[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 20288-20321]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The Committee resumed its sitting.


                    Amendment offered by Ms. Harman

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

       Amendment offered by Ms. Harman:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to purchase light bulbs unless the light bulbs have 
     the ``ENERGY STAR'' or ``Federal Energy Management Program'' 
     designation.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment is offered by Mr. 
Upton, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Inglis and me, and what it would do is deny 
funds under this appropriations bill if the ENERGY STAR and the Federal 
Emergency Management program standards are not met.
  Mr. Chairman, it takes 18 seconds to switch one incandescent light 
bulb. If everyone did this, just one, we would save $8 billion in 
energy costs, prevent the burning of 30 billion pounds of coal, remove 
2 million carts worth of greenhouse gas emissions, and make a big dent 
in our climate problem.
  This amendment has been accepted to every appropriations bill so far, 
and I would urge its adoption now.
  It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. UPTON. I would just say that this is a bipartisan amendment. We 
have been asked to expedite our remarks tonight so we can finish votes 
later this evening.
  The Federal Government is the largest purchaser of light bulbs. This 
will save $30 per bulb, hundreds of millions of dollars to the 
taxpayers every year. It is something that has been adopted on every 
bill, and I would like to think that we can adopt it by voice again 
this evening.
  Mr. OLVER. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HARMAN. Reclaiming my time, I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I am quite happy to accept the amendment that is being offered by you 
and Mr. Upton.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection. We agree. We 
accept. Thank you.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ____. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to establish or collect tolls on Interstate 80 in 
     the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I will be very brief because I believe 
the amendment has been agreed to.
  My amendment is a simple amendment that says Federal funds cannot be 
used to establish or collect tolls on Interstate 80 in Pennsylvania.
  Mr. OLVER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I will yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. OLVER. I am happy to accept the amendment by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. And likewise, I accept as well.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I thank the two gentlemen. We will let 
the process move forward.
  This was offered both on behalf of Congressmen Peterson and English.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by

[[Page 20289]]

the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hunter:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _____. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to participate in a working group pursuant to the 
     Security and Prosperity Partnership.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of 
myself and the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  And Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which goes directly to the 
security of this country, the homeland security of this country, and 
particularly the border security and the sovereignty of the Nation.
  We have right now in Texas a project that is underway, a massive 
project to build a 12-lane highway heading north, presumably funded 
largely by private funds, which will head north toward Oklahoma. And 
the understanding that I have, looking at the statements which have 
been made by the Security and Prosperity Partnership, is that this is 
part of an overall plan to develop a corridor between Mexico and Canada 
transiting the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment, which strikes the funds 
for the administration to spend money with discussion teams and working 
groups on this particular project, is because this is a project which 
cries out for congressional oversight, of which right now there is 
none. Now, as a representative of a border State, and having 
represented all the California-Mexican border at one time, my questions 
would be: What security matters are being discussed right now with 
these thousands of new trucks which will be transiting this 12-lane 
highway? What percent of the trucks will be checked? What transparency 
will be involved with respect to the driving records, and more 
importantly, the criminal records of the people behind the wheels of 
these trucks? What are the plans in place to put together a security 
apparatus to ensure that we have more than 1 percent or 2 percent of 
this vehicular trade checked?
  Now, this is a working group which is proceeding, which claims that 
it has no plans to participate in what they call this private program 
to deliver this 12-lane highway straight across the middle of the 
United States connecting Mexico and Canada. Yet, in their own 
description of what they do, they claim that they undertake these 
working groups to facilitate multimodal corridors and alleviate 
bottlenecks at the border.
  Alleviating bottlenecks at the border, Mr. Chairman, when you only 
are checking 1 to 2 percent of the cargo containers coming in right 
now, is a code word for less security, these so-called ``fast passes,'' 
these passes in which you go through the security apparatus in a matter 
of seconds rather than in a matter of hours.
  So I think that it's time, before they facilitate this multimodal 
operation, for the administration to consult Congress. It's time for 
our oversight.
  At this point, I would like to yield to the cosponsor of this 
amendment, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding and in support of the 
Hunter-Kaptur amendment. It is a simple limitation amendment. And 
frankly, one of the chief reasons I'm supporting it, in addition to all 
the excellent reasons Mr. Hunter has given, is that the administration 
refuses to report back to Congress its negotiation on this Security and 
Prosperity Partnership and its impact in a number of areas, including 
transportation. They have been intransigent, they have been 
unresponsive and, frankly, they've been secretive. And this is going to 
have an enormous impact on public welfare across this continent, 
particularly in our country.
  The gentleman talks about security. I support him in that. Right now 
we've got a situation under NAFTA where so many of our jobs and 
production platforms have been outsourced to Mexico. We've got all 
these illegal trucks coming in. They're even making their way all the 
way to Ohio, up into Detroit, causing us all kinds of difficulty. We 
need transparency and we need disclosure about what the Security and 
Prosperity Partnership is all about. The Administration, even on our 
request, refuses to answer inquiries about the SPP.
  Due to NAFTA, we just have tremendous problems with additional 
illegal drugs in our area coming in transported in a lot of these 
vehicles that are coming from the border, and in many ways we already 
have an unregulated flow across our continent.
  So I really support the gentleman's efforts here. We need 
transparency. We need disclosure. We don't need to expand the 
difficulties we're already having as a result of what has transpired 
with NAFTA. And with the size of the roadways that are being talked 
about, and the possibility they will be privatized tollways, we need to 
have reporting back from this administration.
  So I support the gentleman's amendment very strongly.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I, frankly, am not in favor, and I must oppose this 
amendment because I think any superhighway between Mexico, the U.S. and 
Canada, and there are no funds in this bill for this mythical private 
road, I just don't believe that this superhighway is something that we 
should get into.
  And furthermore, this amendment puts a stop on several 
transportation-related initiatives between my State, which is Michigan, 
my city and Canada. For example, we've been working for years to 
improve the crossing at the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit and 
Windsor. That's the busiest, it isn't the second busiest, it's the 
busiest U.S.-Canadian crossing in our country. This amendment would 
stop years of work and cooperative efforts that we've been working on.
  And another example of a cooperative effort under this partnership is 
aviation. I've got to tell you that there are three international 
airports in my area, all of which fly into Canada. DOT and Canada are 
working together to ensure that travel between the two countries is 
smooth, free and safe.

                              {time}  1830

  I would say, free of any burdensome barriers. This amendment would 
put all of the U.S.-Canada transportation initiatives to an end. That 
would be detrimental to the Nation.
  I think the amendment is one that is a broad brush. It tries to 
actually focus on one thing, but it is too broad. In fact, it contains 
some elements that bring about a real problem. I think that they can do 
much better if they ever redrafted this.
  But here is the story. There is no superhighway in this bill. There 
is not. But there are good initiatives in this bill, ongoing 
initiatives, that are vital to our country.
  Mr. Chairman, I recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond to the 
gentleman from Michigan and say that my district borders Canada too, 
across Lake Erie. The planes fly over our border, and we go up to 
Michigan and we take the Ambassador Bridge and so forth up

[[Page 20290]]

into Canada. So we share those concerns. But what we don't share is our 
dismay at the lack of transparency that characterizes the Bush 
administration. What exactly are they discussing with the Government of 
Canada, with the Government of Mexico and other governments in the 
Americas?
  We have a right to know. We have a right to participate. We want 
transparency and disclosure on the SPP. Their secretiveness about what 
is going on is a deep concern. Vote for the Hunter-Kaptur amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the ranking member, it 
seems to me, makes some very good points. I know how concerned he is 
about the impact that this might have, that may be unintended 
consequences in relation to the northern border with a prohibition of 
this nature. I think we need to be concerned about unintended 
consequences in which worthwhile activities that we might want to 
support might be eliminated by it.
  Mr. Chairman, reluctantly I am going to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I supported the Hunter/Kaptur amendment 
because we should not be funding the Security and Prosperity 
Partnership until the White House tells us what it is and what their 
plans are. The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America 
website says that its goals are about eliminating red tape and 
increasing security. Those are noble goals. But unless the White House 
is willing to tell us what they really have in mind, we shouldn't have 
them spend money on it.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated 
     or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby 
     reduced by 6.3 percent.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and a Member opposed each will control 
20 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, we had asked unanimous consent earlier and 
were given unanimous consent that these amendments would be read. I 
didn't hear the amendment read.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the chairman.
  The amendment before you would reduce the appropriations in the bill 
by $3.2 billion, as was just read by the Clerk.
  Even though the majority party will call this a ``cut in spending,'' 
this is not a cut. This is simply returning the level of spending in 
this appropriations bill to last year's level. It is level funding, 
spending the same dollar amount we spent last year. Again, as I have 
articulated on this floor several times in the appropriations process 
on other pieces of legislation, it is exactly what all kinds of 
families across this country have to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the work of the committee. I don't 
bring this amendment because I don't appreciate the work that the 
committee does; I bring it because our country and our government do 
face a real financial challenge in the future. If we don't begin to get 
a handle on the spending that this Congress does and that our 
government does, we are going to have real problems.
  The best way to begin to start that, when you think about the 
challenges and problems that loom in front of us, with entitlements, 
with Social Security, with Medicaid, with Medicare, the way to start 
that process, to get a handle on the fiscal crisis that is looming, is 
to start right here and say, you know what? It is probably not too much 
to ask for the Congress and for the Government of the United States to 
spend the same amount that they spent last year. That is why I bring 
this amendment forward.
  I would also point out this: Inevitably, when you continue to 
increase spending and increase spending and increase spending, it 
always leads to greater taxes. People talk all the time about tax-and-
spend politicians. In truth it is just the opposite. It is spend and 
tax. Spending drives the equation, and that is why we have to focus on 
spending if we don't want to raise taxes on the American people, which 
we surely don't want to do.
  Yet the other party is talking about doing exactly that. All you have 
to do is look at recent press clippings where they talked about raising 
the tobacco tax to deal with the SCHIP program. They have talked about 
raising taxes on the top marginal bracket to begin to address the AMT. 
Both are bad ideas for families, bad ideas for our economy, and not the 
direction we want to proceed.
  Again, I bring this amendment forward because I think it is something 
that we have to begin to focus on as we look at the financial situation 
that is just around the corner for this country. All kinds of families, 
all kinds of taxpayers, all kinds of business owners have to live on 
last year's spending. It is not too much to ask our government to do 
the same. It is not to much to ask that our government do exactly what 
families all across this country have to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the distinguished chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is an amendment 
that reduces the overall funding in this legislation by $3.2 billion, 
which is the amount of the budget as passed for the 2007 fiscal year by 
way of the continuing resolution that was passed back in February. In 
this process we have had a large number of holes in the legislation 
that had been presented to us by the President for this year, and in 
his budget was $2.8 billion under the bill that we had presented here 
this evening.
  In the process there are several items which are very similar and 
some which are quite different in reaching where we are in this 
legislation. In particular, the section 8 funding under HUD, we felt 
that we had to increase the funding for section 8, both for the Tenant-
Based Housing Assistance program and for the Project-Based Housing 
Assistance program, by a substantial sum of money. That is done 
specifically because there was a change in the CR of the authorizations 
there for funding vouchers, and in order to make certain that every 
person had their vouchers and no one was going to lose rental 
assistance, it was necessary then to add about $1 billion into tenant-
based and project-based assistance in order to meet that and fill that 
need. That is one of the items.
  We had also to very substantially increase the programs in 
transportation in order to reach the guarantees necessary for meeting 
SAFETEA-LU, which, of course, the President doesn't really care about.
  So those items, which I think everybody in this Congress agrees with, 
have had to be increased and require that we not reduce the funding 
under the legislation to the level that has been suggested.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the

[[Page 20291]]

gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the Republican Conference Chair.
  Mr. PUTNAM. I thank my friend for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, let's take a little status report here. This is the 
eighth appropriations bill that has moved across this floor, which is 
commendable, since none have moved across the Senate floor. But it is 
easier to move legislation when there is no bottom line, when there are 
no constraints, when you can just put any amount of money into the 
spending bills. This bill marks the eighth step in the progression 
towards a $1 trillion fiscal train wreck that is coming this fall 
because of the inability of the Democratic Congress to adhere to fiscal 
restraint.
  There is a $23 billion difference between what the Democratic 
Congress would fund and where the President's request is, something 
that has been dismissed in their letter to the President as ``a mere 1 
percent.'' Well, only in the fantasy land of Washington is $23 billion 
pocket change.

                              {time}  1845

  It is vitally important that we restore fiscal accountability to 
Washington, and it begins with amendments like this one offered by my 
friend from Ohio that says let's just hold what we had last year. This 
bill proposes to spend almost 7 percent more than last year and almost 
6 percent above what the President requested.
  But what's the difference between that 1 percent? You say it is 7 and 
6 percent. That is the difference between $2.8 billion and $3.2 
billion. The difference between what this Congress would spend and what 
the President would spend is larger than most States' budgets that meet 
all of the needs of that State. This is the first step in this bill's 
process towards restoring the kind of commonsense fiscal accountability 
that Americans are starving for.
  And when we get down into the weeds of these numbers, people just 
cloud up because it is so hard to comprehend that a mere 1 percent 
translates into tens of billions of dollars. But mark my words, ladies 
and gentlemen, the fiscal train wreck is coming this fall because of 
the inability of this Democratic-led House to restrain itself from 
spending billions more than are necessary to meet the needs of this 
government.
  And what that will mean undoubtedly as part of their budget blueprint 
is higher taxes, taxes that will cripple our economy, taxes that will 
undo the record low unemployment rate, undo a 14,000 point Dow, undo 
record homeownership.
  Mark my words, a trillion-dollar train wreck is coming if you don't 
adopt amendments like these.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).
  Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my 
friend from Ohio for yielding and for his leadership.
  I come from the mountains of east Tennessee. We have a lot of common 
sense in those mountains. We understand when you spend $3.2 billion, 
that's a lot of money. We have men and women all around America right 
now sitting around their kitchen tables trying to decide just exactly 
how they are going to feed their children, how they are going to take 
care of their families, how they are going to pay the tuition and buy 
that next tank of gas.
  We talked about in the last election that we are going to be 
providing a change here in Washington. I believe the freshmen 
Republicans that came into Congress with me this year are here to offer 
that change. The way we offer that change is quit spending as much as 
has been spent in the past. We can do that.
  When we have an economy growing about 3 percent and this bill is 
going to grow by 6 or 7 percent, people understand you can't grow 
government at twice the rate of the American family's income. It just 
can't be done. We need to make sure that we use some commonsense when 
we put these budgets together. We can't spend more money than the 
American people can earn.
  I think the American people did send us here to Washington to rein in 
that spending, get a handle on our fiscal House. I think this amendment 
by my friend from Ohio will go a long way towards doing that. This is 
not about a cut. This is simply about holding the line on spending.
  The American people can understand if they have $100 this year and 
somebody wants to grow it to $200 next year but you can't afford it, 
and you say, ``I can't give you $200, but I will let you keep your 
$100,'' if you kept that at $100, that is not a cut. That is staying 
the same. That is what this amendment does. This simply says we are not 
going to grow that $3.2 billion.
  I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time 
remains?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 12\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from New York has 17 minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, does the gentleman 
from New York have any additional speakers on the amendment?
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that I have the 
right to close, and I am reserving to close.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, is he intending to close with a 
17\1/2\ minute speech?
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Idaho (Mr. Sali), a friend and freshman colleague.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, as I have walked around the halls of the office 
buildings for the House. I have noticed the signs that talk about the 
truth needing to be told regarding the majority's budget that was 
passed, the claim that while there is no tax increase in that budget, 
and technically that is true, Mr. Chairman. There is no language in 
that budget bill that says taxes are raised on anyone in any manner. 
There is no claim there are additional taxes. That language is not in 
that budget.
  But the effect of that budget, Mr. Chairman, will be increased taxes. 
Why do I say that? Well, because the majority has been very vocal 
throughout the last year, through the last campaign season, that by 
golly, one of the things we need to do is get our spending under 
control, get this deficit problem under control.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, the problem is not taxes at this point. The 
problem today, though, is the spending, because if the spending 
continues at the rate we are going, that the majority is proceeding, 
one of two things has got to happen: Either we have to increase deficit 
spending or we have to increase taxes to pay for it.
  I would just point out that about $1 in $5 for the budget last year 
was deficit spending, so how does the majority intend to avoid deficit 
spending at the same rate that they criticized last year? And, in fact, 
how will they avoid increasing that deficit spending by spending more 
this year unless they intend to increase taxes. At some point that 
choice has got to be made.
  Mr. Chairman, it starts with the spending. If we support this 
amendment, that will be a start in the right direction.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, because the Democrats are so 
mesmerized by our presentation, we will continue. It is the first time 
I have known them to be speechless, but we will continue, and so I 
yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Ohio for his 
leadership on this bill, and I am happy to come and lend my comments to 
the discussion.
  Last year the Democrats got elected partly on the basis of their 
promise to cut spending. They made a big to-do about the fact that we 
were increasing spending. Republicans had done that. This is not 
cutting spending; this is holding the line on spending.
  The eight appropriations bills that have passed the House so far are 
$34

[[Page 20292]]

billion above last year's spending levels. That is not fulfilling the 
promises that they made to help hold the line and even cut spending. As 
my colleagues have said, this inevitably is going to lead to the 
largest tax increase in the history of this country.
  Furthermore, in terms of this bill in particular, I have searched the 
Constitution and I see no role for the Federal Government in most of 
what is going to be funded in this bill. But the Democrats have never 
met a request for spending that they didn't like, and so they are going 
on willy-nilly increasing spending, putting the American taxpayer at 
risk, and increasing the deficit in this country; whereas, the tax cuts 
that were passed in 2001 and 2003 have led us to a very, very strong 
economy which we know is benefiting the American people right now.
  Furthermore, none of the promises that they made about slowing the 
exploding growth of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that would 
result in deficit reduction have been dealt with in this Congress.
  We have simply got to come to grips with the fact that we cannot tax 
the American people to the level at which they are being taxed and the 
level to which the Democrats want them to be taxed. We have to hold the 
line on spending, and I support this amendment.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking 
member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for posing 
this amendment.
  The reason we are here today, Mr. Chairman, is because this is 
overbudget. Take a look at this bill right here. It is $2.8 billion 
above the President's request and includes a $3.1 billion boost for the 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. There are also some phony 
gimmicks in this spending bill.
  As noted, the bill provides phony offsets for spending increases by 
rescinding budget authority with no outlay savings. So what you are 
doing, you are actually canceling something that doesn't really exist 
to show paper savings so you can spend it somewhere else. Now, this is 
an old trick that has been done on both sides of the aisle over the 
years, but it still doesn't make it right.
  The problem we have with this bill, as the preceding bills and the 
following appropriations bills, is it is $34 billion above last year's 
spending level just for what we have passed so far. That is $19 billion 
above the President's request. This majority's spending bills are going 
to be $81 billion above last year's spending level.
  When you look at the budget resolution, this bill does conform to the 
budget resolution. It meets 302(b). What that means in budget talk is 
they are conforming to their budget. But what does their budget do? 
Their budget leads to the largest tax increase in American history.
  If you accept these spending increases, which, on average, are 9 
percent spending increases for discretionary spending, three times the 
rate of inflation, three times the rate of wage growth, three times the 
ability for families to be able to afford this expense, three times the 
rate that our family incomes go up at best, if you accept these 
spending increases, that means you are accepting the plan in the 
budget, and the plan in the budget is to raise taxes. Not by a little 
bit, by a lot.
  What tax increases are they specifically calling for in the budget 
resolution that this is a part of? Getting rid of the marriage penalty, 
bringing it back altogether; reducing the child tax credit in half; 
raising income tax rates across the board for every single working 
American and every single working family; bringing the death tax back 
in full force; raising taxes on capital gains and dividends, which 
makes it easier for people to save for retirement, and that creates 
jobs.
  So the problem we have here, Mr. Chairman, is not a revenue problem. 
We have had double-digit revenue increases coming to the Federal 
Government for the past 3 years in a row.

                              {time}  1900

  The deficit just went down this year again by 18 percent because of 
faster revenue growth. So we don't have the problem with the money 
coming in. We don't need to raise taxes. Plenty of money is coming in 
to the coffers of Washington.
  The problem we have is spending. We are just spending too much money 
too quickly. If we want to balance the budget without raising taxes, we 
have to control spending. That's the lesson we've learned.
  Now, what does this bill do? This bill irresponsibly increases 
spending too fast. Are there important functions that are in this bill? 
Yes. Are there important things that the government needs to do, roads 
and bridges and transportation? Yes.
  The problem I have with this bill is it doesn't have fiscal 
discipline. It doesn't contain a budget cap that makes sure we won't 
raise taxes.
  So, by subscribing to the budget increases, the spending increases in 
the bill and the appropriations bills before it and the ones that are 
yet to come, it puts us on that glide path, on that trajectory to 
having the largest tax increase in American history. We don't want 
those taxes to be increased, and we sure don't want to support budgets 
that put us on the path to making it a sure thing, and that, Mr. 
Chairman, is why I think we should vote against this.
  I think we should also have better budgeting. I don't think we should 
be rescinding phony budget authority to then use it for outlays. So, if 
we get rid of the gimmicks, this thing wouldn't even comport with the 
budget resolution itself.
  So with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
bill.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I ask how much time is left.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has 17 minutes. The 
gentleman from Ohio has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that there is no tax 
increase in this bill. The other side, Mr. Chairman, they went from 
saying that there is a tax increase to that this may put us on a 
trajectory to a tax increase, could be, possibly.
  There is no tax increase in this bill.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, just a few comments before we use 
the remaining few minutes of our time as well.
  Think about this. The ranking member of the Budget Committee pointed 
out the facts, what's in this bill, the numbers, the budget, and what's 
going on. But it's always important to come back and focus on how that 
translates into the lives of the American people and American families.
  I think it's important just to remember and think about the typical 
family across this country. They go to work each day. They go to church 
on Sunday. They make their house payment. They make their car payment. 
Maybe they're paying their kids' private school. They're saving for 
college. They may be saving for a family vacation. They don't get an 
automatic 7 percent, in this particular bill $3.2 billion, increase. 
They don't get that. They have to budget. They have to learn to live on 
less many times.
  And that's all this amendment says is, you know what, let's just 
spend exactly what we spent last year, because if we don't. And we keep 
on this spending train that we're on, there will be tax increases. And 
then that family I just described, it's going to be tougher for them to 
pay for that vacation, pay for their kids' school, pay for the shoes 
for soccer practice and Little League and pay for all those things that 
families have to pay for. That's why this is important.
  It begins to put us on the path to deal with the problems that are 
certainly going to be there if we don't start getting a handle on 
spending. That's why I bring the amendment forward. That's what all our 
speakers have talked about, because it's that important that we begin 
to do the right thing here.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 20293]]


  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio have any further 
speakers?
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. You do.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the chairman.
  Has the gentleman yielded back his time?
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. The question from the Chair was do we have 
additional speakers. My response was no.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. I have 
the right to close.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has the right to 
close.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Is the gentleman from New York the only speaker?
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I am the final speaker, and I have the 
right to close.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Then I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, this is like a soap opera. It doesn't 
matter when the American people tune it in, turn it on, it's the same 
script, the same characters, the same plot, the dialogue.
  Every week this small group of Members tries to offer these 
amendments, and every week they're defeated, defeated by the members of 
their own caucus.
  This appropriations bill was passed by the Appropriations Committee 
on a bipartisan basis. Democrats and Republicans supported this bill 
because it has the right investments for the American family.
  They support the notion that we should make sure that we have 
children in car seats that are safe. The gentleman's amendment would 
cut funding for car seat safety for our children.
  They support the notion that we should make sure that our highways 
are safe. The gentleman's amendment would cut funding for highway 
safety.
  They support the notion, Republicans and Democrats alike, that when 
you go to the airport, there should be enough inspectors to make sure 
that your plane is safe. The gentleman's amendment would cut the number 
of inspectors for airlines and increase delays at airports.
  Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee alike 
agreed with the notion that elderly people who worked hard, raised 
their families, paid their dues should have a chance, a better chance, 
to get decent housing. The gentleman's amendment would cut that chance 
of decent housing for the elderly.
  And Republicans and Democrats alike, who share commonsense values and 
compassion, also agree that if you're disabled, you should have a 
chance to get some decent housing. The gentleman's amendment would cut 
the chance of getting decent housing if you are disabled.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talked about the common family and the 
values that they have. Let me suggest to the gentleman one thing, and 
then I will close.
  This isn't really about the argument that the gentleman uses that we 
should cut spending. With all due respect, the gentleman was nowhere 
around when we spent and spent and spent and borrowed and borrowed and 
borrowed for special interests. I will talk about the typical American 
family.
  This morning on the front page of the newspaper there was a story 
about how huge tax breaks that some on the other side supported for the 
largest multinational corporations on Earth, that were promised to 
create jobs, did the opposite. Two years ago, according to the 
newspaper, when companies received a big tax break to bring home their 
offshore profits, the President and Congress justified it as a one-time 
tax amnesty that would create American jobs, but the companies did not 
create many jobs in return. Instead, since 2005, the American drug 
industry has laid off tens of thousands of workers in this country.
  And so let's close by returning to that family. The gentleman may 
have a family in his district, a Jones family. Mr. Jones worked for one 
of those big multinational corporations that have a P.O. box in Bermuda 
to escape their fair share of taxes at home. Mr. Jones thought that 
that tax break to that big company was going to save his job. The 
company got the tax breaks. He got a pink slip.
  Now, if that's not bad enough, the gentleman would propose that Mr. 
Jones, when he goes on the highway to try and find another job, that 
he's less safe; that Mrs. Jones, who's working at the Wal-Mart, when 
she straps her daughter into a car seat, that that car seat be less 
safe because of the cuts to those programs; if the Joneses have enough 
money to scrimp and save and maybe visit their parents or grandparents 
in another State, that they wait even longer to get on the plane, and 
that the plane not have the inspection as quickly as it needs to; and 
that if Mr. Jones' and Mrs. Jones' parents or grandparents want to have 
a decent roof over their heads, that they have to wait longer, in fact 
may not even qualify, because of the cuts in housing assistance for the 
elderly and the disabled.
  The difference between us is that we want to invest in the American 
family, and the other side, not everybody on the other side, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, on a bipartisan basis, passed this 
bill to invest in the American family.
  The sponsor of this amendment wants to continue giving giveaways to 
the richest special interests. We believe those funds are better spent 
with the American family.
  That's what this is about, and that's why I'm so proud that 
Republicans and Democrats alike supported this bill in the 
Appropriations Committee and will defeat this amendment when it comes 
to the floor later.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.


            Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 20 offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced 
     in the amount of $507,767,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the Chair, and I thank the leadership 
for the opportunity to bring this amendment forward.
  This amendment is a very simple amendment. It's an amendment that has 
come to be known as the Hefley amendment, or at least came to be known 
as the Hefley amendment, a former Member of this body who offered an 
amendment to decrease appropriations bills by 1 percent in an effort to 
begin fiscal responsibility.
  And it's my privilege to bring these amendments to the floor again in 
an effort to take that first step, take that first step to begin fiscal 
responsibility in this Chamber.
  This is a good debate. It's a good debate that we have when we talk 
about how to spend hard-earned taxpayer money, because, Mr. Chairman, 
as you know, oftentimes in this Chamber, in fact, we've heard on some 
of these appropriations bills Members talk about their money, about my 
money. And it's always important that we remember

[[Page 20294]]

whose money it is. It's not government money. It's not our money. It's 
the money of the hardworking American taxpayer.
  So this amendment is very simple. It simply says that we ought to 
reduce by 1 percent the amount of money being spent in this particular 
appropriations bill. And to be clear, that is still a significant 
increase in spending over last year, but it's an attempt to begin 
fiscal responsibility.
  One of the numbers, the numbers are that last year this portion of 
the appropriations bill spent $47.5 billion. The President requested an 
increase to $47.9 billion for this next fiscal year, and the committee 
itself brings forward a bill that will spend $50.7 billion. That's $3.2 
billion more than last year.
  So this amendment would say, well, we ought not spend $50.7 billion. 
Let's see if we can't get a little fiscal responsibility and instead 
spend $50.2 billion.
  Again, it's not as far as many of us think we ought to go in an 
effort to try to be more responsible with spending the hard-earned 
American taxpayers' money, but it is a step in the right direction. It 
is a step along the line of fiscal responsibility. It is a recognition. 
It would be the beginning of a recognition that this is not Congress's 
money, that it is the money of the hardworking American taxpayer.
  On many of these bills we seem to get a few more votes each time. I'm 
hopeful that at some point this House will make a statement, that this 
House will make a statement and say, yes, we do believe that, in fact, 
moving forward under the banner of fiscal responsibility dictates that 
we respect the hard work of the American taxpayer and, in fact, accept 
one of these amendments as we move forward.
  So with that I think it's a commonsense amendment. It's a problem-
solving amendment. It's an amendment that speaks to what the American 
family would do when they have some fiscal challenges, and that is to 
overall reduce the amount of money that they spend.
  So, with that, I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague Dr. Price for 
offering this amendment. Certainly the American people can relate to 
this amendment. It simply says that we will not spend 1 percent of the 
bill as currently written, 1 percent. Well, that equates to $500 
million, a substantial sum of money even in the context of the Federal 
budget.
  What we have in Washington, D.C., is a spending problem. We don't 
have a problem with income to government. The government will receive 
about $2.7 trillion this year on a Federal budget that actually spends 
$2.9 trillion.

                              {time}  1915

  What is absolutely fascinating about this is that there are only two 
countries on Earth with whole economies that are larger than the 
Federal Government here in Washington, D.C., and that is the 
governments of Germany and Japan. When we talk about China and the 
growing threat of China's economy, well, look at the size of the 
Chinese economy. The whole economy of China is $1.9 trillion. What we 
have here in Washington D.C. is certainly a spending problem.
  What this amendment proposed by Dr. Price says is that we should be 
able to slip off just a little bit of that spending, just a little bit, 
show the American taxpayers that we can tighten the belt just ever so 
slightly, which means, instead of eating that whole cake, which is what 
the Democrat leadership proposes for dessert, eating that whole cake, 
we are just going to take off just a little bit of the icing, just a 
taste of the icing, rather than eating that whole cake.
  Now, certainly we can do that. Certainly the American people 
understand the Federal Government could save 1 percent. Every family 
budget across America can save 1 percent.
  I urge my colleagues, even the liberal Democrats on the other side of 
the aisle, my friends from the other side of the aisle who said that we 
want to spend more and more and more. They certainly can say we will, 
when we are increasing spending so rapidly, what the Democrats are 
doing here, we could say that just 1 percent, we will take off 1 
percent right off the top.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable and commonsense 
measure that shows some level of restraint, even with bloated Democrat 
spending in Washington, DC.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire whether it's the 
intention of the gentleman from Ohio to close when he speaks.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is my intention. I am the final speaker.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my friend 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kline).
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I thank my good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Georgia, for yielding the time and for bringing up this 
amendment.
  Each time he does, of course, I am reminded of our former colleague, 
our great friend, Joel Hefley from Colorado who brought this amendment 
up in past Congresses.
  Mr. Chairman, I didn't understand, perhaps I would have to admit, the 
full significance and importance of what he was trying to do, and that 
was just to, in a very, very, very modest way, curtail the spending 
spree that we have here in Washington, that spending spree that our 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina, was just 
explaining.
  Of course, this is a modest effort, 1 percent on one spending bill. 
We know that the real issue here in Washington is the explosion in 
entitlement spending. The gentleman from New York earlier said that 
there was no tax increase in this bill. Of course, we understand that. 
This isn't a tax bill; this is a spending bill.
  But it is tied to a budget, to a budget that significantly did one 
thing: it brought us the largest tax increase in American history. Yes, 
that tax increase won't hit in a significant way in this year, but in 
order to make that budget balance, it was necessary to bring us the 
largest tax increase in American history so that by the end of the 
budget period, the budget could balance.
  The other thing that budget had, or, more significantly, did not 
have, it didn't have anything to constrain entitlement spending. Well, 
it did. It had a small piece, a very small piece, where there was an 
effort to save less than $1 billion in entitlement spending; and our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle stepped up to the plate to 
save that less than $1 billion and created nine new entitlement 
spending programs.
  We do have a spending problem here, and that is followed by an 
enormous taxing problem. This is a spend-and-tax issue that I think the 
American people can understand. Their budgets aren't growing by 7 
percent. The Federal Government is growing its spending by more than 
that. This effort by my good friend from Georgia is, indeed, a modest 
effort.
  This is a tiny, let's save one penny, one penny on the dollar that 
this spending bill has. We can't seem to find a way to save that one 
penny, and yet we are letting entitlement spending grow by trillions of 
dollars.
  I think the American people are going to grow increasingly aware that 
we have an unfunded liability in entitlement spending of trillions and 
trillions of dollars, well over $50 trillion.
  So this is a modest effort, but I would call on my colleagues to take 
this tiny step that Mr. Hefley brought us in the past and that my 
colleague, Mr. Price, has brought us here.
  Let's support the amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 20295]]


  Mr. OLVER. I just wanted to respond to the gentleman who had just 
spoken.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota has mentioned twice in the 
comments that he has made, at least twice in the comments, that, again, 
the idea that this budget that we are dealing with has somehow inherent 
in it the largest tax increase in American history, twice he has made 
that comment.
  Well, the budget that we are dealing with has no increase in taxes 
whatsoever related to it. I think the gentleman understands that. In 
fact, even the budget resolution that guides the budgeting this year 
for all of our bills, all of our discretionary budget legislation, that 
budget resolution does not have any tax increase in it either. I think 
the gentleman understands that as well.
  We are making messages here that are really not correct. They are 
simply not accurate. They are simply not true.
  I want to make a couple of points. I want to remind the gentleman and 
others from the other side who have spoken that since President Bush 
took office, the national debt has increased by over $3 trillion, $3 
trillion, over 3, it's closer to $3.3 trillion. That's 3 with 12 zeros 
behind it.
  Some people have a difficult time understanding a three with six 
zeros behind it. That's $1 million. But $3 trillion, with 12 zeros 
behind it is $1 million, million dollars.
  That debt increase of $3 trillion that has occurred in the 6 years 
that President Bush has been in power in the Presidency, that ends up 
costing us, the American people, us as a Nation, $100 billion each and 
every year in additional deficit, which is what has happened, an 
additional deficit, every year $100 billion each year, which is some 
200 times the amount of money that is being suggested ought to be cut 
from this one little budget that we are talking about that provides 
money for a whole series of very important initiatives that serve the 
American people.
  To close, I could go on substantially on the debt, but the $500 
million that has been suggested that should be cut from this budget, 
this one simple budget that funds housing and transportation programs 
of the government, this one budget, if one compares the $500 million, 
that two pieces of the budget, the $500 million is essentially the same 
money that we had to put back in the budget because Amtrak would have 
shut down.
  $500 million is about the same amount of money as was put into that. 
It is about one half of the money that was put back in to make certain 
that not a single family, low-income family, people who are living with 
incomes of under 30 percent of the adjusted median income in their 
areas, one half of the amount of money that would allow all of those 
people who had vouchers and who are getting rental assistance, in that 
very low-income category, to maintain their vouchers for the next year.
  It is also a sum of money which is somewhat less than the amount that 
we had to put back into the budget to bring it up to these levels, to 
the 2007 enacted level at $700 million, or the Community Development 
Block Grant program, which provides money to virtually every community 
in the country, larger cities, by direct distribution from the Federal 
Government through Housing and Urban Development, but also to many 
smaller cities and communities, even quite small communities, through 
the money that's distributed to the States who then give it back to 
those communities in order to build affordable housing and build public 
facilities in their communities.
  It is very close to the amount of money that is included in this 
budget and provides for the construction of elder housing, housing for 
the disabled and housing for distressed public housing as well.
  So that is what is involved in $500 million at this point. I hope the 
amendment is defeated.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my friend 
from Minnesota (Mr. Kline) for purposes of setting the record straight.
  Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time. 
I appreciate that because I would like to respond to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts on just a couple of points.
  One, we had a number of discussions on zeros and what that means when 
we talk about the debt, nine zeros, 12 zero, six zeros, I would say 
there are a lot of American families that are concerned about five 
zeros and what the impact of the tax increase is going to have on that.
  With all respect to my friend from Massachusetts, the Democrat budget 
does have the largest tax increase in American history. In order to 
make that budget balance, all of the tax relief which we have worked so 
hard to achieve in the last few years, and which is behind the growth 
and the economy, all that would go away, tax relief for married 
families, tax relief for every American worker who pays taxes. All 
that's erased in the Democrat's budget that is behind this spending 
bill that we are in today.
  I think he helps me make the point that this is, when he talks about 
trillions of dollars, that this bill, that this amendment is a very 
modest step in curtailing that spending.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire as to the amount 
of time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 11 minutes. The 
gentleman from Ohio has 20 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my friend 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from Georgia.
  Mr. Chairman, this budget proposal isn't a real surprise; it's 
business as usual for the Democrats and proves that their promises to 
be fiscally responsible are just empty rhetoric. If this budget, along 
with the other budgets that we have been approving, are approved, it 
signals a return to the Democrats' beloved tax-and-spend model for 
government. They are very happy to try to run the lives of all 
Americans from the Federal level.
  The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have produced a real decrease in the tax 
burden on North Carolina's married couples, single parents, and 
families. Almost every taxpayer, low-income, married, single or self-
employed, will lose valuable tax cuts under the assumptions made in the 
Democrat budget proposal earlier this year, and that would cover the 
costs that are in this budget tonight.
  The economy is booming. The stock market is doing great. People's 
401(k) plans are increasing tremendously. But they want to stop that 
because they want to spend your money. They think they know better how 
to spend your money than you know how to spend your money.
  The Federal Government doesn't have a revenue problem. Revenues 
increased by 14.5 percent in 2005, 11.6 percent in 2006, and they are 
projected to grow by an additional $167 billion, or 7 percent, this 
year, according to the latest OMB estimate.
  Again, the economy is booming, things are going great, but the 
Democrats would put a halt on that with their profligate spending. To 
put it another way, the Federal Government is projected to collect $800 
billion more in revenue in 2007 than was just the case 4 years ago, 
$2.6 trillion in 2007 compared to $1.8 trillion in 2003.

                              {time}  1930

  We need to slow down spending and allow the American people to keep 
more of their money. They know how to spend it better than Federal 
bureaucrats do.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And I just want to say to the gentlewoman from North Carolina that 
the absolute platinum standard for fiscal irresponsibility lies 
squarely on the shoulders of her party and the Presidents of her party.
  The national debt for this country when President Carter left office 
in 1981 was less than $1 trillion. The national debt 12 years later, in 
the case of President Carter, that represents the

[[Page 20296]]

debt that had been reached over 180 years of American history. Twelve 
years later, the national debt when the first President Bush left 
office was $4.3 trillion, more than four times as much, more than 
quadrupling the total national debt. That is the gold standard of 
fiscal irresponsibility.
  And then we had 8 years of President Clinton, and the national debt 
went up another $1.2 trillion, about a 25 percent increase in the 
national debt in the 8 years that he was President.
  But then, under the present President Bush and the Congress of his 
party in control during those years, the national debt has gone up $3.3 
trillion more, a total of about two-thirds more, 67 or 68 percent more 
in debt. That is the platinum standard in debt increase and in fiscal 
irresponsibility.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to 
yield 1 minute to my friend from Texas, the chairman of the Republican 
Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling.
  Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I must admit, every time I come to the floor and a Democrat lectures 
me on fiscal responsibility, I feel like I am having an Alice in 
Wonderland experience; and that is because the deficit is the symptom, 
it is spending that is the disease. And so we have Democrats come to 
the floor and say, well, when you Republicans were in power, you spent 
too much. Well, some of us Republicans agree. So what is your answer, 
Mr. Chairman? Well, they want to spend even more.
  For the last 10 years, look at the record. Every time the Republicans 
offer one budget, the Democrats offer a budget that spends even more. 
And then they say it is fiscally irresponsible that the national debt 
went up from $5 trillion to $8 trillion. I don't like that a bit. But, 
guess what? Because the Democrats' budget was stone cold silent on 
entitlement spending, the national debt unfunded obligations is $50 
trillion. So I will be glad to accept responsibility for $3 trillion 
when my friends on the other side of the aisle accept responsibility 
for their $50 trillion.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I continue to reserve my right to close.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I am tempted to ask my good 
friend from Ohio whether it is the final right to close, or whether it 
is otherwise.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I will continue to reserve my right to close, 
unless my chairman wants more time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, at this time I am pleased to 
yield 5 minutes to my good friend from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I like us being 
pleasant with each other.
  I think this is a fascinating debate and an important debate, and, 
quite frankly, I have watched it unfold over the bills earlier this 
year. And the reality is, in Washington, nobody has the high ground on 
spending.
  When I and my colleagues as fiscal conservatives get up on this side 
and say cut spending, as we are in this amendment by a mere 1 percent, 
it is absolutely fair and absolutely true for my colleagues to get up 
on the other side, as they have done and done well, and lecture us 
about spending. You guys are the, to use the words a moment ago, 
platinum standard on spending. And in many ways they are absolutely 
right.
  I note with chagrin that because neither Republicans nor Democrats 
have the high ground on spending, something has to be done, and I would 
suggest at some point we have to begin. Maybe it is with this 
amendment, maybe it is not with this amendment, maybe it is with 
something else. But let's talk about spending.
  On our watch, on the Republicans' watch, family income grew from 1995 
to 2004 by 8.2 percent. Pretty good. Not bad. We could all wish it had 
been better. But what did Republicans do on spending? Republicans grew 
Federal outlays by a staggering 25 percent. You are right, we don't 
have much high ground to talk about. But when, then, will we start? And 
who will it be that starts?
  Your side of the aisle encouraged the American people by saying, 
James Clyburn, Democratic House chairman, said in a press release on 
October 10, 2006: ``Democrats offer a new direction which includes 
fiscal responsibility.''
  Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi in a press release November 16 said: ``We 
will work together to lead the House of Representatives with a 
commitment to integrity, to civility, which we have seen a little bit 
of tonight, and to fiscal responsibility.''
  And Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said: ``It is imperative to the 
future of our Nation, and I agree with him, that we come together, 
Democrats and Republicans, and restore fiscal responsibility.''
  There are some hard facts that both sides have to deal with. Those 
hard facts include: As we stand here debating this bill, it will 
increase spending by 6.7 percent over last year, this particular bill. 
That is nearly three times the rate of inflation. It might be less than 
Republicans grew the spending in some occasions; but nonetheless, if we 
keep growing spending at three times the rate of inflation, we will 
double the size of this government in a short 10 years.
  I would simply suggest that neither Republicans nor Democrats can 
defend putting that kind of a tax burden on our economy and on our 
taxpayers and sustain it. And I would suggest that the respected 
leaders of the Democrats' party, Mr. Clyburn, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Hoyer, 
acknowledged that when they said it is time to restore fiscal 
responsibility.
  This kind of an explosion in Federal spending is simply not 
sustainable. Now, I have listened to my colleagues on the other side 
say, well, you guys spend in this area or that area. Now you want to 
cut here. You come in and say, we spent in an inappropriate way on, 
call it corporate subsidies, call it tax giveaways, whatever it is. So 
be it. That is fair criticism, too.
  But the question I think that presents itself to all of us, 
Republican and Democrats alike, is: When do we reduce spending?
  If you don't want to reduce spending on this bill by 1 percent or on 
the next amendment by one-half percent, then where are we going to cut 
spending? Because at the end of the day, this economy, I do not 
believe, will sustain, whether it is driven by Republicans or 
Democrats, a continued growth of three times the rate of inflation.
  The average American gets by without anywhere near that kind of an 
increase in their spending. The average American's budget doesn't 
double in that short a period of time. It doesn't go up by 6.7 percent 
per year. And it seems to me, whether it is on your watch on this bill, 
on your watch on a different bill, or on our watch someday down the 
line, we have got to rein in government spending, or we will cripple 
this economy. And if you want to change the priorities and spend in 
different places, that is your right. You are the majority. But 
somebody, whether it is you or whether it is us, has got to reduce the 
level of spending, because it simply isn't sustainable.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of 
time remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes; the 
gentleman from Ohio has 18 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the chairman.
  I think this has been a healthy presentation from this side. The 
muted response from the other side is understandable.
  When you have instituted in your budget the largest tax increase in 
the history of the Nation, when you continue to increase the spending 
at a rate that is greater than inflation, greater than the increase in 
population for our Nation, then the response, I suspect, ought to be 
muted.
  My good friend from Ohio has said he will close, and I look forward 
to that response. I am reminded, prior to him standing up, though, that 
a wise individual once said: When you don't have the facts on your 
side, then you ought to raise your voice, and you ought to raise it 
very loud. And so I ask my colleagues to pay attention to what is about 
to come.

[[Page 20297]]

  I do want to recognize what my good friend from Texas said, though, 
and that was talk about Alice in Wonderland. I have dubbed it Orwellian 
democracy that we are involved in here. My friend from Massachusetts 
talks about the railing against the Republicans who spent too much and 
increased the debt. And so what is the response to that? It is to 
increase it even further, spend more money. They use the grand line of 
we are interested in investing in the American family. Well, Mr. 
Chairman, the American families all across this Nation know that when 
the majority party, when the Democrats talk about investing, what they 
mean is to hold on to your wallet because that means that taxes are 
coming; and the budget indeed includes the largest tax increase in the 
history of the Nation.
  This bill, this bill in and of itself, a $3.2 billion increase, 6.7 
percent over last year. Why is it that we can't just decrease that by 1 
percent? By 1 percent. Is that too much to ask?
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge you, if you have any questions about what 
kinds of money we are talking about, it is H.R. 3074, you can go on 
line. You can find this bill on line, and you can go to any line item. 
And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, when you do that, that if you take 
any specific line item and you say to yourself, is it possible that 
they might be able to get by with 1 percent less, 1 penny out of a 
dollar, $1 out of every $100? Again, that is what American families all 
across this Nation do. When they find themselves in a little bit of 
financial difficulty, when they find that their wallet is a little 
pinched, what they do is they look at their expenditures and they say, 
we are going to have to cut back. And that is exactly what we, the 
American family, want to do is to cut back.
  That is what this is. This is a sincere and a commonsense attempt to 
try to begin fiscal responsibility here in the House of 
Representatives. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for his fine arguments, and 
all of the gentlemen and ladies who have made their presentation here 
tonight. And I would also like to thank the Appropriations Committee 
for the Transportation and HUD bill. This was passed out of committee 
in a bipartisan way unanimously with Democrats and Republicans. So, 
again, we come to the floor to have a discussion with a very small 
group of fringe Members from the other side, Mr. Chairman, so that we 
can continue to get fiscal responsibility lectures from the Republican 
Party.
  Now, getting lectures on fiscal responsibility from the Republican 
Party is like getting lectures on animal welfare from Michael Vick. It 
really doesn't have any credibility. It really doesn't have any 
credibility.
  So we need to look at what the two different approaches here. And I 
am not going to be long because we have a lot of votes tonight, and we 
want to get the Members out of here as soon as possible.
  There is a difference in philosophy, and the bottom line is this: 
There are certain things that individual members of our society cannot 
do. One of them is build a road. Another is build a bridge. And others 
that we have already had discussions about are going to college and 
being able to afford college and making sure some families have loans 
to go to college. And that is what we are here for. That is what we are 
here for. We are here to do the things that individual citizens cannot 
do for themselves, and that is what is included in this bill.
  We have had talks about trillion-dollar train wrecks coming up, and I 
appreciate the gentleman from Arizona stating the fact that, yes, the 
party in power over the past 6 years, $3 trillion was borrowed 
primarily from China, Japan, and OPEC countries.

                              {time}  1945

  And our friends on the other side had to go to the Treasury 
Department and ask for the debt limit to be raised so that they could 
go out and borrow more money. So the lectures have all been given and 
we've heard them, and we'll probably hear them again later this week 
and we'll probably hear them again next week.
  One of the Members mentioned entitlement spending. It was the 
Republican Party, Mr. Chairman, who passed the largest increase in 
entitlement spending with the Medicare part D. And you want to talk 
about fiscal irresponsibility; they passed it without even giving the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to negotiate down 
the drug prices. That is the platinum standard for fiscal 
irresponsibility.
  So we move forward. What would this cut do? What would this 1 percent 
cut?
  And as the gentleman from New York stated earlier a few of the 
programs, I think it's important that the Members know what exactly is 
going to be cut here. Safety belt performance grants, going to be cut. 
Occupant protection incentive grants, going to be cut. State traffic 
safety information system improvement grants, going to be cut. All of 
the investments in future growth.
  In aviation, the inspectors, the budget for inspectors in aviation 
for this country will be cut under this amendment. There will be less 
inspectors inspecting the maintenance of our airplanes than there would 
normally be if this amendment doesn't pass.
  Transportation, Housing and Urban Development programs. Airport 
safety grants under this amendment will be cut. There'll be less money 
for airports. $6.9 billion in this bill for air traffic services. That 
will be cut.
  Continue on. Rail, passenger rail grants, those will be cut. 
Improvement and safety grants, those will be cut.
  This is the kicker. Housing for the elderly. That will be cut under 
this amendment. Housing for the elderly will be cut under this 
amendment.
  And we don't say that these are going to be cuts just because they're 
going to be cuts, and we're not saying we're spending money on these 
programs just to spend money. This is the difference.
  I think this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very simple and it sounds 
good. Why can't we just cut 1 percent across the top of this budget?
  There's changes going on in the world that make it a little more 
complex than we would normally think it is. I'll give you some 
examples. Traveling on our Nation's highways has grown by 94 percent 
from 1980 to 2005, from 1.5 trillion miles to 3 trillion miles. Of 
course you're going to need to spend a little bit more money if you 
have more people on the roads and you have more roads.
  Now, the congestion has resulted in 2.3 billion extra gallons of fuel 
being burnt. That means $794 per commuter. Now, there's no way a 
commuter can get the $300 tax cut that they got a few years ago and go 
out and somehow fix the congestion problem. There's no way to do that.
  We had this same discussion with brownfields. An individual citizen 
can't clean up a brownfield. You need the Federal investment.
  And when you're talking about elderly housing, the elderly population 
in the United States, Mr. Chairman, is going to grow over the next 25 
years by millions and millions and millions of seniors, so it's 
important that we make these investments.
  Another program that will be cut is housing for the disabled. 49.7 
million Americans live with a disability. Forty-three percent of those 
are women. Forty percent of men 65 and older have disabilities. If they 
had the money to pay for it themselves, they would pay for it and we 
wouldn't need to be here.
  We're making these bipartisan investments, Republicans and Democrats, 
on the Appropriations Committee to help move the country forward. And 
one of the key approaches that we've had when we started this year, 
under the leadership of Chairman Obey, is to figure out what the 
world's going to look like in 10 years so that the investments we make 
today will have our society ready to compete in the global economy 10 
years from now, 20 years from now.
  And the bottom line is, this bill here reflects the values of this 
country, passed by Democrats and Republicans in the committee. And 
those 1 percent cuts may not mean a whole lot to me,

[[Page 20298]]

may not mean a whole lot to the chairman, but if you're an adult with a 
disability, elderly senior, if you're a disabled citizen of this 
country, if you use the aviation system.
  How do you fix the aviation system by yourself? You need to do that 
together, and that's the investment that we make here. So I appreciate 
the difference in philosophy.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mrs. Musgrave:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. Appropriations made in this Act are hereby reduced 
     in the amount of $253,690,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) and a Member opposed each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, we've had an interesting discussion here 
tonight. I am offering an amendment that would propose to reduce the 
amount by one-half of 1 percent, a mere 50 cents on $100.
  As we look at this appropriations bill, this is $3.2 billion over 
last year, or a 6.7 percent increase. My amendment would take it to a 
6.2 percent increase.
  As we think about this, I hear many things from my friends on the 
other side of the aisle about ``investments.'' You can use that word 
euphemistically when we talk about investments, because what I'm 
thinking when I hear that word is tax increase on the American family.
  We hear many worthy things that this money will be spent for, but 
there is a philosophical difference in this chamber. And as my friends 
on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, talk about us being 
fringe Members over here, what they're acknowledging is that we were 
not part of the spending problem for our party. We were the folks in 
the back of the room raising our hand and saying, we are spending too 
much money.
  We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. As 
we've seen in recent years under different Presidents and different 
Congresses, when we lower the tax rate, the revenues increase. So we 
don't have a revenue problem. What we have is this spending problem.
  But my friends on the other side of the aisle, as they spoke tonight, 
Mr. Chairman, they talked about the needs of disabled people and 
elderly people and safety and highway issues and air travel, but what 
we have to admit in this Chamber tonight is that there is a finite 
amount of money, Mr. Chairman. And it doesn't matter how worthy the 
spending is. There is a finite amount of money.
  When individuals in this country get up in the morning, get their 
children ready for school and then they go off to work, they realize 
that they have to work a long portion of the year to pay their taxes. 
And every time we have another appropriation bill in front of us, we're 
getting to the point in this Chamber where it's nearly $82 billion over 
last year's spending. And the American family knows that they're going 
to have to work longer in the year before they work long enough to pay 
their taxes, Mr. Chairman. And I think no matter how worthy the 
spending is, we need to exercise some fiscal discipline.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle have said it half jokingly, 
but referred to us as fringe Members of Congress. And I have to tell 
you, sometimes we have to be tenacious about reminding our colleagues 
how we're going down a road where we're going to have that fiscal train 
wreck. And I am happy to offer this modest proposal tonight to cut this 
increase, to lower the increase from 6.7 to 6.2 percent increase and 
exercise the fiscal discipline that I truly believe the American 
families, the citizens of this country that pay these taxes want us to 
have.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman oppose the amendment?
  Mr. SCHIFF. Yes, I do.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized for 
20 minutes.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I thank the chairman of the committee for his superb work 
on the bill and the chairman of the full committee, as well as the 
subcommittee.
  I'm going to reserve the balance of my time, but I do want to 
acknowledge what the gentlelady has said before reserving the balance 
of our time, and that is, there is a deep philosophical difference 
between the Members of the minority party who are here today and those 
of us speaking in opposition to the amendment. And of course there's a 
philosophical difference between the Members that are here on the floor 
today and their fellow Republicans in committee who unanimously 
supported this bill, those Republicans on the committee and in the 
House as a whole who have made every effort to work with Democrats and 
find common ground in dealing with the fiscal challenges that we face, 
but also recognizing the need to invest in America as our parents' 
generation did and as their parents did.
  Yes, there's a philosophical difference. We're facing a constrained 
fiscal environment. We've got to get our budget in balance. Some here 
on the floor tonight we'll hear say, well, we can afford to balance 
that budget by taking it out of funds for the elderly or taking it out 
of funds for the homeless, taking it out of funds that help serve 
Native Americans, taking it out of funds that would make our aircraft 
more safe.
  That's a philosophical difference, I think, with a bipartisan 
majority of this House that thinks that those aren't the right places 
to find savings, that we ought to look elsewhere. We ought to look, for 
example, at the generous corporate welfare payments that we make at a 
time when the oil industry, for example, has not only had record 
profits of the year or record profits of the decade, but record profits 
in the entire history of the oil industry. And not just the history of 
the oil industry, but record profits of any corporation at any time in 
the history of the world.
  Now, that corporate welfare, my friends on the philosophical other 
side of this issue don't want to touch. That's sacrosanct. They won't 
cut those historic profits by 6 percent, or by 1 percent or even by a 
half of one percent because that's contrary to the philosophy. But 
they're more than willing to cut those who are desperately in need. And 
that's where we do have the divide. It's what I will be addressing when 
I conclude the remarks on our side of the aisle.
  But at this point, I will reserve the balance of our time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to my friend 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I recall last term in the 
109th Congress in the Budget Committee where I served the gentleman 
from Minnesota who's no longer with us, Mr. Gutknecht, who made a point 
with regard to spending by this House and Washington, D.C. You know, in 
that committee you could always put up charts on the wall with regard 
to spending, chart A on mandatory spending or B on discretionary 
spending or

[[Page 20299]]

health care or other spending. You would put them all up there. And Gil 
one time went through all the charts and he said, now, can you put up 
the chart of all the people and lobbyists that come down to Washington 
to ask for a reduction in their program and spending? And of course 
they put up a blank screen. Of course, Gil's point was, no one ever 
comes to Washington, no lobbyist ever comes before the House or 
committee and says that their program should see a flatlining or a 
reduction in their programs. And that's really the point here tonight, 
and it has been all last week.
  We are here to set the priorities because everyone that comes to 
every Member of Congress looks for us to spend more on them, and so we 
must set priorities because they won't do it for us. So just as the 
American family has to set priorities, we do. Just as the American 
family says, we're not going to buy a cable TV system and a Dish TV 
system and a satellite TV system, we're going to set priorities, pick 
one if we can afford it. Maybe we can't afford it at all. And when it 
comes to heating our house, we're not going to have electric heat and 
hot water heat and coal heat and gas heat. We're going to pick one, 
hopefully the most efficient. That's what families do. And we would 
hope that Congress does the exact same thing with the money. Set 
priorities.
  And this amendment really just calls us on doing that, looking to 
see, not a 6.7 percent increase but a 6.2 percent increase and try to 
set priorities.

                              {time}  2000

  Now, the other side of the aisle says, well, we are being stingy with 
all these programs if we are not able to go up by a 6.7 percent 
increase.
  I would suggest to the other side of the aisle maybe they are not 
looking at the right side of the ledger, the right side of the 
equation. Look at the families who have to pay for all these 
inefficient, duplicative, and unnecessary programs that they want to 
spend taxpayer dollars on. Look instead at the American family when it 
comes to education.
  When it comes to education, well, if they do successfully pass the 
largest tax increase in U.S. history, which they are about to do, the 
American family is going to have to see their educational spending cut. 
The American family is going to have to decide whether they can send 
all of their children to college or not.
  The other side should look at the issue of health care for the 
American family because what they want to do is tell the American 
taxpayer, you have to cut your spending on health care. Maybe you have 
a child that needs new braces or glasses or something like that. Well, 
with their tax increases, the American family is asked to cut their 
spending.
  How about housing? The other side of the aisle would say the same 
thing. Maybe it is a young family trying to start off to save enough 
money to buy their first house. Well, the other side of the aisle would 
like to raise their taxes on them so that they can put these 
duplicative programs through, and they will not be able to afford their 
housing.
  Finally, most importantly, after the other side puts on all these 
burdens when it comes to cutting the taxpayer with regard to education 
or health care or housing, the biggest burden is on time. When the 
Democrats raise the largest tax increase in American history on the 
American family, what they are also doing is taking away time from the 
American family because now families which weren't working two jobs now 
have to work two jobs. Families that weren't working overtime before 
now have to work overtime just to pay for the extra burden that this 
government in Washington, under Democrat leadership, is imposing on 
them.
  So the most basic thing we could all look for, time with our family, 
is being robbed, is being taxed, is being taken away from the American 
family just so we can implement what the Democrats see as necessary, 
but truthfully we have shown are not priorities, truthfully are 
unnecessary, duplicative, hugely increased, inefficient programs.
  Let's focus again back on the American family. Let's focus again back 
on allowing them to have time with their family and put the burden 
where it should be.
  I support this amendment and encourage my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to do so as well.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from 
Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I have heard many interesting things from the other side of the aisle 
tonight. I am reminded that people are entitled to their own opinions, 
but they shouldn't be entitled to their own facts.
  I hear a lot of accusations that we have amendments tonight that cut 
Federal spending. I kind of wish it were true. But last I looked, we 
had an amendment that level-funded this bill, that spent the same 
amount of money this year as last year. Now we had an amendment that 
would increase funding in this bill 5.7 percent. Now we have an 
amendment that would increase spending up to 6.2 percent. Now, it is 
less than what the gentleman from Massachusetts desires, and so I guess 
under his definition that if you spend less money than somebody in the 
universe desires, that is a cut. So I think, one, we ought to have the 
facts on the table.
  Second of all, I have heard many Democrats bristle at the idea that 
their budget resolution included the single largest tax increase in 
American history. Well, don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman. The 
Washington Post, not exactly known as the leading conservative 
publication in America, wrote: ``And while House Democrats say they 
want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a 
surplus in 2012 only by assuming that all these cuts expire on schedule 
in 2010.'' Now, that is the Washington Post, which most people view as 
one of the more liberal newspapers in America. That's what they say.
  Now, my friends from the other side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, may 
say we are not raising taxes; we are just letting tax cuts expire. 
Well, Mr. Chairman, if you have the same salary or wage next year as 
you had last year, but somehow your tax burden is greater, I can tell 
you this much: Anybody in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas is 
going to call that a tax increase.
  Now, something that my friends from the other side of the aisle don't 
seem to get, because they say that we need money for housing, we need 
money for transportation, we need money for this, we need money for 
that, there is another budget in America that funds housing, that funds 
transportation. Mr. Chairman, that is the family budget. And the only 
budget that is being cut tonight is the American family budget, and it 
is being cut by Democrat colleagues.
  I talk to a lot of hard-working people in my congressional district, 
in the Fifth Congressional District of Texas, and I hear from them 
because more spending like what is included in this bill fuels more 
taxes, the largest single tax increase in American history. And I ask 
them, how is this tax increase going to impact your family budget?
  So I hear from people like the Peterson family in Van, Texas: ``If 
you divide the amount by 12 months of the year, this tax increase comes 
out to $229.58 per month. I am a widow, full-time college student, and 
single mother of a growing preteen boy. This amount would be impossible 
to squeeze out of my already overextended monthly income . . . This 
monthly amount is more than half of my monthly vehicle installment . . 
. A tax increase of that magnitude would mean that something would have 
to be given up in my household.''
  That is the budget that is being cut here, Mr. Chairman. The Peterson 
family in Van, Texas, they are having their budget cut. They are having 
their transportation budget cut. They can't afford their monthly car 
payments because of this bill, which, even though they deny it, is part 
of the single largest tax increase in American history.
  Or from the Jordan family in Forney, Texas, in my district: ``All of 
us have

[[Page 20300]]

been affected by large increases in the price of gas for our cars, 
electricity rates, cost of water, and cost of food. My husband and I 
both drive older vehicles and turn up our thermostat to uncomfortable 
levels . . . This tax increase reinforces the feeling that elected 
leaders could care less about the struggles of families trying to avoid 
going into ever-increasing debt.''
  Well, guess what? I agree, because once again we have a bill brought 
to the floor by the Democrat majority that is going to cut the family 
budget, that is going to cut the Jordan budget in Forney, Texas. And 
there are family budgets all across America that are going to be cut 
because this bill spends too much of the people's money. It takes away 
from their housing priorities, it takes away from their transportation 
priorities to fuel the government's, Washington's, view of their 
priority.
  And that is why you are either part of the problem, or you are part 
of the solution. And the gentlewoman from Colorado's amendment is part 
of the solution, and we should adopt it.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 7\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from California has 17\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I would like to yield 3\1/
2\ minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I stand in full support of her amendment to cut one-half of 1 percent 
from a $51 billion appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago when my colleague from Georgia had an 
amendment that wanted to cut 1 percent, 1 percent, 1 penny on the 
dollar, you ruled that the voice vote was enough, that the Democratic 
majority had rejected my colleague from Georgia's amendment to just cut 
1 penny. And now my colleague from Colorado, you won't accept that. So 
we are asking you would you cut 50 cents, one-half of 1 percent?
  When my colleague from Georgia was talking, the gentleman from Ohio 
called us this ``fringe group'' on that side of the aisle. This 
``fringe group.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, I am a proud member of that 
fringe group, as well as another 104 Members on this side of the aisle 
that are part of that fringe group, indeed, the majority of the 
minority. The gentleman from Ohio, who is part of that fringe group, 
the 30-Somethings, the next time I say that to him, I will say I am 
paying him a compliment. He is too young to remember the song from the 
musical ``Oklahoma'': ``The Surrey With the Fringe on Top.'' But it is 
that fringe on top of the surrey that makes that carriage so beautiful 
that it is going to deliver some fiscal responsibility to the great 
people of this country.
  And how many times, Mr. Chairman, have you seen a spot on television 
or the radio where they tug at your heartstrings by asking, won't you 
just give 1 penny to the children, or won't you just give 1 penny to 
the starving people in Bangladesh, or won't you just give 1 penny to 
the veterans, or won't you give 1 penny to this group or that group? 
And what we are saying on this side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, is 
won't you just return 50 cents to the hardworking taxpayers of this 
country who are sweating, slaving, and working every day trying to make 
ends meet?
  And as the gentlewoman from Colorado pointed out, this is not a cut. 
This is just reducing the increase from 6.7 percent of what we spent in 
fiscal year 2007 to 6.2 percent. And say to my friends, the Democratic 
majority, who want to increase spending $81 billion in this fiscal 
year, when they are complaining about an $8.9 trillion debt, how does 
that make sense, if you are concerned about the debt, and you have got 
these signs all over the Capitol, and you want to increase spending $81 
billion?
  Let's get real. Let's get real. We asked you to cut 3 percent; you 
won't do that. We asked you to cut 1 percent; you won't do that. You 
won't even give a penny back. And we ask you to give half of a penny 
now in the gentlewoman's amendment from Colorado. It is the 
compassionate thing to do.
  Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this amendment. It is an amendment that I 
hope all our colleagues understand. It would reduce the increase in 
spending not by 3 percent, not by 1 percent, but by one-half of 1 
percent. Now, it is not a cut.
  The word ``cut'' gets misused on this floor, and we have heard it 
misused and misused and misused and misused here tonight. No one is 
proposing a cut.
  We just heard a long discussion about how the last amendment was 
going to cut spending for airport security. It was going to cut 
spending for housing for the elderly. It was going to cut spending for 
this program and that program and the other program.
  Let's assume every single one of those programs is a very worthy 
program. There is no doubt that they are. They are indeed very worthy 
programs. But not a single amendment has been proposed tonight, not one 
amendment, not one amendment proposed by my colleagues, would cut 
spending. Every single amendment proposed by this side, every single 
amendment proposed by my colleagues over here who have said we want to 
change the bill a tiny amount, would increase spending, but we would 
reduce the increase by a tiny amount.

                              {time}  2015

  Only in Washington can a reduction in an increase be called a cut 
with a straight face.
  This bill grows spending by 6.7 percent. Almost no American is going 
to get an increase in their income this year, in their salary this year 
of 6.7 percent. So we said wait, wait, let's reduce the increase. We're 
going to have an increase; every amendment is going to have an 
increase. Let's just reduce that increase by a tiny amount, by a 3 
percent reduction in the increase, or a 1 percent reduction in the 
increase, or on this one, one half of one penny on the dollar. And 
that's too radical. And that's called a cut.
  Well, let's be honest; it's not a cut. None of these are a cut. But 
it is time to slow the pace of growth of government spending. It is 
time to slow the pace of that growth because it imposes a burden on 
every single American. And we are simply standing here, and I'm proud 
to stand here, and if somebody wants to call it a ``fringe group,'' 
that's their choice. But I'm proud to stand here in defense of the 
American taxpayer and not to slash and burn and cut. There is no cut.
  What we're saying is this side has proposed spending at an increase 
of 6.7 percent, almost three times the increase in inflation. We're 
simply saying how about take off one half of one penny.
  I think the lady's amendment is right, and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 1 minute; the 
gentleman from California has 17\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, as I listen to this discussion tonight, 
I think about how varied the Members of Congress are. There are 
Members, I dare say, in this Congress that have never had a job, 
particularly a job that is menial labor.
  I grew up in a home where we were poor, and at the time that was very 
difficult; but I look back on that and I'm happy that I learned to 
work. I'm happy, as a parent, that one of the values that we taught our 
children was to work and to work hard.
  It was interesting to watch the experience of my teenagers when they 
had their first job outside the home. They worked really hard. And some 
of them had a pay schedule where they got paid

[[Page 20301]]

after 2 weeks of work. And to see how they responded when they got 
their first paycheck, because they were startled about how much was 
taken out of their paycheck because they were anticipating a certain 
amount of earnings, and they didn't get all that money because they had 
to pay quite a bit in taxes. And I just am asking for a modest 
restraint here, one half of 1 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Weiner). The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Again, I thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment 
to this bill, as she did to one of the prior bills, because it really 
does highlight the philosophical difference between the bipartisan 
majority of the House and the self-described ``fringe'' represented by 
the views we've heard tonight.
  What is that philosophical division between the bipartisan majority 
and the Members that we have heard from this evening? Well, the 
bipartisan majority of this House believes that if we're going to 
ensure a stronger America, then we have to make an investment in that 
America. But we have to make the same kind of investment that our 
parents made and their parents so that we can enjoy the prosperity that 
we enjoy now; that we can't simply say, well, we're going to let our 
children and our grandchildren fend for themselves.
  The bipartisan majority believes that that requires a responsible 
investment in our roads and our highways; a responsible investment in 
our aviation system; a responsible investment in our aviation security; 
a responsible investment in housing for the elderly, for the disabled, 
for those who are in need. That is a priority of the bipartisan 
majority. This is our philosophy.
  Now, my friends expressing the minority view say, well, let's look at 
what the American family would do when the American family is facing 
budgetary pressures. So let's look at what the American family would 
do. My friends expressing the minority opinion tonight say they would 
set their priorities. Well, that's absolutely right, they would set 
their priorities, which means they wouldn't cut everything identically 
in their lives, which is just what the gentlewoman's amendment would 
do. It would cut everything across the board.
  The American family, when they're facing a fiscal constraint, doesn't 
say, we're going to cut our medicine equally, we're going to cut our 
food equally, we're going to cut our essentials equally with how we cut 
cable TV, was one illustration given by my friends in the minority. No. 
They don't say we're going to cut the necessities the same amount we're 
going to cut the luxuries. They prioritize.
  But my friends in the minority, with their across-the-board cuts, 
don't prioritize. And so they do make cuts, real cuts, not like my 
friend from Arizona claimed, which is, unfortunately, not correct. My 
friend from Arizona just claimed that nothing is really cut in the 
across-the-board amendment. But the reality is there are a great many 
things that are cut, real cuts, that don't have an increase in the bill 
sufficient to offset what the gentlewoman's amendment would cut.
  So what are some of the real cuts the gentlewoman is proposing 
tonight? She is proposing real cuts to the number of critical safety 
staff in aviation, safety staff that deals with the Office of Flight 
Standard and Aircraft Certification. They would be real cuts. Not cuts 
in growth, but real cuts, fewer people doing the safety inspections for 
our aircraft. Is that what the American family would choose to do when 
they're faced with a fiscal constraint? Would they choose to cut things 
that have the effect of making their families less safe? I don't think 
that's where they would look for the cuts.
  What other real cuts has the gentlewoman been advocating? She's 
advocating real cuts in emergency response training for hazardous 
material transportation. That's a real cut the gentlewoman is 
advocating.
  She is also advocating cuts in Native American housing grants. Is the 
gentlewoman prepared to tell the Native Americans back in her State 
that she favors real cuts to their housing assistance? I will be 
willing to yield on that question if the gentlewoman is ready to say, 
not hide behind an across-the-board amendment, but is ready to say to 
the Native Americans in her State, I support real cuts to your housing.
  I will yield if the gentlewoman would like to respond to that 
question. Is the gentlewoman prepared to say, yes, I'm advocating 
tonight real cuts to the American housing in my State?
  I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. What I would like to say to the citizens in the Fourth 
District in Colorado is that I'm very willing to take the increase from 
a 6.7 to a 6.2 percent increase.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Well, I yielded the time to the gentlewoman, but she did 
not answer the question. Evidently she wasn't willing to tell the 
Native American population in her home State she is proposing an 
amendment to cut their housing tonight. She is willing to hide behind 
an across-the-board amendment, but is not willing to tell them directly 
what the effect of that amendment is.
  The gentlelady's amendment would also cut, in very real terms, 
homeless assistance grants.
  Now, let's get back to that philosophical difference between the 
bipartisan majority and the minority here tonight. One of my 
colleagues, my colleague from New Jersey, said, well, the American 
family has to make tough choices. And maybe they need to make the 
choice that not all of their kids can go to college. Well, that's the 
philosophical view of the minority opinion we hear tonight. Maybe the 
American family needs to make the choice that not all of their kids can 
go to college.
  Well, the philosophical view of the bipartisan majority is that every 
child in America that wants to go to college should have the ability to 
go to college, notwithstanding whether they are rich or poor. That's 
our philosophy. And that's why we increased support in the Labor-HHS 
bill which, again, the gentlewoman wanted to cut, to help more kids go 
to college. That's our philosophy, that if we're going to look after 
the future of this country, we're going to have to invest in the 
future. That means investing in our kids. And that means not putting 
American parents in a position where they have to say this child goes 
to college, this child does not. That is not our philosophy. It may be 
the philosophy of the gentleman from New Jersey; it may be the 
philosophy of the minority on the floor here tonight. It is not the 
philosophy of the bipartisan majority of this House, nor the American 
people.
  Now, some of my friends in the minority here tonight say, okay, 6 
years of GOP rule; we ran the country into the ground financially, we 
admit it. But we weren't responsible, we few here on the floor tonight, 
because we were standing up at the time. Well, I have to say that when 
we could have used your voices, we didn't hear them. When we could have 
used your voices, for example, earlier this year to try to achieve 
savings in the expenditures on oil and gas, when people go to the pump 
and they're paying record amounts, when we wanted to try to take that 
and invest it in the country's future instead of investing it in oil 
company profits, the friends in the minority here tonight had nothing 
to say. None of them were on their feet saying, yes, this is the time 
where we must cut corporate welfare because we can't afford it. Let's 
cut it 1 percent across the board.
  When our seniors are trying to buy medicine and can't afford it and 
we take action here to bring down the cost of that medicine and save 
the government money because we're living in a finite world, did our 
friends stand up and say, yes, we have to be fiscally responsible? We 
have to try to help those families who are working, both heads of 
household, and can't afford medicine, or those seniors who can't afford 
medicine, so we're going to stand up for them; we're going to cut those 
corporate subsidies and corporate welfare? No. They were silent. It's 
only when it comes to cutting homeless assistance, cutting assistance 
for the elderly, and

[[Page 20302]]

even cutting support for additional safety inspections for aircraft 
that our friends in the minority here tonight are willing to stand up.
  So, yes, there is great philosophical difference here tonight between 
the bipartisan majority that believes we have to invest in the future 
of this country, between the bipartisan majority that doesn't think a 
parent should have to decide which child can go to college and which 
child can't, not based on the merit of that child, not based on the 
academic ability of that child or the gifts of those children, but 
because they can't afford to send both children to college.
  There is a philosophical difference between the bipartisan majority 
that says that is unacceptable in America, that is not the America we 
want to see in our future, and the philosophical views of the minority 
here tonight that say that's fine with us. We won't look elsewhere. We 
are willing to balance the budget on the backs of our kids and their 
kids, the homeless, the elderly and the others. Just stay away from 
corporate welfare because that is untouchable.
  That is not the philosophy of the majority of this House. It will not 
carry the day when this amendment comes to a vote.
  I urge my colleagues to join with the bipartisan majority and defeat 
these cuts to these vital services, and also to step up to the plate 
when we have the opportunities to reduce corporate welfare so that we 
can finance these essential services to let their voices be heard.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 410. None of the funds made available in this Act for 
     the mortgage insurance programs under title II of the 
     National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1707 et seq.) may be used for 
     any housing trust fund established under title II of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 
     12721 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I would urge my colleagues to take a clear look 
at this commonsense amendment.
  This is an amendment that addresses an area of the bill. The 
underlying bill itself, this appropriations bill, allows for money to 
be placed in a slush fund that would be used essentially for political 
purposes.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this commonsense amendment that 
would prohibit the FHA from diverting money to help fund a ``housing 
trust fund.'' This name for this is actually part of the Orwellian 
democracy that I've talked about extensively with this new majority.

                              {time}  2030

  Because it really isn't a housing trust fund. It is a fund that is 
wholly unnecessary and wholly political.
  This amendment would shield middle-class homeowners from the new 
majority's desire to fund a new expansion of government-built housing; 
again, with completely political paybacks. HUD already has a number of 
programs, a number of programs, Market-to-Market, the American Dream 
Downpayment Initiative, which are aimed at preserving existing 
affordable housing and expanding affordable homeownership.
  The HOME Investment Partnerships Program, also administered by 
Housing and Urban Development, is the largest Federal block grant to 
State and local governments. It is dedicated exclusively to creating 
new affordable housing to low-income households.
  The new Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is pending funding in this 
bill derives part of its funding from skimming money, and a lot of it, 
from FHA mortgage premiums and creates another mechanism which forces 
the Federal Government into the home-building business and with 
political nuances to it all.
  As Assistant Secretary for Housing, Federal Housing Commissioner of 
the United States, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Mr. 
Brian Montgomery, pointed out at a recent hearing before the House 
Committee on Financial Services, FHA receipts are already credited 
toward HUD appropriations. As a result, any new program, any new 
program, like this one, takes that revenue at the expense of the 
previous HUD programs that I mentioned earlier. As Mr. Montgomery 
testified, we will be ``robbing Peter to pay Paul.'' Now, why would we 
do this? Well, we would do it, I guess, because the majority party 
desires to have political direction over that money.
  Mr. Chairman, is there any doubt that the provisions of the FHA 
modernization bill will create an incentive for FHA to charge higher 
premiums than is safe or prudent given that incentive? Pressure to hit 
certain revenue targets will cause a dramatic departure from today's 
environment where the FHA is able to work to ensure that low-income and 
first-time homebuyers are being charged the lowest possible premium. It 
will be those borrowers who pay the cost of this new housing trust 
fund, those least able to afford it, and likely those least able to 
desire any activity that smacks of the political cronyism that this 
slush fund would bring about.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to take a serious and prudent look 
at this commonsense amendment. I believe it is something that the 
entire House should be able to embrace. I hope they will support the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The gentleman 
from Georgia is attempting to renew an authorizing fight, which is only 
a matter of days old, on the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill, and 
that is not the appropriate way to handle the question of the 
affordable housing trust.
  Our capable authorizers, the chairman of the Financial Services 
Committee Mr. Frank, and the Chairman of the Housing Subcommittee of 
that committee Ms. Waters, have included an Affordable Housing Trust 
Fund in their FHA reform bill. That bill was passed by the House last 
week or 2 weeks ago. I forget which week it was.
  Clearly there is a need for more affordable housing in this country. 
The Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University has 
documented that from 1993 to the year 2003 alone, we have lost 1.2 
million affordable units. It is also documented that we have some 8 
million households in this country who have incomes below 30 percent of 
the adjusted median income in their area. Those households all fall 
within the lowest, most vulnerable category of people who are eligible 
for assistance under the Housing and Urban Development Department. We 
are only providing somewhere in the total of 2.5- to 3 million units 
for all of that 8 million people and households who are falling within 
that very low-income category. However, we don't intend to step on the 
turf of our authorizing committee by renewing the fight about

[[Page 20303]]

that bill, which passed, as I said, just a few days ago, on this bill 
tonight.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate those comments. I 
understand the lack of desire on the part of the appropriators to get 
into the business of the authorizers, but that is the way the system 
works here. One committee will authorize, and then the Appropriations 
Committee comes along and determines whether or not there ought to be 
money.
  What this amendment says is that this House ought to say no, we ought 
not put money into a slush fund, into a housing slush fund that 
actually takes money away from programs that are demonstrated to have 
had excellent results, Market-to-Market, the American Dream Downpayment 
Initiative, the HOME Investment Partnerships Program.
  This slush fund will take money away from those programs that have 
been very, very helpful to individuals across this Nation, low-income 
individuals across this Nation, who are trying to get into a home. What 
it will do is substitute it with a slush fund that will be used for 
political purposes. There is no doubt about it. So it doesn't surprise 
me, I guess, that the majority party would oppose this amendment.
  But I would ask my colleagues on both sides, Republicans and 
Democrats, to clearly look at this amendment and appreciate that none 
of us, none of us, ought be using this kind of money, the kind of money 
that allows low-income Americans to get into their home and have the 
American dream, realize the American dream, but to do so with political 
slush fund money. It just isn't appropriate. It is just not right.
  So I urge my colleagues to take a serious look at this amendment and 
support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Walberg

  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Walberg:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Department of Transportation to promulgate 
     regulations based on race, ethnicity, or sex.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today to pose an 
important question to this House, and that question is this: Do we 
really need race, ethnic or gender-based preferences for roads?
  Today I am offering an amendment to the transportation bill we are 
currently debating that would stipulate no funding in this bill may be 
used by the Department of Transportation to discriminate based on race, 
ethnicity or sex.
  Though this policy may be motivated by good intention, I agree with 
Justice Clarence Thomas about the DOT's affirmative action programs 
where he states, ``The paternalism that appears to lie at the heart of 
this program is at war with the principle of inherent equality that 
underlies and infuses our Constitution.''
  Last fall in my home State, Michiganders voted overwhelmingly, 58 
percent to 42 percent, in favor of amending our State constitution to 
outlaw racial preferences in public education, employment and 
contracting. Like my constituents in south-central Michigan, I oppose 
any and all forms of discrimination. But I also support 
nondiscrimination, the practice or policy of refraining from 
discrimination.
  My support of nondiscrimination compels me to state on this floor 
that every American deserves equal treatment when competing for 
business contracts, and our Federal Government should treat all 
applicants for such contracts on an equal basis. The Federal Government 
should never view any American as part of a group, but rather look at 
them as an individual. By granting the Department of Transportation the 
ability to discriminate based on race or sex, this House would 
essentially create affirmative action preferences for our Nation's 
highways.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and ensure that all 
American businesses competing for public works projects are given a 
fair, nondiscriminatory opportunity.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to go further 
on it. I think it is rather self-explanatory that we are talking here 
of just assuring the practice that we don't commit discrimination in 
the process of our hiring and contracting practices.
  We in the State of Michigan labored long and hard during the last 
election cycle, from both sides, to indicate what value there was in 
making sure that under the context of our Constitution and the laws 
that have been put in place to enforce that Constitution, that we are 
each given rights to benefit from those unalienable rights, namely the 
right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or property. If we 
were to bridge that with any discriminatory practice, we take that away 
from one, and we can take it away from all.
  For that purpose, this amendment is offered. I would appreciate the 
support of my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am almost speechless with the fact that 
this very simple amendment has not been challenged aggressively yet. It 
is a straightforward amendment. As I said very clearly and sincerely, 
not only am I opposed to discrimination, I am also strongly supportive 
of nondiscrimination. For that reason and that reason alone, I ask that 
this amendment be adopted by my colleagues.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my esteemed colleague if he 
has any speakers prepared to draw attention to this amendment? 
Otherwise, I think that we ought to close with acceptance of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle come together in unity on this and accept this 
proposal that seeks to provide that we don't have discriminatory 
practices that go on within our Department of Transportation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Either this is not a serious amendment or it is an exceedingly 
serious amendment. This amendment is either totally unnecessary or it 
has a really nefarious purpose. We do have rules and regulations, I 
think, that might come under the material of the legislation that 
support and require certain set-asides for minority or women-

[[Page 20304]]

owned businesses in providing among all of our contracting in 
transportation departments, in some of those departments, and under 
certain circumstances. I think those are entirely appropriate.
  I don't know whether this is the sort of thing that the gentleman was 
trying to get at, but I think that this has some entirely unknown 
effects. Perhaps I should have asked the gentleman whether he had 
particular things in mind that he knew about because I couldn't at 
first think of any.
  Mr. Chairman, my chairman says I should accept the amendment, and I 
am going to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) for a 
colloquy.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage in a 
colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee. The chairman has been a 
long-time advocate in improving safety standards in our Nation's 
transportation system. I appreciate his willingness to include report 
language regarding occupant ejection and motor coach and school bus 
standards in this legislation.
  In March, a horrific accident occurred in my district when a bus 
carrying the Bluffton University men's baseball team crashed on 
Interstate 75 in Atlanta, Georgia, en route to a tournament in Florida. 
Six people were killed and 29 others were injured.
  That week, Dr. Jeffrey Solomone from Grady Hospital's trauma center, 
where most of the victims were treated in Atlanta, called my office 
outraged. He knew that their deaths could have been prevented if they 
were simply wearing seat belts. Imagine working to save young lives 
when you knew their injuries were caused not from impact but from being 
thrown from the vehicle.
  Last year, two teenage girls were killed in a similar accident in 
Beaumont, Texas. Advocates and family members accurately highlighted 
that the National Transportation Safety Board recommended that the 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration develop a safety 
standard in 1999.
  In 2005, the SAFETEA-LU legislation reiterated this request and 
called for a national standard to be developed no later than October 1, 
2009. I applaud the committee for demanding a status report on these 
standards. Simply said, it should not take 10 years to figure out a way 
to save lives. How much longer must we wait until a simple regulation 
is developed?
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentleman from Georgia 
that this and other important safety standards are the utmost priority 
of the committee, as they have been all of the years I have served on, 
earlier, the Transportation Subcommittee and now the Transportation and 
Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee.
  Occupant ejection prevention is critical to saving lives. Motor coach 
and school bus accidents are not necessarily commonplace, but when 
these tragedies occur, they shake the Nation to its core. The committee 
highlighted that motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death for 
young Americans, and strong safety standards are the cornerstone to 
protecting American lives.
  I appreciate the gentleman's attention to this issue, and I remain 
committed, as will the committee, to ensuring that NHTSA meets this and 
subsequent deadlines to develop national standards that save lives in 
an expeditious manner.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I look forward to continuing to work with the 
gentleman to make sure that we do not have to wait until the last 
possible moment in 2009 for changes to be made.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts and his staff for 
working so hard on this legislation and making a commitment to safety 
and security on America's roads.
  Mr. OLVER. I would just comment it should be possible to get out this 
kind of regulation earlier than October 1, 2009. We will see what we 
can do about that.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue the colloquy with the 
gentleman from Georgia on an additional subject, and I continue to 
yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor to compliment 
the chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. 
Olver, on preparing an excellent and well-balanced appropriation bill.
  The large number of important priorities included in this bill create 
difficult choices, and the chairman has done an excellent job balancing 
the competing interests and preparing a good bill for consideration in 
the full House.
  As the co-Chair of the House COPD Caucus, I want to speak about one 
item that falls under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, and that is 
the implementation of the 1986 Air Carrier Access Act. This act was 
intended to protect individuals with disabilities who fly on commercial 
air carriers from discriminating practices. The legislation has done a 
reasonably good job of protecting most passengers.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts has 
expired.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  While the legislation has done a reasonably good job of protecting 
most passengers with disabilities, it has had limited success in 
influencing air carriers to accommodate the needs of disabled 
individuals who require supplemental oxygen.
  Currently, as an example, air carriers have the authority to allow or 
disallow the use of portable oxygen systems aboard their planes even 
when the Department of Transportation and the FAA find that the systems 
are safe. This leaves the use of oxygen systems supplied by the 
carrier. Potential layovers and delays between flights are an 
additional health risk and barrier to access to air flight.
  In September 2005, the Department of Transportation recognized this 
problem and issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to clarify this 
situation to assist the flying public who are in need of assisted 
breathing devices.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor to commend the Department of 
Transportation for recognizing the problem and for issuing this 
proposed rule. The final rule will provide uniform standards that will 
allow passengers to carry their FAA-approved devices onboard. I ask the 
chairman to work with me to encourage the FAA to issue a rule 
expeditiously.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. OLVER. In answer, I thank the Congressman from Georgia for 
bringing this issue to my attention, to our attention. I am sure that 
the Department will consider all valid points of view in this process, 
and I stand committed to making certain that the Department issues its 
final rule as you've suggested in an expeditious manner in the very 
near term.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:

[[Page 20305]]

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 410. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide homeownership assistance for applicants 
     described in 274A(h)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I would like the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
King) to know if he would not speak on the matter, I am quite willing 
to accept the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the offer of the 
chairman. I wonder if he might concede to a 15-second blurb here in 
order to get a couple of words into the Record. I appreciate the 
incentive and the concession.
  This amendment simply says none of the funds shall be used to hire 
people who are not legal and eligible to work within the United States. 
That's it. I think we have a consensus on this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. This amendment is merely a restatement of current law 
which already prohibits the employment of unauthorized aliens. I do not 
read it as imposing any new burden on those who use funds appropriated 
under this act. Rather, it is fully consistent with the current legal 
obligations imposed on all homeownership assistance applicants 
regardless of whether or not they use such funds.
  I accept the amendment and yield back.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
acceptance of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 410. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     employ workers described in section 274A(h)(3) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment follows through on the theme of the previous 
amendment, only it addresses that no homeownership assistance will be 
applicable to those who aren't legal to work or lawfully present in the 
United States. Again, it is a simple concept. It supports current law.
  Mr. OLVER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. OLVER. As far as I can see, the amendment is essentially the 
same. It is based on exactly the same citation in the U.S. Code but has 
a different target. But again, the amendment is merely a restatement of 
current law which already prohibits the employment of unauthorized 
aliens. So again, the rest of my previous statement applies, and I am 
willing to accept the amendment if the ranking member is also willing 
to do so.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the chairman for his comments. I urge 
adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I accept the amendment as well.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2100


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used may be used to implement the provisions of 
     subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code 
     (relating to wage rate requirements; commonly known as the 
     Davis-Bacon Act).

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that strikes 
the requirements for the Davis-Bacon Act within the appropriations of 
this bill, and the Davis-Bacon issue is something that I have lived 
with for at least my 28 years in the construction business as an owner 
and operator, and we'd add about four or five more years as an 
employee.
  I have received Davis-Bacon wage scales. I've paid Davis-Bacon wage 
scales. I've managed my way through the combination of paperwork and 
requirements that are part of this. I'm maybe the only one in Congress 
who has real hands-on experience for years of dealing with the 
additional costs that are involved with the Federal wage scale that's 
Davis-Bacon.
  And my numbers throughout my history of working with these projects 
vary from anywhere from 8 percent increase in the cost of the projects 
up to 35 percent increase in the cost of the projects. I round that 
down to a round number of 20 percent additional costs.
  We're in a situation where we're arguing that we need to bring in 
more labor from foreign countries to do this work, and yet we're 
setting a Federal wage scale for this work, and we know that labor is 
developed by supply and demand. I am a supporter of labor being able to 
collectively negotiate the value of their work, but I'm not a supporter 
of the Federal Government telling the workers and the employers what 
they need to pay their employees.
  I believe that if two adult individuals want to enter into a 
contractual agreement, they should be able to do so without 
interference of the Federal Government. This is not a prevailing wage 
in practice. It's only a prevailing wage by statute. Actually, it is 
union scale imposed upon wherever the money is spent.
  Any construction project with $2,000 or more in it takes the 
inflationary cost of a Davis-Bacon wage scale. Some places, it's 
actually below the prevailing wage. Other places, it distorts that 
prevailing wage dramatically. In almost all cases, it costs a lot of 
money, and for example, if it's a 20 percent increase, then if you can 
build five projects or 5 miles of road, this will let you build six. 
Why would we limit the resource and the infrastructure that we are 
building with this project by imposing such a draconian, top-down, 
Federal management tool that not only costs a lot more money, but it 
makes it a lot, lot harder to manage your projects?
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.
  The amendment would eliminate the requirement that the funding 
provided in this bill comply with the prevailing wage requirements of 
the Davis-Bacon Act.
  Let me remind my colleagues that the Davis-Bacon law was enacted 
about 75 years ago by a Republican Congress and a Republican 
administration.

[[Page 20306]]

  The law sets minimum labor standards for workers employed in Federal 
contract construction and ensures that workers are paid at least the 
locally prevailing wage. There's no good reason for denying prevailing 
wage protection to workers involved in transportation. This is an issue 
of fairness for working men and women.
  Without Davis-Bacon, the transportation construction industry, which 
is responsible for building our highways and transit systems, might 
suffer from low-bid firms that aim to undercut local wages and perform 
construction on the cheap.
  Davis-Bacon encourages a higher quality of workmanship, and we should 
not do away with the law for transportation construction where we need 
the highest quality and the longest lasting workmanship.
  I urge a rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of 
time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise as one, again, who has worked 
on union shop and merit shop jobs, both as an employer and as an 
employee. As an employer, having been a union shop, I have paid union 
scale and also, of course, prevailing wage, Davis-Bacon wage scale. 
I've worked under a union shop, and I've worked on a merit based, and 
to look at the difference in the workmanship, I don't think we can 
apply high quality strictly to union. In fact, merit shop employees do 
a fantastic job with the work that they're doing, and they take pride 
in it, and they have to compete in the competition of the project.
  My son's now in the construction business, the second generation King 
Construction. I know the decisions he has to make, and sometimes he 
will pick up a set of plans and take a look at that and figure on 
bidding that project and find out that it's a Davis-Bacon wage scale. 
He understands that that messes up his flow of his employees, and it 
limits his ability to manage those employees on the job.
  For example, if you're paying an excavator operator $24 an hour and 
you're paying your laborer on the ground with a shovel or a grease gun 
let's say $10, that man is not going to get off of that excavator and 
pick up that grease gun or pick up that shovel, even if it's for a half 
hour or an hour if he knows he's going to be paid union scale for that 
when he could be paid the $24 an hour to sit on the machine. Those 
things work against our efficiency.
  My greatest frustration with Davis-Bacon wage scale is not the wage 
itself. It's that it takes away my ability to manage a project and my 
ability to provide incentives for employees to make decisions 
themselves on the ground.
  I have to manage them more when they're under a Davis-Bacon wage 
scale. I have to tell them what to do. I know people that are owners 
and operators of their company who get up in the morning and go out to 
the job at five o'clock to grease and service their machines because 
they can't afford to pay their operator to get out the grease gun and 
do it, and they'll be there at night, too, working 16 hours a day while 
that employee is at 8 hours a day on a Davis-Bacon wage scale.
  It distorts the work we do. It distorts the skills and the complement 
of the skills, and it raises the cost of everything that we do in the 
construction business. It injects the Federal Government in the way 
between that relationship between an employer and employee.
  Additionally, my employees have received 12 months of work, not 
seasonal work, health insurance benefits and vacation pay, all of that 
flowing because we can pay them what they're worth for a week's work as 
opposed to an inflated value of what they're worth for an hour's work. 
They make out better, we make out better, and we've got more consistent 
employees. That goes across this country almost universally.
  So I would urge adoption of this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Iowa has expired.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I urge rejection of this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be 
postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Conaway:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. It is the sense of the House of Representatives 
     that any reduction in the amount appropriated by this Act 
     achieved as a result of amendments adopted by the House 
     should be dedicated to deficit reduction.

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts reserves a 
point of order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Conaway) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity tonight to point 
out one more time one of the quirks of the rules that we operate under.
  We have heard over the last 2 days many of my colleagues come to 
these microphones and propose reductions in spending in this particular 
area of the Federal budget, very eloquent, very passioned, to try to 
reduce this spending.
  But the harsh reality is, should any of those amendments have passed 
or should any of the ones that we're about to vote on pass, the reality 
is that that spending does not, in fact, get cut out of this budget. 
This spending would simply be spent in conference and would not reduce 
the deficit or, should we ever get to that point, increase the surplus.
  So my amendment would simply state the sense that instead of 
continuing the practice, the age-old practice of spending whatever is 
in 302(b) allocation, whether it's warranted or not, we would actually 
take an opportunity to reduce spending which I think folks on both 
sides of the aisle, many people on both sides of the aisle would say is 
arguably one of the things that we ought to be doing and studying.
  This is not a revolutionary position to take, but it's one in which I 
think it makes sense. Most folks in Texas in District 11 would clearly 
understand the intent of what I'm trying to do. In fact, it would come 
as a shock to them to know that if we found 218 votes to adopt the 1 
percent cut or the half a percent cut or the 25-basis point cut, that 
all of that hard work would be for naught and that that money would 
still get spent.
  So I understand there's a point of order that lies against this. I 
will not push for a ruling from the Chair. I just wanted to simply take 
the opportunity tonight to point out to my colleagues that we need to 
change the rules. We need to change the way we operate in this House, 
and this would be one of those that we ought to seriously consider 
doing so that the will of the House could operate to actually change 
spending if that were, in fact, the case.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to say this tonight, 
and I will not push the point of order.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

[[Page 20307]]

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. The amount otherwise provided in this Act for 
     ``Grants-in-Aid for Airports'' administered by the Federal 
     Aviation Administration of the Department of Transportation 
     is hereby decreased by $10,000,000 and increased by 
     $10,000,000.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman and I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and 
the ranking member of the subcommittee. Let me thank both of the 
individuals, the chairperson, Mr. Olver, and the ranking member, Mr. 
Knollenberg, for their leadership. I thank you so very much.
  We've worked on this issue in the past, and I think many of us are 
aware of the surrounding neighborhoods around large airports, and I 
know that as Members of Congress we have been challenged by that 
because we recognize that the vitality of airports certainly support 
the economy of our cities.
  I happen to represent a very large airport in Houston, Texas, and I 
also represent the neighborhoods that surround it. At this time, of 
course, we are working on a number of noise studies in our area, and it 
is a continuing journey as our airport continues to expand. Sometimes 
it takes money but sometimes it takes policy.
  We recognize that one of the advantages of modern life is the 
convenience of air travel. America's air transportation system is the 
best and safest in the world, but airports are not quiet. If you ask 
any resident that lives near a busy airport, you will hear many 
grievances about the noise level.
  Although there is no way to make airports soundproof, it is possible 
to reduce airport noise so it is less disruptive to the lives of the 
families that live near some of the Nation's busiest airports who work 
and pay their taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to encourage the Federal 
Aviation Administration to be more proactive in helping communities 
reduce, eliminate or cope with the ever increasing levels of airport 
noise.
  Specifically, I call upon the FAA to undertake a nationwide study of 
airport mitigation problems and best practices at the 10 busiest 
airports in America and report its findings, along with recommendations 
to address major problems found to be existing, to the Congress within 
180 days.

                              {time}  2115

  Under the airport improvement program administered by the FAA, grants 
are available to airports and local governments to fund noise reduction 
projects located in areas significantly affected by airport noise above 
65 decibels over a 24-hour average, as indicated by the notation 65 
dB(A) DNL. Noise mitigation grants are generally not available for 
areas in which the noise level may be substantial, but does not exceed 
65.
  Please, all of you, join me in those surrounding neighborhoods, and 
try to be able to resolve or to be able to accept the noise at that 
level. Therefore, money does not solve the problem; policy does. So we 
would like to ensure that we have the real information opportunity to 
determine the impact, substantial impacts that occurred to millions of 
people well below the 65 decibel level.
  Information generates policy. This value is inadequate for several 
reasons. We find from the scientific perspective, it is not supported 
by research. The 65 decibel level is derived from the Schultz curve, 
which correlated people reporting being highly annoyed by noise with 
noise levels. Substantial impact occurs well before people become 
highly annoyed. In addition, the data used in the Schultz curve for 
airports show that highly annoyed occurs around 57 decibels, not 65. 
That comes from the Journal of Acoustical Society of America.
  The EPA has identified 55 dB(A) DNL as a more appropriate noise 
level. The day-night average sound level is the level of noise 
expressed in decibels as a 24-hour average, and averages do not 
adequately account for the impact of aircraft noise on individuals.
  Research has shown that the noise disruption as low as 55 decibels 
can negatively affect communities near airports. Our airports are 
trying. In my own district, we have had several meetings. I know that 
this issue is a concern, because we have addressed this question in 
airports and cities around the Nation, including the State of 
Minnesota.
  It is important to stress that this amendment does not entitle any 
airport, local government or other eligible entity, to receive a noise 
mitigation grant, nor does it have any financial impact that reduces 
funding in noise mitigation. This amendment provides for an opportunity 
for focusing on the issue of noise mitigation and the difficulty of 
using a singular number, 65, while communities around the Nation 
suffer.
  We are going to continue to pursue this. We have done this every year 
to bring attention to this problem of noise mitigation and the fact 
that no person who lives in and around an airport acknowledges the fact 
that the airport is not important, but what we are trying to emphasize 
is that we must provide solace for those who live surrounding airports.
  I ask my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, sometimes it takes money, but sometimes it takes 
policy. We recognize that one of the advantages of modern life is the 
convenience of air travel. America's air transportation system is the 
best and safest in the world, but airports are not quiet. If you ask 
any resident that lives near a busy airport, you will hear many 
grievances about the noise level.
  Although there is no way to make airports soundproof, it is possible 
to reduce airport noise so it is less disruptive to the lives of the 
families that live near some of the Nation's busiest airports, work and 
pay their taxes.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to encourage the Federal 
Aviation Administration to be more proactive in helping communities 
reduce, eliminate, or cope with ever-increasing levels of airport 
noise. Specifically, I call upon the FAA to undertake a nationwide 
study of airport noise mitigation problems and best practices at the 10 
busiest airports in America and report its findings, along with 
recommendations to address major problems found, to the Congress within 
180 days.
  Mr. Chairman, under the Airport Improvement Program administered by 
the FAA, grants are available to airports and local governments to fund 
noise reduction projects located in areas significantly affected by 
airport noise above 65 decibels over a 24-hour average, as indicated by 
the notation 65 dB(A) DNL. Noise mitigation grants are generally not 
available for areas in which the noise level may be substantial but 
does not exceed the 65 dB(A) DNL. Thereby money does not solve the 
problem; policy does.
  However, substantial impacts occur to millions of people well below 
the 65 decibel level. This value is inadequate for several reasons:
  From a scientific perspective, it is not supported by research. The 
65 decibel level is derived from the Schultz Curve which correlated 
people reporting being highly annoyed by noise with noise levels.
  Substantial impact occurs well before people become highly annoyed. 
In addition, the data used in the Schultz Curve for airports shows that 
``highly annoyed'' occurs around 57 decibels, not 65, and that comes 
from a Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
  The EPA has identified 55 dB(A) DNL as a more appropriate noise 
level. The day/night average sound level is the level of noise 
expressed in decibels as a 24-hour average, and averages do not 
adequately account for the impacts of aircraft noise on individuals.
  Research has shown that noise disruption as low as 55 decibels can 
negatively affect communities near airports. Unfortunately, communities 
that have a dB(A) less than 65 are precluded from applying for an 
Airport Improvement Program grant to reduce airport noise. We need to 
help them. I have even heard from cities in Minnesota. It is all over 
the country.
  It is important to stress that this amendment does not entitle any 
airport, local government

[[Page 20308]]

or other eligible entity to receive a noise mitigation grant. Nor does 
it have any financial impact. This amendment does not even affect an 
applicant's eligibility to be considered for an airport noise reduction 
grant. Each applicant must demonstrate that its proposed project 
deserves to be funded, but no applicant can be disqualified from 
consideration merely because the area covered by the grant request does 
not have a dB(A) DNL greater than 65.
  Mr. Chairman, communities coexisting with major airports is one of 
the great challenges of modern life. My amendment is intended to help 
us rise to that challenge.
  I urge all members to support my amendment.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I too am concerned about the environmental 
impact of aviation. Noise is a very serious issue and impossible to 
solve to the satisfaction of all. Although new technologies and planes 
and air space redesign will assist in the noise problem with the number 
of passengers projected in the near future, noise will continue to be a 
problem.
  I commend the gentlewoman for bringing this issue to our attention, 
as she has time after time. As I say, it will continue to be a problem. 
I am willing to accept the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the amendment 
as well.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used in violation of section 8 of the National Labor 
     Relations Act of 1935, with respect to workers on federally-
     funded transportation projects.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the two subcommittee Chairs. Might 
I just for a moment thank them for a bill that is enormously 
challenging, transportation and housing.
  I want to thank the staff for their very hard work and the commitment 
that this particular bill has in place as it relates to the Treasury 
and other agencies. Let me acknowledge the importance of hard work as 
well.
  Mr. Chairman, we can't do without the workers that provide the engine 
of our economy. If we are to appreciate workers, I think it is 
extremely important that we do not have outside forces that would, in 
fact, take away from the dignity and the responsibility to the American 
worker; and that's what my amendment is about.
  It is a very simple amendment. It is sometimes fashionable to speak 
ill about working Americans who are in unions. This amendment simply 
provides support for union workers on federally funded projects, simple 
without any additions to it. It is to reinforce the importance of that 
work and to reinforce the importance of those workers.
  I believe that the engine of America is fused by American workers, 
and many of them are both union and nonunion workers. I stand today to 
affirm all workers. My amendment simply asks that those Federal funds 
that are utilized, nothing is done in the federally funded project to 
undermine America's workers.
  I believe that we have had a long history of the American labor 
movement. It was started by a group of dreamers who simply believed 
that we should have the best working atmosphere for America's workers. 
Employees represented by free and democratic unions of their own 
choosing participate actively in determining their wages, hours and 
working conditions.
  Their living standards are the highest in the world. Their job rights 
are protected by collective bargaining. They have fringe benefits that 
were unheard of less than a generation ago.
  I know that the support of these workers is bipartisan. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in a very simple amendment that ensures that 
these projects that are federally funded comply with the law, simply 
comply with the law, and do not undermine the working people of 
America.
  I ask my colleagues to support working people, working people of 
America, as we issue Federal funds so that they can be protected.
  My amendment is simple but makes an important contribution to the 
legislation. My amendment simply provides that none of the funds made 
available in this appropriations bill shall be used in a manner 
inconsistent with the National Labor Relations Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I know it is fashionable today to disparage, downplay, 
or minimize the importance of organized labor to our country. That is 
easy to do but it would be wrong. In the post 9-11 age, where our 
transportation systems and infrastructure have been demonstrated to be 
targets of those who would do us harm, it is more important than ever 
that those who work in the transportation sectors are the best, most 
able, most professional, most experienced, and committed workers this 
nation has to offer. To do otherwise would put the security of our 
nation at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, those who would destroy or further limit the rights of 
organized labor--those who would cripple collective bargaining or 
prevent organization of the unorganized--do a disservice to the cause 
of democracy.
  Fifty years or so ago the American Labor Movement was little more 
than a group of dreamers, and look at it now. From coast to coast, in 
factories, stores, warehouse and business establishments of all kinds, 
industrial democracy is at work.
  Employees, represented by free and democratic trade unions of their 
own choosing, participate actively in determining their wages, hours 
and working conditions. Their living standards are the highest in the 
world. Their job rights are protected by collective bargaining 
agreements. They have fringe benefits that were unheard of less than a 
generation ago.
  Our labor unions are not narrow, self-seeking groups. They have 
raised wages, shortened hours and provided supplemental benefits. 
Through collective bargaining and grievance procedures, they have 
brought justice and democracy to the shop floor. But their work goes 
beyond their own jobs, and even beyond our borders.
  Our unions have fought for aid to education, for better housing, for 
development of our national resources, and for saving the family-sized 
farms. They have spoken, not for narrow self-interest, but for the 
public interest and for the people.
  Mr. Chairman, unions are as important as they ever were--because 
corporations are just as dedicated to their bottom line, regardless of 
the consequences for workers. The nature of work in America is 
changing. Employers are trying to shed responsibilities--for providing 
health insurance, good pension coverage, reasonable work hours and job 
safety protections, for example--while making workers' jobs and incomes 
less secure through downsizing, part- timing and contracting out. 
Working people need a voice at work to keep employers from making our 
jobs look like they did 100 years ago, with sweatshop conditions, 
unlivable wages and 70-hour workweeks.
  In my hometown of Houston, I know firsthand the commitment, 
dedication, and professionalism of organized transit workers employed 
by the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO). These 
workers are making the transportation system of Houston one of the best 
in the nation. Accordingly, I want to take this opportunity to extol 
their accomplishments and to express my commitment to the protection of 
their hard won right to engage in and enjoy the benefits of collective 
bargaining. I think most of my colleagues can agree that these hard won 
rights should not be taken away or undermined, and my amendment 
reaffirms this proposition.
  And lest we forget, Mr. Chairman, it was the men and women of 
organized labor who rushed into the burning World Trade Center Towers 
when others were rushing out. The men and women of organized labor put 
their lives on the line for their fellow Americans

[[Page 20309]]

every day. They do not ask for much. All they ask is to be treated with 
respect and dignity. They want what we all want: to do their jobs and 
to make a better life for their families.
  The least we in the Congress can do, Mr. Chairman, is to go on record 
in support of our working men and women in the vitally important 
transportation industries of our country. We can and should affirm that 
none of the funds made available in this appropriations bill shall be 
used in a manner that undercuts the hard won rights of American workers 
that are reflected in the National Labor Relations Act and other 
important federal labor laws.
  I urge all members to support my amendment.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, as I reflect on what the Labor 
Relations Act of 1935 means, it says specifically in the act that there 
will be no discrimination with regard to hire or tenure of employment 
or any term or condition of employment by membership in any labor 
organization, et cetera, and essentially says, by my recollection, that 
no one shall be coerced into joining a union, nor shall they be 
discouraged from joining a union.
  It's a balanced labor relations act that's there, but the statement 
that was made by the gentlelady from Texas said it provides for a 
report for projects on federally funded projects. I don't know where 
that might exist in the statute.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas for a question. I 
noticed in your remarks your amendment provides for a report for union 
workers on federally funded projects. I don't recognize where that 
might be in the 1935 act, and I am wondering, since I don't see it in 
your amendment, what the basis of that might be.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think you might have misheard me. I think 
I indicated that in the past amendment I asked for a report from the 
FAA.
  My concern here is simply a statement of affirmation that federally 
funded projects protect the workers that are on those projects and 
protect those who may be associated with the union. I don't believe 
that we asked for a study.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady from 
Texas. I did happen to write that quote down verbatim, I am confident.
  We have a lot of debate here on the floor. Some of us offered more 
than one amendment. I would simply thank the gentlelady for that 
statement.
  I, for myself, we have the law on the books, and this law is a 
neutral law. It's not one that promotes union labor, and it's not one 
that promotes nonunion labor. It's one that promotes the freedom and 
the discretion of the employee to make that decision.
  It does allow for union members to approach workers on the job. 
That's a protection that's in there, but it also allows the freedom for 
those workers to make the decision as to whether they would want to 
collectively bargain or not based upon a vote within that workforce.
  Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. I yield such time as is needed by the gentlewoman to 
finish the explanation of her amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I am grateful that the gentleman from Iowa 
raised the question, if you would, because I do want to reinforce what 
the amendment says.
  The amendment specifically says, with respect to workers on federally 
funded transportation projects. So your sensitivity is clarified by the 
amendment.
  As I indicated in my remarks, I am affirming all workers, labor and 
union and nonunion. It is a generic term. I want to make sure that we 
treat workers on federally funded projects fairly and balanced, and 
that they are not diminished if they are on federally funded projects. 
We have many individuals who work after the project is finished, and I 
want to make sure that they are protected as well, union and nonunion.
  The amendment is simply a straightforward affirmation of the 
protection of workers on federally funded transportation projects.
  With that in mind, I would ask my colleagues to affirm the importance 
of protecting workers on federally funded transportation projects, 
under section A of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
  With that, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I 
thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would hope that my colleagues 
would see this as an affirming amendment of all American workers.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from 
Texas for that clarification. I listened carefully to the presentation, 
and the clarification comes now that it is union and nonunion workers 
protected equally alike, on balance, between union and merit shop 
employees.
  The advocacy here is for current law.
  Now, as we have made this clarification into this record, I 
appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my opposition to the amendment and 
congratulate the gentlelady from Texas. I appreciate her patience.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                              {time}  2130


         Amendments En Bloc Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that I 
would like to subsequently withdraw. I would like them taken en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendments will be 
considered en bloc.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the 
amendments.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments en bloc offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       At the end of the bill before the short title, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to prohibit transportation workers from having walkie 
     talkies, two-way radios, or any other handheld communication 
     device.
                                  ____

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _____. None of the funds made available under this Act 
     may be used to limit the use of any available technology in 
     the development of modular or manufactured temporary disaster 
     housing.

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the en bloc 
amendments.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts reserves a 
point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. It is my intent to withdraw both of these 
amendments, and I will just briefly describe my intent to continue to 
work with authorizers on these two very vital points.
  We have firsthand experience with the tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita, and many of the constituents in my congressional district are 
alumni of trailers, the same trailers that have proved to be dangerous 
and unhelpful and unuseful. I hope that we will continue to work with 
the relevant agencies to look at alternative technology for housing so 
that in our future disasters, we can be able to work effectively. There 
has been effective legislation moving on this issue, and I know that 
the many constituents that are impacted by poor housing will welcome 
this Congress continuing to work on that particular issue.
  I move quickly to the question of security and safety on the question 
of transportation workers who drive a number of transportation vehicles 
throughout America. In many instances, in my own hometown of Houston, 
these very transportation workers,

[[Page 20310]]

particularly bus drivers, do not have the necessary safety equipment 
such as walkie-talkies, such as two-way radios, such as other handheld 
communication devices. I will look forward to working with the 
appropriate committees to address the question of these particular 
workers who are begging for relief. A recent tragedy in Houston with an 
assault on a bus driver brought this particular issue to a head. We 
look forward to working with the various committee Chairs on trying to 
bring some response to those transportation workers across America 
driving transportation vehicles.
  I ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the two amendments that have 
been placed pending on the record, to withdraw both amendments.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the en bloc amendments are 
withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, earlier today during the consideration of 
H.R. 3074, this body considered an amendment from Mr. Frank and Mr. 
Rangel, providing that no funds in this act may be used to implement 
the community service requirement of public housing residents. At that 
time I accepted the amendment, as did the ranking member Mr. 
Knollenberg, and the amendment was adopted by a voice vote. At the 
behest of the Republican leadership, I intend to ask unanimous consent 
to vacate that vote and have a recorded vote.
  At this point I yield time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) to explain what this amendment did, since at that earlier time I 
had wheedled him out of his time by accepting the amendment in the 
first place, and he needs to explain the amendment.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I will not object to the unanimous consent request. It will forestall 
a 15-minute vote and make it a 2-minute vote. And I appreciate the 
cooperative spirit from the gentleman of Michigan on this as throughout 
he has been cooperative. I understand other decisions get made, but I 
did just ask the indulgence of the House because people shouldn't be 
voting on something with no explanation.
  There was implemented in 1998 in legislation, and I think it was part 
of an appropriations bill then, a requirement that everybody who lives 
in public housing who is not otherwise fully employed work 8 hours a 
month in community service. It is not highly regarded by the people who 
run public housing. It costs money to do this. Understand, when a 
similar amendment was proposed for the section 8 vouchers, it was 
defeated, it authorized the Housing Authority to hire someone to 
administer it. This is not work that is terribly useful.
  The way the amendment is written, if you were working, and you are 
fired or your job ends because of trade or other problems as some 
people in public housing and you are unemployed, you then have to do 8 
hours a month of make-work. So it is a make-work requirement does 
nobody any good, it is based on the assumption that you can't trust 
those lazy people in public housing across the board, and it costs 
money to administer. So that is why the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Rangel), who has long been a proponent of it, and myself have offered 
this amendment.
  I thank the gentleman for a chance to explain it.
  Mr. OLVER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the adoption by voice vote 
of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Frank) be vacated, to the end that the Chair put the question de novo.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 22 by Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
  Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Hensarling of Texas.
  An amendment by Mr. Hunter of California.
  An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio.
  Amendment No. 20 by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave of Colorado.
  An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia.
  An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
  An amendment by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                      Amendment No. 22 Offered by 
                             Mr. Hensarling

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97, 
noes 327, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 705]

                                AYES--97

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gordon
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--327

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel

[[Page 20311]]


Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Faleomavaega
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortuno
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Clarke
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Honda
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Moran (VA)
     Radanovich
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2205

  Messrs. HINCHEY, PASCRELL and TANNER changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                      Amendment No. 21 Offered by 
                             Mr. Hensarling

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 86, 
noes 338, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 706]

                                AYES--86

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Buchanan
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Issa
     Jindal
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McHenry
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Radanovich
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)
     Wu

                               NOES--338

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

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Clarke
     Conyers
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Honda
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Peterson (PA)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2210

  Mrs. SCHMIDT changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

[[Page 20312]]

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


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote. Members are urged 
to remain in the Chamber.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 362, 
noes 63, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 707]

                               AYES--362

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Faleomavaega
     Fallin
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--63

     Bean
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Cannon
     Capps
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dreier
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Farr
     Filner
     Flake
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Harman
     Herger
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Larsen (WA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Markey
     McCrery
     McDermott
     Meeks (NY)
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Shays
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Tauscher
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weller

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Gutierrez
     Honda
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Stark
     Young (AK)


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members have 1 minute 
remaining to cast their vote.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. WELCH of Vermont, Ms. WATSON, Ms. DeGETTE, and 
Messrs. WEINER, HINOJOSA, and LANTOS changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment Offered by Mr. Jordan of Ohio

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote. Members are urged 
to remain in the Chamber.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 133, 
noes 292, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 708]

                               AYES--133

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

[[Page 20313]]



                               NOES--292

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Honda
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Price (NC)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2219

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


            Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 250, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 709]

                               AYES--177

     Akin
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ellsworth
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--250

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Faleomavaega
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)

[[Page 20314]]


     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

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

                              {time}  2224

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


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Musgrave

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 198, 
noes 229, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 710]

                               AYES--198

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

                               NOES--229

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

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

                              {time}  2228

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


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142, 
noes 283, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 711]

                               AYES--142

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walberg

[[Page 20315]]


     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                               NOES--283

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

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Honda
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Walsh (NY)
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2231

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


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 148, 
noes 278, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 712]

                               AYES--148

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--278

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

[[Page 20316]]


     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Honda
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Walsh (NY)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2235

  Mr. SHUSTER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Chairman, please note that I mistakenly voted 
``yes'' on amendment 8, the King Amendment, regarding the funding 
provisions and the Davis-Bacon Act. I meant to vote ``no'' but voted 
``yes.'' It was too late to change the vote. Given the opportunity I 
would have voted ``no.''


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 220, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 713]

                               AYES--207

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

                               NOES--220

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

                             NOT VOTING--9

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

                              {time}  2239

  Mr. McINTYRE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Transportation, Housing and 
     Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 
     2008''.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 3074, the FY08 Transportation-HUD Appropriations bill.
  I want to thank Chairman Obey, Chairman Olver, Ranking Member 
Knollenberg and the Appropriations Committee for their hard work on 
this piece of legislation.
  This bill contains vital funding for the Houston METRO's North and 
Southeast New Starts projects. The New Starts project will allow METRO 
to continue funding implementation of rail and bus rapid transit 
portions in the North Corridor Project and the Southeast Corridor 
Projects that are in or service our district.
  METRO will use this funding for final design, land acquisition and 
construction for the North Corridor Project and the Southeast Corridor 
Projects.
  Houston is the Nation's fourth largest city and the region is 
becoming increasingly congested. We have a critical need for a 
comprehensive rapid transit system.
  The funds that have been allocated for the New Starts Program will 
improve mobility and transportation options for my constituents and 
benefit the greater Houston area.
  This bill also contains funding for an Economic Development 
Initiative for the Harris County Community and Economic Department's 
Community Transit Study.
  This funding will allow HUD to study two areas in our district, the 
Northshore area and city of Galena Park, for transit improvements such 
as sidewalks, street lights, and transit shelters.
  Unfortunately, this bill does not provide funding for several 
projects that I strongly support.
  These projects are: The Harrisburg Grade Crossing, Texas Department 
of Transportation's Design and Construction of Direct Connectors from 
Beltway 8 to U.S. 59 North, the city of Baytown's Texas Avenue 
Streetscape Program, the Brays Bayou Bike/

[[Page 20317]]

Pedestrian Bridge at Mason Park, the Houston Zoo's Enhanced Zoo 
Interpretives Project, and the Houston Port Region's Economic Recovery 
Task Force.
  While it is impossible to fund all of the projects that we request, I 
believe that these programs need Federal funding.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, in accordance with House earmark reforms, 
I would like to place into the Record a listing of Congressionally-
directed projects in my home State of Idaho that are contained within 
the report to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 
Subcommittee. I am grateful for their inclusion in this bill.
  I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these 
projects and why they are valuable to the Nation and its taxpayers.
  The bill contains $900,000 for the City of Rocks Back Country Byway 
in my Congressional District. This 16.7 mile long project is located on 
the popular City of Rocks Back Country Byway in Cassia County, Idaho, 
and provides the only direct access to the City of Rocks National 
Reserve. When fully completed, the project will pave a 1.0 mile gravel 
segment, reconstruct 15.7 miles of deficient roadway, correct 
deteriorated road and slope conditions, provide a wider road with 
shoulders and guardrail, and improve the road's alignment by reducing 
the number and severity of sharp curves and steep grades. These 
improvements will increase safety for the driving public and provide 
safer access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. These improvements 
will also significantly reduce the amount of on-going maintenance 
required to keep the route usable. This project has received Federal 
funding in previous years. This project was requested by the Idaho 
Transportation Department.
  The report contains $300,000 for the I-84, Curtis Road to Broadway IC 
Widening. This project would widen I-84 through east Boise, adding 
eastbound and westbound fourth lanes. This widening is needed to 
alleviate congestion and safety issues caused by the continued fast 
growth in the Treasure Valley. This project was requested by the Idaho 
Transportation Department.
  The report contains $500,000 for the Idaho Transit Coalition's 
program to improve bus and bus facilities all across the State of 
Idaho. The funding will assist Ada County Highway District's 
Commuteride, Boise State University, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the City 
of Ketchum, the Ketchum/Sun Valley Transit Authority, KART, the City of 
Moscow, the City of Pocatello, the University of Idaho, and Valley 
Regional Transit. The majority of these projects are identified in the 
``Idaho Statewide Public Transportation Needs and Benefits Study'' 
compiled by the Idaho Transportation Department in 1996 and subsequent 
local studies and plans. All projects are identified in the 
Transportation Improvement and the Statewide Transportation Improvement 
Plan. The current request represents only a small amount of what will 
be needed to maintain and expand Idaho's public transportation capital 
system to meet the demands of the State's rapidly growing population. 
This project has received federal funding in previous years. The 
funding was requested by the Idaho Transit Coalition.
  The report contains $150,000 for the Historic Wilson Theater 
Restoration Project in Rupert, Idaho. The Wilson Theater was built in 
1920 and is on the National Register of Historic Places. The Theater is 
also part of Rupert's Historic Business District. Rupert is a 
predominandy rural community that recently experienced the closure of 
its largest employer, Kraft Cheese. The restoration of this theater is 
one aspect of the community's effort to revitalize itself, attract new 
employers and generate interest in the community. The community thus 
far has raised over $1 million in private donations to restore the 
building, and federal funds will be only a small part of overall 
expenses. This project was requested by the non-profit Renaissance Art 
Center, Inc. in Rupert, Idaho.
  The report contains $50,000 for the Custer County Economic 
Development Initiative in Custer County, Idaho. The vast size of Custer 
County presents enormous financial challenges for a county that is 
overwhelmingly owned by the federal government. Custer County has a 
very small tax base with very large costs for maintaining roads and 
service over a very large area. This funding will permit the county to 
purchase and renovate an old middle school in Challis that would become 
a government and business center housing the offices of the City, 
County, and Economic Development offices and making them ADA compliant. 
Additionally, funding would help to provide for improvements to a 
multi-government complex in the City of Stanley and the rodeo grounds 
in the City of Mackay. This project would relieve an enormous strain on 
the limited yearly budget of Custer County and allow it to more 
efficiently deliver services to residents and visitors alike. This 
project was requested by Custer County, Idaho.
  I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally 
directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for 
them: 1.) $150,000 for Historic Wilson Theater Restoration Project; 
Rupert, Idaho; 2.) $50,000 for Custer County Economic Development 
Initiative; Custer County, Idaho; 3.) $900,000 for City of Rocks Back 
Country Byway, Idaho; 4.) $500,000 for Idaho Transit Coalition buses 
and bus facilities; and 5.) $300,000 for I-84, Curtis Road to Broadway 
IC Widening, Boise, Idaho.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the FY08 Labor/
HHS & Education Appropriations bill. I want to commend the Chairman and 
the staff for an excellent bill which signals a new direction and 
reflects our priorities as a Nation.
  The goal of this bill has always been to make a strong investment in 
our future--to take seriously our responsibility to the American 
public, on the issues that affect people every day from our health to 
our children's education to the scientific research that will find the 
cures of tomorrow, from protecting workers to providing the training 
they need to make it in today's economy. I must say that this time 
around, our bill does not disappoint.
  To help States serve 6.8 million unemployed and 13 million 
jobseekers, the bill provides a $227.4 million or 1.9 percent increase 
over fiscal year 2007 for employment, training, and worker protection 
programs. On worker protection, the bill provides a $45.5 million 
increase to key programs to improving safety and health for 113 million 
workers.
  On education, the bill provides historic increases in No Child Left 
Behind, 8.4 percent above 2007, including $1.9 billion more for Title I 
grants to schools. For students with disabilities, the President's 
budget proposed to cut IDEA Part B grants by $291 million or 2.7 
percent below the fiscal year 2007 level. In contrast, this bill 
provides a $299 million or a 2.8 percent increase over last year. More 
importantly, this bill reverses a 2-year decline in the federal 
contribution toward the rising costs of special education for 6.9 
million children with disabilities.
  It also makes real progress toward college affordability with a 
significant increase in Pell Grants, allowing us to raise the maximum 
Pell Grant by $390 to $4,700 and benefiting over 5.5 million students 
without reducing or eliminating other student financial assistance 
programs.
  In the area of medical research, the bill provides continued 
investment at the NIH and CDC for innovative programs that save lives. 
With a $750 million increase over last year, NIH will be able to 
support another 545 new and competing research grants over last year's 
level and 1,262 over the President's request.
  The bill also provides much-needed investments in programs that 
support low income people: An increase of $500.8 million or 23.2 
percent above last year for LIHEAP to secure energy assistance for 
approximately 1 million more low-income seniors and families than last 
year. $660.4 million for the Community Services Block Grant allowing 
states to expand critical services, such as housing, home 
weatherization, parenting education, adult literacy classes, and 
emergency food assistance. And a down payment of $75 million or 3.6 
percent in child care assistance, the first increase in discretionary 
spending for this program in more than five years.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill reflects a real commitment to our 
longstanding responsibilities and true fiscal responsibility. Each of 
us should support the FY08 Labor/HHS & Education bill--a bill each of 
us can take home and proudly share with our constituents.
  We will accomplish a lot of good with this bill, but I especially 
want to highlight and commend Chairman Obey, for the ``Reducing the 
Need for Abortion Initiative'' included in the bill, which parallels 
legislation spearheaded by Representative Ryan and myself.
  With close to $650 million in increased funding over last year and 
approximately $1.4 billion for programs such as Title X, Healthy Start, 
teen pregnancy prevention, adoption awareness, after school programs, 
and child care programs for new parents attending college, just to name 
a few, we are promoting policies so critical to reducing the need for 
abortion in this country.
  This bold initiative represents a considerable investment in 
preventing unintended pregnancies and supporting new parents. It is 
strong on prevention, strong on family income supports, and it makes 
clear that we are serious about addressing the issue of abortion head 
on. That, for all of us, it is a matter of conscience.
  Again, Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a Member of this subcommittee, 
its Members,

[[Page 20318]]

and the work we have done this year. With this bill, we make 
opportunity real for millions of Americans and we give people the tools 
they need to grow and thrive tomorrow.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bill and, in 
particular, its provisions to help families obtain affordable housing 
with Section 8 vouchers and to help people with HIV/AIDS to secure 
housing with the assistance of the HOPWA program.
  I want to thank the chairman for including $300 million in this bill 
for Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS, the highest funding 
level ever for this program; and for providing $403 million more than 
current funding for the Section 8 Tenant-Based Rental Assistance 
program. For years, we have had to fight for every nickel of funding 
and offer amendments for modest increases. It is a true pleasure to be 
working with a Chairman who better understands the needs of the 
American people and who is able to dedicate resources to areas of great 
need.
  Rising housing costs and stagnating incomes have created serious 
housing affordability problems for growing numbers of low-income 
families. Years of Republican budget cuts have seriously damaged our 
public housing stock and forced thousands of people onto waiting lists 
for assistance. The list in NY grew so long that they stopped accepting 
applications. They have only recently announced their intention to 
reopen it, and they have been inundated by qualified people seeking 
help. To reduce the number of low-income families with severe housing 
affordability problems, it is critical that Congress increase Section 8 
funding and resume funding for incremental vouchers, which I am pleased 
this bill does. The section 8 housing voucher program provides safe 
affordable housing to approximately 2 million American families in 
urban and rural communities in every State across our country. These 
vouchers are often the only resource for low-income families confronted 
by our Nation's affordable housing crisis.
  In the past, my colleague Representative Velazquez and I, often with 
the support of Chairman Frank, have offered amendments that have passed 
with bipartisan support to increase the Section 8 program. We were 
successful in passing amendments in 2003, 2005, and 2006 to increase 
funding so that more families would be able to obtain affordable 
housing. While we can always do more and clearly there are still many 
unmet needs, I am pleased by the increases in today's bill.
  [See Roll Call 267, 109th Congress 2nd Session (243-178), Roll Call 
339, 109th Congress 1st Session (225-194), Roll Call 453, 108th 
Congress 1st Session (217-208)].
  HOPWA is the only Federal housing program that specifically provides 
cities and states with the resources to address the housing crisis 
facing people living with HIV/AIDS. Americans living with HIV/AIDS are 
often forced to choose between expensive drug treatments and 
necessities such as housing. According to the National AIDS Housing 
Network, rates of new HIV diagnoses among the homeless are 16 times the 
rate in the general population, and HIV/AIDS death rates are five to 
seven times higher. People with AIDS who are homeless are more likely 
to be uninsured, use an emergency room, and be admitted to a hospital.
  Inadequate housing is not only a barrier to treatment, but also puts 
people with HIV/AIDS at risk of premature death from exposure to other 
diseases, poor nutrition, stress and lack of medical care. Tragically, 
at any given time, one-third to one-half of all Americans with HIV/AIDS 
are either homeless or in imminent danger of becoming homeless.
  There is a desperate need for HIV/AIDS housing, and HOPWA answers 
this need. By providing suitable, reasonably-priced housing, HOPWA 
enables cities and states to design and provide community-based, cost-
effective housing for thousands of people living with HIV/AIDS and 
their families. It provides maximum flexibility so that states and 
communities can implement strategies that respond to local housing 
needs and shortfalls. In addition, the administrative costs of the 
program are capped, ensuring the money goes directly to serving people 
with HIV/AIDS.
  Providing supportive housing is crucial to the well-being of 
thousands of people living with HIV/AIDS, and is a cost-effective 
approach to the AIDS housing crisis. Again, I thank the chairman for 
supporting HOPWA and Section 8.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 3074, the FY2008 Transportation-HUD Appropriations Act.
  This legislation includes funding for many valuable programs 
including $1.4 billion for Amtrak, which serves as a critical 
transportation link not only for my constituents, but for people across 
the country.
  I especially want to thank Chairman Olver for the funding in the bill 
for the Second Avenue Subway. The President's budget request included 
funding for the Second Avenue Subway, which will be vital to commuters 
throughout the region and for thousands of tourists who visit from 
around the country. The Second Avenue Subway will ease the incredibly 
overcrowded Lexington Avenue subway line, which is one of the busiest 
in the Nation. On day one, the Second Avenue Subway will carry nearly 
200,000 riders, reducing crowding on the Lex line by 13 percent. I am 
also pleased that the bill includes funding for the East Side 
Connector, which when completed will bring approximately 160,000 new 
passengers, including 5,000 residents of western Queens, into Grand 
Central Station.
  Finally, I support the provisions in the bill to increase funding for 
Section 8 housing vouchers, the HOPE VI program, and the Community 
Development Block Grant, and to restore the President's proposed cuts 
to housing for the disabled and the elderly. This legislation addresses 
the needs of our constituents, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3074, the Fiscal 
Year 2008 Department of Transportation and Housing and Urban 
Development Appropriations Bill. My colleagues, I think that it is 
incredibly appropriate that we are here talking about housing today. 
Forty years ago this week, whole sections of Detroit were engulfed in 
flames and 43 people died amid 6 days of gunfire, looting and chaos. 
While there were many reasons for this unrest, one of the biggest was 
lack of quality, affordable housing; while affordable housing continues 
to be one of our nation's most pressing problems, H.R. 3074 makes a 
number of significant strides in improving the status quo.
  Despite the President's desire to cut Section 8 tenant-based vouchers 
and possibly force up to 80,000 families and individuals on the street, 
this appropriation legislation includes an increase in funding of $330 
million for tenant-based vouchers and nearly $667 million for 
projected-based vouchers in order to renew all current Section 8 
vouchers, so no one who has a tenant-based voucher will lose it. In 
addition, included within this amount is $30 million for 4,000 new, 
targeted vouchers for homeless veterans and for non-elderly people with 
disabilities.
  Once again this year the President's budget proposed eliminating the 
HOPE VI program, the highly successful program that revitalizes 
distressed and obsolete public housing projects. Instead, by providing 
$120 million, $21 million over 2007, Congress has ensured that HOPE VI 
projects will continue to help transform and revitalize communities 
across the United States.
  Finally, by allocating $64.5 billion to the Department of 
Transportation, H.R. 3074 will safeguard the regional needs of our 
Nation and invest in transit projects for urban areas to help commuters 
save time and money getting to work. The bill likewise rejects the 
President's deep cuts to AMTRAK, protecting our national passenger rail 
system, and it fully funds the highway and transit guarantees set in 
the SAFETEA-LU authorization bill.
  With final passage of this bill today, we in the House of 
Representatives will be addressing the important challenges of keeping 
our Nation's transportation system safe and strong, ensuring that every 
American has adequate shelter, and doing so in a way that strengthens 
the economy.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and 
report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the 
recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as 
amended, do pass.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McNulty) having assumed the chair, Mr. Weiner, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3074) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and 
Housing and Urban Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, he reported the bill 
back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that 
the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 558, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.

[[Page 20319]]

  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


         Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

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

       Mr. Lewis of California moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 
     3074, to the Committee on Appropriations to report the same 
     promptly with an amendment to prohibit the Department of 
     Housing and Urban Development from deriving any portion of 
     the $1,300,000,000 rescission included in title II of the 
     bill from recaptures or other reductions of funds previously 
     appropriated for the following:
       (1) the Homeless Assistance Grants Program account 
     (including funds provided to make grants to programs which 
     assist homeless veterans);
       (2) the Housing for Persons with Disability Program account 
     (including funds provided for grants to programs which assist 
     disabled veterans); and
       (3) the Housing for the Elderly Program account.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, title II of the bill requires 
HUD to rescind $1.3 billion in the funds that the Congress provided in 
2007 or prior years. Frankly, HUD cannot meet this rescission without 
doing great harm to the most vulnerable of our population, those low-
income individuals who are elderly, low-income, disabled persons and 
homeless families and individuals. As much as 40 percent of the 
homeless population in this country, Mr. Speaker, as much as 40 
percent, are veterans.
  Congress has always provided the section 8 program with full funding, 
knowing that if not all the funds were used, they would be recaptured 
and rescinded and used by the Congress for other high priority 
programs. However, this bill states categorically that if funds for the 
section 8 program are more than actually get used by the Public Housing 
Authority, they may not be recaptured or rescinded, even though they 
are clearly in excess.
  Let me quote the report accompanying this bill: ``The Department is 
not permitted to recapture these reserves for the rescission.''
  Just where is the Department expected to go to get these funds? The 
answer is very simple and very unfortunate. They would, first and 
foremost, eliminate funding for the construction of facilities that 
provide assisted living for low-income elderly persons, for low-income 
disabled individuals and homeless shelters, as well as other permanent 
housing for the homeless.

                              {time}  2245

  Let me repeat, other permanent housing for the homeless, as much as 
40 percent of the homeless population are veterans.
  These funds are not in excess. Quite to the contrary, they are very 
much in use. But construction programs spend out slowly and so the 
funds are there waiting to be applied towards various stages of 
construction. Unlike the section 8 funds, these funds would never be in 
excess. They are simply in the pipeline, fully obligated or committed 
to specific projects and ready for use.
  So when HUD takes these funds, it means that facilities for these 
vulnerable groups will be eliminated. HUD has no other choices since 
there are no other programs with this much money still available from 
2007 or prior years.
  Mr. Speaker, however you look at it, this is a very bad outcome and 
every measure must be taken to prevent cutting programs that serve the 
most vulnerable, especially programs that serve the homeless veterans. 
My motion to recommit does just that. It protects those programs from 
being slashed as sacrificial lambs to a new policy that says excess 
voucher funds are more important than building facilities to house the 
elderly and disabled and homeless, especially homeless veterans.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this motion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Walsh), the former chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee and a 
tireless advocate for housing programs that serve vulnerable 
populations.
  Mr. WALSH of New York. I am entirely familiar with the long-standing 
practice of Congress to fully fund the section 8 voucher program to be 
sure all vouchers could be used but recognizing that this rarely 
happened and that excess funds would be recaptured and rescinded in the 
next fiscal year.
  I am also very familiar with the fact that HUD programs serve the 
most vulnerable of our populations, and that veterans are one of the 
most impacted by the HUD programs in general, and especially the 
homeless program.
  I was disappointed to hear that this cycle has been broken, that this 
Congress has decided that keeping the funds at the public housing 
authorities is more important than funding facilities for low-income 
elderly and disabled. But that is exactly what this bill does. It 
imposes a rescission of a magnitude that would be in excess of the 
section 8 program need each year, and then precludes the recapture of 
those funds. The report specifically tells HUD that section 8 funds are 
off limits for rescission or recapture.
  To put this in perspective, section 8 voucher funding is 40 percent 
of HUD's entire project. So HUD is now forced to take the entire amount 
of the $1.3 billion from a small universe of programs.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and 
protect the poorest in our communities.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion 
to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, there are two problems with the motion to 
recommit, one major and one tricky. First, I will take the major one. I 
want to point out to the Members of the House that the adoption of the 
motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from California will derail 
the bill. The motion instructs the committee to report the bill back 
promptly rather than forthwith. Unlike a motion to recommit with 
instructions to report back forthwith, a motion with other than 
forthwith instructions proposes to take the bill from the floor without 
reaching the question of passage.
  Mr. Speaker, section 1002(b) of the House Manual states, ``Unlike the 
case of the motion to recommit with instructions to report back 
forthwith, the adoption of which occasions an immediate report to the 
floor, the adoption to a motion to recommit with instructions to report 
back other than forthwith sends the bill to committee whose eventual 
report, if any, would not be immediately before the House.''
  Mr. Speaker, a vote for this motion to recommit takes the bill off 
the floor. A vote against the motion will allow the bill to go forward 
to final passage. For that reason, I urge defeat of the motion to 
recommit.
  Secondly, the bill before us includes a rescission of $1.3 billion, 
which is exactly the same size that the President proposed for the 2008 
budget and which is, in fact, lower than what was rescinded last year. 
HUD refuses to tell specifically where it will take the rescission 
from, but the President obviously believes that HUD can meet the 
rescission. The motion purports to disallow rescission from certain 
accounts, but HUD has traditionally not used those accounts, so the 
President must have believed that he could meet the rescission without 
rescinding funds from those three specific accounts.
  So again, this one is the tricky one, and I would say that given the 
trickiness of it, that we should defeat the motion to recommit and go 
on to passage of the bill. For both reasons, I urge the Members to vote 
against recommittal of the bill.
  I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Once again we are confronted with politics, not substance. 
The groans you hear are those of the

[[Page 20320]]

self-indicted. If you were serious, if you were concerned about the 
veterans, if you were concerned about those in need, then this would be 
a substantive amendment subject to consideration now, not later, not 
tomorrow.
  My friend will ask the rhetorical parliamentary question in a few 
minutes that he has asked every time we have done this, and every time 
this process is political only.
  If it were substantive, I tell the gentleman from New York, if you 
wanted to accomplish this objective, you may get the votes on this 
side, but you will not get the votes on this side to kill this bill.
  We have now taken 50 hours longer on consideration of appropriation 
bills than we did last year with unanimous consents from Mr. Obey. You 
can groan, but the people who are looking for these funds, the people 
who want the benefits of this bill, the people who understand the work 
on both sides of the aisle that has gone into fashioning this bill, the 
people who have seen us vote on rejecting amendment after amendment on 
substantive grounds that you offered, and you could have offered this 
amendment, of course, as well, know full well this is a political 
process, not a substantive process. Reject this process. Let us move on 
with the business of the American people. Let's do what they sent us 
here to do. Let's act. Reject this motion.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that, if indeed this 
motion passed, this bill could be reported back to the committee it was 
assigned to and that bill could be reported back to the House tomorrow?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk read the motion. The Chair is 
confident that the Members understand its portent. As affirmed by the 
Chair on May 24, 2000, and reaffirmed as recently as July 19, 2007, 
unlike a motion to recommit with instructions to report forthwith, a 
motion with ``non-forthwith'' instructions proposes to take the bill 
from the floor without reaching the question of passage.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Further parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that having reported 
this bill back to the committee from which it was designated, that it 
could be brought back to the floor as early as tomorrow?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has ruled and is not in a position 
to interpret the gentleman's understanding.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 220, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 714]

                               AYES--201

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

                               NOES--220

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Honda
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2312

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.

[[Page 20321]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 268, 
nays 153, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 715]

                               YEAS--268

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

                               NAYS--153

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Walberg
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bachus
     Bishop (UT)
     Clarke
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Honda
     LaHood
     Marshall
     Meeks (NY)
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  2318

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________