[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18957-18973]
[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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5025.

                              {time}  1044


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 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. 
Simmons (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on 
Tuesday, September 21, 2004, amendment No. 2 printed in the 
Congressional Record by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) had been 
disposed of, and the bill had been read through Page 166, line 3.


                 Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. Waters

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

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Ms. Waters:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement any sanction imposed by the United 
     States on private commercial sales of agricultural 
     commodities (as defined in section 402 of the Agricultural 
     Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954) or medicine or 
     medical supplies (within the meaning of section 1705(c) of 
     the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992) to Cuba (other than a 
     sanction imposed pursuant to agreement with one or more other 
     countries).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

                              {time}  1045

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. The United States has 
a trade deficit. We are not able to sell our goods abroad in the way 
that we should be able to do it.
  Cuba has been literally dying for us to sell them goods. We finally 
had the good sense to open up the way for the sale of agricultural 
commodities, medicine and medical supplies to Cuba, and they are 
buying, but they have to pay cash on the barrel head. So this amendment 
would prohibit the use of funds to implement sanctions on private 
commercial sales of agricultural commodities, medicine and medical 
supplies to Cuba.
  U.S. exports of agricultural products and medical supplies to Cuba 
have been legal since 2001. However, American farmers and other 
exporters must maneuver through a myriad of restrictions in order to 
export these products to Cuba. Exporters are denied access to export 
assistance, credit guarantees and private commercial financing. All 
transactions must be conducted in cash in advance or with financing 
from third countries. These restrictions make trade with Cuba 
unnecessarily expensive, bureaucratic and complicated.
  The effect of my amendment would be to free exporters from the need 
to comply with these cumbersome regulations.
  The people of Cuba need food and medicine. Their needs have never 
been greater than they are now, following the devastation caused by 
Hurricane Ivan. Cuba is one of several islands in the Caribbean ravaged 
by Hurricane Ivan, and the people of Cuba are trying to recover from 
the extensive damage caused by this terrible storm.
  The people of Cuba are more than willing to purchase food and medical 
supplies from their American neighbors. American exporters have already 
exported $210 million in products to Cuba in the first 5 months of this 
year despite the cumbersome restrictions involved, and they can expect 
to increase their market share significantly if they are freed from 
these restrictions.
  U.S. agri-business companies have estimated that U.S. farmers are 
missing

[[Page 18958]]

out on a market of $700 million in Cuba because of these restrictions. 
Removing the prohibition on private financing would be especially 
helpful to smaller companies and individual farmers. Small businesses 
cannot afford to export goods to a foreign country without financing.
  My amendment would ensure that American exporters could use private 
financing to export agricultural products and medical supplies to Cuba. 
A similar amendment was offered by my colleague, the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Moran), and was adopted by the House on July 23, 2002. 
Unfortunately, this amendment was not included in the conference 
report.
  Other countries, like China, Germany and Canada, permit trade with 
Cuba, and these countries have financing arrangements that facilitate 
exports to Cuba. If the United States continues to make exports of food 
and medicine unnecessarily difficult and complicated, American 
companies will continue to be left out.
  My amendment would ensure that American exporters could use private 
financing to export agricultural products and medical supplies to Cuba. 
Exports of food and medicine to Cuba are good for the American economy 
and they are good for the people of Cuba.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I 
know that there are Members of this House who strongly dislike Fidel 
Castro. I know that there are Members who would do whatever they could 
to disadvantage that island. But I think it does not make good sense to 
cut off your nose to spite your face. We have all of these small 
businesses that want to do business with Cuba. Cuba wants to do 
business with us. We need to get rid of these restrictions so that they 
can have the kind of credit and financing from private companies, so 
that they can buy more and more and more.
  How are we ever going to get rid of this trade deficit if we are not 
smart enough not to let some of the political ambitions of a few of our 
colleagues get in the way of what is good for America? We are sitting 
right down here 90 miles from Cuba in Florida with a lot of folks who 
want to do business with them. It is time to change our policies and go 
in a new direction.
  It is time also to show people that we are willing to do the right 
thing. How can we sit here and know that people need the food, we need 
the money, and not allow it to happen?
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simmons). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important that the facts be clear: The sale of 
agricultural products and medicine to Cuba, even to the regime, is 
legal. The only requirement is that they have to pay.
  Now, I was involved in a negotiation with a number of Members of this 
House some years back. It was a very detailed and difficult 
negotiation, but an agreement ensued that permitted the sale of 
agricultural products. The sale of medical products had been legal 
since 1992. The agreement permitted the sale of agricultural products 
even to the regime, as I said, Mr. Chairman, as long as the regime 
paid.
  Now, even the economic interests that do business with the regime 
have made it clear that they want to be paid. What the discussion is 
about today is financing for the dictatorship, to make available 
financing for the dictatorship.
  Amendments seem to find their way to this floor, no matter how much 
repression and torture the Cuban dictator engages in against his 
people, no matter how many people he imprisons simply for their views, 
no matter how much he tortures the people whom he imprisons. No matter 
how many people he even murders because they try to seek freedom, 
amendments manage to find their way to this floor to reward the tyrant. 
So now there is one amendment here that seeks to reward the dictator 
with financing.
  What we are saying is, there has really never been a time to reward a 
dictatorship for repression and jailing of opponents and the murder of 
opponents. There has never been a time for that. Much less is there a 
time now, after the dictator has increased repression.
  So on the issue of financing, I would simply remind my colleagues 
again that even those who sell to the dictator wish to be paid. Even 
those who sell to the dictator have said that they like the fact that 
they have to be paid, that they know that the dictator owes billions of 
dollars to people who have offered financing to him from other places 
of the world. What we do not want is to increase the amount of debt 
that the dictator owes, this time to Americans, much less to Americans 
who might then wish to have the taxpayer later bail them out.
  The bottom line is that the sale of agricultural products is legal, 
that the sale of medical products has for a long time been legal, and 
that the only requirement is that the dictator pay. So we do not think 
that it is appropriate now to reward the dictatorship with financing. 
Even the people who sell are not pushing for that, because they like 
the fact that they get paid.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is really in bad taste, especially when 
you consider the torture that the political prisoners are being 
subjected to. Those are the future leaders of the Cuban congress, those 
are the future leaders of the judiciary and, in fact, the future 
presidents of the Republic of Cuba, people who today are languishing in 
prison being tortured; and we owe at the very least to them not to 
reward this dictatorship with financing that even those who sell 
products are not seeking.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply ask my colleagues to reject this 
amendment, which is in bad taste and seeks to reward the dictatorship, 
and remind our colleagues that the sale of medical products and of 
agricultural products even to the regime is legal. The only conditions 
are that the regime pay.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Waters) will be postponed.


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Lee:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the amendments 
     made to paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 515.565 of title 
     31, Code of Federal Regulations (relating to specific 
     licenses for United States academic institutions and other 
     specific licenses), as published in the Federal Register on 
     June 16, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 33772). The limitation in the 
     preceding sentence shall not apply to the implementation, 
     administration, or enforcement of section 515.560(c)(3) of 
     title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Tuesday, September 14, 2004, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) 
and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It prohibits funds in this 
bill from being used to enforce new regulations promulgated on June 30 
that severely restrict and in many cases eliminate opportunities for 
United States students to study abroad in Cuba.
  These new election year regulations take our policy toward Cuba in 
the exact wrong direction. Many of these regulations are just plain 
undemocratic and punitive, and simply do not make sense for Americans.

[[Page 18959]]

  Regulations that have already and will continue to deny many American 
college students the basic opportunity to gain experience, knowledge 
and insight through study abroad in Cuba should not be funded. In fact, 
not only were many study-abroad programs to Cuba effectively eliminated 
by these new regulations, most of the schools received little advance 
notice of the restrictions. Sadly, it is the students who suffered from 
this short notice. By the time the students were finally informed of 
the program cancellations, it was simply too late for them to make new 
study-abroad arrangements.
  Goucher College, Johns Hopkins University, Howard University, Siena 
College, Butler University, the College of Charleston and Tulane 
University, just to name a few, were affected by these regulations. In 
my home State, the University of California coordinates study-abroad 
programs to Cuba and will be forced to cancel its popular programs next 
year.
  This is an issue of freedom for our students to travel and gain 
invaluable experience and educational opportunity that only 
international study-abroad programs can provide. Our students can 
travel and study abroad in Communist countries such as China and 
Vietnam.
  Make no mistake, isolating Cuba and preventing these important 
contacts between Cuba and students will not change the government in 
Cuba. We should allow these students to exchange ideas, values and 
share experiences. These types of exchanges are what will truly bring 
change to Cuba.
  This amendment is straightforward, Mr. Chairman, and should not be 
controversial. We are talking about mainstream family values: 
education, freedom to travel, freedom to learn and the freedom to 
export our American values.
  The State Department and the 9/11 Commission have both stated that 
our youth are key to spreading American values. Patricia Harrison, 
Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, 
stated before the Committee on International Relations on which I serve 
that ``one of our greatest assets in public diplomacy is the American 
people themselves. Programs that bring Americans and foreign citizens 
in direct contact can and do have tremendous positive impact.''
  The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report state that we must 
``rebuild the scholarship, exchange and library programs that reach out 
to young people and offer them knowledge and hope.''
  I cannot agree more. It is in our best interests to allow our youth 
to spread our message of American values and hope so that people can 
see for themselves who America is and what we stand for.
  So today I stand against squandering our resources to enforce these 
ineffective, outdated policies as they relate to education, and I ask 
Members to support the ranks of American students to be educated, to 
travel abroad, to gain experience and to make judgments for themselves.

                              {time}  1100

  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Lee-Tubbs-Jones amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is another ``reward Castro'' amendment. Reward the 
firing squads, reward the imprisonment of the opponents. That is what 
this amendment is all about.
  It is already legal to travel. There are 13 legal categories of 
travel. One of them is for educational purposes. You have to get a 
license. You get a license. You go, and you do your travel for 
educational reasons.
  So this amendment simply wants to eliminate all of the regulations.
  I would say, it is not going to survive the process. We know that. So 
what is it? The goal of this amendment is to provide another symbolic 
victory for the dictatorship, to reward the oppression.
  These amendments continue to find themselves on the floor. The 
reality of the matter is that the facts are pretty clear. As I said 
before, there are 13 legal categories. One of them is educational 
travel.
  I would simply ask my colleagues to remember those people in the 
gulag today, those people suffering the full force, the brute force of 
the repression of that futile totalitarian tyranny.
  When they receive these messages at the hands of their jailers of 
these symbolic amendments, victories that are presented and sometimes 
passed in the Congress of the United States, how it must make you feel 
when you are imprisoned. Nevertheless, they continue to resist. They 
continue to embody the dignity of the Cuban nation, in the totalitarian 
gulag. They continue, because they are the embodiment of the best of 
the Cuban nation, the future of Cuba. There are so many men and women 
in the gulag who deserve such extraordinary respect.
  So I would ask my colleagues not to send more messages to them, that 
the Congress of the United States passes amendments to provide moments 
of pleasure for the tyrant. Because that is all it is. That is what 
these amendments that unfortunately continue to make themselves here, 
they reach the floor, that is what these amendments are.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just respond to my colleague and say, first of all, this 
amendment is specifically about United States students, American 
students who want to visit under their educational programs to study 
abroad. As I said earlier, students are afforded study-abroad 
opportunities in a variety of countries. They should not be denied the 
right to pursue their educational opportunities in countries in which 
they desire to participate.
  Secondly, students are our best ambassadors. They are young people 
who are very patriotic. They care about America. They want to engage in 
dialogue with students throughout the world, especially in Cuba. And 
denying them that right really is a terrible thing, first of all, for 
our students, but it sets back our foreign policy.
  We are talking about creating a global environment of peace and 
security. How in the world are our future leaders of the world going to 
be able to understand and relate to countries abroad if they do not 
have the opportunity to study there? It is a very important initiative, 
and we should not be using taxpayer dollars to deny United States, 
American students to travel to Cuba to study.
  Under the old regulations, of course, they could go to study. Now 
they have to stay more than 10 weeks under these regulations. It is 
ridiculous. It is going to hurt our students. It is going to hurt 
education. It is bad for family values. I urge my colleagues to pass 
this amendment.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want to again 
clarify that, right now, you can go to Cuba for educational purposes; 
you just have to get a license. So the only reason for this amendment 
is to symbolically tell the Castro anti-American dictatorship, 
terrorist dictatorship, that we like you. That is all this amendment 
does. Students can go to Cuba if they get a license.
  So despite the fact that the Castro regime continues to imprison and 
despite the fact that the Castro regime has murdered Americans, 
murdered American citizens, has American blood on his hands, this 
amendment would just like to give him a nice pat on the back and say, 
even though Americans can go with a permit, with a license to get 
education, go for educational purposes to Cuba, we want to give you a 
gift, Mr. Castro. Despite the fact that you murder Americans, we want 
to give you a gift, and here is a little token gift. Because, again, it 
is not going to happen. It is not going to pass the process, but we 
just want to show that we support that anti-American

[[Page 18960]]

dictator who has American blood on his hands. It is a very sad 
statement.
  Again, fortunately, none of these issues ever happen. But, again, 
that is all this amendment is. It is to show that anti-American 
dictator, that terrorist 90 miles away, that this amendment supports, 
still supports that dictatorship. That is all this does, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think we have 
made our points. We oppose the amendment strongly.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lee-
Rangel-Tubbs Jones Amendment to H.R. 5025--Transportation, Treasury 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2005. The Lee-Rangel-Tubbs Jones 
Amendment prohibits the use of funds to enforce new regulations that 
affect students who study abroad or seek other educational 
opportunities in Cuba.
  America students have become victims of politics, which should not be 
the intent of U.S. foreign policy. The Office of Foreign Assets 
Control's (OFAC) purpose is to track terrorist activities, not punish 
Americans interested in educational exchanges to Cuba.
  Members of Congress, especially Members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus, and the Progressive Caucus, have written and called President 
Bush and Secretary Powell about the students at the Latin American 
Medical School (ELAM) and the cuts in general education licenses.
  All people-to-people educational travel was eliminated in 2003, which 
ended thousands of trips by U.S. citizens to Cuba for broader 
educational purposes each year. Mr. Speaker, these facts make the Lee-
Rangel-Tubbs Jones Amendment necessary.
  The number of U.S. university-level students receiving credit for 
study abroad in 2001/02 increased 4.4 percent from the previous year, 
reaching a record total of 160,920, according to Open Doors 2003, the 
annual report on international educational published by the Institute 
of International Education (IIE) with funding from the State 
Department's Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.
  Open Doors 2003 indicates that most students continue to study abroad 
for shorter sojourns (many for less than eight weeks), with more than 
50 percent of U.S. undergraduates and masters degree student electing 
summer, January term, internships, and other short-term programs 
instead of academic year or semester programs. Most American students 
who studied abroad in 2001/02 (91 percent) did so for one semester or 
less.
  The number of U.S. students going to less traditional destinations 
remains high. The percent of all study abroad students going to Latin 
America has more than doubled since 1985, from 7 percent the first year 
of the survey to 15 percent this year, and the number of students going 
to Latin America increased by 4 percent to 23,300 this year.
  Many countries, particularly in Latin America, saw large increases in 
the number of American students they hosted in 2001/02. Countries with 
large increases included: Cuba (1,279, up 41 percent), Brazil (1,064, 
up 40 percent), and El Salvador (145, up 86 percent).
  Current regulations adversely effect study-abroad programs in Cuba. 
Educational travel licenses are only granted to undergraduate and 
graduate institutions. Under the revised regulations, students can only 
participate in exchange programs to Cuba that are organized by the 
institution in which they are enrolled. High schools or other 
alternative educational institutions are prohibited from having Cuba 
travel programs.
  This directive adversely affects many of my constituents as it is in 
complete discord with the objective of consortium programs. These young 
people will be restricted from participating in programs coordinated by 
other colleges and universities.
  Take example of Jamie Vega, a student at Cleveland State University. 
She was raised in a single family home, was the first person in her 
family to attend college on a full scholarship. Jamie was an 
International Relations Major and Spanish Minor. She was awarded the 
National Security Education Program Scholarship in 2003 and studied at 
the University of Havana. Due to this Administration's prohibition on 
educational exchange opportunities to Cuba, other students will not be 
able to benefit from the rich experiences that Jamie profited from. Mr. 
Chairman, these facts make the Lee-Rangel-Tubbs Jones Amendment 
necessary.
  In August, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) within the 
Department of Treasury and the State Department issued a two-year 
license for the 88 students enrolled at the school.
  For those students who planned to participate in 10-week exchange 
programs this year, it is too late for them to make alternate study-
abroad arrangements. Even worse, this may have been their only 
opportunity to study abroad.
  These regulations discriminate against these students on the basis of 
where they want to continue their studies. Full-time American students 
should be permitted to participate in any exchange initiatives that 
their institution approves.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Lee-Rangel-Tubbs Jones 
Amendment to H.R. 5025--Transportation, Treasury Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 2005. The Lee-Rangel-Tubbs Jones Amendment prohibits the 
use of funds to enforce new regulations that affect students who study 
abroad or seek other educational opportunities in Cuba.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Lee amendment to 
prohibit the use of funds in this bill to implement the 
Administration's new restrictions on travel to Cuba for educational 
purposes.
  These new restrictions prohibit American students from participating 
in educational programs unless they were organized by the institution 
in which the students are enrolled. Students would not be allowed to 
participate in programs organized by other colleges or universities. 
This would deny students the opportunity to study in Cuba unless their 
own institution has its own program in Cuba. This unreasonable 
restriction could prevent thousands of American students from studying 
abroad in the country of their choice.
  Throughout the Cold War, American students studied in the Soviet 
Union. Many of them went on to become diplomats, scholars and policy-
makers who used the knowledge they gained to contribute to the 
development and implementation of U.S. foreign policy. Similarly, many 
Americans are studying in the People's Republic of China today. There 
is no reason to treat study in Cuba differently.
  Study abroad provides valuable educational experiences for American 
students and contributes to the development of knowledgeable and 
informed professionals who can use their knowledge to serve our country 
in the future. I urge my colleagues to support the Lee amendment and 
support educational opportunities for American students in Cuba and 
throughout the world.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Rangel:
       Page 166, insert after line 3 the following new section:
       Sec. 647. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to implement, administer, or enforce the economic 
     embargo of Cuba, as defined in section 4(7) of the Cuban 
     Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 
     (Public Law 104-114), except that the foregoing limitation 
     does not apply to the administration of a tax or tariff.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
September 14, 2004, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that in view of the victory that the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has had, that maybe, just maybe, 
there is a breath of fresh air entering the House where we can say, let 
us stop this punitive approach to Cuba and the Cuban government, and 
let us start a common sense approach.
  The gentleman from Florida makes it appear as though we are rewarding 
a dictator for not upholding the principles of democracy. None of us 
here want to do that. Some would say that we have a disregard for the 
loss of life or the imprisonment of people unfairly, as we all agree is 
wrong and immoral and indecent, but that is not so. We are not talking 
about rewarding; we are talking about normalization. We are talking 
about the United States of America's principles. We are talking about 
Americans who feel so proud of what we believe in that we do not let 
any nickel-and-dime dictator prevent us from taking our message to the 
people, the people in Cuba.

[[Page 18961]]

  For 40 years, we have taken this nonsensical approach that we are 
going to punish the Cuban people, deny them access to our markets, deny 
them financial assistance, notwithstanding the pain and cruel treatment 
that nature has given to them through hurricanes, notwithstanding the 
poverty in the country, and we have had this belief on our side, at 
least some of us on both sides, that the American approach, if properly 
presented to the people, will prevail; not guns, not bombs and not 
penalties, but the American way.
  We believe that trading with people is a way for our business people 
to be ambassadors of the free market system. As the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) said, we believe our kids are better than any 
ambassadors that come out of the State Department when they talk about 
life in the United States. We believe our farmers and our business 
people, they really know how to talk to these people about doing the 
right thing. But if what we are saying is that we are afraid of Castro 
and we are afraid of communism, then I suggest to my colleagues that we 
ought to get the heck out of China. We ought to get out of Vietnam. We 
ought to restore sanctions against Libya, and for God's sake, if we are 
looking for a democracy, we have a long march in Pakistan to find it.
  We believe we are powerful enough that we are on the right side of 
the issue, and for those who are afraid of the truth, then jam their 
stations, jam their TV, have no communications with these people and 
just say that we will prevail, because we are powerful enough to bring 
not Castro down to his knees but the people who are relying on a little 
assistance from their friends in the United States.
  I do not think you have to be Cuban-American, I do not think you have 
to represent Cuban-Americans to understand what compassion is. But I 
will tell my colleagues one thing, I would hate to represent a district 
that had families in Cuba, after this horrific hurricane where people 
are in real pain economically and socially, and I wanted to send them 
some money, I wanted to visit, I wanted to see who got hurt, I may have 
wanted to go to a funeral, but I have to say that my heart, my 
compassion, my country, we are with you, but because we hate with such 
vengeance your president who has survived so many of ours, we will not 
be able to help. That, I think, is a more difficult position than to 
say that you are against communism.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in 
opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  A year ago, I was in New York, and I read a newspaper there, the 
daily called La Prenza, and there was an interview with the gentleman 
from New York, the author of this amendment. It related to the summary 
executions that had just taken place by Castro of three young black men 
just a few days before, after they had been arrested by the 
dictatorship for the crime of trying to come to the United States.
  I quote from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) a little over a 
year ago: ``I am shocked. There is nothing that the Cuban government 
can tell me that would interest me and that would convince me to speak 
to them again. It is totally incredible that a government would justify 
this type of action. The execution of these people puts an end to any 
possible discussion that there could have been with the Cuban 
government.''
  Now, I wish, Mr. Chairman, that I could say that there has been some 
justice for those summary executions, the murders of those three young 
men. I wish I could say that the dictator at least had apologized to 
the grieving family members for their murders.
  No, there has been no justice, only increased repression. I showed 
last night a replica of the punishment box for the best known political 
prisoner, a physician, Dr. Biscet, who is being held today because he 
believes in freedom and democracy. After this amendment, I certainly 
will always recall that it is more important when one truly wants to 
understand someone to guide oneself by what that person does rather 
than by what he says.
  This, as the gentleman has just stated, is the ``normalization of 
relations'' amendment, the ``normalization of relations with the Cuban 
dictatorship'' amendment.
  Now, the charter of the OAS may say of this hemisphere, only 
representative democracy is legal, legitimate, and the democratic 
charter of simply 2 or 3 years says that any interruption in the 
democratic process in this hemisphere needs to be sanctioned. But this 
amendment says: No, you can ban elections for 45 years. You can crush 
labor unions and crush the free press and eliminate and prohibit all 
political parties and freedom of expression and execute people, 
including three young black men just a year ago for trying to get to 
freedom, and imprison them and torture them. And you can kill 
Americans, and you can harbor terrorists. And you can harbor fugitives 
from U.S. justice, including cop killers from our States here.

                              {time}  1115

  You can do all of that. And you will get an amendment that says let 
us normalize relations. You can continue to harbor terrorists, and you 
can continue to harbor U.S. felon fugitives who murder U.S. citizens 
and spy on the United States and disrupt antiterrorism operations. We 
will still normalize with you. That is what this amendment is.
  So this is very good that this amendment be on the floor today 
because this is, after all, the debate about economic interests and 
debate about the coalition of forces that have advocated for the last 
years for normalization. This is important debate for our colleagues to 
express themselves on. After 45 years of illegal oppression in this 
hemisphere, that is the only one where its international law requires 
representative democracy, and great strides have been made in recent 
decades towards compliance with that legal international law 
requirement.
  This amendment says, no, in the Western Hemisphere it is all right to 
oppress for 45 years and murder and execute and torture and spy on 
Americans and harbor fugitives and harbor international terrorists and 
disrupt the U.S. international war on terrorism. It is all right. We 
will reward you. We will normalize, we will grant you the billions of 
dollars unilaterally without the dictatorship having to release any 
political prisoners or move towards freedom for its prisoners. We will 
reward you unilaterally anyway.
  I would ask this Congress of the United States that I hold with such 
reverence to stand with the Cuban people today and to reject this 
amendment that simply seeks to reward oppression and reward infamy.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) 
time has expired. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me be brief. It is clear that this is a very 
emotional issue. All I can say is that in 1950 when I was shot by the 
Communist Chinese on the Yalu River in North Korea, I was emotional as 
well. They told me to get over it.
  I do not know how many tens of thousands of American lives were lost 
as a result of the Communists in North Vietnam. When the trade 
agreement came up, they said, Get over it. The families of those that 
were killed by the Libyan terrorists in Flight 103, they objected to 
trade and they said, Get over it. I would suggest to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) he has to get over it.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Rangel amendment to 
prohibit the use of funds to enforce the economic embargo on Cuba.
  If Congress were serious about our relationship with Cuba, Congress 
would pursue a policy of negotiation and diplomacy--not isolation. Such 
a policy would allow the export of seeds, agricultural tools, and other 
products, which are desperately needed by the Cuban population. 
Instead, Congress is allowing the continuation of its out-dated embargo 
against this small country, which is only 90 miles from America's 
shores.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel amendment.

[[Page 18962]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) 
will be postponed.


 Vacating Demand For Recorded Vote on Amendment No. 12 Offered by Ms. 
                                 Waters

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
request for a recorded vote on Waters Amendment No. 12 and to have the 
Chair put the question de novo.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on amendment No. 12 offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Olver:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to issue or implement the Department of 
     Transportation's proposed regulation entitled Parts and 
     Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Certification of 
     Compliance With Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 
     (FMVSSs), published in the Federal Register, volume 67, 
     number 53, on March 19, 2002, relating to a phase-in period 
     to bring vehicles into compliance with the requirements of 
     the regulation.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, 
September 14, 2004, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and a 
Member opposed each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a simple funding limitation which says 
that no funds from this bill can be used to implement a Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration's rule published in the Federal Register 
on the 19th of March 2002 in so far as it relates to a phase-in period 
to bring vehicles into compliance with the requirements of the 
regulation.
  The background here is essentially this: current law requires all 
motor carriers with minor exceptions entering the United States to 
comply with U.S. safety standards. Under the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, Mexican trucks were to operate throughout the four border 
States by 1996 and in all States by the year 2000. Deep concerns were 
raised about truck safety if that schedule were to be met and audits 
which were ordered by the Congress and done by the Transportation 
Inspector General, Kenneth Meade, in the late 1990s, showed that only a 
tiny fraction, only 1 percent really, of all trucks were being 
inspected for safety compliance, and even of those, 50 percent were 
failing. Driven by those audit results, corroborating the intense 
safety concerns, Mexican carriers have been limited to shipping to 
border zone transfer points and trans-shippings by carriers which 
comply with the U.S. safety requirements.
  To move towards full implementation of NAFTA, the administration 
issued a proposed rule 30 months ago in March of 2002 to establish a 
process for implementation. Under that rule, all new foreign carriers 
licensed after the effective date of the rule and all carriers wishing 
to expand beyond the service area, beyond the border zones after the 
effective date of the rule, must have certification of testing meeting 
U.S. safety regulations. But those carriers operating only in the 
border zones would have 24 months to obtain certification, so that 24 
months after promulgation of that March 2002 rule, all motor carriers 
operating in the U.S. would comply with U.S. safety regulations.
  Now, the March 2002 regulation was held up in court actions that went 
all the way to the Federal Appeals Court for the ninth district and in 
June of this year, earlier this year, the Supreme Court reversed the 
appeals ruling unanimously, thereby clearing the last major hurdle to 
promulgation of the March 2002 rule. Small obstacles remain, but we are 
close to full implementation of the NAFTA provisions.
  Mr. Chairman, every one of the foreign carriers operating in the 
U.S., both in the border zone and beyond, have known for 20 months, 
Canadian carriers, Mexican carriers, all of them, that this rule was 
pending and moving towards promulgation. They could and certainly 
should have gotten all their vehicles certified long before now. It 
would now be grossly unfair to add another 24 months on top of the 
already 30 months which has passed in terms of the competition with 
fully compliant U.S., Mexican, and Canadian carriers operating in the 
U.S.
  Furthermore, that extra 24 months would prolong the still lingering 
safety concerns again and create a chaotic inspection and enforcement 
situation.
  My amendment essentially says, promulgate the rule, comply with 
NAFTA, let all motor carriers which comply with U.S. safety laws, let 
all of them operate throughout the U.S., but do not give 24 months more 
on top of the 30 months which has already passed since the proposed 
rule was published and everyone knew about it to meet the safety 
regulations which are United States law.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) is recognized 
for 15 minutes.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). As my colleagues are aware, or should be 
aware, this is yet another chapter or maybe another page in the book on 
the implementation of the NAFTA agreement.
  NAFTA carries two major provisions when it comes to trucking 
transportation: one on market access for transportation services, the 
other relates to cross border investment in the transportation sector. 
All three countries that are party to NAFTA, Canada, Mexico and the 
United States, have successfully implemented the provisions on 
crossborder investment. It is only the United States that has not 
implemented its commitment for full border market access in 
transportation services.
  For years now the U.S. has fudged, has reneged on this provision of 
the NAFTA agreement due to spurious claims and lawsuits linked to 
purported safety and environmental concerns. That was recognized as 
being spurious by the United States Supreme Court when in an absolute 
unanimous decision they threw the lawsuits out and said, get on with 
it, move on, allowing the U.S. now to fulfill its NAFTA obligations, 
all the while achieving high levels of safety in environmental 
protection that our citizens expect.
  Let us review a few facts of this debate. The Department of 
Transportation is not planning to exempt any Mexican trucks from the 
underlying motor vehicle standards. The gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Olver) implied that that was the case, that we are talking about 
the standards. We are not talking about the case for vehicle safety. 
All Mexican carriers have to certify that their vehicles comply with 
the core safety standards in order to receive operating authority. The 
amendment of the gentleman and the line of argument that he is using is 
referring to a grace period that is for labeling of trucks that are 
manufactured 10 or more years ago. It is important for Members to 
understand that the mere possession of the label or not has nothing to 
do with actual vehicle

[[Page 18963]]

safety. All trucks, all trucks, if they have the label or if they do 
not have the label have to be in compliance with the actual safety 
standards themselves.
  Let me say this a little differently and be more specific. All 
Mexican trucks will need to meet what are known as the Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Regulations, or the FMCSR requirements, in order to 
operate in the United States. All trucks, it does not matter when they 
were manufactured, all trucks have to meet those standards in order to 
operate in the United States. Regardless of whether or not they have a 
label certifying their manufacturing standard at the time of their 
production, these trucks are going to be held to a higher, more 
inclusive standard than is mandated on their operators. Furthermore, 
these standards measure how their trucks are operating today. That is a 
far more relevant fact than what it was when they were manufactured 2, 
5, or 10 years ago.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Ten years ago the 
United States made a commitment to free trade, and it included the 
transportation sector. If this amendment passes, it once again 
represents the United States turning its back on its trading partners. 
It once again says we are really not reliable. When it comes down to 
it, we will find ways to avoid complying with it.
  I would hope my colleagues will say meeting our legal commitments 
makes a difference and is something that is important.
  Members should understand that this amendment shrouds itself in the 
name of consumer protection, but it is really all about protectionism. 
We should not pass on the high cost of protectionism to the U.S. 
consumers once again. Failure to provide market access in this sector 
means that U.S. consumers using transportation services in North 
America needlessly pay the high cost of protectionism benefiting a 
small, but highly mobilized, interest group.
  I think we know what we are talking about here. We are talking about 
one special interest group, the Teamsters. For Members who are focused 
on making sure that the U.S. remains competitive and generates jobs, we 
need to know that failure of our commitments means that U.S. 
manufacturers and farmers are going to be hurt.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  This issue is not about highway safety. It is not about consumer 
safety. It is not about the environment. Pure and simple, this 
amendment is about protectionism.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a member of the subcommittee.

                              {time}  1130

  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for allowing 
me the 2 minutes.
  I am a member of the subcommittee. We did have extensive debate on 
this issue, but more than that, my district is a border city. The State 
of Michigan and the country of Canada border each other. Part of my 
district carries these trucks and buses.
  What the Bush administration wants to do is to not have some trucks 
and buses, some foreign trucks and buses inspected. At a time of 
terrorism, is that not about the Teamsters? At a time of terrorism, 
inspection is what all trucks and buses must have. As one who 
represents thousands of people who live in a border city, I want all 
the buses and trucks inspected, and so do all the people who live in my 
area.
  As the Bush administration asks for some of them to be exempted, I 
think that is wrong. How can we talk about terrorism on one hand and 
then want to exempt some of the buses and trucks that come into my 
district and in other border cities around the country?
  The Olver amendment would not allow that administrative rule to go 
into effect. It is simple. It is not hard to understand. Thousands of 
buses and trucks come into my district every day. We have the largest 
border crossing in America, with over $1 billion of commerce coming 
every day. I want all the buses and trucks inspected and inspected 
thoroughly. I do not want any exempted.
  This is a good amendment. We must support it to protect American 
citizens who deserve our respect.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment. The free flow of goods, services, ideas and capital is very 
important, especially in this 21st century economy.
  Obviously, we are all concerned about safety. The last speaker was 
just referring to the issue on terror. Inspections are a very high 
priority, and they are a very important part of this issue.
  Three years ago, this Congress passed legislation which put into 
place 22 specific guidelines for the Department of Transportation. We 
have already exceeded those 22 guidelines, which are very, very 
important for us to meet, but as my friend the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Kolbe) said, this is now actually the 11th year since the landmark 
passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement; and by the way, we 
need to realize that today we have nearly a third of $1 trillion in 
cross-border trade between Mexico and the United States, having 
improved standard of living, the quality of life on both sides of the 
border.
  Obviously, this issue is an important one, but I will never forget a 
study I saw when this issue first came to the forefront on truck 
safety. What it found was that there were greater violations when it 
came to safety on trucks coming from Canada and on trucks that existed 
right here in the United States of America than there were on those 
coming from Mexico.
  So, yes, we want to make sure that we maintain the safety and the 
security of our roads. That is a top priority. We already have in place 
a mechanism to do just that.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts will 
protect safety on our roads by requiring foreign commercial vehicles, 
that means trucks and buses, to meet the same standards as U.S. trucks 
and buses. This is not anti-NAFTA. This is not a pro-Teamsters issue. 
I-35 goes from my district all the way to the Mexican border. I do not 
want those unsafe Mexican trucks rolling up into Minnesota, up into 
Duluth, rolling down the hill to Lake Superior and killing people.
  Our U.S. safety standards are set by the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, inspected by the U.S. Department of 
Transportation, and require a certification label. Yes, it does require 
a label and that label means something. It means that each vehicle has 
been built in compliance with U.S. standards, specifically antilock 
brakes, automatic slack adjusters for heavy vehicles and for trucks, 
rear underride guards that save lives when there is a rear-end 
accident.
  I have been at the border. I have seen those trucks from Mexico. We 
funded Mexico for training of inspectors who do not inspect. They go 
off to do something else. We do not have enough money in our inspection 
budget to place inspectors at the border to check those trucks and make 
sure they are in compliance. That is what we need.
  All those trucks and buses operating in the United States comply with 
U.S. safety standards for a good reason. We do not want people being 
killed on roadways in the United States. Five thousand people a year 
are killed by car-truck crashes in the United States. If we let those 
unsafe trucks in from Mexico, that number will go up astronomically. We 
cannot allow that.
  This is a safety issue. This is not a trade issue. If they make sure 
that they comply, they can come into the United States. Meet our 
standards. Meet the same standards that U.S. trucks and buses have to 
meet in this country. Let us not have one standard for the U.S. and 
another standard for

[[Page 18964]]

trucks and buses coming in from Mexico. Those that come in from Canada 
already are in compliance by 85, 95 percent. Let us have fairness and, 
yes, protect but protect American lives on our roadways.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining on each 
side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 
8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I just want to respond to a couple of things that were said here 
today.
  This does not have anything, let me repeat it, this does not have 
anything to do with the safety standards of the trucks that are 
traveling on the roads inside the borders of the United States. It does 
not have anything to do with the safety standards of those trucks. It 
has to do with the labeling. It has to do with when they were 
manufactured 10 years ago these trucks were assembled, they are usually 
U.S. trucks, they are assembled perhaps in Mexico or Canada, but they 
were not being assembled for use in the U.S. market so they do not have 
the label. It is hard now to go back and get that.
  To come into the United States, every single standard that is 
required of the truck here in the United States has to be met by that 
truck coming in from Mexico. Antilock brakes, all the different things 
that are required of trucks here, all those have to be proven, and they 
have to be on there and exactly in the same way.
  This simply has to do with a labeling requirement at the time of 
assembly of that truck, and in many cases when it took place 10 years 
ago, that label is not readily available. So they have to go back to 
the manufacturer and get all the information that is required.
  The gentleman said there were 5,000 people killed last year by truck-
auto accidents, and I am sure he is correct about that. How many of 
those people were killed by an uninspected truck coming into the United 
States from Mexico? How many of those were killed by that? Accidents 
occur, but they are not going to occur in any greater number because we 
have trucks coming in from Mexico that are going to be thoroughly 
inspected, are going to meet all of the requirements, are going to meet 
everything that is required on any truck that is operating on the roads 
in the United States, and the operator has to meet the same kinds of 
standards.
  Let me just make it clear that we are meeting the same kinds of 
standards. The trucking standards are not being changed. We are talking 
only about a labeling issue.
  This is a bogus amendment. It is a protectionism amendment. It is 
designed to keep Mexican trucks out of the United States. It has 
nothing to do with safety.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  If the gentleman says that this is only about labeling, then they are 
still going to have to get that label. The issue is that they could 
have started getting that label 30 months ago, and it will be several 
months before the rule can be promulgated in which they can get the 
label.
  All I am saying is, promulgate the rule and let them get the label, 
and then they will be in fine shape.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this is not like the label on a mattress 
that says, ``Do not remove under penalty of law.'' This is a meaningful 
certification of the manufacturing and the proper equipping of these 
trucks.
  There are many trucks operating in Mexico that do not meet U.S. 
standards, and what is being advocated on that side is a new faith-
based safety standard. Why is it faith-based? Because there is no 
meaningful inspection going on in Mexico. These trucks do not have a 
certification on the labels, which they say are meaningless, and we do 
not have the inspectors at the border to inspect them on the way in 
because they say we cannot afford it. That is what is going on here.
  These trucks will flood into this country. No, there have not been a 
lot of fatalities involving these trucks because we do not let them go 
more than 20 miles from our border, but let them go rumbling up I-5 
into Oregon and Washington, let drivers who do not have to keep a 
logbook, they are not trained like our drivers, they are underpaid, 
operating trucks that do not have the safety equipment of our trucks, 
and people will die, plain and simple.
  Why should there be unequal treatment? Why? That is what my 
colleagues are advocating here. The people who operate the trucks in 
the U.S. have to have these labels, which are meaningful. The Canadians 
have these labels and standards, but these trucks in Mexico, many of 
which do not meet our standards, do not have the labels.
  As the gentleman said, they are all going to be inspected. By whom? 
Answer that question. The Mexicans will not allow Americans into Mexico 
to inspect them, the Mexicans are not inspecting them, and we do not 
have enough people at the border. People will die if we do not adopt 
this amendment because of unsafe trucks entering our country.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time to close.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) very much for the time, and I 
rise to speak in support of the amendment.
  It is really just a common-sense amendment that will uphold U.S. 
certification for trucks to improve safety. I do not think anybody can 
question my record on trade. Seventy percent of the economy in my 
district depends on trade. I voted for NAFTA, took a lot of heat for 
it, but knew it was the right thing to do at the time.
  However, if we insist on our trucks being certified for safety, we 
should insist on others. We have code-sharing for our airlines, and a 
whole lot fewer people get killed in airplane crashes than on trucks. 
About 800 commercial drivers die each year in traffic crashes, and 
roughly 4,900 people die and 130,000 are injured from these large truck 
accidents, and a lot of them occur in my district.
  I-35 from Canada to Mexico has most of it in Texas, and I can assure 
my colleagues that we see the crashes. We see the trucks that are not 
safe, and that is all we are asking for.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, this is not about Mexican trade. This 
goes to the very issue of safety, besides taking our national 
sovereignty, our manufacturing base, the American jobs and Mexican 
jobs. Look at the data. NAFTA is now threatening the safety of our 
constituents.
  The decision by a faceless panel is requiring our government to allow 
hazardous trucks access to our roadways.
  In testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation 
Committee on July 18, 2001, Secretary Mineta stated, ``Every Mexican 
firm, vehicle and driver that seeks authority to operate in the U.S., 
at the border or beyond, must meet the identical safety and operating 
standards that apply to the U.S. and Canadian carriers.''
  That is where it is at. It is a sad day that the Olver amendment is 
desperately needed 3 years later after Mineta's speech, as we cannot 
count on the Department of Transportation to act appropriately and in 
the public's interest by requiring foreign-built trucks and buses from 
meeting Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
  The measures Congress has passed addressing safety have made progress 
towards ensuring trucks on our highways meet certain standards. It is 
not just an issue of fairness. It is a matter of life and death.
  The bottom line is, Mr. Chairman, the House cannot allow this 
administration to gut safety regulations or compromise environmental 
standards in the name of trade. Vote ``yes'' on the Olver amendment and 
defend the

[[Page 18965]]

work of the Congress and defend the work of American working families.

                              {time}  1145


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members to try to stay within 
their time limits.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, could you let me know again how much time 
each side has?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. 
Given the opportunity and a level playing field, I believe in the 
ability of American workers to operate their vehicles safely. Without 
this amendment, we put our workers at a great, great disadvantage, 
allow our air to be unduly polluted and make our highways less safe.
  The gentleman from Arizona says it is about the Teamsters. No, it is 
about the American people who use America's highways. If trucks from 
Mexico are going to bring products into our country, using our 
highways, these trucks need to be held to the same safety and emission 
standards to which our own trucks are held.
  At present, Mexican trucks are not held to American standards for 
safety and emissions. Allowing an 18-wheel truck loaded with 88,000 
pounds of cargo to speed over our highways without ensuring that the 
vehicle is safe simply makes no sense.
  Mexican drivers must be subject to the same level of scrutiny that we 
demand of our American drivers with regard to training and 
recordkeeping and incident violations.
  I respectfully urge support of this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to get on with the implementation of NAFTA. 
To the gentleman from California, I say that my amendment makes 
absolutely no distinction between Mexican trucks, Canadian trucks or 
U.S. trucks. It says all of them, as does the rule that is in process 
say all trucks must meet U.S. safety standards.
  What my amendment does say is that we are not going to provide 24 
more months after the 30 months that has already passed and the 
additional months that are going to pass before the actual promulgation 
and effective date of the rule. It does not provide an additional 24 
months for those trucks, all trucks, to meet the same set of standards. 
I think that is absolutely neutral on the issue of whether they are 
Canadian, U.S. or Mexican. It is saying, get on with it, promulgate it. 
They had plenty of time to get their certificate, their label, whatever 
it is that they needed. They have known for a very long time. Let us 
get on with it.
  Support the amendment so that we can do so.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts and every 
speaker that has spoken about the need for the safety of trucks on the 
road. I also agree and will work in conference on this bill to make 
sure that we do not have an inordinate phase-in period, that we try to 
use some rationality there.
  But let us understand the difference between many of the things that 
are said and what this amendment actually proposes to do. Now, we heard 
one speaker talk about how he does not want trucks coming up from 
Mexico along I-35, all the way up to Minnesota, that are unsafe. Well, 
believe me, I do not either, because they cannot get there without 
coming through Oklahoma and my district, and I do not want unsafe 
trucks on I-35 as they come through Oklahoma either.
  But this amendment is not about whether a vehicle is safe. It is not 
about whether it is in safe operating condition. The amendment is about 
what was the condition of the vehicle at the time it was originally 
manufactured, not what the condition is now. Everybody that owns or 
uses a vehicle, a car or a truck or a bus or anything, knows that 
things get modified; things are retrofitted.
  We have the law, and they enforce it at the border. If a vehicle is 
going to come in and move into the interior of the United States, it 
has to be in safe operating condition. It has to be in a condition that 
meets our standards. But that vehicle might not have originally been 
manufactured to those standards. It may have been retrofitted.
  The gentleman's amendment says, well, unless you have certification 
that it was in that condition at the time it was first built, no matter 
how many years ago that was, unless that is the case, we are not going 
to let them in. It is aimed at the companies that have trucks that have 
been retrofitted that are perfectly safe. That is what it is aimed at. 
It is trying to remove their ability to compete and give competitive 
advantages to other companies.
  I oppose the amendment. We can talk about what should be the 
notification procedures and phase-ins and so forth, but let us make 
sure that we put the emphasis on the safety of the vehicles in the 
condition they are in now, not whether or not they were originally 
manufactured to some different specification. I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Olver) will be postponed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma a 
question.
  We have had five or six amendments adopted, the Van Hollen amendment, 
the Davis amendment on Cuba, the Lee amendment on Cuba, the Waters 
amendment on Cuba, the Stenholm amendment on debt ceiling and, I 
believe, one other. Last year, we had the experience of seeing a good 
many amendments which had been adopted on this floor to this and 
several other bills evaporate as soon as they went to conference.
  I would like to know whether the gentleman can assure us that he will 
insist on retaining each of these amendments and will not bring this 
bill back from conference if these amendments do not stay in the 
conference this year.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's 
point, and he is well aware that the controversial amendments which 
relate to Cuba always bring up a lot of heat in the debate in this 
House. Those amendments are subject to a presidential veto. We have had 
the message from the White House in the statement of administrative 
policy, which is very unequivocal in indicating the President would 
veto the bill over Cuba.
  This is why, in past years, the gentleman has certainly seen that 
amendment, as the gentleman phrases it, evaporate or at least not come 
through in the conference report to the same degree before. My 
responsibility, as the gentleman appreciates, is to produce a bill that 
will pass into law. I am unable to give him the assurance that he is 
seeking, and I am sure he understands why, although he is not pleased 
by it.
  Mr. OBEY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
his candor.
  Let me say this, Mr. Chairman, I had originally been willing to 
support this bill as it came out of committee, even though many of us 
on this side of the aisle thought the bill woefully inadequate in terms 
of funding levels for various transportation accounts. But

[[Page 18966]]

the majority has been in a three-cornered feud with itself. The 
authorizing committee and a number of others in the majority party 
caucus, for different reasons, have shredded this bill. They have 
knocked out, at this point, highway aid to the States. They have 
knocked out mass transit. They have knocked out funding for airport 
construction. They have knocked out 80 percent of the Department of 
Transportation funds that originally were contained in this bill.
  In addition to that, we have received no assurance whatsoever that 
the amendments that the House adopted would be retained in conference. 
In fact, we have essentially been told, because of the presidential 
threat of a veto, that these amendments will once again be stripped in 
the conference. That means that virtually all of the action that 
occurred on this floor has been meaningless with respect to the items 
that were debated today and late last night.
  I am certainly willing to meet my responsibilities to help move bills 
forward, even if I do not always agree with their content, provided the 
majority party itself takes its duty seriously. But if the majority 
party itself, if the majority party leadership itself will not defend 
their own legislative product as it comes out of the committee, I 
certainly do not see why I should, especially when House actions, given 
the arbitrary action of the authorizing committee, have turned this 
bill into a cadaver.
  So, at this point, I intend to vote ``no,'' because I am not going to 
vote for a bill which effectively cuts more than half the dollar 
resources out of this bill and which effectively cuts 80 percent of the 
transportation funding out of the bill just because some people in this 
House happen to think that committee jurisdiction is more important 
than being responsible.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that I give a response of sorts 
to my friend from Wisconsin. We all know that, for parliamentary 
reasons, there have been points of order raised that resulted in 
certain things being taken from this bill. However, every Member should 
be aware, and I certainly want to emphasize to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, the ranking member of the full committee, everyone is aware 
that those items relating to transportation funding are going to be 
reinstated in conference. The conference report will not be subject to 
the same parliamentary points of order that caused the problem.
  So if any Member is concerned about, well, my goodness, what are we 
accomplishing through this bill, the answer is, we are creating the 
mechanism that allows us to fund transportation in the United States of 
America. Whatever may not be in the bill at this moment can be restored 
in conference. But we do not get there if we do not pass this House 
bill. And if Members want to telegraph that they do not care about 
funding for transportation or they do not care about funding for 
transportation needs and projects in their district, there is probably 
no better way to indicate that than by voting against the bill.
  Now, I understand the gentleman from Wisconsin. His opposition is not 
toward funding transportation. I understand he is concerned about the 
Cuba provisions and whether they will endure in the final report. But 
to every Member of this body it is important that we advance this bill 
to the conference with the Senate, which enables us to resolve the 
parliamentary problems with our own rules to put in the transportation 
funding and, of course, the funding that will benefit the individual 
Members in their States and in their districts and the projects in 
their areas. It is important to know who supports that.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let 
me simply say that I am not only concerned with the Cuba provisions, I 
am very much concerned with the transportation items. And I am not 
about to go on record voting for a bill which has cut these bills, in 
essence, almost 80 percent below last year's level in terms of 
transportation items.
  I have seen the majority party's campaign committee play games with 
that too often, and I do not expect to see ads run against Members of 
the Congress because they voted for a product which the majority party 
itself is asking them to vote for. That has happened too many times for 
me to be suckered by that one.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I reemphasize that this 
bill is the vehicle for the transportation funding. It goes to the 
conference with the Senate. The things that were stricken on points of 
order can then be restored and will be restored. A vote against this 
bill is a vote against the transportation funding that is important to 
every Member. It is important to their States and important to projects 
in their districts.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Clyburn), the vice chair of my caucus.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention to the important 
work of the United States Election Assistance Commission and issue my 
strong support for the $15 million in funding that the Committee on 
Appropriations has recommended for this year.
  Establishing the EAC was delayed in 2003, and because of that, the 
full commissioners were not appointed until December 2003, and the EAC 
was woefully underfunded for fiscal 2004.

                              {time}  1200

  Yet despite these obstacles, the four commissioners have worked 
diligently to ensure timely progress on the election reform that 
Congress envisioned when it passed HAVA 2 years ago. The EAC 
commissioners have used their collective commitment, skills, and 
dedication to disburse to States the $2.3 billion in HAVA payments that 
was appropriated for fiscal year 2004. At the same time, EAC is working 
closely with State and local election administrators to make certain 
they implement HAVA requirements for Provisional Voting, Voter 
Identification, Polling Place Signage, and State Administrative 
Complaint Procedures that must be in place for this year's elections.
  Mr. Chairman, these are not abstract provisions. Rather, they are 
voter reform measures mandated by Congress to ensure that every 
eligible citizen can register, vote, and know that their vote can be 
counted in a timely and fair manner. We are just weeks away from the 
November 2 elections, which will be the first Federal election since 
HAVA was enacted.
  Free and fair elections are the heart of our democracy. We do not 
want to repeat what happened in November, 2000. Yet we jeopardize the 
quality of our elections if we shortchange the EAC's ability to 
operate, conduct research, set standards for voting systems, and 
conduct audits of the HAVA funding that is being paid to States.
  H.R. 5025 provides $15 million for the United States Election 
Assistance Commission. Without this funding, we cannot guarantee full 
implementation of this landmark act, the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this year's 
Transportation and Treasury bill was brought to the floor with great 
hopes. It had been improved substantially in subcommittee and again in 
full committee, and improvements have been made, indeed, on the floor 
of this body last week and yesterday and today.
  There were already some serious problems like the Amtrak problem, 
which we have talked about; the Federal Transit Administration's New 
Starts program, which we have talked about; and the Tax Law Enforcement 
program, which we talked about. Those problems remain there. And 
because of the reasons that my ranking member of the full committee has 
already given, we have had a situation where much of the bill has been 
struck by broad points of order, leaving us with very limited funding, 
no grants to the States and Federal highway-airport

[[Page 18967]]

improvement grants; transit formula grants; the highway safety grants, 
gone. All of that is true.
  However, I am going to vote for the bill because the only way and the 
only place that this bill can be put back together and the serious 
problems fixed is in the conference. I believe that we are going to 
have to work very hard within that conference in order to make certain 
that those fundings and those problems are dealt with properly, but I 
am willing to work with the chairman to try to do that. I hope that we 
will be able to rectify enough of those problems in conference that we 
can produce a bill that will have strong, enthusiastic, bipartisan 
support. So I will vote for the bill.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver). He is certainly correct that the only 
mechanism to fix the problems with the bill, the parliamentary 
problems, is moving it to a conference with the Senate, which requires 
House passage as a prelude to that, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I do wish to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) for yielding to me for the opportunity to engage 
in a colloquy.
  As the chairman knows, I have done a great deal of work on waste, 
fraud, and abuse in the Congress. And in particular, I rise today to 
discuss the efforts that are underway in our government to address 
ongoing fraud that is costing our highway trust fund untold sums.
  There is a significant problem going on in every State of this great 
Nation that is not only taking money from desperately needed 
transportation projects but funding organized crime activities and 
quite possibly terrorist activities. The issue is not glamorous and it 
is not dangerous. It is not punishable by high criminal penalties and, 
therefore, receives little attention. The issue is the fraudulent use 
of off-road untaxed diesel fuel as taxable on-road diesel. This type of 
fraud leads to a profit of nearly 50 cents a gallon in combined Federal 
and State taxes.
  It may not sound like much. Some estimates, however, have shown that 
well over $1 billion a year is lost in tax revenue. In the scope of our 
national budget, some think $1 billion or $2 billion does not seem like 
a great amount, and it is not the type of thinking that will ensure the 
problems like these will ever get resolved.
  Fortunately, the Internal Revenue Service has been examining 
technologies for the past few years that will give them better tools to 
fight this type of fraud. Make no mistake, those involved in this type 
of fraud are well financed, smart business people that leverage 
technology at every opportunity. I think it is time that we respond in 
kind. In order to support the IRS's efforts in finishing this fight, 
requests have been submitted to the chairman to fund a pilot program to 
put technology out in the field. What is so unique about this pilot 
project is that we will see immediate returns. The last time the IRS 
implemented a program to combat this type of fraud, there was a 22.5 
percent increase in tax collections in the first 12 months. This pilot 
project will pay for itself and will lead to a national program that 
will recover potentially billions of dollars that are so desperately 
needed for our highways.
  I would like the chairman, if he could, to comment on this pilot 
project, please.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Texas for his comments. As he knows, we are very aware of this 
issue, and we are concerned about the level of tax evasion and fraud 
that is underway. We want to arm the IRS with the best technology and 
an overall program not only to combat the fraud but to locate those 
perpetrating the fraud and put them out of business permanently. There 
is report language to this effect in this bill. I understand my 
counterpart in the Senate, Mr. Shelby, is aware of the issue as well. 
We will be working with him in conference to have a strong position in 
the final bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his diligent 
work on this issue and others who are also doing so, and I want to 
thank him for his hard work on behalf of all Americans. And I thank the 
gentleman for engaging in this colloquy.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I believe we will 
complete debate on this bill after we hear from the chairman of the 
full committee.
  I do want to express my appreciation to the staff that has worked so 
diligently on this: Our chief clerk of the subcommittee, Rich Efford; a 
member of my personal staff, Kurt Conrad; and also on the subcommittee 
staff, Cheryle Tucker, Leigha Shaw, Dena Baron, and Kristen Jones. 
Without them nothing could be accomplished.
  This bill merits the support of every Member of this body, and I ask 
that people support it accordingly and pass it.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to compliment the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Istook) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking 
member, for having brought this bill to a successful conclusion. 
Despite some parliamentary obstacles that we had earlier in the debate, 
they have produced, what I think will be, a highly acceptable bill.
  I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, this is number 12 of the 13 
regular appropriations bills. There is only one more to go to the 
floor. But I also want our colleagues to know that the Committee on 
Appropriations had completed work on all 13 bills prior to the August 
summer work period. So we have been prepared to move the bills as time 
became available on the floor.
  This is a good bill. As I have said, there were some parliamentary 
problems that I suggested will need to be repaired when we get to 
conference. And I am being optimistic when I say it will get to 
conference. We are hoping there will be a conference. We would like to 
conclude our appropriations business before we break for the election.
  I understand why the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
suggested that he would vote against this bill.
  I am going to vote for it, and I think it is worthy of a ``yes'' 
vote.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just observe the gentleman said this 
is a good bill. There is not anything left of this bill except the 
enacting clause; that is in great shape. Outside of that, it is a 
hollow shell.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, what is left, 
is a good bill. And whatever repairs need to be made will be made in 
the conference. So I urge the Members to vote against the motion to 
recommit and for final passage on the bill.


                      Announcement By The Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would call to the Members' attention the 
provisions of clause 1 of rule XVII regarding the wearing of 
communicative badges on the floor, which has been interpreted to 
proscribe the wearing of such, and the Chair would request that any 
Members who are doing so remove them when recognized for debate.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote.

[[Page 18968]]




                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 225, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 461]

                               AYES--188

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Flake
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Graves
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--225

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Berkley
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Baird
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonner
     Cannon
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Hart
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Kirk
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy
     Tauzin
     Wexler
     Wicker

                              {time}  1234

  Messrs. ALEXANDER, REHBERG, PALLONE, and DEUTSCH changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HERGER and Mr. BOOZMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 339, 
noes 70, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 462]

                               AYES--339

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren

[[Page 18969]]


     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     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)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--70

     Aderholt
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brady (TX)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chocola
     Collins
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Tom
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Granger
     Hastings (WA)
     Herger
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     McCrery
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pitts
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Renzi
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (TX)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Weldon (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Baird
     Becerra
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bonner
     Cannon
     Cox
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Hart
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Jones (NC)
     Kirk
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy
     Tauzin
     Wexler
     Wicker

                              {time}  1243

  Mrs. CUBIN and Mr. OTTER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. EVERETT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, earlier today my floor vote was not 
recorded on rollcall No. 462, the Olver amendment to H.R. 5025, the 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, had I voted on the Olver amendment, I would have 
unequivocally voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 462
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the last three lines.
  The Clerk read, as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Transportation, Treasury, 
     and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005''.

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the 
Transportation Appropriation Subcommittee for including in this years 
Transportation Appropriation bill, $9 million for the hiring and 
training for the next generation of air-traffic controllers.
  As a senior member on the Aviation Subcommittee, we are well aware 
that air traffic controllers are retiring at a quicker pace than they 
are being hired.
  Over 50 percent of the air traffic controller workforce will retire 
within the next 10 years.
  Industry believes that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must 
hire 1000 air traffic controllers a year for the next three years to 
provide the necessary staffing levels and prepare for the wave of air 
traffic controller retirements.
  Authorizers and appropriators may disagree on a quite a bit, 
especially on this bill, but the safety and security of the flying 
public is an issue we can all agree on.
  This $9 million is a good first step. However, aside from funding we 
must also strive to train and hire the next generation of air traffic 
controllers that more accurately represents American society and the 
flying public.
  By that I mean, in 2003 the following is a break down of the 
percentage of the air-traffic controller hirings: 18 percent women; 1 
percent African American; 1 percent Hispanics; 1 percent Asians; and 0 
percent Native Americans.
  Unfortunately, these hiring percentages are following an all to 
familiar pattern that has already been established at the FAA.
  For example, in 2003 the following is a breakdown of the air traffic 
controller workforce made up of the following percentages of women and 
minorities: 18 percent women; 1 percent African American women; 1 
percent Hispanic women; 0 percent Asian women; and 0 percent Native 
American women.
  We have a historic opportunity before us. We are facing a time when 
we must make unprecedented investments into our air traffic controller 
workforce.
  I ask this Congress--and this Administration, to make the effort to 
reach out to women and minorities so that we may revamp our workforce 
to be a replica of our society as a whole.
  Thank you Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you and the 
Ranking Member on this very important issue as this bill moves to 
conference with the Senate.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill. 
Members of this House chose to strip funding for Amtrak from this bill 
simply because the necessary agreement could not be reached on a floor 
rule to consider this legislation that would have protected Amtrak. 
Since the end of Fiscal Year 2002 when Amtrak was last authorized, 
Congress has continued to keep its commitment to our nation's rail 
passengers by funding Amtrak and ensuring that the nations trains 
continue to operate. We must continue that commitment as Congress 
continues to debate the right path for Amtrak's future through a 
reauthorization bill.
  I am shocked that Members of this House would consider shutting down 
Amtrak in this manner, when a large majority of Americans favor 
continuing federal subsidies to Amtrak, and a substantial percentage 
would increase federal funding so the ailing passenger railroad can 
enhance its service. Fifty-one percent of respondents in an August 2002 
Washington Post poll supported keeping Amtrak's funding current levels 
and twenty percent supported increasing the funding level.
  Mr. Chairman, I request that the House support the $1.2 billion FY 05 
level that was recently passed by the Senate Transportation/Treasury 
Appropriations Subcommittee. This Senate funding level is equal to the 
amount that Congress appropriated to Amtrak in FY 04 and is well short 
of the $1.8 billion requested by Amtrak CEO David Gunn to continue his 
5-year strategic plan for the railroad. It may not be enough to 
implement Mr. Gunn's full plan for FY 05 but passage of the Senate 
level is vital to continue to address the acknowledged ``backlog'' of 
security and infrastructure needs on the Northeast Corridor--a backlog 
that threatens the continuation of safe and reliable passenger rail 
operations in the northeast region. That funding level is also 
necessary for Amtrak to continue to implement a system wide security 
plan.
  In a July 17th interview with National Journal, Amtrak President and 
CEO David Gunn said that if Amtrak were appropriated $900 million in FY 
05, the railroad would have to layoff 2,000 maintenance workers and 
close all major maintenance shops, including those in my home state of 
Delaware. As the U.S. economy continues to recover, we should not be 
cutting federal support for Amtrak work that will lead to jobs for our 
constituents. At the end of June, Mr. Gunn released the company's 
annual update of its strategic five-year plan that continues the focus 
of returning the railroad to a state of good repair
  The plan addresses problems including aging interlockings, rail ties, 
bridges, catenary hardware, and sets aside capital for major fleet 
overhauls. The plan will remove most of the immediate safety threats to 
continued service and vastly improve reliability and on-time 
performance. By continuing the implementation of Mr. Gunn's five-year 
plan, we would remove the immediate impediments to daily service on the 
Northeast Corridor. Amtrak has made real headway in this work and it 
would be a shame to slow or scale back this effort.
  The National Journal article also detailed that as a result of the 
management changes during Mr. Gunn's tenure, Amtrak has kept its

[[Page 18970]]

expenses flat. By contrast, from 1997 to 2001, expenses grew at an 
average rate of 8.5 percent a year. The company has taken on no 
additional debt since the federal government's loan in the summer of 
2002. Passenger ridership through the first eight months of FY 2004 is 
16.2 million, up 6.2 percent over the same period in the last fiscal 
year. From February to May of 2004, the railroad has sustained four 
consecutive months of all time record ridership and, should the trend 
continue through the end of the fiscal year, will exceed 25 million 
passengers for the first time.
  Mr. Gunn's plan also includes a system wide security plan in the wake 
of the earlier railroad bombing this year in Spain that killed more 
than 200 people and injured more than 1,600. The FBI announced earlier 
this year that they have credible intelligence that the nation's 
railroads are being targeted for terrorist attack. Amtrak's security 
plan includes the following: Securing key infrastructure, dispatching 
and control centers; Emphasizing detection and prevention at stations 
and on-board trains; Improving train communications and incident 
command systems. The plan states that ``Physical and technological 
improvements will create layered security countermeasures to address 
the `openness' of the Amtrak system in critical areas.'' Now is not the 
time to limit Mr. Gunn's resources to harden targets on the railroad's 
infrastructure, improve passenger safety, and strengthen efforts to 
facilitate an effective first responder response to a terrorist 
incident involving Amtrak.
  Mr. Chairman, I understand the budget restraints that the committee 
is dealing with in crafting this appropriations bill but now is not the 
time to reduce our support for Mr. Gunn's effort to rebuild Amtrak's 
aging infrastructure and secure the railroad from potential terrorist 
attack
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  If not, pursuant to the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 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, pursuant to House Resolution 770, he 
reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment adopted in the Committee 
of the Whole?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a separate vote on the Stenholm 
amendment trying to contain the national debt.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there a separate vote demanded on any 
other amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment on 
which a separate vote has been demanded.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following new section:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used by the Secretary of the Treasury to implement, pursuant 
     to sections 8348(j)(1) and 8348(l)(2) of title 5, United 
     States Code, any suspension of issuance of obligations of the 
     United States for purchase by the Civil Service Retirement 
     and Disability Fund, to implement, pursuant to sections 
     8438(g)(1) and 8438(h)(2) of such title, any suspension of 
     issuance of obligations of the United States for purchase by 
     the Thrift Savings Fund for the Government Securities 
     Investment Fund, or to implement, pursuant to section 
     8348(k)(1) of such title, any sale or redemption of 
     securities, obligations, or other invested assets of the 
     Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund before maturity.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 404, 
noes 8, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 463]

                               AYES--404

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     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
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     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)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

[[Page 18971]]



                                NOES--8

     Collins
     Davis, Tom
     Johnson, Sam
     Ose
     Portman
     Schrock
     Scott (VA)
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Baird
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonner
     Cannon
     DeMint
     Gephardt
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Hart
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Kirk
     Lantos
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy
     Tauzin
     Wexler
     Wicker


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in the vote.

                              {time}  1304

  Messrs. GUTIERREZ, CUNNINGHAM and KOLBE changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on engrossment 
and a third reading.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                 Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Obey

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. OBEY. In its present form, I certainly am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 5025, to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House promptly with an amendment to restore 
     funding for Payments to Air Carriers, Grants-in-Aid for 
     Airports, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal 
     Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the National Highway 
     Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the 
     Surface Transportation Board and increase funding above the 
     levels in H.R. 5025, as reported, for the Federal-Aid 
     Highways Limitation on Obligations, Grants to the National 
     Railroad Passenger Corporation, new fixed guideway systems, 
     and Grants-in-Aid for Airports.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, last week during consideration of this bill, 
three factions of the majority party took turns in striking entire 
accounts out of this bill.
  More than half the budgetary resources that had been in the bill are 
now missing.
  More than 80 percent of the Department of Transportation's resources 
have been deleted from this bill. This bill is now missing more than 
$41 billion in funding that was supposed to flow to each of our States 
for highways, transit and aviation.
  My motion to recommit the Department of Transportation programs and 
provides adequate funding for addressing the Nation's transportation 
needs. This motion asks that the Committee on Appropriations restore 
the accounts that were deleted by points of order, and it calls for 
increased funding above the committee-reported levels for highways, 
transit, new start projects, Amtrak and Grants-in-Aid for airports.
  It restores funding for rural airports through the Essential Air 
Service Program, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Surface 
Transportation Board.
  The motion is important because without it we are simply not meeting 
some of the crucial transportation needs of the country.
  Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my friend from Oklahoma will say that 
because of the form of this motion that this bill will effectively be 
delayed or killed. The fact is, that is not correct. This bill is 
already dead. This bill is already on the way to the morgue. It quit 
breathing last Friday. All I am trying to do is to resuscitate the bill 
and make it something other than a cadaver.
  So, without this motion, this House is acquiescing in the fact that 
jurisdictional arguments between committees have resulted in a bill 
which has little more than the enacting title, and I do not think that 
it does very much credit to the House.
  If you vote for this amendment, you will be voting to resuscitate the 
programs that were knocked out because of the willfulness of the 
authorizing committee last week, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote for 
the proposition.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 5 minutes in his opposition.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the frustration of 
the gentleman from Wisconsin, and certainly I have a high level of 
frustration, and many people do, because of the things that on 
parliamentary procedures were stricken on points of order, because we 
have so many programs that have not been reauthorized.
  However, there is a much better way to fix the problem, and that is 
to finish the process, pass the bill, move it to conference where we 
are then able to bring a conference report back before this House that 
is not subject to these points of order.
  Were we to do what the gentleman from Wisconsin seeks, we would only 
repeat the exercise in frustration. He wants us to take the bill back 
to committee, reinsert the things that were taken out on points of 
order and, while we are at it, put more money in them. Then, if we 
brought the bill back to the floor, guess what? Those same points of 
order are here on the floor. We go through the exercise again.
  Secondly, we have an additional point of order because the 
gentleman's request, I believe, would push us above the 302(b) 
allocation which is our share of the budget allocation, and there would 
be an additional point of order against the bill. We would only repeat 
the frustration.
  What is worse than being frustrated once? Being frustrated twice. 
That is what the motion to recommit would accomplish, but opposing the 
motion to recommit and passing the bill moves it into conference. That 
is where the problem can and will be fixed.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  All of that can be solved by simply having the Committee on Rules 
this time do its duty and report out a rule that protects a rational 
bill.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's concern, and 
certainly the Committee on Rules could have done something on the 
current bill and could do something on a different bill, but why do we 
expect the Committee on Rules would have any different action?
  The only sure course of action to get this bill passed to fund the 
transportation for every Member of this body for their States and also 
to address the desires that different Members have for their different 
districts is to pass the bill, move it on to the House-Senate 
conference where we bring it back, and all those problems are wiped 
clean because now we are under a different parliamentary process that 
governs the conference report.
  I oppose the motion to recommit. There is no sense in killing the 
bill. Let us keep it alive so that we can keep transportation moving in 
the country.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for the electronic vote on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 201, 
nays 210, not voting 22, as follows:

[[Page 18972]]



                             [Roll No. 464]

                               YEAS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--210

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

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Baird
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonner
     Cannon
     Foley
     Gephardt
     Greenwood
     Hart
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Kirk
     Manzullo
     Matsui
     McInnis
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy
     Shaw
     Tauzin
     Wexler
     Wicker


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). There are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1333

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on passage of 
the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 397, 
nays 12, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 465]

                               YEAS--397

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard

[[Page 18973]]


     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--12

     Castle
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hefley
     Jones (NC)
     Kucinich
     Obey
     Otter
     Paul
     Royce
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Baird
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonner
     Cannon
     Cox
     Dunn
     Foley
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Greenwood
     Hart
     Hensarling
     Hoekstra
     Kirk
     Manzullo
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy
     Reynolds
     Tauzin
     Wexler
     Wicker


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1340

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 465, H.R. 5025--
Transportation/Treasury Appropriation bill, I was on legislative 
business and arrived after the vote. Had I been here I would have voted 
in the affirmative.

                          ____________________