out 
their deadly attacks. To that end, section 326 of the Patriot Act 
requires financial institutions to establish ``reasonable procedures'' 
to verify the identity of customers seeking to open a new account.
  This particular provision of the Patriot Act was written to improve 
the ability of financial institutions to detect and prevent money 
laundering and terrorist financing. If we were to block funding for 
this provision, as the underlying legislation seeks to do, we would be 
prohibiting the Treasury Department from telling financial institutions 
that they must verify the identity of the customers. We would also be 
pushing people toward an underground economy, where tracking terrorist 
financing becomes even more difficult. And we would be reversing a key 
anti-money-laundering provision of the Patriot Act, which was 
specifically singled out by the 9/11 Commission as an important defense 
against terrorism.
  I am, however, very sensitive to concerns regarding the reliability 
of the Matricula Consular card, in particular, as a valid form of 
identification. And I recognize that both the Department of Justice and 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation have stated concerns regarding 
possible fraudulent use of the Matricula Consular ID.
  Because of these concerns, I want to say that I plan to work with my 
good friend from Texas, Mr. Culberson, to address this very important 
issue. At the end of the day, I am hopeful that we will be able to 
implement a system that both allows us to root out terrorist financing 
and give us confidence in the validity of identification documents used 
at financial institutions. In the meantime, I think it would be wholly 
short-sighted to cripple our ability to track terrorist financing by 
supporting the existing language in the bill.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this 
amendment. This amendment would strip language in the bill that 
represents a small but absolutely necessary step toward restoring some 
sense of sanity to our national immigration policy.
  Ever since September 11, we have endured proposals to reward those 
who come here illegally, while efforts to enact responsible immigration 
reform have been defeated.
  It just doesn't make sense. It seems that we have made no progress 
whatsoever in controlling illegal immigration.

[[Page 18414]]

  Time Magazine has just reported that 3 million illegals will enter 
our country this year, adding to the 10 million who are already here.
  This is the largest number since 2001, the year we were attacked. Is 
this progress?
  Instead of cracking down on illegal immigrants and enforcing law and 
order, our borders are more porous and chaotic than ever.
  Not only does this huge amount of illegal immigrants endanger our 
national security, but our crime rates and taxes are also adversely 
affected.
  I say enough is enough. No more enticing or rewarding illegal 
immigrants with promises of amnesty or benefits. No more putting our 
national security at risk.
  This means ending the acceptance of Matricula Consular cards, which 
are issued as a form of identification in Mexico.
  Unfortunately, these cards can be easily forged or counterfeited, and 
they often are.
  The FBI reports that there is no centralized database for issuing 
these cards, there are no uniform standards for its issuance, and in 
some cases all an applicant has to do to receive a card is say that he 
is who he purports to be.
  The FBI determined that these are not adequate standards, that they 
are fraught with fraud, and I wholeheartedly agree.
  This means that those with criminal backgrounds can easily assume 
false identities, come here, and break our laws.
  This means that even those who are not Mexican can abuse the process 
and obtain one of these cards.
  And don't think that people from Middle Eastern countries aren't 
trying to enter America over the Mexican border, because they are.
  The FBI has noted that an Iranian national was recently found in 
possession of one of these cards.
  And just a few weeks ago, the Associated Press reported that 
suspected al Qaeda member Adnan El Shurkrijamah might try to cross into 
Arizona or Texas.
  This suspected terrorist has been identified by the FBI as the 
apparent mastermind of an al Qaeda plot to ``launch a mass-casualty 
attack in the United States.''
  Mr. Chairman, none of us want illegal aliens using these cards to 
cross our border or to escape detection once they get here.
  None of us want illegal aliens using these cards as a way to obtain 
driver's licenses or other forms of state-issued ID. Thirteen states, 
by the way, allow these cards to be used as ID for obtaining a driver's 
license.
  And nobody wants these cards to be used to threaten our national 
security.
  If people are here legally, God bless them, they should be eager to 
get a state-issued ID, because it's a benefit of citizenship.
  And as was mentioned earlier in this debate by opponents of this 
amendment, there are sufficient measures in place to fight terrorist 
financing.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the Department of 
Homeland Security, to secure our banking system, and to oppose this 
amendment.

                              {time}  2100

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time for 
debate has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Oxley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OXLEY. 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 Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley) will be postponed.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill through page 166, line 3 be considered as read, printed in 
the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.
  Mr. Chairman, under the unanimous consent request, at what point in 
the subsequent proceedings would it be in order to raise points of 
order? Could they be done at any time, or is there any particular time 
that they would have to be raised?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If the unanimous consent request is agreed 
to, then any portion within that point of the bill would be open for 
points of order.
  Mr. PETRI. And they should be made forthwith?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the bill from page 76, line 8 through page 166, line 3 is 
as follows:

TITLE III--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO 
                             THE PRESIDENT

                     Compensation of the President

       For compensation of the President, including an expense 
     allowance at the rate of $50,000 per annum as authorized by 3 
     U.S.C. 102, $450,000: Provided, That none of the funds made 
     available for official expenses shall be expended for any 
     other purpose and any unused amount shall revert to the 
     Treasury pursuant to section 1552 of title 31, United States 
     Code.

                           White House Office


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses for the White House as authorized by 
     law, including not to exceed $3,850,000 for services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 105; subsistence 
     expenses as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 105, which shall be 
     expended and accounted for as provided in that section; hire 
     of passenger motor vehicles, newspapers, periodicals, 
     teletype news service, and travel (not to exceed $100,000 to 
     be expended and accounted for as provided by 3 U.S.C. 103); 
     and not to exceed $19,000 for official entertainment 
     expenses, to be available for allocation within the Executive 
     Office of the President, $59,525,000: Provided, That 
     $8,345,395 of the funds appropriated shall be available for 
     reimbursements to the White House Communications Agency.

                 Executive Residence at the White House


                           operating expenses

       For the care, maintenance, repair and alteration, 
     refurnishing, improvement, heating, and lighting, including 
     electric power and fixtures, of the Executive Residence at 
     the White House and official entertainment expenses of the 
     President, $12,760,000, to be expended and accounted for as 
     provided by 3 U.S.C. 105, 109, 110, and 112-114.

                         reimbursable expenses

       For the reimbursable expenses of the Executive Residence at 
     the White House, such sums as may be necessary: Provided, 
     That all reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive 
     Residence shall be made in accordance with the provisions of 
     this paragraph: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, such amount for reimbursable 
     operating expenses shall be the exclusive authority of the 
     Executive Residence to incur obligations and to receive 
     offsetting collections, for such expenses: Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall require each person 
     sponsoring a reimbursable political event to pay in advance 
     an amount equal to the estimated cost of the event, and all 
     such advance payments shall be credited to this account and 
     remain available until expended: Provided further, That the 
     Executive Residence shall require the national committee of 
     the political party of the President to maintain on deposit 
     $25,000, to be separately accounted for and available for 
     expenses relating to reimbursable political events sponsored 
     by such committee during such fiscal year: Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall ensure that a written 
     notice of any amount owed for a reimbursable operating 
     expense under this paragraph is submitted to the person owing 
     such amount within 60 days after such expense is incurred, 
     and that such amount is collected within 30 days after the 
     submission of such notice: Provided further, That the 
     Executive Residence shall charge interest and assess 
     penalties and other charges on any such amount that is not 
     reimbursed within such 30 days, in accordance with the 
     interest and penalty provisions applicable to an outstanding 
     debt on a United States Government claim under section 3717 
     of title 31, United States Code: Provided further, That each 
     such amount that is reimbursed, and any accompanying interest 
     and charges, shall be deposited in the Treasury as 
     miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Executive 
     Residence shall prepare and submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations, by not later than 90 days after the end of 
     the fiscal year covered by this Act, a report setting forth 
     the reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive 
     Residence during the preceding fiscal year, including the 
     total amount of such expenses, the amount of such total that 
     consists of reimbursable official and ceremonial events, the 
     amount of such total that consists of reimbursable political 
     events, and the portion of each such amount that has been 
     reimbursed as of the date of the report: Provided further, 
     That the Executive Residence shall maintain a system for the 
     tracking of expenses related to reimbursable events within 
     the Executive Residence that includes a standard for the 
     classification of any such expense as political or 
     nonpolitical: Provided further, That no provision of this 
     paragraph may be construed to exempt the Executive Residence 
     from any

[[Page 18415]]

     other applicable requirement of subchapter I or II of chapter 
     37 of title 31, United States Code.

                   White House Repair and Restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of the 
     Executive Residence at the White House, $1,900,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for required maintenance, safety 
     and health issues, and continued preventative maintenance.

                      Council of Economic Advisers


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Council of Economic Advisers 
     in carrying out its functions under the Employment Act of 
     1946 (15 U.S.C. 1021), $4,040,000.

                      Office of Policy Development


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Policy Development, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 
     U.S.C. 107, $2,267,000.

                       National Security Council


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Security Council, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $8,932,000.

                       Homeland Security Council


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Homeland Security Council, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     $2,475,000.

                        Office of Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Administration, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 
     U.S.C. 107, and hire of passenger motor vehicles, 
     $92,696,000, of which $12,075,000 shall remain available 
     until expended for the Capital Investment Plan for continued 
     modernization of the information technology infrastructure 
     within the Executive Office of the President: Provided, That 
     $4,000,000 of Capital Investment Plan funds may not be 
     obligated until the Executive Office of the President has 
     submitted a report to the Committees on Appropriations that 
     includes an Enterprise Architecture, as defined in OMB 
     Circular A-130 and the Federal Chief Information Officers 
     Council guidance, that is reviewed and approved by the Office 
     of Management and Budget, reviewed by the U.S. General 
     Accountability Office, and approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations.

                    Office of Management and Budget


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and to carry out the 
     provisions of chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, 
     $67,759,000, of which not to exceed $1,500 shall be available 
     for official representation expenses: Provided, That, as 
     provided in 31 U.S.C. 1301(a), appropriations shall be 
     applied only to the objects for which appropriations were 
     made except as otherwise provided by law: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds appropriated in this Act for the 
     Office of Management and Budget may be used for the purpose 
     of reviewing any agricultural marketing orders or any 
     activities or regulations under the provisions of the 
     Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601 et 
     seq.): Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available for the Office of Management and Budget by this Act 
     may be expended for the altering of the transcript of actual 
     testimony of witnesses, except for testimony of officials of 
     the Office of Management and Budget, before the Committees on 
     Appropriations or their subcommittees: Provided further, That 
     the preceding shall not apply to printed hearings released by 
     the Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That none 
     of the funds appropriated in this Act may be available to pay 
     the salary or expenses of any employee of the Office of 
     Management and Budget who calculates, prepares, or approves 
     any tabular or other material that proposes the sub-
     allocation of budget authority or outlays by the Committees 
     on Appropriations among their subcommittees.

                 Office of National Drug Control Policy


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy; for research activities pursuant to the 
     Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 
     1998 (21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); not to exceed $10,000 for 
     official reception and representation expenses; and for 
     participation in joint projects or in the provision of 
     services on matters of mutual interest with nonprofit, 
     research, or public organizations or agencies, with or 
     without reimbursement, $28,109,000; of which $1,350,000 shall 
     remain available until expended for policy research and 
     evaluation: Provided, That the Office is authorized to 
     accept, hold, administer, and utilize gifts, both real and 
     personal, public and private, without fiscal year limitation, 
     for the purpose of aiding or facilitating the work of the 
     Office.


                Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses for the Counter-
     drug Technology Assessment Center for research activities 
     pursuant to the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
     Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), 
     $30,000,000, which shall remain available until expended, 
     consisting of $10,000,000 for counternarcotics research and 
     development projects, and $20,000,000 for the continued 
     operation of the technology transfer program: Provided, That 
     the $10,000,000 for counternarcotics research and development 
     projects shall be available for transfer to other Federal 
     departments or agencies.


                     Federal Drug Control Programs

             High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program

                     (including transfers of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of National Drug 
     Control Policy's High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
     Program, $215,350,000, for drug control activities consistent 
     with the approved strategy for each of the designated High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, of which not less than 
     $208,000,000 shall be provided as base funding to High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas: Provided, That no less than 
     51 percent shall be transferred to State and local entities 
     for drug control activities, which shall be obligated within 
     120 days of the date of the enactment of this Act: Provided 
     further, That up to 49 percent, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2006, may be transferred to Federal agencies 
     and departments at a rate to be determined by the Director: 
     Provided further, That $2,000,000 shall be used for auditing 
     services and associated activities, and at least $500,000 of 
     the $2,000,000 shall be used to develop and implement a data 
     collection system to measure the performance of the High 
     Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program: Provided further, 
     That High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Programs 
     designated as of September 30, 2004, shall be funded at no 
     less than the fiscal year 2004 initial allocation levels 
     unless the Director submits to the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations, and the Committees approve, 
     justification for changes in those levels based on clearly 
     articulated priorities for the High Intensity Drug 
     Trafficking Areas Programs, as well as published Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy performance measures of 
     effectiveness: Provided further, That a request shall be 
     submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations for approval prior to the obligation of funds 
     of an amount in excess of the fiscal year 2005 budget 
     request: Provided further, That such request shall be made in 
     compliance with the reprogramming guidelines.


                  Other Federal Drug Control Programs

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For activities to support a national anti-drug campaign for 
     youth, and for other purposes, authorized by the Office of 
     National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), $195,000,000 to remain available until 
     expended, of which the following amounts are available as 
     follows: $120,000,000 to support a national media campaign, 
     as authorized by the Drug-Free Media Campaign Act of 1998; 
     $70,000,000 to continue a program of matching grants to drug-
     free communities, of which $1,000,000 shall be a directed 
     grant to the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America for 
     the National Community Anti-Drug Coalition Institute, as 
     authorized in chapter 2 of the National Narcotics Leadership 
     Act of 1988, as amended; $1,000,000 for the Counterdrug 
     Intelligence Executive Secretariat; $500,000 for the National 
     Alliance for Model State Drug Laws; $1,000,000 for 
     evaluations and research related to National Drug Control 
     Program performance measures; $500,000 for the National Drug 
     Court Institute; $1,500,000 for the United States Anti-Doping 
     Agency for anti-doping activities; and $500,000 for the 
     United States membership dues to the World Anti-Doping 
     Agency: Provided, That such funds may be transferred to other 
     Federal departments and agencies to carry out such 
     activities: Provided further, That of the amounts 
     appropriated for a national media campaign, no less than 78 
     percent shall be used for the purchase of advertising time 
     and space for the national media campaign.

                          Unanticipated Needs

       For expenses necessary to enable the President to meet 
     unanticipated needs, in furtherance of the national interest, 
     security, or defense which may arise at home or abroad during 
     the current fiscal year, as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 108, 
     $1,000,000.

 Special Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of the 
                             Vice President


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to enable the Vice President to 
     provide assistance to the President in connection with 
     specially assigned functions; services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 106, including subsistence expenses 
     as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 106, which shall be expended and 
     accounted for as provided in that section; and hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, $4,571,000.


                           operating expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For the care, operation, refurnishing, improvement, and to 
     the extent not otherwise provided for, heating and lighting, 
     including

[[Page 18416]]

     electric power and fixtures, of the official residence of the 
     Vice President; the hire of passenger motor vehicles; and not 
     to exceed $90,000 for official entertainment expenses of the 
     Vice President, to be accounted for solely on his 
     certificate, $333,000: Provided, That advances or repayments 
     or transfers from this appropriation may be made to any 
     department or agency for expenses of carrying out such 
     activities.

                     TITLE IV--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

       Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board


                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Architectural and 
     Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, as authorized by 
     section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 
     $5,686,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received for publications and training expenses.

                  National Transportation Safety Board


                         salaries and expenses

                    (including rescission of funds)

       For necessary expenses of the National Transportation 
     Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at 
     rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the rate for a GS-15; uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902) 
     $76,925,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation expenses. Of the 
     available unobligated balances made available under Public 
     Law 106-246, $8,000,000 are hereby cancelled.

                      Federal Election Commission


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, 
     $52,159,000, of which no less than $4,700,000 shall be 
     available for internal automated data processing systems, and 
     of which not to exceed $5,000 shall be available for 
     reception and representation expenses: Provided, That none of 
     the funds provided in this Act or from any other source may 
     be used to allow any candidate for or member of the House of 
     Representatives or United States Senate to file information 
     and reports required by the Commission in any form other than 
     electronically.

                     Election Assistance Commission


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Help America Vote 
     Act of 2002 (HAVA), $15,000,000, of which not less than 
     $2,500,000 shall be transferred to the National Institutes of 
     Standards and Technology for election reform activities as 
     authorized by HAVA: Provided, That none of the funds under 
     this heading may be used for any member or employee of the 
     Election Assistance Commission for lobbying activities, if 
     the lobbying relates to the advocacy of a change in the date 
     provided under Federal law for general elections for Federal 
     office.

                   Federal Labor Relations Authority


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the 
     Federal Labor Relations Authority, pursuant to Reorganization 
     Plan Numbered 2 of 1978, and the Civil Service Reform Act of 
     1978, including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and 
     including hire of experts and consultants, hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles, and rental of conference rooms in the 
     District of Columbia and elsewhere, $29,673,000: Provided, 
     That public members of the Federal Service Impasses Panel may 
     be paid travel expenses and per diem in lieu of subsistence 
     as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5703) for persons employed 
     intermittently in the Government service, and compensation as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received from fees 
     charged to non-Federal participants at labor-management 
     relations conferences shall be credited to and merged with 
     this account, to be available without further appropriation 
     for the costs of carrying out these conferences.

                      Federal Maritime Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Maritime Commission 
     as authorized by section 201(d) of the Merchant Marine Act, 
     1936, as amended (46 U.S.C. App. 1111), including services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; hire of passenger motor vehicles 
     as authorized by 31 U.S.C. 1343(b); and uniforms or 
     allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902, 
     $19,362,000: Provided, That not to exceed $2,000 shall be 
     available for official reception and representation expenses.

                    General Services Administration


                        real property activities

                         federal buildings fund

                 limitations on availability of revenue

                     (including transfer of funds)

       To carry out the purposes of the Fund established pursuant 
     to section 210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative 
     Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 592), the 
     revenues and collections deposited into the Fund shall be 
     available for necessary expenses of real property management 
     and related activities not otherwise provided for, including 
     operation, maintenance, and protection of federally owned and 
     leased buildings; rental of buildings in the District of 
     Columbia; restoration of leased premises; moving governmental 
     agencies (including space adjustments and telecommunications 
     relocation expenses) in connection with the assignment, 
     allocation and transfer of space; contractual services 
     incident to cleaning or servicing buildings, and moving; 
     repair and alteration of federally owned buildings including 
     grounds, approaches and appurtenances; care and safeguarding 
     of sites; maintenance, preservation, demolition, and 
     equipment; acquisition of buildings and sites by purchase, 
     condemnation, or as otherwise authorized by law; acquisition 
     of options to purchase buildings and sites; conversion and 
     extension of federally owned buildings; preliminary planning 
     and design of projects by contract or otherwise; construction 
     of new buildings (including equipment for such buildings); 
     and payment of principal, interest, and any other obligations 
     for public buildings acquired by installment purchase and 
     purchase contract; in the aggregate amount of $6,996,741,000, 
     of which: (1) $522,251,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for construction (including funds for sites and 
     expenses and associated design and construction services) of 
     additional projects at the following locations:
       New Construction:
       California:
       Los Angeles, United States Courthouse, $314,385,000
       San Diego, United States Courthouse, $3,068,000
       District of Columbia:
       Southeast Federal Center Site Remediation, $2,650,000
       Maine:
       Calais, Border Station, $3,269,000
       Madawaska, Border Station, $1,760,000
       Maryland:
       Montgomery County, Food and Drug Administration 
     Consolidation, $88,710,000
       Minnesota:
       Warroad, Border Station, $1,837,000
       New York:
       Alexandria Bay, Border Station, $8,884,000
       Massena, Border Station, $15,000,000
       North Dakota:
       Dunseith, Border Station, $2,301,000
       Portal, Border Station, $22,351,000
       Texas:
       El Paso, Paso Del Norte Border Station, $26,191,000
       El Paso, United States Courthouse, $2,714,000
       El Paso, Ysleta Border Station, $2,491,000
       Vermont:
       Derby Line, Border Station, $3,348,000
       Norton, Border Station, $1,747,000
       Richford, Border Station, $1,545,000
       Nonprospectus Construction, $10,000,000
       Judgment Fund repayment, $10,000,000:
     Provided, That each of the foregoing limits of costs on new 
     construction projects may be exceeded to the extent that 
     savings are effected in other such projects, but not to 
     exceed 10 percent of the amounts included in an approved 
     prospectus, if required, unless advance approval is obtained 
     from the Committees on Appropriations of a greater amount: 
     Provided further, That all funds for direct construction 
     projects shall expire on September 30, 2006, and remain in 
     the Federal Buildings Fund except for funds for projects as 
     to which funds for design or other funds have been obligated 
     in whole or in part prior to such date; (2) $931,211,000 
     shall remain available until expended for repairs and 
     alterations, which includes associated design and 
     construction services: Provided further, That the 
     Administrator shall fund the following projects from repair 
     and alterations as the limitation will allow:
       Repairs and Alterations:
       District of Columbia:
       Eisenhower Executive Office Building, $5,000,000
       Federal Office Building 6, $8,267,000
       Hoover FBI Building, $10,242,000
       Mary E. Switzer Building, $80,335,000
       New Executive Office Building, $6,262,000
       Steam Distribution System, $2,000,000
       Theodore Roosevelt Building, $9,730,000
       Georgia:
       Atlanta, Martin Luther King, Jr. Federal Building, 
     $14,800,000
       Atlanta, United States Court of Appeals, $32,004,000
       Hawaii:
       Hilo, Federal Building, $5,133,000
       Louisiana:
       New Orleans, Boggs Federal Building, $22,581,000
       New Orleans, Wisdom Courthouse of Appeals, $8,005,000
       Maryland:
       Baltimore, George H. Fallon Federal Building, $46,163,000
       Suitland, National Record Center, $7,989,000
       Woodlawn, Social Security Administration Altmeyer Building, 
     $6,300,000
       Minnesota:
       St. Paul, Warren E. Burger Federal Building--Courthouse, 
     $36,644,000
       Missouri:
       Kansas City, Richard Bolling Federal Building, $40,048,000
       New York:
       New York, Foley Square Courthouse, $2,505,000

[[Page 18417]]

       Queens, Joseph P. Addabbo Federal Building, $5,455,000
       Ohio:
       Cincinnati, Potter Stewart Courthouse, $37,975,000
       Cleveland, Celebreeze Federal Building, $37,375,000
       Washington:
       Seattle, William Nakamura Courthouse, $50,210,000
       Special Emphasis Programs:
       Chlorofluorocarbons Program, $13,000,000
       Energy Program, $30,000,000
       Glass Fragment Retention, $20,000,000
       Design Program, $49,699,000
       Basic Repairs and Alterations, $394,500,000:
     Provided further, That funds made available in this or any 
     previous Act in the Federal Buildings Fund for repairs and 
     alterations shall, for prospectus projects, be limited to the 
     amount identified for each project, except each project in 
     this or any previous Act may be increased by an amount not to 
     exceed 10 percent unless advance approval is obtained from 
     the Committees on Appropriations of a greater amount: 
     Provided further, That additional projects for which 
     prospectuses have been fully approved may be funded under 
     this category only if advance approval is obtained from the 
     Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That the 
     amounts provided in this or any prior Act for repairs and 
     alterations may be used to fund costs associated with 
     implementing security improvements to buildings necessary to 
     meet the minimum standards for security in accordance with 
     current law and in compliance with the reprogramming 
     guidelines of the appropriate Committees of the House and 
     Senate: Provided further, That the difference between the 
     funds appropriated and expended on any projects in this or 
     any prior Act, under the heading repairs and alterations, may 
     be transferred to basic repairs and alterations or used to 
     fund authorized increases in prospectus projects: Provided 
     further, That all funds for repairs and alterations 
     prospectus projects shall expire on September 30, 2006 and 
     remain in the Federal Buildings Fund except funds for 
     projects as to which funds for design or other funds have 
     been obligated in whole or in part prior to such date: 
     Provided further, That the amount provided in this or any 
     prior Act for basic repairs and alterations may be used to 
     pay claims against the Government arising from any projects 
     under the heading repairs and alterations or used to fund 
     authorized increases in prospectus projects; (3) $161,442,000 
     for installment acquisition payments including payments on 
     purchase contracts which shall remain available until 
     expended; (4) $3,672,315,000 for rental of space which shall 
     remain available until expended; and (5) $1,709,522,000 for 
     building operations which shall remain available until 
     expended: Provided further, That funds available to the 
     General Services Administration shall not be available for 
     expenses of any construction, repair, alteration and 
     acquisition project for which a prospectus, if required by 
     the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended, has not been 
     approved, except that necessary funds may be expended for 
     each project for required expenses for the development of a 
     proposed prospectus: Provided further, That funds available 
     in the Federal Buildings Fund may be expended for emergency 
     repairs when advance approval is obtained from the Committees 
     on Appropriations: Provided further, That amounts necessary 
     to provide reimbursable special services to other agencies 
     under section 210(f)(6) of the Federal Property and 
     Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 
     592(b)(2)) and amounts to provide such reimbursable fencing, 
     lighting, guard booths, and other facilities on private or 
     other property not in Government ownership or control as may 
     be appropriate to enable the United States Secret Service to 
     perform its protective functions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3056, 
     shall be available from such revenues and collections: 
     Provided further, That revenues and collections and any other 
     sums accruing to this Fund during fiscal year 2005, excluding 
     reimbursements under section 210(f)(6) of the Federal 
     Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 
     592(b)(2)) in excess of the aggregate new obligational 
     authority authorized for Real Property Activities of the 
     Federal Buildings Fund in this Act shall remain in the Fund 
     and shall not be available for expenditure except as 
     authorized in appropriations Acts.


                           GENERAL ACTIVITIES

                         Government-wide Policy

       For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for, 
     for Government-wide policy and evaluation activities 
     associated with the management of real and personal property 
     assets and certain administrative services; Government-wide 
     policy support responsibilities relating to acquisition, 
     telecommunications, information technology management, and 
     related technology activities; and services as authorized by 
     5 U.S.C. 3109, $62,100,000.


                           Operating Expenses

       For expenses authorized by law, not otherwise provided for, 
     for Government-wide activities associated with utilization 
     and donation of surplus personal property; disposal of real 
     property; telecommunications, information technology 
     management, and related technology activities; providing 
     Internet access to Federal information and services; agency-
     wide policy direction and management, and Board of Contract 
     Appeals; accounting, records management, and other support 
     services incident to adjudication of Indian Tribal Claims by 
     the United States Court of Federal Claims; services as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and not to exceed $7,500 for 
     official reception and representation expenses, $82,175,000.


                      office of inspector general

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     and services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $42,351,000: 
     Provided, That not to exceed $15,000 shall be available for 
     payment for information and detection of fraud against the 
     Government, including payment for recovery of stolen 
     Government property: Provided further, That not to exceed 
     $2,500 shall be available for awards to employees of other 
     Federal agencies and private citizens in recognition of 
     efforts and initiatives resulting in enhanced Office of 
     Inspector General effectiveness.


                   Electronic Government (E-Gov) Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses in support of interagency projects 
     that enable the Federal Government to expand its ability to 
     conduct activities electronically, through the development 
     and implementation of innovative uses of the Internet and 
     other electronic methods, $5,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That these funds may be transferred 
     to Federal agencies to carry out the purposes of the Fund: 
     Provided further, That this transfer authority shall be in 
     addition to any other transfer authority provided in this 
     Act: Provided further, That such transfers may not be made 
     until 10 days after a proposed spending plan and 
     justification for each project to be undertaken has been 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations.


           Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For carrying out the provisions of the Act of August 25, 
     1958, as amended (3 U.S.C. 102 note), and Public Law 95-138, 
     $3,449,000: Provided, That the Administrator of General 
     Services shall transfer to the Secretary of the Treasury such 
     sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of such 
     Acts.


                   Expenses, Presidential Transition

       For expenses necessary to carry out the Presidential 
     Transition Act of 1963, as amended, $7,700,000, of which not 
     to exceed $1,000,000 is for activities authorized by sections 
     3(a) (8) and (9) of the Presidential Transition Act of 2000, 
     and may be used notwithstanding section 3(f) of such Act (3 
     U.S.C. 102, note).


          general provisions--general services administration

       Sec. 401. The appropriate appropriation or fund available 
     to the General Services Administration shall be credited with 
     the cost of operation, protection, maintenance, upkeep, 
     repair, and improvement, included as part of rentals received 
     from Government corporations pursuant to law (40 U.S.C. 129).
       Sec. 402. Funds available to the General Services 
     Administration shall be available for the hire of passenger 
     motor vehicles.
       Sec. 403. Funds in the Federal Buildings Fund made 
     available in fiscal year 2005 for Federal Buildings Fund 
     activities may be transferred between such activities only to 
     the extent necessary to meet program requirements: Provided, 
     That any proposed transfers shall be approved in advance by 
     the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 404. No funds made available by this Act shall be used 
     to transmit a fiscal year 2006 request for United States 
     Courthouse construction that: (1) does not meet the design 
     guide standards for construction as established and approved 
     by the General Services Administration, the Judicial 
     Conference of the United States, and the Office of Management 
     and Budget; and (2) does not reflect the priorities of the 
     Judicial Conference of the United States as set out in its 
     approved 5-year construction plan: Provided, That the fiscal 
     year 2006 request must be accompanied by a standardized 
     courtroom utilization study of each facility to be 
     constructed, replaced, or expanded.
       Sec. 405. None of the funds provided in this Act may be 
     used to increase the amount of occupiable square feet, 
     provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or any 
     other service usually provided through the Federal Buildings 
     Fund, to any agency that does not pay the rate per square 
     foot assessment for space and services as determined by the 
     General Services Administration in compliance with the Public 
     Buildings Amendments Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-313).
       Sec. 406. From funds made available under the heading 
     ``Federal buildings fund, limitations on availability of 
     revenue'', claims against the Government of less than 
     $250,000 arising from direct construction projects and 
     acquisition of buildings may be liquidated from savings 
     effected in other construction projects with prior 
     notification to the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 407. Notwithstanding 40 U.S.C. 524, 571, and 572, the 
     Administrator of General Services may sell the Middle River 
     Depot at Middle River, Maryland, and credit the proceeds

[[Page 18418]]

     of such sale as offsetting collections to the Federal 
     Buildings Fund, to be available, in addition to amounts 
     otherwise appropriated for such Fund, for such capital 
     activities of the Fund as the Administrator may deem 
     appropriate.
       Sec. 408. Section 572(a)(2)(A)(ii) of title 40, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting the following before the 
     period: ``, highest and best use of property studies, 
     utilization of property studies, deed compliance inspection, 
     and the expenses incurred in a relocation''.
       Sec. 409. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Administrator of General Services may convey, by sale, lease, 
     exchange or otherwise, including through leaseback 
     arrangements, real and related personal property, or 
     interests therein, and retain the net proceeds of such 
     dispositions in an account within the Federal Buildings Fund 
     to be used for the General Services Administration's real 
     property capital needs: Provided, That all net proceeds 
     realized under this section shall only be expended as 
     authorized in annual appropriations acts: Provided further, 
     That for the purposes of this section, the term ``net 
     proceeds'' means the rental and other sums received less the 
     costs of the disposition, and the term ``real property 
     capital needs'' means any expenses necessary and incident to 
     the agency's real property capital acquisitions, 
     improvements, and dispositions.
       Sec. 410. Land Conveyance, Nahant, Massachusetts.--(a) 
     Conveyance Authorized.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Administrator of the General Services 
     Administration may sell all right, title, and interest of the 
     United States in and to a parcel of real property, including 
     improvements thereon, that is located at Castle Road, Gardner 
     Road and Goddard Drive in Nahant, Massachusetts to the Town 
     of Nahant. In the event a binding sales contract is not 
     executed within 30 days of enactment the Administrator shall 
     commence with a public, competitive sale of the property.
       (b) Consideration.--As consideration for conveyance under 
     subsection (a), the Town of Nahant shall pay, in a single 
     lump sum payment, $2 million.
       (c) Deposit of Funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Administrator may deposit the net proceeds in the 
     Real Property Relocation account of the General Services 
     Administration. In the event proceeds exceed $2 million, the 
     net amount in excess of $2 million shall be deposited in the 
     United States Coast Guard Housing Fund established under 14 
     U.S.C. Sec. 687.
       (d) Description of Property.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be conveyed under 
     subsection (a) shall be determined by a survey satisfactory 
     to the Administrator. The cost of the survey shall be borne 
     by the purchaser.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Adminstrator may 
     require such additional terms and conditions in connection 
     with the conveyance under subsection (a) as the Adminstrator 
     considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United 
     States.

                     Merit Systems Protection Board


                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Merit 
     Systems Protection Board pursuant to Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, and direct procurement of 
     survey printing, $34,683,000 together with not to exceed 
     $2,620,000 for administrative expenses to adjudicate 
     retirement appeals to be transferred from the Civil Service 
     Retirement and Disability Fund in amounts determined by the 
     Merit Systems Protection Board.

 Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental 
                           Policy Foundation


 morris k. udall scholarship and excellence in national environmental 
                           policy trust fund

       For payment to the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and 
     Excellence in National Environmental Policy Trust Fund, 
     pursuant to the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in 
     National Environmental and Native American Public Policy Act 
     of 1992 (20 U.S.C. 5601 et seq.), $1,984,000, to remain 
     available until expended, of which up to $50,000 shall be 
     used to conduct financial audits pursuant to the 
     Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-
     289), notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of Public Law 102-259: 
     Provided, That up to 60 percent of such funds may be 
     transferred by the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence 
     in National Environmental Policy Foundation for the necessary 
     expenses of the Native Nations Institute.


                 Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund

       For payment to the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund to 
     carry out activities authorized in the Environmental Policy 
     and Conflict Resolution Act of 1998, $1,301,000, to remain 
     available until expended.

              National Archives and Records Administration


                           operating expenses

       For necessary expenses in connection with the 
     administration of the National Archives and Records 
     Administration (including the Information Security Oversight 
     Office) and archived Federal records and related activities, 
     as provided by law, and for expenses necessary for the review 
     and declassification of documents, and for the hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles, $264,185,000: Provided, That the 
     Archivist of the United States is authorized to use any 
     excess funds available from the amount borrowed for 
     construction of the National Archives facility, for expenses 
     necessary to provide adequate storage for holdings.


                      electronic records archives

       For necessary expenses in connection with the development 
     of the electronic records archives, to include all direct 
     project costs associated with research, analysis, design, 
     development, and program management, $35,914,000.


                        repairs and restoration

       For the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives 
     facilities, and to provide adequate storage for holdings, 
     $7,182,000, to remain available until expended.


        National Historical Publications and Records Commission

                             grants program

       For necessary expenses for allocations and grants for 
     historical publications and records as authorized by 44 
     U.S.C. 2504, as amended, $3,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                      Office of Government Ethics


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Government Ethics pursuant to the Ethics in Government Act 
     of 1978, as amended, and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, rental of 
     conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, and not to exceed $1,500 
     for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $11,238,000.

                     Office of Personnel Management


                         salaries and expenses

                  (including transfer of trust funds)

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Personnel Management pursuant to Reorganization Plan 
     Numbered 2 of 1978 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
     including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; medical 
     examinations performed for veterans by private physicians on 
     a fee basis; rental of conference rooms in the District of 
     Columbia and elsewhere; hire of passenger motor vehicles; not 
     to exceed $2,500 for official reception and representation 
     expenses; advances for reimbursements to applicable funds of 
     the Office of Personnel Management and the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for expenses incurred under Executive Order No. 
     10422 of January 9, 1953, as amended; and payment of per diem 
     and/or subsistence allowances to employees where Voting 
     Rights Act activities require an employee to remain overnight 
     at his or her post of duty, $120,444,000, of which $2,000,000 
     shall remain available until expended for the cost of the 
     enterprise human resources integration project, $6,615,000 
     shall remain available until expended for the cost of leading 
     the government-wide initiative to modernize the Federal 
     payroll systems and service delivery; $800,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for the cost of the e-human 
     resources information system project; $2,000,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for the cost of the e-clearance 
     project; and $3,300,000 shall remain available until expended 
     for the recruitment one stop project; and in addition 
     $128,462,000 for administrative expenses, to be transferred 
     from the appropriate trust funds of the Office of Personnel 
     Management without regard to other statutes, including direct 
     procurement of printed materials, for the retirement and 
     insurance programs, of which $27,640,000 shall remain 
     available until expended for the cost of automating the 
     retirement recordkeeping systems: Provided, That the 
     provisions of this appropriation shall not affect the 
     authority to use applicable trust funds as provided by 
     sections 8348(a)(1)(B), and 9004(f)(1)(A) and (2)(A) of title 
     5, United States Code: Provided further, That no part of this 
     appropriation shall be available for salaries and expenses of 
     the Legal Examining Unit of the Office of Personnel 
     Management established pursuant to Executive Order No. 9358 
     of July 1, 1943, or any successor unit of like purpose: 
     Provided further, That the President's Commission on White 
     House Fellows, established by Executive Order No. 11183 of 
     October 3, 1964, may, during fiscal year 2005, accept 
     donations of money, property, and personal services: Provided 
     further, That such donations, including those from prior 
     years, may be used for the development of publicity materials 
     to provide information about the White House Fellows, except 
     that no such donations shall be accepted for travel or 
     reimbursement of travel expenses, or for the salaries of 
     employees of such Commission.


                      Office of Inspector General

                         salaries and expenses

                  (including transfer of trust funds)

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act, 
     as

[[Page 18419]]

     amended, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
     hire of passenger motor vehicles, $1,627,000, and in 
     addition, not to exceed $16,461,000 for administrative 
     expenses to audit, investigate, and provide other oversight 
     of the Office of Personnel Management's retirement and 
     insurance programs, to be transferred from the appropriate 
     trust funds of the Office of Personnel Management, as 
     determined by the Inspector General: Provided, That the 
     Inspector General is authorized to rent conference rooms in 
     the District of Columbia and elsewhere.


      Government Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health Benefits

       For payment of Government contributions with respect to 
     retired employees, as authorized by chapter 89 of title 5, 
     United States Code, and the Retired Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Act (74 Stat. 849), as amended, such sums as may be 
     necessary.


       Government Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life Insurance

       For payment of Government contributions with respect to 
     employees retiring after December 31, 1989, as required by 
     chapter 87 of title 5, United States Code, such sums as may 
     be necessary.


        Payment to Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund

       For financing the unfunded liability of new and increased 
     annuity benefits becoming effective on or after October 20, 
     1969, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 8348, and annuities under 
     special Acts to be credited to the Civil Service Retirement 
     and Disability Fund, such sums as may be necessary: Provided, 
     That annuities authorized by the Act of May 29, 1944, as 
     amended, and the Act of August 19, 1950, as amended (33 
     U.S.C. 771-775), may hereafter be paid out of the Civil 
     Service Retirement and Disability Fund.


                     Human Capital Performance Fund

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For a human capital performance fund, as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 5408, $12,514,000: Provided, That such amounts as 
     determined by the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management may be transferred to Federal agencies to carry 
     out the purposes of this fund as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5403: 
     Provided further, That no funds shall be available for 
     obligation or transfer to any Federal agency until the 
     Director has notified the relevant subcommittees of 
     jurisdiction of the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     approval of a performance pay plan for that agency, and the 
     prior approval of such subcommittees has been attained.

                       Office of Special Counsel


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out functions of the Office 
     of Special Counsel pursuant to Reorganization Plan Numbered 2 
     of 1978, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
     454), as amended, the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 
     (Public Law 101-12), as amended, Public Law 103-424, and the 
     Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994 
     (Public Law 103-353), including services as authorized by 5 
     U.S.C. 3109, payment of fees and expenses for witnesses, 
     rental of conference rooms in the District of Columbia and 
     elsewhere, and hire of passenger motor vehicles; $15,449,000.

                      United States Postal Service


                   Payment to the Postal Service Fund

       For payment to the Postal Service Fund for revenue forgone 
     on free and reduced rate mail, pursuant to subsections (c) 
     and (d) of section 2401 of title 39, United States Code, 
     $61,709,000, which shall not be available for obligation 
     until October 1, 2005: Provided, That mail for overseas 
     voting and mail for the blind shall continue to be free: 
     Provided further, That 6-day delivery and rural delivery of 
     mail shall continue at not less than the 1983 level: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds made available to the Postal 
     Service by this Act shall be used to implement any rule, 
     regulation, or policy of charging any officer or employee of 
     any State or local child support enforcement agency, or any 
     individual participating in a State or local program of child 
     support enforcement, a fee for information requested or 
     provided concerning an address of a postal customer: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     used to consolidate or close small rural and other small post 
     offices in fiscal year 2005.

                        United States Tax Court


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, including contract reporting and 
     other services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $41,180,000: 
     Provided, That travel expenses of the judges shall be paid 
     upon the written certificate of the judge.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                                This Act


                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 501. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     2004 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 502. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for 
     the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses 
     of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening 
     in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
       Sec. 503. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal 
     year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations, 
     unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 504. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive Order issued pursuant to 
     existing law.
       Sec. 505. For the purpose of any applicable law, for fiscal 
     years 2004 and 2005, the city of Norman, Oklahoma, shall be 
     considered to be part of the Oklahoma City urbanized area.
       Sec. 506. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act 
     or any other appropriations Act.
       Sec. 507. None of the funds made available by this Act 
     shall be available for any activity or for paying the salary 
     of any Government employee where funding an activity or 
     paying a salary to a Government employee would result in a 
     decision, determination, rule, regulation, or policy that 
     would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930.
       Sec. 508. No part of any appropriation contained in this 
     Act shall be available to pay the salary for any person 
     filling a position, other than a temporary position, formerly 
     held by an employee who has left to enter the Armed Forces of 
     the United States and has satisfactorily completed his period 
     of active military or naval service, and has within 90 days 
     after his release from such service or from hospitalization 
     continuing after discharge for a period of not more than 1 
     year, made application for restoration to his former position 
     and has been certified by the Office of Personnel Management 
     as still qualified to perform the duties of his former 
     position and has not been restored thereto.
       Sec. 509. No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be 
     expended by an entity unless the entity agrees that in 
     expending the assistance the entity will comply with sections 
     2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, 
     popularly known as the ``Buy America Act'').
       Sec. 510. (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and 
     Products.--Hereafter, in the case of any equipment or 
     products that may be authorized to be purchased with 
     financial assistance provided under this Act, it is the sense 
     of the Congress that entities receiving such assistance 
     should, in expending the assistance, purchase only American-
     made equipment and products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall provide to each recipient of the assistance a 
     notice describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       Sec. 511. Hereafter, if it has been finally determined by a 
     court or Federal agency that any person intentionally affixed 
     a label bearing a ``Made in America'' inscription, or any 
     inscription with the same meaning, to any product sold in or 
     shipped to the United States that is not made in the United 
     States, such person shall be ineligible to receive any 
     contract or subcontract made with funds provided pursuant to 
     this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, and 
     ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 through 
     9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 512. Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, 
     not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances remaining 
     available at the end of fiscal year 2005 from appropriations 
     made available for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2005 
     in this Act, shall remain available through September 30, 
     2006, for each such account for the purposes authorized: 
     Provided, That a request shall be submitted to the Committees 
     on Appropriations for approval prior to the expenditure of 
     such funds: Provided further, That these requests shall be 
     made in compliance with reprogramming guidelines.
       Sec. 513. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Executive Office of the President to request 
     from the Federal Bureau of Investigation any official 
     background investigation report on any individual, except 
     when--
       (1) such individual has given his or her express written 
     consent for such request not more than 6 months prior to the 
     date of such request and during the same presidential 
     administration; or
       (2) such request is required due to extraordinary 
     circumstances involving national security.
       Sec. 514. The cost accounting standards promulgated under 
     section 26 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act 
     (Public Law 93-400; 41 U.S.C. 422) shall not apply with 
     respect to a contract under the Federal Employees Health 
     Benefits Program established under chapter 89 of title 5, 
     United States Code.
       Sec. 515. For the purpose of resolving litigation and 
     implementing any settlement agreements regarding the 
     nonforeign area

[[Page 18420]]

     cost-of-living allowance program, the Office of Personnel 
     Management may accept and utilize (without regard to any 
     restriction on unanticipated travel expenses imposed in an 
     appropriations Act) funds made available to the Office 
     pursuant to court approval.
       Sec. 516. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     under this Act shall be made available to any person or 
     entity that has been convicted of violating the Buy American 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
       Sec. 517. No funds appropriated by this Act shall be 
     available to pay for an abortion, or the administrative 
     expenses in connection with any health plan under the Federal 
     employees health benefits program which provides any benefits 
     or coverage for abortions.
       Sec. 518. The provision of section 517 shall not apply 
     where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus 
     were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an 
     act of rape or incest.
       Sec. 519. None of the funds provided in this Act, provided 
     by previous appropriations Acts to the agencies or entities 
     funded in this Act that remain available for obligation or 
     expenditure in fiscal year 2005, or provided from any 
     accounts in the Treasury derived by the collection of fees 
     and available to the agencies funded by this Act, shall be 
     available for obligation or expenditure through a 
     reprogramming of funds that--
       (1) creates a new program;
       (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity;
       (3) increases funds for any program, project, or activity 
     for which funds have been denied or restricted by the 
     Congress;
       (4) proposes to use funds directed for a specific activity 
     by either the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations 
     for a different purpose;
       (5) augments existing programs, projects, or activities in 
     excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is greater;
       (6) reduces existing programs, projects, or activities by 
     $5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is greater; or
       (7) creates or reorganizes a branch, division, office, 
     bureau, board, commission, agency administration, or 
     department different from the budget justifications submitted 
     to the Committees on Appropriations;

     unless prior approval is received from the House and Senate 
     Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 520. Exemption From Limitations on Procurement of 
     Foreign Information Technology That Is a Commercial Item.--In 
     order to promote Government access to commercial information 
     technology, the restriction on purchasing nondomestic 
     articles, materials, and supplies set forth in the Buy 
     American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.), shall not apply to the 
     acquisition by the Federal Government of information 
     technology (as defined in section 11101 of title 40, United 
     States Code, that is a commercial item (as defined in section 
     4(12) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 
     U.S.C. 403(12)).
       Sec. 521. It is the sense of the House of Representatives 
     that empowerment zones within cities should have the 
     necessary flexibility to expand to include relevant 
     communities so that empowerment zone benefits are equitably 
     distributed.
       Sec. 522. It is the sense of the House of Representatives 
     that all census tracts contained in an empowerment zone, 
     either fully or partially, should be equitably accorded the 
     same benefits.
       Sec. 523. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce--
       (1) the proposed rule relating to the determination that 
     real estate brokerage is an activity that is financial in 
     nature or incidental to a financial activity published in the 
     Federal Register on January 3, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 307 et 
     seq.); or
       (2) the revision proposed in such rule to section 1501.2 of 
     title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 524. It is the sense of Congress that, after proper 
     documentation, justification, and review, the Department of 
     Transportation should consider programs to reimburse general 
     aviation ground support services at Ronald Reagan Washington 
     National Airport, and airports located within fifteen miles 
     of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, for their 
     financial losses due to Government actions after the 
     terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
       Sec. 525. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be obligated or expended to establish or implement a 
     pilot program under which not more than 10 designated 
     essential air service communities located in proximity to hub 
     airports are required to assume 10 percent of their essential 
     air subsidy costs for a 4-year period commonly referred to as 
     the EAS local participation program.

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

       Sec. 601. Funds appropriated in this or any other Act may 
     be used to pay travel to the United States for the immediate 
     family of employees serving abroad in cases of death or life 
     threatening illness of said employee.
       Sec. 602. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for fiscal year 2005 shall obligate or expend any 
     such funds, unless such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from the illegal use, possession, 
     or distribution of controlled substances (as defined in the 
     Controlled Substances Act) by the officers and employees of 
     such department, agency, or instrumentality.
       Sec. 603. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the 
     maximum amount allowable during the current fiscal year in 
     accordance with section 16 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (60 
     Stat. 810), for the purchase of any passenger motor vehicle 
     (exclusive of buses, ambulances, law enforcement, and 
     undercover surveillance vehicles), is hereby fixed at $8,100 
     except station wagons for which the maximum shall be $9,100: 
     Provided, That these limits may be exceeded by not to exceed 
     $3,700 for police-type vehicles, and by not to exceed $4,000 
     for special heavy-duty vehicles: Provided further, That the 
     limits set forth in this section may not be exceeded by more 
     than 5 percent for electric or hybrid vehicles purchased for 
     demonstration under the provisions of the Electric and Hybrid 
     Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976: 
     Provided further, That the limits set forth in this section 
     may be exceeded by the incremental cost of clean alternative 
     fuels vehicles acquired pursuant to Public Law 101-549 over 
     the cost of comparable conventionally fueled vehicles.
       Sec. 604. Appropriations of the executive departments and 
     independent establishments for the current fiscal year 
     available for expenses of travel, or for the expenses of the 
     activity concerned, are hereby made available for quarters 
     allowances and cost-of-living allowances, in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 5922-5924.
       Sec. 605. Unless otherwise specified during the current 
     fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained in this 
     or any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any 
     officer or employee of the Government of the United States 
     (including any agency the majority of the stock of which is 
     owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of 
     duty is in the continental United States unless such person: 
     (1) is a citizen of the United States; (2) is a person in the 
     service of the United States on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act who, being eligible for citizenship, has filed a 
     declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United 
     States prior to such date and is actually residing in the 
     United States; (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the 
     United States; (4) is an alien from Cuba, Poland, South 
     Vietnam, the countries of the former Soviet Union, or the 
     Baltic countries lawfully admitted to the United States for 
     permanent residence; (5) is a South Vietnamese, Cambodian, or 
     Laotian refugee paroled in the United States after January 1, 
     1975; or (6) is a national of the People's Republic of China 
     who qualifies for adjustment of status pursuant to the 
     Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992: Provided, That for 
     the purpose of this section, an affidavit signed by any such 
     person shall be considered prima facie evidence that the 
     requirements of this section with respect to his or her 
     status have been complied with: Provided further, That any 
     person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony, 
     and, upon conviction, shall be fined no more than $4,000 or 
     imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both: Provided 
     further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to, 
     and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing 
     law: Provided further, That any payment made to any officer 
     or employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall 
     be recoverable in action by the Federal Government. This 
     section shall not apply to citizens of Ireland, Israel, or 
     the Republic of the Philippines, or to nationals of those 
     countries allied with the United States in a current defense 
     effort, or to international broadcasters employed by the 
     United States Information Agency, or to temporary employment 
     of translators, or to temporary employment in the field 
     service (not to exceed 60 days) as a result of emergencies.
       Sec. 606. Appropriations available to any department or 
     agency during the current fiscal year for necessary expenses, 
     including maintenance or operating expenses, shall also be 
     available for payment to the General Services Administration 
     for charges for space and services and those expenses of 
     renovation and alteration of buildings and facilities which 
     constitute public improvements performed in accordance with 
     the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 749), the Public 
     Buildings Amendments of 1972 (87 Stat. 216), or other 
     applicable law.
       Sec. 607. In addition to funds provided in this or any 
     other Act, all Federal agencies are authorized to receive and 
     use funds resulting from the sale of materials, including 
     Federal records disposed of pursuant to a records schedule 
     recovered through recycling or waste prevention programs. 
     Such funds shall be available until expended for the 
     following purposes:
       (1) Acquisition, waste reduction and prevention, and 
     recycling programs as described in Executive Order No. 13101 
     (September 14, 1998), including any such programs adopted 
     prior to the effective date of the Executive order.
       (2) Other Federal agency environmental management programs, 
     including, but not limited to, the development and 
     implementation of hazardous waste management and pollution 
     prevention programs.

[[Page 18421]]

       (3) Other employee programs as authorized by law or as 
     deemed appropriate by the head of the Federal agency.
       Sec. 608. Funds made available by this or any other Act for 
     administrative expenses in the current fiscal year of the 
     corporations and agencies subject to chapter 91 of title 31, 
     United States Code, shall be available, in addition to 
     objects for which such funds are otherwise available, for 
     rent in the District of Columbia; services in accordance with 
     5 U.S.C. 3109; and the objects specified under this head, all 
     the provisions of which shall be applicable to the 
     expenditure of such funds unless otherwise specified in the 
     Act by which they are made available: Provided, That in the 
     event any functions budgeted as administrative expenses are 
     subsequently transferred to or paid from other funds, the 
     limitations on administrative expenses shall be 
     correspondingly reduced.
       Sec. 609. No part of any appropriation for the current 
     fiscal year contained in this or any other Act shall be paid 
     to any person for the filling of any position for which he or 
     she has been nominated after the Senate has voted not to 
     approve the nomination of said person.
       Sec. 610. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be available for interagency financing of 
     boards (except Federal Executive Boards), commissions, 
     councils, committees, or similar groups (whether or not they 
     are interagency entities) which do not have a prior and 
     specific statutory approval to receive financial support from 
     more than one agency or instrumentality.
       Sec. 611. Funds made available by this or any other Act to 
     the Postal Service Fund (39 U.S.C. 2003) shall be available 
     for employment of guards for all buildings and areas owned or 
     occupied by the Postal Service and under the charge and 
     control of the Postal Service, and such guards shall have, 
     with respect to such property, the powers of special 
     policemen provided by the first section of the Act of June 1, 
     1948, as amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318), and, as to 
     property owned or occupied by the Postal Service, the 
     Postmaster General may take the same actions as the 
     Administrator of General Services may take under the 
     provisions of sections 2 and 3 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as 
     amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318a and 318b), attaching 
     thereto penal consequences under the authority and within the 
     limits provided in section 4 of the Act of June 1, 1948, as 
     amended (62 Stat. 281; 40 U.S.C. 318c).
       Sec. 612. None of the funds made available pursuant to the 
     provisions of this Act shall be used to implement, 
     administer, or enforce any regulation which has been 
     disapproved pursuant to a resolution of disapproval duly 
     adopted in accordance with the applicable law of the United 
     States.
       Sec. 613. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     and except as otherwise provided in this section, no part of 
     any of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2005, by this 
     or any other Act, may be used to pay any prevailing rate 
     employee described in section 5342(a)(2)(A) of title 5, 
     United States Code--
       (1) during the period from the date of expiration of the 
     limitation imposed by the comparable section for previous 
     fiscal years until the normal effective date of the 
     applicable wage survey adjustment that is to take effect in 
     fiscal year 2005, in an amount that exceeds the rate payable 
     for the applicable grade and step of the applicable wage 
     schedule in accordance with such section; and
       (2) during the period consisting of the remainder of fiscal 
     year 2005, in an amount that exceeds, as a result of a wage 
     survey adjustment, the rate payable under paragraph (1) by 
     more than the sum of--
       (A) the percentage adjustment taking effect in fiscal year 
     2005 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, in 
     the rates of pay under the General Schedule; and
       (B) the difference between the overall average percentage 
     of the locality-based comparability payments taking effect in 
     fiscal year 2005 under section 5304 of such title (whether by 
     adjustment or otherwise), and the overall average percentage 
     of such payments which was effective in the previous fiscal 
     year under such section.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     prevailing rate employee described in subparagraph (B) or (C) 
     of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, and no 
     employee covered by section 5348 of such title, may be paid 
     during the periods for which subsection (a) is in effect at a 
     rate that exceeds the rates that would be payable under 
     subsection (a) were subsection (a) applicable to such 
     employee.
       (c) For the purposes of this section, the rates payable to 
     an employee who is covered by this section and who is paid 
     from a schedule not in existence on September 30, 2004, shall 
     be determined under regulations prescribed by the Office of 
     Personnel Management.
       (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rates of 
     premium pay for employees subject to this section may not be 
     changed from the rates in effect on September 30, 2004, 
     except to the extent determined by the Office of Personnel 
     Management to be consistent with the purpose of this section.
       (e) This section shall apply with respect to pay for 
     service performed after September 30, 2004.
       (f) For the purpose of administering any provision of law 
     (including any rule or regulation that provides premium pay, 
     retirement, life insurance, or any other employee benefit) 
     that requires any deduction or contribution, or that imposes 
     any requirement or limitation on the basis of a rate of 
     salary or basic pay, the rate of salary or basic pay payable 
     after the application of this section shall be treated as the 
     rate of salary or basic pay.
       (g) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit 
     or require the payment to any employee covered by this 
     section at a rate in excess of the rate that would be payable 
     were this section not in effect.
       (h) The Office of Personnel Management may provide for 
     exceptions to the limitations imposed by this section if the 
     Office determines that such exceptions are necessary to 
     ensure the recruitment or retention of qualified employees.
       Sec. 614. During the period in which the head of any 
     department or agency, or any other officer or civilian 
     employee of the Government appointed by the President of the 
     United States, holds office, no funds may be obligated or 
     expended in excess of $5,000 to furnish or redecorate the 
     office of such department head, agency head, officer, or 
     employee, or to purchase furniture or make improvements for 
     any such office, unless advance notice of such furnishing or 
     redecoration is expressly approved by the Committees on 
     Appropriations. For the purposes of this section, the term 
     ``office'' shall include the entire suite of offices assigned 
     to the individual, as well as any other space used primarily 
     by the individual or the use of which is directly controlled 
     by the individual.
       Sec. 615. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States Code, or section 610 of this Act, funds made available 
     for the current fiscal year by this or any other Act shall be 
     available for the interagency funding of national security 
     and emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives 
     which benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or 
     entities, as provided by Executive Order No. 12472 (April 3, 
     1984).
       Sec. 616. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be obligated or expended by any Federal 
     department, agency, or other instrumentality for the salaries 
     or expenses of any employee appointed to a position of a 
     confidential or policy-determining character excepted from 
     the competitive service pursuant to section 3302 of title 5, 
     United States Code, without a certification to the Office of 
     Personnel Management from the head of the Federal department, 
     agency, or other instrumentality employing the Schedule C 
     appointee that the Schedule C position was not created solely 
     or primarily in order to detail the employee to the White 
     House.
       (b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to 
     Federal employees or members of the armed services detailed 
     to or from--
       (1) the Central Intelligence Agency;
       (2) the National Security Agency;
       (3) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
       (4) the offices within the Department of Defense for the 
     collection of specialized national foreign intelligence 
     through reconnaissance programs;
       (5) the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the 
     Department of State;
       (6) any agency, office, or unit of the Army, Navy, Air 
     Force, and Marine Corps, the Department of Homeland Security, 
     the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement 
     Administration of the Department of Justice, the Department 
     of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, and the 
     Department of Energy performing intelligence functions; and
       (7) the Director of Central Intelligence.
       Sec. 617. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any 
     other Act for the current fiscal year shall obligate or 
     expend any such funds, unless such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer 
     in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all 
     of its workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual 
     harassment and that all of its workplaces are not in 
     violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 
     amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 
     and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
       Sec. 618. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be available for the payment of the 
     salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     who--
       (1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to 
     prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the 
     Federal Government from having any direct oral or written 
     communication or contact with any Member, committee, or 
     subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter 
     pertaining to the employment of such other officer or 
     employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such 
     other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether 
     such communication or contact is at the initiative of such 
     other officer or employee or in response to the request or 
     inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee; or
       (2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes, 
     reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance of 
     efficiency rating,

[[Page 18422]]

     denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns, transfers, 
     disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any employment 
     right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or condition of 
     employment of, any other officer or employee of the Federal 
     Government, or attempts or threatens to commit any of the 
     foregoing actions with respect to such other officer or 
     employee, by reason of any communication or contact of such 
     other officer or employee with any Member, committee, or 
     subcommittee of the Congress as described in paragraph (1).
       Sec. 619. (a) None of the funds made available in this or 
     any other Act may be obligated or expended for any employee 
     training that--
       (1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills, 
     and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of 
     official duties;
       (2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of 
     emotional response or psychological stress in some 
     participants;
       (3) does not require prior employee notification of the 
     content and methods to be used in the training and written 
     end of course evaluation;
       (4) contains any methods or content associated with 
     religious or quasi-religious belief systems or ``new age'' 
     belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity 
     Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988; or
       (5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants' 
     personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or 
     otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties.
       Sec. 620. No funds appropriated in this or any other Act 
     may be used to implement or enforce the agreements in 
     Standard Forms 312 and 4414 of the Government or any other 
     nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such policy, 
     form, or agreement does not contain the following provisions: 
     ``These restrictions are consistent with and do not 
     supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee 
     obligations, rights, or liabilities created by Executive 
     Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United States Code 
     (governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 of title 
     10, United States Code, as amended by the Military 
     Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to 
     Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of 
     title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower 
     Protection Act (governing disclosures of illegality, waste, 
     fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats); the 
     Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 
     et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose 
     confidential Government agents); and the statutes which 
     protect against disclosure that may compromise the national 
     security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of 
     title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the 
     Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The 
     definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions, 
     and liabilities created by said Executive order and listed 
     statutes are incorporated into this agreement and are 
     controlling.'': Provided, That notwithstanding the preceding 
     paragraph, a nondisclosure policy form or agreement that is 
     to be executed by a person connected with the conduct of an 
     intelligence or intelligence-related activity, other than an 
     employee or officer of the United States Government, may 
     contain provisions appropriate to the particular activity for 
     which such document is to be used. Such form or agreement 
     shall, at a minimum, require that the person will not 
     disclose any classified information received in the course of 
     such activity unless specifically authorized to do so by the 
     United States Government. Such nondisclosure forms shall also 
     make it clear that they do not bar disclosures to Congress or 
     to an authorized official of an executive agency or the 
     Department of Justice that are essential to reporting a 
     substantial violation of law.
       Sec. 621. No part of any funds appropriated in this or any 
     other Act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch, 
     other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative 
     relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for 
     the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet, 
     booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation 
     designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the 
     Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.
       Sec. 622. None of the funds appropriated by this or any 
     other Act may be used by an agency to provide a Federal 
     employee's home address to any labor organization except when 
     the employee has authorized such disclosure or when such 
     disclosure has been ordered by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction.
       Sec. 623. None of the funds made available in this Act or 
     any other Act may be used to provide any non-public 
     information such as mailing or telephone lists to any person 
     or any organization outside of the Federal Government without 
     the approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
       Sec. 624. No part of any appropriation contained in this or 
     any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda 
     purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized 
     by the Congress.
       Sec. 625. (a) In this section the term ``agency''--
       (1) means an Executive agency as defined under section 105 
     of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) includes a military department as defined under section 
     102 of such title, the Postal Service, and the Postal Rate 
     Commission; and
       (3) shall not include the General Accounting Office.
       (b) Unless authorized in accordance with law or regulations 
     to use such time for other purposes, an employee of an agency 
     shall use official time in an honest effort to perform 
     official duties. An employee not under a leave system, 
     including a Presidential appointee exempted under section 
     6301(2) of title 5, United States Code, has an obligation to 
     expend an honest effort and a reasonable proportion of such 
     employee's time in the performance of official duties.
       Sec. 626. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 610 of 
     this Act, funds made available for the current fiscal year by 
     this or any other Act to any department or agency, which is a 
     member of the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program 
     (JFMIP), shall be available to finance an appropriate share 
     of JFMIP administrative costs, as determined by the JFMIP, 
     but not to exceed a total of $800,000 including the salary of 
     the Executive Director and staff support.
       Sec. 627. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 610 of 
     this Act, the head of each Executive department and agency is 
     hereby authorized to transfer to or reimburse ``General 
     Services Administration, governmentwide policy'' with the 
     approval of the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, funds made available for the current fiscal year by 
     this or any other Act, including rebates from charge card and 
     other contracts: Provided, That these funds shall be 
     administered by the Administrator of General Services to 
     support Government-wide financial, information technology, 
     procurement, and other management innovations, initiatives, 
     and activities, as approved by the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, in consultation with the appropriate 
     interagency groups designated by the Director (including the 
     Chief Financial Officers Council and the Joint Financial 
     Management Improvement Program for financial management 
     initiatives, the Chief Information Officers Council for 
     information technology initiatives, and the Federal 
     Acquisition Council for procurement initiatives): Provided 
     further, That the total funds transferred or reimbursed shall 
     not exceed $17,000,000: Provided further, That such transfers 
     or reimbursements may only be made 15 days following 
     notification of the Committees on Appropriations by the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       Sec. 628. None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used by the Office of Personnel Management 
     or any other department or agency of the Federal Government 
     to prohibit any agency from using appropriated funds as they 
     see fit to independently contract with private companies to 
     provide online employment applications and processing 
     services.
       Sec. 629. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a 
     woman may breastfeed her child at any location in a Federal 
     building or on Federal property, if the woman and her child 
     are otherwise authorized to be present at the location.
       Sec. 630. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United 
     States Code, or section 610 of this Act, funds made available 
     for the current fiscal year by this or any other Act shall be 
     available for the interagency funding of specific projects, 
     workshops, studies, and similar efforts to carry out the 
     purposes of the National Science and Technology Council 
     (authorized by Executive Order No. 12881), which benefit 
     multiple Federal departments, agencies, or entities: 
     Provided, That the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     provide a report describing the budget of and resources 
     connected with the National Science and Technology Council to 
     the Committees on Appropriations, the House Committee on 
     Science; and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation 90 days after enactment of this Act.
       Sec. 631. Any request for proposals, solicitation, grant 
     application, form, notification, press release, or other 
     publications involving the distribution of Federal funds 
     shall indicate the agency providing the funds, the Catalog of 
     Federal Domestic Assistance Number, as applicable, and the 
     amount provided: Provided, That this provision shall apply to 
     direct payments, formula funds, and grants received by a 
     State receiving Federal funds.
       Sec. 632. Subsection (f) of section 403 of Public Law 103-
     356 (31 U.S.C. 501 note), as amended, is further amended by 
     striking ``October 1, 2004'' and inserting ``October 1, 
     2005''.
       Sec. 633. (a) Prohibition of Federal Agency Monitoring of 
     Individuals' Internet Use.--None of the funds made available 
     in this or any other Act may be used by any Federal agency--
       (1) to collect, review, or create any aggregation of data, 
     derived from any means, that includes any personally 
     identifiable information relating to an individual's access 
     to or use of any Federal Government Internet site of the 
     agency; or

[[Page 18423]]

       (2) to enter into any agreement with a third party 
     (including another government agency) to collect, review, or 
     obtain any aggregation of data, derived from any means, that 
     includes any personally identifiable information relating to 
     an individual's access to or use of any nongovernmental 
     Internet site.
       (b) Exceptions.--The limitations established in subsection 
     (a) shall not apply to--
       (1) any record of aggregate data that does not identify 
     particular persons;
       (2) any voluntary submission of personally identifiable 
     information;
       (3) any action taken for law enforcement, regulatory, or 
     supervisory purposes, in accordance with applicable law; or
       (4) any action described in subsection (a)(1) that is a 
     system security action taken by the operator of an Internet 
     site and is necessarily incident to the rendition of the 
     Internet site services or to the protection of the rights or 
     property of the provider of the Internet site.
       (c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
       (1) The term ``regulatory'' means agency actions to 
     implement, interpret or enforce authorities provided in law.
       (2) The term ``supervisory'' means examinations of the 
     agency's supervised institutions, including assessing safety 
     and soundness, overall financial condition, management 
     practices and policies and compliance with applicable 
     standards as provided in law.
       Sec. 634. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act 
     may be used to enter into or renew a contract which includes 
     a provision providing prescription drug coverage, except 
     where the contract also includes a provision for 
     contraceptive coverage.
       (b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract 
     with--
       (1) any of the following religious plans:
       (A) Personal Care's HMO; and
       (B) OSF Health Plans, Inc.; and
       (2) any existing or future plan, if the carrier for the 
     plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious 
     beliefs.
       (c) In implementing this section, any plan that enters into 
     or renews a contract under this section may not subject any 
     individual to discrimination on the basis that the individual 
     refuses to prescribe or otherwise provide for contraceptives 
     because such activities would be contrary to the individual's 
     religious beliefs or moral convictions.
       (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require 
     coverage of abortion or abortion-related services.
       Sec. 635. The Congress of the United States recognizes the 
     United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) as the official 
     anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic 
     sport in the United States.
       Sec. 636. None of the funds made available under this or 
     any other Act for fiscal year 2005 shall be expended for the 
     purchase of a product or service offered by Federal Prison 
     Industries, Inc. unless the agency making such purchase 
     determines that such offered product or service provides the 
     best value to the buying agency pursuant to governmentwide 
     procurement regulations, issued pursuant to section 25(c)(1) 
     of the Office of Federal Procurement Act (41 U.S.C. 
     421(c)(1)) that impose procedures, standards, and limitations 
     of section 2410n of title 10, United States Code.
       Sec. 637. Each Executive department and agency shall 
     evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing 
     the individual a government purchase charge card or 
     government travel charge card. The department or agency may 
     not issue a government purchase charge card or government 
     travel charge card to an individual that either lacks a 
     credit history or is found to have an unsatisfactory credit 
     history as a result of this evaluation: Provided, That this 
     restriction shall not preclude issuance of a restricted-use 
     charge, debit, or stored value card made in accordance with 
     agency procedures to (a) an individual with an unsatisfactory 
     credit history where such card is used to pay travel expenses 
     and the agency determines there is no suitable alternative 
     payment mechanism available before issuing the card, or (b) 
     an individual who lacks a credit history. Each Executive 
     department and agency shall establish guidelines and 
     procedures for disciplinary actions to be taken against 
     agency personnel for improper, fraudulent, or abusive use of 
     government charge cards, which shall include appropriate 
     disciplinary actions for use of charge cards for purposes, 
     and at establishments, that are inconsistent with the 
     official business of the Department or agency or with 
     applicable standards of conduct.
       Sec. 638. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds 
     appropriated for official travel by Federal departments and 
     agencies may be used by such departments and agencies, if 
     consistent with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
     126 regarding official travel for Government personnel, to 
     participate in the fractional aircraft ownership pilot 
     program.
       Sec. 639. None of the funds provided in this Act shall be 
     used to implement or enforce regulations for locality pay 
     areas in fiscal year 2005 that are inconsistent with the 
     recommendations of the Federal Salary Council adopted on 
     October 7, 2003.
       Sec. 640. (a) Not later than 180 days after the enactment 
     of this Act, the head of each Federal agency shall submit a 
     report to Congress on the amount of the acquisitions made by 
     the agency from entities that manufacture the articles, 
     materials, or supplies outside of the United States in that 
     fiscal year.
       (b) The report required by subsection (a) shall separately 
     indicate--
       (1) the dollar value of any articles, materials, or 
     supplies purchased that were manufactured outside of the 
     United States;
       (2) an itemized list of all waivers granted with respect to 
     such articles, materials, or supplies under the Buy American 
     Act (41 U.S.C. 10a et seq.); and
       (3) a summary of the total procurement funds spent on goods 
     manufactured in the United States versus funds spent on goods 
     manufactured outside of the United States.
       (c) The head of each Federal agency submitting a report 
     under subsection (a) shall make the report publicly available 
     to the maximum extent practicable.
       Sec. 641. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds appropriated or made available under this Act or 
     any other appropriations Act may be used to implement or 
     enforce restrictions or limitations on the Coast Guard 
     Congressional Fellowship Program, or to implement the 
     proposed regulations of the Office of Personnel Management to 
     add sections 300.311 through 300.316 to part 300 of title 5 
     of the Code of Federal Regulations, published in the Federal 
     Register, volume 68, number 174, on September 9, 2003 
     (relating to the detail of executive branch employees to the 
     legislative branch).
       Sec. 642. Subsection (e) of section 3716 of title 31, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     (including 42 U.S.C. 407 and 1383(d)(1), 30 U.S.C. 923(b), 
     and 45 U.S.C. 231(m), regulation, or administrative 
     limitation, no limitation shall terminate the period within 
     which an offset may be initiated or taken pursuant to this 
     section.
       ``(2) This section does not apply when a statute explicitly 
     prohibits using administrative offset or setoff to collect 
     the claim or type of claim involved.''.
       Sec. 643. Section 453(j) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 653(j)), is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(7) Information comparisons and disclosure to assist in 
     federal debt collection.--
       ``(A) Furnishing of information by the secretary of the 
     treasury.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall furnish to the 
     Secretary, on such periodic basis as determined by the 
     Secretary of the Treasury in consultation with the Secretary, 
     information in the custody of the Secretary of the Treasury 
     for comparison with information in the National Directory of 
     New Hires, in order to obtain information in such Directory 
     with respect to persons--
       ``(i) who owe delinquent nontax debt to the United States; 
     and
       ``(ii) whose debt has been referred to the Secretary of the 
     Treasury in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(g).
       ``(B) Requirement to seek minimum information.--The 
     Secretary of the Treasury shall seek information pursuant to 
     this section only to the extent necessary to improve 
     collection of the debt described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Duties of the secretary.--
       ``(i) Information disclosure.--The Secretary, in 
     cooperation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall compare 
     information in the National Directory of New Hires with 
     information provided by the Secretary of the Treasury with 
     respect to persons described in subparagraph (A) and shall 
     disclose information in such Directory regarding such persons 
     to the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this 
     paragraph, for the purposes specified in this paragraph. Such 
     comparison of information shall not be considered a matching 
     program as defined in 5 U.S.C. 552a.
       ``(ii) Condition on disclosure.--The Secretary shall make 
     disclosures in accordance with clause (i) only to the extent 
     that the Secretary determines that such disclosures do not 
     interfere with the effective operation of the program under 
     this part. Support collection under section 466(b) of this 
     title shall be given priority over collection of any 
     delinquent federal nontax debt against the same income.
       ``(D) Use of information by the secretary of the 
     treasury.--The Secretary of the Treasury may use information 
     provided under this paragraph only for purposes of collecting 
     the debt described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(E) Disclosure of information by the secretary of the 
     treasury.--
       ``(i) Purpose of disclosure.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     may make a disclosure under this subparagraph only for 
     purposes of collecting the debt described in subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(ii) Disclosures permitted.--Subject to clauses (iii) and 
     (iv), the Secretary of the Treasury may disclose information 
     resulting from a data match pursuant to this paragraph only 
     to the Attorney General in connection with collecting the 
     debt described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(iii) Conditions on disclosure.--Disclosures under this 
     subparagraph shall be--

[[Page 18424]]

       ``(I) made in accordance with data security and control 
     policies established by the Secretary of the Treasury and 
     approved by the Secretary;
       ``(II) subject to audit in a manner satisfactory to the 
     Secretary; and
       ``(III) subject to the sanctions under subsection (l)(2).

       ``(iv) Additional disclosures.--

       ``(I) Determination by secretaries.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury and the Secretary shall determine whether to permit 
     disclosure of information under this paragraph to persons or 
     entities described in subclause (II), based on an evaluation 
     made by the Secretary of the Treasury (in consultation with 
     and approved by the Secretary), of the costs and benefits of 
     such disclosures and the adequacy of measures used to 
     safeguard the security and confidentiality of information so 
     disclosed.
       ``(II) Permitted persons or entities.--If the Secretary of 
     the Treasury and the Secretary determine pursuant to 
     subclause (I) that disclosures to additional persons or 
     entities shall be permitted, information under this paragraph 
     may be disclosed by the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     connection with collecting the debt described in subparagraph 
     (A), to a contractor or agent of either Secretary and to the 
     Federal agency that referred such debt to the Secretary of 
     the Treasury for collection, subject to the conditions in 
     clause (iii) and such additional conditions as agreed to by 
     the Secretaries.

       ``(v) Restrictions on redisclosure.--A person or entity to 
     which information is disclosed under this subparagraph may 
     use or disclose such information only as needed for 
     collecting the debt described in subparagraph (A), subject to 
     the conditions in clause (iii) and such additional conditions 
     as agreed to by the Secretaries.
       ``(F) Reimbursement of hhs costs.--The Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall reimburse the Secretary, in accordance with 
     subsection (k)(3), for the costs incurred by the Secretary in 
     furnishing the information requested under this paragraph. 
     Any such costs paid by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be 
     considered costs of implementing 31 U.S.C. 3711(g) in 
     accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3711(g)(6) and may be paid from the 
     account established pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3711(g)(7).''.
       Sec. 644. (a) In General.--Section 6402 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, is amended by redesignating subsections 
     (f) through (k) as subsections (g) through (l), respectively, 
     and by inserting after subsection (e) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Collection of Past-Due, Legally Enforceable State 
     Unemployment Compensation Debts.--
       ``(1) In general.--Upon receiving notice from any State 
     that a person owes a past-due, legally enforceable State 
     unemployment compensation debt to such State, the Secretary 
     shall, under such conditions as may be prescribed by the 
     Secretary--
       ``(A) reduce the amount of any overpayment payable to such 
     person by the amount of such unemployment compensation debt;
       ``(B) pay the amount by which such overpayment is reduced 
     under subparagraph (A) to such State and notify such State of 
     such person's name, taxpayer identification number, address, 
     and the amount collected; and
       ``(C) notify the person making such overpayment that the 
     overpayment has been reduced by an amount necessary to 
     satisfy a past-due, legally enforceable State unemployment 
     compensation debt. If an offset is made pursuant to a joint 
     return, the notice under subparagraph (B) shall include the 
     names, taxpayer identification numbers, and addresses of each 
     person filing such return.
       ``(2) Priorities for offset.--Any overpayment by a person 
     shall be reduced pursuant to this subsection--
       ``(A) after such overpayment is reduced pursuant to--
       ``(i) subsection (a) with respect to any liability for any 
     internal revenue tax on the part of the person who made the 
     overpayment;
       ``(ii) subsection (c) with respect to past-due support;
       ``(iii) subsection (d) with respect to any past-due, 
     legally enforceable debt owed to a Federal agency; and
       ``(B) before such overpayment is credited to the future 
     liability for any Federal internal revenue tax of such person 
     pursuant to subsection (b). If the Secretary receives notice 
     from a State or States of more than one debt subject to 
     paragraph (1) and/or subsection (e) that is owed by a person 
     to such State or States, any overpayment by such person shall 
     be applied against such debts in the order in which such 
     debts accrued.
       ``(3) Notice; consideration of evidence.--No State may take 
     action under this subsection until such State--
       ``(A) notifies the person owing the past-due legally 
     enforceable State unemployment compensation debt that the 
     State proposes to take action pursuant to this section;
       ``(B) gives such person at least 60 days to present 
     evidence that all or part of such liability is not past-due 
     or not legally enforceable;
       ``(C) considers any evidence presented by such person and 
     determines that an amount of such debt is past-due and 
     legally enforceable; and
       ``(D) satisfies such other conditions as the Secretary may 
     prescribe to ensure that the determination made under 
     subparagraph (C) is valid and that the State has made 
     reasonable efforts to obtain payment of such unemployment 
     compensation debt.
       ``(4) Past-due, legally enforceable state unemployment 
     compensation debt.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `past-due, legally enforceable State unemployment 
     compensation debt' means overpayments of unemployment 
     compensation assessed under the law of a State certified by 
     the Secretary of Labor pursuant to section 3304 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code, which have become final under State 
     law and remain uncollected.
       ``(5) Regulations.--The Secretary shall issue regulations 
     prescribing the time and manner in which States must submit 
     notices of past-due, legally enforceable State unemployment 
     compensation debt and the necessary information that must be 
     contained in or accompany such notices. The regulations shall 
     specify the minimum amount of debt to which the reduction 
     procedure established by paragraph (1) may be applied. The 
     regulations may require States to pay a fee to the Secretary, 
     which may be deducted from amounts collected, to reimburse 
     the Secretary for the cost of applying such procedure. Any 
     fee paid to the Secretary pursuant to the preceding sentence 
     shall be used to reimburse appropriations which bore all or 
     part of the cost of applying such procedure. The regulations 
     may include a requirement that States submit notices of past-
     due, legally enforceable State unemployment compensation debt 
     to the Secretary via the Secretary of Labor in accordance 
     with procedures established by the Secretary of Labor. Such 
     procedures may require States to pay a fee to the Secretary 
     of Labor to reimburse the Secretary of Labor for the costs of 
     applying this subsection. Any such fee shall be established 
     in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury. Any fee 
     paid to the Secretary of Labor may be deducted from amounts 
     collected and shall be used to reimburse the appropriation 
     account which bore all or part of the cost of applying this 
     subsection.
       ``(6) Erroneous payment to state.--Any State receiving 
     notice from the Secretary that an erroneous payment has been 
     made to such State under paragraph (1) shall pay promptly to 
     the Secretary, in accordance with such regulations as the 
     Secretary may prescribe, an amount equal to the amount of 
     such erroneous payment (without regard to whether any other 
     amounts payable to such State under such paragraph have been 
     paid to such State).''.
       (b) Disclosure of certain information to States requesting 
     refund offsets for past-due legally enforceable State 
     unemployment compensation debt.
       (1) Paragraph (10) of section 6103(l) is amended by 
     striking ``(c), (d), or (e)'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``(c), (d), (e) or (f)''.
       (2) Paragraph (10)(A) of section 6103(l) is amended by 
     inserting ``and to officers and employees of the Department 
     of Labor in connection with a reduction under subsection (f) 
     of section 6402'' after the words ``section 6402''.
       (3) The heading of paragraph (10) is amended by striking 
     ``subsection (c), (d), or (e) of section 6402'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (c), (d), (e) or (f) of section 6402''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subsection (a) of section 6402 is amended by striking 
     ``(c), (d), and (e),'' and inserting ``(c), (d), (e) and 
     (f),''.
       (2) Paragraph (2) of section 6402(d) is amended by striking 
     ``and before such overpayment is reduced pursuant to 
     subsection (e)'' and inserting ``and before such overpayment 
     is reduced pursuant to subsections (e) and (f)''.
       (3) Subsection (g) of section 6402, as redesignated by 
     subsection (a), is amended by striking ``(c), (d) or (e)'' 
     and inserting ``(c), (d), (e) or (f)''.
       (4) Subsection (i) of section 6402, as redesignated by 
     subsection (a), is amended by striking ``subsection (c) or 
     (e)'' and inserting ``subsection (c), (e) or (f)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective as to refunds payable under section 6402 
     of the Internal Revenue Code on or after the date of 
     enactment.
       Sec. 645. (a) The adjustment in rates of basic pay for 
     employees under the statutory pay systems that takes effect 
     in fiscal year 2005 under sections 5303 and 5304 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall be an increase of 3.5 percent, and 
     this adjustment shall apply to civilian employees in the 
     Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security 
     and such adjustments shall be effective as of the first day 
     of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after 
     January 1, 2005.
       (b) Notwithstanding section 613 of this Act, the adjustment 
     in rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems that take 
     place in fiscal year 2005 under sections 5344 and 5348 of 
     title 5, United States Code, shall be no less than the 
     percentage in paragraph (a) as employees in the same location 
     whose rates of basic pay are adjusted pursuant to the 
     statutory pay systems under section 5303 and 5304 of title 5, 
     United States Code. Prevailing rate employees at locations 
     where there are

[[Page 18425]]

     no employees whose pay is increased pursuant to section 5303 
     and 5304 of title 5 and prevailing rate employees described 
     in section 5343(a)(5) of title 5 shall be considered to be 
     located in the pay locality designated as ``Rest of US'' 
     pursuant to section 5304 of title 5 for purposes of this 
     paragraph.
       (c) Funds used to carry out this section shall be paid from 
     appropriations, which are made to each applicable department 
     or agency for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2005.
       Sec. 646. (a) Limitation on Conversion to Contractor 
     Performance.--None of the funds appropriated by this Act or 
     any other Act shall be available to convert to contractor 
     performance an activity or function of an executive agency, 
     that on or after the date of enactment of this Act, is 
     performed by more than 10 Federal employees unless--
       (1) the conversion is based on the result of a public-
     private competition plan that includes a most efficient and 
     cost effective organization plan developed by such activity 
     or function, in accordance with Office of Management and 
     Budget Circular A-76, as implemented on May 29, 2003; and
       (2) the Competitive Sourcing Official determines whether 
     over all performance periods stated in the solicitation of 
     offers for performance of the activity or function, the cost 
     of performance of the activity or function by a contractor 
     would be less costly to the executive agency by an amount 
     that equals or exceeds the lesser of--
       (A) 10 percent of the most efficient organization's 
     personnel-related costs for performance of that activity or 
     function by Federal employees; or
       (B) $10,000,000.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any points of order to this 
portion of the bill?


                             point of order

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
505.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 505 
on page 117, line 7 through line 10.
  This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law 
and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in 
violation of House rules.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  This section contains legislative prescription. Therefore, the point 
of order is sustained. Section 505 is stricken.


                             point of order

  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the 
language on page 148, lines 11 through 21.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of 
order.
  Mr. PETRI. The language referred to constitutes a violation of House 
rule XXI which prohibits provisions, changing existing law in a general 
appropriations bill, especially since it contains the language ``or any 
other act,'' which clearly changes existing law, and includes a proviso 
relating to a specific determination by the agency which also changes 
substantive law. This is legislating on an appropriations bill in 
violation of the rules of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section addresses funds in other acts. This 
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained. Section 636 is stricken from 
the bill.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. 
Mr. Chairman, was that section 636?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.


                             point of order

  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the fourth 
proviso under the heading, ``High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas'' 
program on page 85, lines 10 to 19. This provision violates clause 2(b) 
of House rule XXI and proposes to change existing law within the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform and, therefore, 
constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the 
House rules.
  Mr. Chairman, this provision is clearly authorizing language in 
appropriations legislation, and I am disappointed that it is in the 
bill. It directly violates language used in H.R. 2096, the Office of 
National Drug Control Policy Act 2003.
  Not only did this pass the House, it passed our subcommittee and full 
committee unanimously, which is no small feat. Four major committees of 
this House either waived or sent additional information into the 
Committee on Rules, the Committee on Education and Workforce, the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on the Judiciary, and 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Then it came to the 
floor of the House and passed unanimously.
  So I do not understand why in the relations with other committees 
they would not have worked with us when they choose to authorize on an 
appropriations bill.
  Let me get to the specifics of this. This has to do with High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. What has happened to this program, 
which was supposed to focus on High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, 
it has become a pork program in many cases to move money around to 
individual Members' personal HIDTAs. The bill that passed the House 
unanimously says that will give flexibility to the appropriators, but 
there has to be a fixed amount that goes to the southwest border HIDTA, 
which is the number one drug trafficking point we have in the United 
States, and then next to the seven HIDTAs originally authorized and 
appropriated by the Committee on Appropriations, and then the rest of 
the money can be divided; but you have to have some priority system in 
the HIDTA program.
  We have passed this unanimously in the House. We see the changing 
patterns of drug trafficking. We know we need more HIDTAs. We know we 
need more money. We have methamphetamine problems across the country. 
But when we establish a program and we have rules of the House, that 
needs to be followed.
  So I appreciate all of the work that the chairman has done in the 
drug area, and I regret that I have to make a point of order; but I 
believe that without this point of order, this bill is in clear 
violation of the House rules and would also devastate our High 
Intensity Drug Trafficking Program.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that they 
should confine their remarks to the point of order.
  If no other Member wishes to be heard on this point of order, the 
Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this proviso includes language imparting 
direction. It therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. The fourth proviso is stricken from 
the last paragraph that begins on page 84.


                             point of order

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
against section 642 as legislation in an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to speak on his 
point of order?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. No, Mr. Chairman. I think it is pretty 
clear.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. The 
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 642 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
that section 643 is legislation in an appropriations bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman wish to be heard on his 
point?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I make the same argument as I made on the 
previous point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. This 
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI.

[[Page 18426]]

  The point of order is sustained. Section 643 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order 
that section 644 is legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore 
should be stricken.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The same response?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. If there are no other remarks, the Chair is 
prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. The 
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 644 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have 11 points of order, and I will try to 
go through them quickly.
  I rise for a point of order against section 407. This provision 
violates clause 2(b) of the House rule XXI. I could speak longer, but I 
can end here.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section explicitly supercedes existing law. 
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 407 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
408. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. The 
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 408 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
409. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard?
  If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this section explicitly supersedes existing law. 
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 409 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
410. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section explicitly supersedes existing law. 
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 410 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
509. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on this 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section contains a legislative contingency. 
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 509 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
510. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section expresses a legislative sentiment. 
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 510 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
511. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section contains legislative prescription. 
The section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 511 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
628. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on this 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section addresses funds in other acts. The 
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 628 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
637. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section imparts direction. The section 
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 637 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 
640. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section imparts direction. The section 
therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 640 is stricken from the 
bill.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, finally, and I do appreciate the indulgence 
of the House and the chairman of the subcommittee, I make a point of 
order against section 646. This provision violates clause 2(b) of House 
rule XXI. That is section 646.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
  The Chair finds that this section addresses funds in other acts. The 
section therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained. Section 646 is stricken from the 
bill.
  Are there any other points of order to this portion of the bill?
  Are there any amendments to this portion of the bill?


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Pombo

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pombo:
       At the end of the bill before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 647. None of the funds made available in this Act 
     shall be available for the development or dissemination by 
     the Federal Highway Administration of any version of a 
     programmatic agreement which regards the Dwight D. Eisenhower 
     National System of Interstate and Defense Highways as 
     eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic 
     Places.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple one. No funds in 
this bill are to be used by the Federal Highway Administration to 
pursue a nationwide programmatic agreement that would make part of the 
Interstate Highway System eligible for inclusion on the National 
Register Of Historic Places.
  I do not question the historic importance of the Interstate Highway 
System. Things like the Golden Gate and

[[Page 18427]]

George Washington Bridges are undoubtedly historic elements that should 
be protected. However, the importance of these elements does not make 
the entire system something that should be shoehorned into the Historic 
Preservation Act.
  The programmatic agreement has several problems, including the fact 
that my committee which has exclusive jurisdiction over the National 
Historic Preservation Act was not included. Another and more basic 
problem with the programmatic agreement is the fact that it incorrectly 
assumes that the entire interstate highway system is something that 
should be eligible for inclusion on the register. In other words, 
including massive public work projects like the interstate system is 
not consistent with the intent of the Historic Preservation Act.
  Little, if anything, would be gained by listing the interstate system 
on the register and it is becoming more and more obvious that there is 
a growing effort by some groups to use Federal laws such as the 
Historic Preservation Act to further a land usage agenda which includes 
preventing road construction.
  Finally and most important, adding another bureaucratic layer by 
listing the interstate system could have the effect of delaying 
critical safety improvements in a timely way.
  All of this being said, I understand the Federal Highway 
Administration may attempt to craft an administrative exemption for the 
interstate system. It is not my intention that my amendment would 
affect that effort.
  Finally, I want to say that dealing with the issue of including the 
interstate system on the National Register is yet another reason why we 
need to complete work on the 6-year transportation bill, which will 
include a strong exemption of the interstate system from the Historic 
Preservation Act. With that, I ask the support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 647. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enter into any contract with an incorporated 
     entity where such entity's sealed bid or competitive proposal 
     shows that such entity is incorporated or chartered in 
     Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua, or Panama.

  Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask the amendment 
be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and any amendment thereto be limited to 20 minutes to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponents and myself, the 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) will 
control 10 minutes. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) will 
control 10 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It would prevent the 
departments and agencies under this bill from using any funds to 
contract with American companies which have created shell corporations 
in tax haven countries in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Both the 
House and the Senate have now passed a similar ban on the Homeland 
Security Appropriations bill.
  Recent data shows that despite costing our government $5 billion in 
lost tax revenue, corporate expatriates reaped $1.4 billion in Federal 
contracts in 2002 alone. This in the middle of a budget crisis. As a 
result, this bill lacks sufficient funding for public transit for the 
Nation's commuters and for Amtrak.
  We are struggling to find the resources to fund an ongoing war on 
terrorism, to equip our first responders, and ensure the safety of our 
ports and air transit. The notion that we would reward these companies 
for their bad behavior with taxpayer funded contracts is not only 
counterintuitive, it offends our values as Americans.
  This amendment will not affect existing contracts. Let me repeat 
that. This amendment will not affect existing contracts. It will simply 
ensure that in the future we will favor good corporate citizens with 
government contracts rather than rewarding companies for moving 
overseas and putting tax paying American companies at a permanent 
competitive disadvantage.
  Failing to pass this amendment will allow companies who reduce their 
tax burdens by setting up these shell corporations overseas to underbid 
these good corporate citizens. That hurts American companies who pay 
their taxes and employ citizens across this Nation.
  These companies have made a clear choice to leave this country and 
not pay their taxes. It is now up to us to make a choice. We should set 
standards. We should set the tone. We should set the obligation that if 
they are going to do that and not pay taxes in the United States, then 
in fact they can not feed at the public trough and get government 
contracts.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we distinguish what is 
being claimed from what is actually being sought. I want to read to 
people so they understand. I want to read to them what this amendment 
actually says. I ask the gentlewoman that if we have the wrong copy for 
any reason, please correct us.
  The amendment that is before the House states, ``None of the funds 
made available in this act may be used to enter into any contract with 
an incorporated entity where such entity's sealed bids or competitive 
proposal shows that such entities is incorporated or chartered in 
Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua or Panama.''
  This is not about corporations that started in the U.S. and went 
someplace else. This is not about corporations that are necessarily 
involved in any colorable claim of tax evasion.
  This is saying if you are chartered in Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman 
Islands, Antigua or Panama, you cannot do business with the United 
States Government. It does not matter whether you are a big company or 
a small one. It does not matter whether you are offering lodging or 
travel services or financial services or what knows what. It does not 
matter if you ever had a presence in the United States before this 
time. This is not about jobs that started in the U.S. and have been 
moved overseas.
  No matter what you claim the amendment may be about, it is important 
that everyone who votes on the amendment reads it and knows what it is 
really doing.
  Now, we could just as easily say, we have got some beefs with France. 
Why do we not add France to this list? There are a lot of Americans 
that are unhappy about France. Or we could say maybe somebody does not 
want America to do business with Italy or South Africa or Luxembourg, 
Thailand, pick your country. Automatically, automatically under the 
amendment being offered here we are going to pick out nations and start 
disqualifying them not based upon any logical claim that they have done 
something wrong in transferring jobs or trying to evade our tax laws, 
but that is where they are incorporated.
  I think that is a bad policy, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask people to 
vote against the amendment.

[[Page 18428]]


  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his comments and his 
argument except that the countries were culled from a list of corporate 
expatriates and their countries of incorporation. They are the top 
destinations of corporate tax dodgers. It is also I think important for 
people to know none are members of the WTO.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, I thought I was yielding for a 
question.
  The fact that there may be corporate expatriates in these countries 
does not mean you should disqualify everybody that is in those 
countries. If you want to get at corporate expatriates, go after them, 
but do not say that because, maybe, let us pick a number, maybe it is 
as high as 5 percent of the companies that are chartered in one of 
these nations is a corporate expatriate you are disqualifying 100 
percent.
  I do not know what those ratios are, but I do know the vast majority 
of companies in these nations are not corporate expatriates. The fact 
that the list that you have of corporate expatriates say these are 
their chosen destinations does not mean that everybody in those 
countries are corporate expatriates.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, no. I do not want running debate.
  Just because people that may do a corporate inversion, may choose to 
go to these countries does not mean that everybody that is in there is. 
If you live in a country or in a city where there is a lot of crime, it 
does not mean that you are a criminal. You do not say we will go out 
and penalize everybody in that community because some among them are 
people that we do not like. We should not do that to any other country 
on the Earth.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman would not yield me time and I want to say 
that, in fact, we have been trying over the last probably 2 years to 
deal with the issue of corporate expatriates. And, quite frankly, as I 
said in my opening remarks, we have had success in both the House and 
the Senate. And they have now passed a civil ban on the Homeland 
Security Appropriations bill. And that is because the rank and file 
members of this institution and in the other body realize that, in 
fact, this is the height of un-Americanism.
  These are corporations who try to diminish their tax liabilities by 
going overseas to places like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, and they 
do it for one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is not to pay 
their fair share of taxes to this country.
  We have tried in committee, we have tried in the floor and we have, 
truly, we have had moderate success and for that I am grateful to my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle. But the fact of the matter is 
that at every opportunity the leadership on the other side of the 
aisle, the White House, have truly removed, removed the will of the 
body in their legislation in the bills that have been passed here.
  I would say to you that we are going to continue to address this 
issue. We do need to make a choice. We do have to demonstrate values 
and what we are about, and whether or not we are going to allow 
businesses who walk away from their tax obligation and their 
responsibility to the United States of America, we are going to allow 
them as we did this here afternoon to be exonerated from legal 
liability and then we are going to say to them, come back and get 
government contracts because your behavior has been so exemplary that 
we want to reward you with billions and billions of dollars of 
taxpayers funds.
  Do we really believe that that says what this country is all about? 
It defies logic. Individuals in this Nation and businesses who are good 
corporate citizens are paying their fair share of taxes. They cannot 
evade them. They cannot dodge them. Why should these corporations be 
allowed to do that at a time when we have so few resources that we 
cannot do anything about health care, about retirement security, about 
education, about transportation?

                              {time}  2130

  I say to my colleagues, those who vote against this amendment surely 
do have some explaining to do to their constituents and their 
constituents deserve an answer; and if the answer is they will allow 
these tax dodgers to be able to get billions of dollars in Federal 
funds and in contracts, then maybe the constituents ought to think 
twice when election time rolls around.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers except myself to 
close. I am not sure if the gentlewoman has any other speakers or if 
she was yielding back her time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). She reserved 
her time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time until closing. I believe 
I have the right to close.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) 
has the right to close.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  In closing, let me just say I have no other speakers. As I have said, 
this is an issue of values, and it is an issue of priorities. We talk a 
lot today about values and what they mean in our lives, what they mean 
to this country and who, in fact, is the best representation of the 
fundamentals of this country, as adhered to in its entire history.
  If my colleagues want to stand with corporations who have abandoned 
our country in a time of war and have gone through such elaborate 
contortions to avoid paying U.S. taxes or they have to look into their 
souls tonight and say can they stand with those companies who have been 
good corporate citizens, they employ Americans, they live up to their 
responsibilities to their Nation, I think if we ask any American 
citizen, whether they be a Democrat or a Republican, that the answer 
would be the same. I have to pay my taxes, why do they not?
  Let us put this people's House on record. Let us take an opportunity 
to demonstrate that we are on the side of everyday Americans, middle-
class Americans, and let us tell these corporate expatriates, the free 
ride is over. Vote in favor of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to reiterate that this is not an amendment aimed at 
corporate inversions. This is not an amendment aimed at expatriating 
companies from the United States. This is an amendment that says if you 
are in those countries, you are not only presumed to be guilty, you are 
judged beyond all doubt that you are guilty and we do not want to do 
business with you. It is presuming guilt, not presuming innocence. It 
is making guilt not just an assumption, but an absolute finding that 
nobody can question.
  This would cut off trade between our Nation and Bermuda, Barbados, 
the Cayman Islands, Antigua, and Panama. Talk about going too far. If 
my colleagues want to go after companies that were once in the U.S. and 
moved their headquarters to these, fine, bring an amendment that is 
targeted that way; but do not say that every business in these 
countries is disqualified. The vast majority of those in these nations 
are not corporate expatriates. They are not corporate inversions. My 
colleagues disqualify every business in those nations, not just those 
who may have moved their corporate presence out of the United States 
and into them.
  This amendment goes too, too far. It ought to be rejected. It is not 
what the author purports it to be, and I ask people to reject the 
amendment accordingly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.

[[Page 18429]]


  Ms. DeLAURO. 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 gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments?


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Kelly

  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Kelly:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.     . The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by increasing the amount made available for 
     ``Financial Crimes Enforcement Network--Salaries and 
     Expenses''; and reducing the amount made available for 
     ``General Services Administration--Real Property Activities--
     Federal Buildings Fund'' (consisting of a reduction of 
     $12,750,000 in the amount made available for rental of space 
     and a reduction of $12,750,000 in the amount made available 
     for building operations); by $25,500,000.

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this 
amendment and any amendments thereto be limited to 20 minutes to be 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the 
opponent.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) 
will control 10 minutes and the gentlewoman is recognized.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as the Kelly-Oxley-Frank-Gutierrez-Royce-Maloney-Low-
ey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would state that the 
gentlewoman's unanimous consent request does not recognize cosponsors, 
but we will acknowledge that there are others that are with her on 
this.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This is a solidly bipartisan amendment to increase funding for the 
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network within the Treasury Department, 
which is known as FinCEN.
  This amendment increases funding for the Financial Crimes Enforcement 
Network, FinCEN, by $25.5 million to provide new tools to expand and 
improve the agency's ability to combat terrorist financing. This money 
would be used to secure the appropriate application of state-of-the-art 
technology that would dramatically improve FinCEN's ability to track 
terrorist financing and enable the agency to hire very much-needed, 
full-time employees to improve compliance with the anti-terror finance 
laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman 
Istook) for allowing me to offer this amendment at this time. I know he 
recognizes the important role of FinCEN, and he did that by meeting the 
level requested by the administration at the start of this year, but 
things have changed since the start of this year. The need for FinCEN 
to have more money is more acute than was originally thought.
  I offer this amendment because I think the modest funding in this 
bill will not be enough, and that is based on the amount of hearings 
that we have held and the testimony of the GAO in front of my 
committee. They testified that FinCEN needs $25.5 million in order to 
do the job that FinCEN must do, and that is, to disseminate the 
information that FinCEN collects to the appropriate agencies. This is a 
piece of the fight against terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the full Committee on Financial 
Services.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me first commend the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the other cosponsors for this important 
legislation.
  In late August, our committee held a hearing on the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations. We heard from the Homeland Security Department, we 
heard from the Justice Department and the Treasury Department. A lead 
witness was our former colleague and good friend, Lee Hamilton from 
Indiana, who, as my colleagues know, was the vice chair of the 9/11 
Commission, vice chair to Governor Kean of New Jersey.
  In his testimony, Mr. Hamilton made it very clear that FinCEN not 
only plays an important logistical and strategic position in 
determining and finding terrorist financing, but that their desire for 
new technology and a need for new technology was very much appreciated 
by the commission. As a result of that testimony, the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Kelly), showing excellent leadership having had a number 
of oversight hearings on terrorist financing, and indeed the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) is one of the real experts in 
this Congress on terrorist financing, she felt it imperative to 
introduce this legislation that would provide another $25 million so 
FinCEN could provide this kind of information in real-time, working 
with some 70 other countries to locate, identify, in some cases freeze, 
or certainly try to recapture those amounts of funding by terrorist 
groups.
  So I come to the floor not only as a cosponsor of the gentlewoman 
from New York's (Mrs. Kelly) amendment, but as chairman of the 
Committee on Financial Services to say that clearly Mr. Hamilton made 
the kind of point that all of us need to listen to. As we will begin 
our efforts in the Congress to adopt the 9/11 Commission report this 
month or early next month, this is a first opportunity we have in this 
vehicle, this appropriations measure to show that the Congress is 
serious about funding FinCEN with the kind of funding necessary for 
them to be fully implemented and fully up to speed in terms of 
technology. That is what this amendment is about, and I commend the 
gentlewoman.
  Twenty-five million dollars in the overall scheme of things in an 
appropriation is not a lot of money, but FinCEN is not a large 
government bureaucracy. It is a very effective, relatively small group 
that does an excellent job.
  So I stand here in strong support of the gentlewoman from New York's 
(Mrs. Kelly) amendment.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
  Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to offer along with my 
colleagues an amendment to increase funding by $25.5 million for the 
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, an agency that is critically 
important to our efforts to combat terrorist financing and money 
laundering.
  I am pleased to work, once again, with the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Kelly), my cochair on the congressional Anti-Terrorist Financing 
Task Force. We have also worked on these issues in our roles on the 
oversight subcommittee in the Committee on Financial Services, and I 
thank her for her leadership on these issues which are so important to 
both of us.
  Since its establishment in 1990, FinCEN has been dedicated to 
collecting, analyzing, and distributing financial data to help identify 
and trace financial intersection of potential criminal and terrorist 
activity. While FinCEN is a small agency with relatively little 
funding, the agency is at the center of our Nation's anti-money 
laundering infrastructure, supporting the critical work of the 
financial services, law enforcement and intelligence communities.
  Recently, the 9/11 Commission stressed the importance of building 
global alliances. FinCEN also plays a key role in our country's 
international efforts to trace illicit money by actively promoting 
coordination with other countries. The agency chairs a global network 
of 94 countries that works to improve funding and information sharing 
and interaction.
  Increasing funding for FinCEN by a small amount would have a 
significant impact on our government's ability to fight the global war 
against terrorism. In fact, it is estimated that the agency needs $25 
million to expand and improve its capabilities. It will help FinCEN 
secure the appropriate application of state-of-the-art technology that

[[Page 18430]]

would dramatically improve its ability to track and expose terrorist 
financing.
  I hope we can all join in adding this very, very necessary $25.5 
million.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney), my colleague.

                              {time}  2145

  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time and for her leadership on oversight terrorist financing and 
money laundering; and, in fact, she has spearheaded a leadership role 
on an Anti-Terrorism Task Force on which I serve.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very important amendment. FinCEN is 
currently a small bureau of the Treasury Department, but it has 
suddenly been put into the position of being at the very center of the 
government effort to combat terrorist financing. If the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations were implemented, and I firmly support all 41 of the 
recommendations and have introduced legislation to implement them, 
FinCEN would be required by the government to analyze and distribute 
financial information for all of the United States Government. They 
have very few members now in their area, and this money is needed for 
the technology and the infrastructure and the personnel to complete the 
task that is being thrust upon them.
  FinCEN was underfunded in the budget request, therefore this 
amendment is very much needed and very much in order. We know that the 
terrorists, like any small business, if they are out of money, they are 
out of business. And if you track the money, you can figure out what is 
going on.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a tremendously important amendment. I support 
this $25 million allocation and I hope that my colleagues will join me 
in supporting it in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and to the Members of this body, we had a request from the 
President for $64.5 million for FinCEN. In the chairman's mark at the 
subcommittee level, the number that the chairman gave for this agency 
was $59 or $60 million, exactly $60 million. I urged, and persuaded 
actually, I think, the chairman to raise that to the President's 
request, to $64.5 million, because I felt this was a very important 
agency. It is a front-line agency of the Department of the Treasury for 
fighting financial crimes and getting at terrorist networks.
  Now, the President has never been very shy about asking for large 
sums of money increases if he really thought that those were necessary. 
He has asked for some other agencies within this legislation for at 
least a 50 percent increase in the monies. The amendment that the 
gentlewoman from New York has now offered has grown since I first heard 
about it earlier this evening from about $8 million, which I probably 
would not have bothered to stand up for, but now it is $25 million, on 
top of what is already the President's full request for this agency.
  There has been no information given to me, as the ranking member, 
from any of the people who are saying this is an important thing to do 
that we need this kind of an increase. I am not quite sure that any 
agency is able to take a 60 percent increase all at once in an 
effective kind of a way. I would think it would be much better that we 
try to work this out in conference and see whether in fact the 
President's Office of Budget, and so forth, thinks that this is what we 
ought to be doing at this time.
  So at this point, Mr. Chairman, I am going to oppose and vote against 
the amendment as it has been proposed, as best I understand it, because 
I have heard no real evidence for how this would be done. No one has 
come to me as the ranking member to defend this kind of an increase in 
the amount for this agency.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The 
gentlewoman from New York has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, the President's request for FinCEN was made prior to 
several high-profile regulatory failures. Since then, the 9/11 
Commission has testified before our committee, and the Committee on 
Financial Services has also looked at this and has also considered this 
legislation. It is very important to FinCEN. It is very important in 
our fight against the terrorists financing that we give FinCEN the 
appropriate amount of appropriate money that they deserve. So I urge 
Members to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the words of my ranking member, 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), and I agree with him that 
this matter is going to ultimately be resolved in conference.
  We have had a very tight bill, and I realize that some Members think 
that, well, because money has been freed up by all these points of 
order that we can accomplish lots of things now. But when we get back 
to conference, we have to compare the priority of this proposal with 
everything else.
  FinCEN has already received in this bill a 12.7 percent increase. The 
administration has not asked us for one penny more. We have given them 
every penny they have asked for, and if they are communicating with 
other Members of Congress and not coming to our committee about their 
financial needs, they are sure going about things the wrong way.
  When someone says, well, maybe they need $8 million more, and then it 
balloons up to $25 million more, that is going about things the wrong 
way. And so I am not going to subject Members of this body to a vote 
for somebody claiming that this is crucial to fight terrorism when we 
have not even had a proposal from the administration that reflects how 
supposedly this money would be spent to do that.
  We will take care of the needs of FinCEN, the legitimate needs, in 
conference. We will make sure that the effort to combat the financial 
network of terrorism is fully funded. But to say on the spur of the 
moment, and to suddenly have a sky-is-falling mentality that if they do 
not get a 40 percent increase in a brand new agency, far more than they 
have asked for, I think, is going way overboard.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think this issue has been well handled, 
because if the administration wanted more money for this, they would 
have come to the Committee on Appropriations. They have not done so. 
Like I say, I am not going to subject Members to a vote on this because 
somebody might think that somehow they are voting against terrorism, 
but it will be resolved in a correct manner in the conference 
committee.
  We have given this agency a 12.7 percent increase already, every 
penny that they were asking for. And people can always say things have 
changed since then, but we would have heard from the administration if 
they wanted this change, and we have not heard from them on the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote this down. We have other needs 
that need to be done. We do not need to give an agency more money than 
they can consume just because people claim if you do not do it you are 
not against terrorism. I urge opposition to this amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment to 
increase funding for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), 
an agency that is critically important to our efforts to combat 
terrorist financing and money laundering. I am pleased to offer this 
amendment together with a bipartisan group of my colleagues from the 
Financial Services Committee.
  As a co-founder of the 9/11 Commission Caucus, dedicated to 
implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, I am also a 
strong supporter of this amendment because it is an important step in 
that direction.
  In its Report, the 9/11 Commission made clear recommendation on how 
best to fight terrorism in the financial arena: ``Follow the Money.''

[[Page 18431]]

  That is the mission of FinCEN, which is dedicated to collecting, 
analyzing and disseminating financial data for the purpose of combating 
crime.
  The Commission's recommendation puts FinCEN in the limelight, and 
requires a relatively small Treasury bureau with little funding to 
assume a key role in fighting terrorism.
  FinCEN is essential--as never before--to the work of the 
intelligence, law enforcement, and financial services communities in 
tracing terrorist money and disrupting potential terrorist action.
  The 9/11 Commission also advised that we cannot succeed in combating 
terrorist funding without building global alliances.
  FinCEN is the United States' voice in that effort.
  The present appropriation to FinCEN does not adequately provide for 
the bureau to assume the responsibilities that have been thrust upon 
it.
  The additional funding provided by this amendment would allow FinCEN 
to purchase appropriate technology and hire additional staff--steps 
that would dramatically improve its ability to track terrorist 
financing and provide critical information to our government and our 
global allies.
  I can think of few investments that are more worth while than this 
amendment. I ask for your support for additional funding for FinCEN.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. KELLY. 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 gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Kelly) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: Amendment No. 3 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Oxley

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Oxley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 222, 
noes 177, not voting 34, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 452]

                               AYES--222

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Tom
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--177

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Emerson
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--34

     Ackerman
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Cannon
     Clay
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Dunn
     Engel
     Everett
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Houghton
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kleczka
     Langevin
     McInnis
     Miller (FL)
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Owens
     Rogers (MI)
     Schrock
     Serrano
     Sherwood
     Slaughter
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Towns
     Weiner
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the 
vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  2220

  Mr. LIPINSKI and Mrs. CAPITO changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 18432]]




                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the 
remainder of this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 211, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 453]

                               AYES--189

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Chandler
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--211

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Ackerman
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Cannon
     Clay
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Dunn
     Engel
     Everett
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Houghton
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kleczka
     Langevin
     McInnis
     Miller (FL)
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Owens
     Schrock
     Serrano
     Sherwood
     Slaughter
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Towns
     Weiner
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  2228

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mrs. Kelly

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Kelly) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 360, 
noes 37, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 454]

                               AYES--360

     Abercrombie
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer

[[Page 18433]]


     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kline
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--37

     Aderholt
     Burton (IN)
     Coble
     Collins
     Cunningham
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Goode
     Hayes
     Hostettler
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Lewis (CA)
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Pastor
     Paul
     Petri
     Pickering
     Sabo
     Smith (MI)
     Terry
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Ackerman
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Cannon
     Clay
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Dunn
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Houghton
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kleczka
     Langevin
     Matsui
     McInnis
     Miller (FL)
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Owens
     Schrock
     Serrano
     Sherwood
     Slaughter
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Towns
     Weiner
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the 
vote). Members are advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  2236

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


                          personal explanation

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on Tuesday, 
September 14, 2004, I was granted an official leave of absence as a 
result of my illness. Therefore, I was unable to make rollcall votes 
444 to 454.
  Had I been here, I would have voted ``no'' for rollcall No. 444, 
providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4571) to amend rule 11 of 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to improve attorney 
accountability; ``no'' for rollcall No. 445, H.R. 3369, Nonprofit 
Athletic Organization Protection Act; ``aye'' for rollcall No. 446, 
H.R. 1787, Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act; ``aye'' 
for rollcall No. 447, H.R. 1084, Volunteer Pilot Organization 
Protection Act; ``aye'' for rollcall No. 448, the Turner Substitute 
Amendment; ``aye'' for rollcall No. 449, On Motion to Recommit with 
Instructions; ``no'' for rollcall No. 450, H.R. 4571, Lawsuit Abuse 
Reduction Act; ``yes'' for rollcall No. 451, on Ordering the Previous 
Question; ``yes'' for rollcall No. 452, the Oxley Amendment; ``yes'' 
for rollcall No. 453, the DeLauro Amendment; ``yes'' for rollcall No. 
454, the Kelly Amendment.
  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. 
Kline) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, 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. 5025) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Transportation and Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2005, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________