[Pages H5483-H5514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY,
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2006

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 342 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3058.

{time} 1017

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3058) making appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the
Judiciary, District of Columbia, and independent agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, with Mr.
McHugh in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday June
29, 2005, the amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) had
been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 194, line 7.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of the bill through page 210, line 18, be considered as read,
printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Michigan?
There was no objection.
The text of the remainder of the bill through page 210, line 18, is
as follows:

TITLE IX--GENERAL PROVISIONS, GOVERNMENT-WIDE

Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

Sec. 901. Funds appropriated in this or any other Act may
be used to pay travel to the United States for the immediate
family of employees serving abroad in cases of death or life
threatening illness of said employee.
Sec. 902. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any
other Act for fiscal year 2006 shall obligate or expend any
such funds, unless such department, agency, or
instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer
in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all
of its workplaces are free from the illegal use, possession,
or distribution of controlled substances (as defined in the
Controlled Substances Act) by the officers and employees of
such department, agency, or instrumentality.
Sec. 903. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the
maximum amount allowable during the current fiscal year in
accordance with section 16 of the Act of August 2, 1946 (60
Stat. 810), for the purchase of any passenger motor vehicle
(exclusive of buses, ambulances, law enforcement, and
undercover surveillance vehicles), is hereby fixed at $8,100
except station wagons for which the maximum shall be $9,100:
Provided, That these limits may be exceeded by not to exceed
$3,700 for police-type vehicles, and by not to exceed $4,000
for special heavy-duty vehicles: Provided further, That the
limits set forth in this section may not be exceeded by more
than 5 percent for electric or hybrid vehicles purchased for
demonstration under the provisions of the Electric and Hybrid
Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976:
Provided further, That the limits set forth in this section
may be exceeded by the incremental cost of clean alternative
fuels vehicles acquired pursuant to Public Law 101-549 over
the cost of comparable conventionally fueled vehicles.
Sec. 904. Appropriations of the executive departments and
independent establishments for the current fiscal year
available for expenses of travel, or for the expenses of the
activity concerned, are hereby made available for quarters
allowances and cost-of-living allowances, in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 5922-5924.
Sec. 905. Unless otherwise specified during the current
fiscal year, no part of any appropriation contained in this
or any other Act shall be used to pay the compensation of any
officer or employee of the Government of the United States
(including any agency the majority of the stock of which is
owned by the Government of the United States) whose post of
duty is in the continental United States unless such person:
(1) is a citizen of the United States; (2) is a person in the
service of the United States on the date of the enactment of
this Act who, being eligible for citizenship, has filed a
declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United
States prior to such date and is actually residing in the
United States; (3) is a person who owes allegiance to the
United States; (4) is an alien from Cuba, Poland, South
Vietnam, the countries of the former Soviet Union, or the
Baltic countries lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence; (5) is a South Vietnamese, Cambodian, or
Laotian refugee paroled in the United States after January 1,
1975; or (6) is a national of the People's Republic of China
who qualifies for adjustment of status pursuant to the
Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992: Provided, That for
the purpose of this section, an affidavit signed by any such
person shall be considered prima facie evidence that the
requirements of this section with respect to his or her
status have been complied with: Provided further, That any
person making a false affidavit shall be guilty of a felony,
and, upon conviction, shall be fined no more than $4,000 or
imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both: Provided
further, That the above penal clause shall be in addition to,
and not in substitution for, any other provisions of existing
law: Provided further, That any payment made to any officer
or employee contrary to the provisions of this section shall
be recoverable in action by the Federal Government. This
section shall not apply to citizens of Ireland, Israel, or
the Republic of the Philippines, or to nationals of those
countries allied with the United States in a current defense
effort, or to international broadcasters employed by the
United States Information Agency, or to temporary employment
of translators, or to temporary employment in the field
service (not to exceed 60 days) as a result of emergencies.
Sec. 906. Appropriations available to any department or
agency during the current fiscal year for necessary expenses,
including maintenance or operating expenses, shall also be
available for payment to the General Services Administration
for charges for space and services and those expenses of
renovation and alteration of buildings and facilities which
constitute public improvements performed in accordance with
the Public Buildings Act of 1959 (73 Stat. 749), the Public
Buildings Amendments of 1972 (87 Stat. 216), or other
applicable law.
Sec. 907. In addition to funds provided in this or any
other Act, all Federal agencies are authorized to receive and
use funds resulting from the sale of materials, including
Federal records disposed of pursuant to a records schedule
recovered through recycling or waste prevention programs.
Such funds shall be available until expended for the
following purposes:
(1) Acquisition, waste reduction and prevention, and
recycling programs as described in Executive Order No. 13101
(September 14, 1998), including any such programs adopted
prior to the effective date of the Executive order.
(2) Other Federal agency environmental management programs,
including, but not limited to, the development and
implementation of hazardous waste management and pollution
prevention programs.
(3) Other employee programs as authorized by law or as
deemed appropriate by the head of the Federal agency.
Sec. 908. Funds made available by this or any other Act for
administrative expenses in the current fiscal year of the
corporations and agencies subject to chapter 91 of title 31,
United States Code, shall be available, in addition to
objects for which such funds are otherwise available, for
rent in the District of Columbia; services in accordance with
5 U.S.C. 3109; and the objects specified under this head, all
the provisions of which shall be applicable to the
expenditure of such funds unless otherwise specified in the
Act by which they are made available: Provided, That in the
event any functions budgeted as administrative expenses are
subsequently transferred to or paid from other funds, the
limitations on administrative expenses shall be
correspondingly reduced.
Sec. 909. No part of any appropriation for the current
fiscal year contained in this or any other Act shall be paid
to any person for the filling of any position for which he or
she has been nominated after the Senate has voted not to
approve the nomination of said person.
Sec. 910. No part of any appropriation contained in this or
any other Act shall be available for interagency financing of
boards (except Federal Executive Boards), commissions,
councils, committees, or similar groups (whether or not they
are interagency entities) which do not have a prior and
specific statutory approval to receive financial support from
more than one agency or instrumentality.
Sec. 911. Funds made available by this or any other Act to
the Postal Service Fund (39 U.S.C. 2003) shall be available
for employment of guards for all buildings and areas owned or
occupied by the Postal Service or under the charge and
control of the Postal Service. The Postal Service may give
such guards with respect to such property, any of the powers
of special policemen provided under 40 U.S.C. 1315. The
Postmaster General, or his designee, may take any action that
the Secretary of Homeland Security may take under such
section with respect to that property.
Sec. 912. None of the funds made available pursuant to the
provisions of this Act shall be used to implement,
administer, or enforce any regulation which has been
disapproved pursuant to a joint resolution duly adopted in
accordance with the applicable law of the United States.
Sec. 913. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
and except as otherwise provided in this section, no part of
any of the funds appropriated for fiscal year 2006, by this
or any other Act, may be used to pay any prevailing rate
employee described in

[[Page H5484]]

section 5342(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code--
(1) during the period from the date of expiration of the
limitation imposed by the comparable section for previous
fiscal years until the normal effective date of the
applicable wage survey adjustment that is to take effect in
fiscal year 2006, in an amount that exceeds the rate payable
for the applicable grade and step of the applicable wage
schedule in accordance with such section; and
(2) during the period consisting of the remainder of fiscal
year 2006, in an amount that exceeds, as a result of a wage
survey adjustment, the rate payable under paragraph (1) by
more than the sum of--
(A) the percentage adjustment taking effect in fiscal year
2006 under section 5303 of title 5, United States Code, in
the rates of pay under the General Schedule; and
(B) the difference between the overall average percentage
of the locality-based comparability payments taking effect in
fiscal year 2006 under section 5304 of such title (whether by
adjustment or otherwise), and the overall average percentage
of such payments which was effective in the previous fiscal
year under such section.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
prevailing rate employee described in subparagraph (B) or (C)
of section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code, and no
employee covered by section 5348 of such title, may be paid
during the periods for which subsection (a) is in effect at a
rate that exceeds the rates that would be payable under
subsection (a) were subsection (a) applicable to such
employee.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the rates payable to
an employee who is covered by this section and who is paid
from a schedule not in existence on September 30, 2005, shall
be determined under regulations prescribed by the Office of
Personnel Management.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rates of
premium pay for employees subject to this section may not be
changed from the rates in effect on September 30, 2005,
except to the extent determined by the Office of Personnel
Management to be consistent with the purpose of this section.
(e) This section shall apply with respect to pay for
service performed after September 30, 2005.
(f) For the purpose of administering any provision of law
(including any rule or regulation that provides premium pay,
retirement, life insurance, or any other employee benefit)
that requires any deduction or contribution, or that imposes
any requirement or limitation on the basis of a rate of
salary or basic pay, the rate of salary or basic pay payable
after the application of this section shall be treated as the
rate of salary or basic pay.
(g) Nothing in this section shall be considered to permit
or require the payment to any employee covered by this
section at a rate in excess of the rate that would be payable
were this section not in effect.
(h) The Office of Personnel Management may provide for
exceptions to the limitations imposed by this section if the
Office determines that such exceptions are necessary to
ensure the recruitment or retention of qualified employees.
Sec. 914. During the period in which the head of any
department or agency, or any other officer or civilian
employee of the Government appointed by the President of the
United States, holds office, no funds may be obligated or
expended in excess of $5,000 to furnish or redecorate the
office of such department head, agency head, officer, or
employee, or to purchase furniture or make improvements for
any such office, unless advance notice of such furnishing or
redecoration is expressly approved by the Committees on
Appropriations. For the purposes of this section, the term
``office'' shall include the entire suite of offices assigned
to the individual, as well as any other space used primarily
by the individual or the use of which is directly controlled
by the individual.
Sec. 915. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United
States Code, or section 910 of this Act, funds made available
for the current fiscal year by this or any other Act shall be
available for the interagency funding of national security
and emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives
which benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or
entities, as provided by Executive Order No. 12472 (April 3,
1984).
Sec. 916. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act may be obligated or expended by any Federal
department, agency, or other instrumentality for the salaries
or expenses of any employee appointed to a position of a
confidential or policy-determining character excepted from
the competitive service pursuant to section 3302 of title 5,
United States Code, without a certification to the Office of
Personnel Management from the head of the Federal department,
agency, or other instrumentality employing the Schedule C
appointee that the Schedule C position was not created solely
or primarily in order to detail the employee to the White
House.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to
Federal employees or members of the armed services detailed
to or from--
(1) the Central Intelligence Agency;
(2) the National Security Agency;
(3) the Defense Intelligence Agency;
(4) the offices within the Department of Defense for the
collection of specialized national foreign intelligence
through reconnaissance programs;
(5) the Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the
Department of State;
(6) any agency, office, or unit of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps, the Department of Homeland Security,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement
Administration of the Department of Justice, the Department
of Transportation, the Department of the Treasury, and the
Department of Energy performing intelligence functions; and
(7) the Director of National Intelligence or the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence.
Sec. 917. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the
United States receiving appropriated funds under this or any
other Act for the current fiscal year shall obligate or
expend any such funds, unless such department, agency, or
instrumentality has in place, and will continue to administer
in good faith, a written policy designed to ensure that all
of its workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual
harassment and that all of its workplaces are not in
violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967,
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Sec. 918. No part of any appropriation contained in this or
any other Act shall be available for the payment of the
salary of any officer or employee of the Federal Government,
who--
(1) prohibits or prevents, or attempts or threatens to
prohibit or prevent, any other officer or employee of the
Federal Government from having any direct oral or written
communication or contact with any Member, committee, or
subcommittee of the Congress in connection with any matter
pertaining to the employment of such other officer or
employee or pertaining to the department or agency of such
other officer or employee in any way, irrespective of whether
such communication or contact is at the initiative of such
other officer or employee or in response to the request or
inquiry of such Member, committee, or subcommittee; or
(2) removes, suspends from duty without pay, demotes,
reduces in rank, seniority, status, pay, or performance of
efficiency rating, denies promotion to, relocates, reassigns,
transfers, disciplines, or discriminates in regard to any
employment right, entitlement, or benefit, or any term or
condition of employment of, any other officer or employee of
the Federal Government, or attempts or threatens to commit
any of the foregoing actions with respect to such other
officer or employee, by reason of any communication or
contact of such other officer or employee with any Member,
committee, or subcommittee of the Congress as described in
paragraph (1).
Sec. 919. (a) None of the funds made available in this or
any other Act may be obligated or expended for any employee
training that--
(1) does not meet identified needs for knowledge, skills,
and abilities bearing directly upon the performance of
official duties;
(2) contains elements likely to induce high levels of
emotional response or psychological stress in some
participants;
(3) does not require prior employee notification of the
content and methods to be used in the training and written
end of course evaluation;
(4) contains any methods or content associated with
religious or quasi-religious belief systems or ``new age''
belief systems as defined in Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 1988; or
(5) is offensive to, or designed to change, participants'
personal values or lifestyle outside the workplace.
(b) Nothing in this section shall prohibit, restrict, or
otherwise preclude an agency from conducting training bearing
directly upon the performance of official duties.
Sec. 920. No funds appropriated in this or any other Act
may be used to implement or enforce the agreements in
Standard Forms 312 and 4414 of the Government or any other
nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if such policy,
form, or agreement does not contain the following provisions:
``These restrictions are consistent with and do not
supersede, conflict with, or otherwise alter the employee
obligations, rights, or liabilities created by Executive
Order No. 12958; section 7211 of title 5, United States Code
(governing disclosures to Congress); section 1034 of title
10, United States Code, as amended by the Military
Whistleblower Protection Act (governing disclosure to
Congress by members of the military); section 2302(b)(8) of
title 5, United States Code, as amended by the Whistleblower
Protection Act (governing disclosures of illegality, waste,
fraud, abuse or public health or safety threats); the
Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421
et seq.) (governing disclosures that could expose
confidential Government agents); and the statutes which
protect against disclosure that may compromise the national
security, including sections 641, 793, 794, 798, and 952 of
title 18, United States Code, and section 4(b) of the
Subversive Activities Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b)). The
definitions, requirements, obligations, rights, sanctions,
and liabilities created by said Executive order and listed
statutes are incorporated into this agreement and are
controlling.'': Provided, That notwithstanding the preceding
paragraph, a nondisclosure policy form or agreement that is
to be executed by a person connected with

[[Page H5485]]

the conduct of an intelligence or intelligence-related
activity, other than an employee or officer of the United
States Government, may contain provisions appropriate to the
particular activity for which such document is to be used.
Such form or agreement shall, at a minimum, require that the
person will not disclose any classified information received
in the course of such activity unless specifically authorized
to do so by the United States Government. Such nondisclosure
forms shall also make it clear that they do not bar
disclosures to Congress or to an authorized official of an
executive agency or the Department of Justice that are
essential to reporting a substantial violation of law.
Sec. 921. No part of any funds appropriated in this or any
other Act shall be used by an agency of the executive branch,
other than for normal and recognized executive-legislative
relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes, and for
the preparation, distribution or use of any kit, pamphlet,
booklet, publication, radio, television or film presentation
designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the
Congress, except in presentation to the Congress itself.
Sec. 922. None of the funds appropriated by this or any
other Act may be used by an agency to provide a Federal
employee's home address to any labor organization except when
the employee has authorized such disclosure or when such
disclosure has been ordered by a court of competent
jurisdiction.
Sec. 923. None of the funds made available in this Act or
any other Act may be used to provide any non-public
information such as mailing or telephone lists to any person
or any organization outside of the Federal Government without
the approval of the Committees on Appropriations.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hinchey

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Hinchey:
Page 210, line 20, after ``used'' insert ``directly or
indirectly, including by private contractor,''.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, clarifies that the existing anti-
propaganda section of the bill also includes contracting out for these
services to publicity experts and others. Its intent is to simply
prevent contracts with journalists and other publicity experts without
authorization by the Congress, and it will prevent additional
embarrassing reports in the future because it will prohibit these bogus
news reports, generated by contracts between the government and those
willing to take the money and spin the information.
Examples of administrative propaganda are numerous. Last month, The
Washington Post reported that the National Resource Conservation
Service paid a freelance writer at least $7,500 to write articles
touting so-called Federal conservation programs and placed them in
outdoors magazines. These articles were placed and not one of them
disclosed the fact that the writer was under Federal contract and that
these were not objective articles.
Last year, the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams was paid
$241,000 by the Education Department to promote the administration's
education policy. And columnist Maggie Gallagher received $21,500 from
the Department of Health and Human Services to work on the
administration's marriage initiative. Again, neither of these
individuals informed the public that they were working for the
government and that they were not writing objective articles.
Finally, it has recently surfaced that a semi-invisible PR group had
received $200 million of taxpayers' dollars to spread anti-Saddam
Hussein propaganda prior to the Iraq war. In fact, soon after the
attacks on our country on September 11, 2001, the company received a
$100,000-a-month contract from the Pentagon to offer media strategy
advice. This was part of the misinformation campaign that led to the
war in Iraq; and the result of that misinformation was that two-thirds
of the American people thought that Saddam Hussein was actually behind
the 9/11 attacks. We know, of course, that that was not the case. And
eight out of ten Americans thought that Iraq had nuclear weapons
because they were afflicted with this misinformation campaign.
While the administration has been embarrassed by their contracts, at
least the ones that have been made public, the agencies knew what they
were doing when they hired these people to promote these misinformation
campaigns. Many have questioned the legality of all of these contracts.
The GAO, in fact, is looking into the legality of Armstrong Williams
and the Gallagher case, and that ought to determine whether or not the
administration violated the ban on covert propaganda.
It is obvious, however, Mr. Chairman, that we need to make this
statement with greater clarity and define more clearly what cannot be
done by this or future administrations to misinform and mislead the
American people by contracting out and engaging in a propaganda
campaign using taxpayer dollars to misinform the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to claim time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but we
accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, is there an opposing argument to the
amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan claimed the time in
opposition, and he has reserved his time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, if I may inquire, does the gentleman
have any time remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has 1\1/2\
minutes remaining; and the gentleman from New York has inquired if
there are Members who wish to be heard in opposition. The gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) controls the time in opposition.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to note that there are no Members here that are in opposition,
and I have no position on this matter except to accept the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 924. No part of any appropriation contained in this or
any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda
purposes within the United States not heretofor authorized by
the Congress.
Sec. 925. (a) In this section the term ``agency''--
(1) means an Executive agency as defined under section 105
of title 5, United States Code;
(2) includes a military department as defined under section
102 of such title, the Postal Service, and the Postal Rate
Commission; and
(3) shall not include the Government Accountability Office.
(b) Unless authorized in accordance with law or regulations
to use such time for other purposes, an employee of an agency
shall use official time in an honest effort to perform
official duties. An employee not under a leave system,
including a Presidential appointee exempted under section
6301(2) of title 5, United States Code, has an obligation to
expend an honest effort and a reasonable proportion of such
employee's time in the performance of official duties.
Sec. 926. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 910 of
this Act, funds made available for the current fiscal year by
this or any other Act to any department or agency, which is a
member of the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program
(JFMIP), shall be available to finance an appropriate share
of JFMIP administrative costs, as determined by the JFMIP,
but not to exceed a total of $800,000 including the salary of
the Executive Director and staff support.
Sec. 927. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 1346 and section 910 of
this Act, the head of each Executive department and agency is
hereby authorized to transfer to or reimburse ``General
Services Administration, Government-wide Policy'' with the
approval of the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, funds made available for the current fiscal year by
this or any other Act, including rebates from charge card and
other contracts: Provided, That these funds shall be
administered by the Administrator of General Services to
support Government-wide financial, information technology,
procurement, and

[[Page H5486]]

other management innovations, initiatives, and activities, as
approved by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, in consultation with the appropriate interagency
groups designated by the Director (including the Chief
Financial Officers Council and the Joint Financial Management
Improvement Program for financial management initiatives, the
Chief Information Officers Council for information technology
initiatives, the Chief Human Capital Officers Council for
human capital initiatives, and the Federal Acquisition
Council for procurement initiatives). The total funds
transferred or reimbursed shall not exceed $10,000,000. Such
transfers or reimbursements may only be made 15 days
following notification of the Committees on Appropriations by
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
Sec. 928. None of the funds made available in this or any
other Act may be used by the Office of Personnel Management
or any other department or agency of the Federal Government
to prohibit any agency from using appropriated funds as they
see fit to independently contract with private companies to
provide online employment applications and processing
services.

Point of Order

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 928.
This provision violates clause 2 of House rule XXI. It proposes to
change existing law within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Government Reform and, therefore, constitutes legislation on an
appropriations bill in violation of House rules.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this section addresses funds in other acts. This
section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI. The point of order is sustained and this section is stricken
from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 929. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a
woman may breastfeed her child at any location in a Federal
building or on Federal property, if the woman and her child
are otherwise authorized to be present at the location.
Sec. 930. Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31, United
States 945./Code, or section 910 of this Act, funds made
available for the current fiscal year by this or any other
Act shall be available for the interagency funding of
specific projects, workshops, studies, and similar efforts to
carry out the purposes of the National Science and Technology
Council (authorized by Executive Order No. 12881), which
benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, or entities:
Provided, That the Office of Management and Budget shall
provide a report describing the budget of and resources
connected with the National Science and Technology Council to
the Committees on Appropriations, the House Committee on
Science; and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation 90 days after enactment of this Act.
Sec. 931. Any request for proposals, solicitation, grant
application, form, notification, press release, or other
publications involving the distribution of Federal funds
shall indicate the agency providing the funds, the Catalog of
Federal Domestic Assistance Number, as applicable, and the
amount provided: Provided, That this provision shall apply to
direct payments, formula funds, and grants received by a
State receiving Federal funds.
Sec. 932. Subsection (f) of section 403 of Public Law 103-
356 (31 U.S.C. 501 note), as amended, is further amended by
striking ``October 1, 2005'' and inserting ``October 1,
2006''.
Sec. 933. (a) Prohibition of Federal Agency Monitoring of
Individuals' Internet Use.--None of the funds made available
in this or any other Act may be used by any Federal agency--
(1) to collect, review, or create any aggregation of data,
derived from any means, that includes any personally
identifiable information relating to an individual's access
to or use of any Federal Government Internet site of the
agency; or
(2) to enter into any agreement with a third party
(including another government agency) to collect, review, or
obtain any aggregation of data, derived from any means, that
includes any personally identifiable information relating to
an individual's access to or use of any nongovernmental
Internet site.
(b) Exceptions.--The limitations established in subsection
(a) shall not apply to--
(1) any record of aggregate data that does not identify
particular persons;
(2) any voluntary submission of personally identifiable
information;
(3) any action taken for law enforcement, regulatory, or
supervisory purposes, in accordance with applicable law; or
(4) any action described in subsection (a)(1) that is a
system security action taken by the operator of an Internet
site and is necessarily incident to the rendition of the
Internet site services or to the protection of the rights or
property of the provider of the Internet site.
(c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``regulatory'' means agency actions to
implement, interpret or enforce authorities provided in law.
(2) The term ``supervisory'' means examinations of the
agency's supervised institutions, including assessing safety
and soundness, overall financial condition, management
practices and policies and compliance with applicable
standards as provided in law.
Sec. 934. (a) None of the funds appropriated by this Act
may be used to enter into or renew a contract which includes
a provision providing prescription drug coverage, except
where the contract also includes a provision for
contraceptive coverage.
(b) Nothing in this section shall apply to a contract
with--
(1) any of the following religious plans:
(A) Personal Care's HMO; and
(B) OSF HealthPlans, Inc.; and
(2) any existing or future plan, if the carrier for the
plan objects to such coverage on the basis of religious
beliefs.
(c) In implementing this section, any plan that enters into
or renews a contract under this section may not subject any
individual to discrimination on the basis that the individual
refuses to prescribe or otherwise provide for contraceptives
because such activities would be contrary to the individual's
religious beliefs or moral convictions.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to require
coverage of abortion or abortion-related services.
Sec. 935. The Congress of the United States recognizes the
United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) as the official
anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic
sport in the United States.
Sec. 936. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated for official travel by Federal departments and
agencies may be used by such departments and agencies, if
consistent with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-
126 regarding official travel for Government personnel, to
participate in the fractional aircraft ownership pilot
program.
Sec. 937. None of the funds made available under this or
any other Act for fiscal year 2006 and each fiscal year
thereafter shall be expended for the purchase of a product or
service offered by Federal Prison Industries, Inc., unless
the agency making such purchase determines that such offered
product or service provides the best value to the buying
agency pursuant to governmentwide procurement regulations,
issued pursuant to section 25(c)(1) of the Office of Federal
Procurement Act (41 U.S.C. 421(c)(1)) that impose procedures,
standards, and limitations of section 2410n of title 10,
United States Code.
Sec. 938. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none
of the funds appropriated or made available under this Act or
any other appropriations Act may be used to implement or
enforce restrictions or limitations on the Coast Guard
Congressional Fellowship Program, or to implement the
proposed regulations of the Office of Personnel Management to
add sections 300.311 through 300.316 to part 300 of title 5
of the Code of Federal Regulations, published in the Federal
Register, volume 68, number 174, on September 9, 2003
(relating to the detail of executive branch employees to the
legislative branch).
Sec. 939. Each Executive department and agency shall
evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing
the individual a government travel charge card. The
department or agency may not issue a government travel charge
card to an individual that either lacks a credit history or
is found to have an unsatisfactory credit history as a result
of this evaluation: Provided, That this restriction shall not
preclude issuance of a restricted-use charge, debit, or
stored value card made in accordance with agency procedures
to: (1) an individual with an unsatisfactory credit history
where such card is used to pay travel expenses and the agency
determines there is no suitable alternative payment mechanism
available before issuing the card; or (2) an individual who
lacks a credit history. Each Executive department and agency
shall establish guidelines and procedures for disciplinary
actions to be taken against agency personnel for improper,
fraudulent, or abusive use of government charge cards, which
shall include appropriate disciplinary actions for use of
charge cards for purposes, and at establishments, that are
inconsistent with the official business of the Department or
agency or with applicable standards of conduct.
Sec. 940. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no
executive branch agency shall purchase, construct, and/or
lease any additional facilities, except within or contiguous
to existing locations, to be used for the purpose of
conducting Federal law enforcement training without advance
approval of the Committees on Appropriations, except that the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center is authorized to
obtain the temporary use of additional facilities by lease,
contract, or other agreement for training which cannot be
accommodated in existing Center facilities.
Sec. 941. From funds made available in this or any other
Act under the headings ``The White House'', ``Special
Assistance to the President and the Official Residence of
Residence of the Vice President'', ``Council on Environmental
Quality and Office of Environmental Quality'', ``Office of
Science and Technology Policy'', and ``Office of the United
States Trade Representative'', the

[[Page H5487]]

Director of the Office of Management and Budget (or such
other officer as the President may designate in writing) may,
15 days after giving notice to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, transfer not to exceed 10 percent of any
such appropriation to any other such appropriation, to be
merged with and available for the same time and for the same
purposes as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided,
That the amount of an appropriation shall not be increased by
more than 50 percent by such transfers: Provided further,
That no amount shall be transferred from the heading
``Special Assistance to the President and the Official
Residence of the Vice President'' without approval of the
Vice President.
Sec. 942. Section 4(b) of the Federal Activities Inventory
Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-270) is amended by adding
at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Executive agencies with fewer than 100 full-time
employees as of the first day of the fiscal year. However,
such an agency shall be subject to section 2 to the extent it
plans to conduct a public-private competition for the
performance of an activity that is not inherently
governmental.''.
Sec. 943. (a) No funds shall be available for transfers or
reimbursements to the E-Government Initiatives sponsored by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prior to 15 days
following submission of a report to the Committees on
Appropriations by the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget or receipt of approval to transfer funds by the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
(b) The report in (a) shall detail:
(1) the amount proposed for transfer for any department and
agency by program office, bureau, or activity, as
appropriate;
(2) the specific use of funds;
(3) the relevance of that use to that department or agency
and each bureau or office within, which is contributing
funds; and
(4) a description on any such activities for which funds
were appropriated that will not be implemented or partially
implemented by the department or agency as a result of the
transfer.
Sec. 944. (a) The adjustment in rates of basic pay for
employees under the statutory pay systems that takes effect
in fiscal year 2006 under sections 5303 and 5304 of title 5,
United States Code, shall be an increase of 3.1 percent, and
this adjustment shall apply to civilian employees in the
Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security
and such adjustments shall be effective as of the first day
of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after
January 1, 2006.
(b) Notwithstanding section 913 of this Act, the adjustment
in rates of basic pay for the statutory pay systems that take
place in fiscal year 2006 under sections 5344 and 5348 of
title 5, United States Code, shall be no less than the
percentage in paragraph (a) as employees in the same location
whose rates of basic pay are adjusted pursuant to the
statutory pay systems under section 5303 and 5304 of title 5,
United States Code. Prevailing rate employees at locations
where there are no employees whose pay is increased pursuant
to sections 5303 and 5304 of title 5 and prevailing rate
employees described in section 5343(a)(5) of title 5 shall be
considered to be located in the pay locality designated as
``Rest of US'' pursuant to section 5304 of title 5 for
purposes of this paragraph.
(c) Funds used to carry out this section shall be paid from
appropriations, which are made to each applicable department
or agency for salaries and expenses for fiscal year 2006.
Sec. 945. (a) In General.--Section 604(d) of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b(d)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(d) Limitation on Use of Consumer Report.--
``(1) In general.--A credit card issuer may not use any
negative information contained in a consumer report to
increase any annual percentage rate applicable to a credit
card account, or to remove or increase any introductory
annual percentage rate of interest applicable to such
account, for any reason other than an action or omission of
the card holder that is directly related to such account.
``(2) Notice to consumer.--The limitation under paragraph
(1) on the use by a credit card issuer of information in a
consumer report shall be clearly and conspicuously described
to the consumer by the credit card issuer in any disclosure
or statement required to be made to the consumer under this
title.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--Section
604(a)(3)(F)(ii) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C.
1681b(a)(3)(F)(ii)) is amended by inserting ``subject to
subsection (d),'' before ``to review''.

{time} 1030

Point of Order

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart)
will state his point of order.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that
section 945 of H.R. 3058 is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
That rule precludes changes in existing law from being report in a
general appropriation bill. The section directly amends the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, an Act within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Financial Services regarding the use of credit reports.
The section beginning on page 222, line 23, through 223, line 20,
clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill.
I would note further that House Resolution 342, the rule providing
for consideration of the bill, did not waive points of order under
clause 2 rule XXI against this section.
I would urge the Chair to sustain the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to be heard on the point of order.
Section 945 to which the gentleman objects is in this bill for the
purpose of ending a practice under which a credit card company can jack
up a cardholder's interest rates to the default rate which can be as
high as 30 percent. Even if that person has never missed a payment and
never been a day late on any payment to that credit card company, that
interest rate can be jacked up if that consumer was 1 day late in the
payment of some other bill and that was reported on a credit report.
This language is in here to correct a glaring and obscene omission in
legislation which was passed by the House several weeks ago, the
infamous bankruptcy bill.
As I understand the rules, the gentleman is objecting to this
language because it is legislation on an appropriation bill and falls
under the jurisdiction of another committee. As I understand the rules,
while the Rules Committee did not protect this section in the rule
under which the bill is being debated, this section could be passed by
the House if no Member chooses to object to it.
I would respectfully suggest to the gentleman, in the interest of
protecting consumers in this country from these bloodsuckers, I would
suggest that the gentleman would do the country a great service if he
would withdraw his point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this issue has been
debated at length by the House. There was a similar amendment that was
debated at length. It was rejected by the membership of this House by a
significant vote. In this case today on an appropriations bill,
legislating this issue, that has been debated and rejected in an
appropriate forum, this is not clearly an appropriate forum. I
reiterate my point of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would have to reluctantly concede because
of the warped rules which the majority party passed out of the
Committee on Rules, which protected countless other provisions from
points of order, but neglected to protect this section so that some of
the biggest banks in the country can rip-off Americans, I would have to
confess that under that myopic and misguided rule, I would have to
concede the point of order.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must first dispose of the point of order.
Does the gentleman wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I will wait until the point of order has
been disposed of and then claim my 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
The Chair finds that this section directly amends existing law. The
section, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the section is stricken from the
bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to repeat some remarks that I made on the
floor the other day. I happen to have a Visa card. I have had it for
years.
The other day I received in the mail a notification that this Visa
card had been transferred to another bank. If you take a look at the
fine print on the notice that accompanies that transfer, the fine print
makes clear that the following can occur.
Let us say that for 10 years the gentleman from Florida who just
lodged

[[Page H5488]]

the point of order, let us say for 10 years that gentleman has held
this same Visa card, and that for that 10-year period he has not been
late a single day in any payment to this credit card company.
Nonetheless, the gentleman from Florida, or any other citizen of
America, can have the interest rate on this card raised to the default
rate if, for instance, that person had gone on vacation and while on
vacation that person's wife, let us say, had broken her arm. And let us
say she was responsible for writing the checks each month and because
she was hurt she could not write the checks for a couple of weeks. And
if that late payment because of that injury--to another company on
another account--wound up in a credit report totally unrelated to your
performance on the initial card, nonetheless, that credit card company
claims the right to jack up interest rates to 30 percent.
In my view, that is nothing but blood-sucking usury, and I find it
incredible that the majority party in this House finds ways time and
time and time again to genuflect to the special interests like these
credit card companies and to use the technicalities of the rules of
this House to deny the average American citizen the protection that
they ought to have a right to expect from representatives of this body
who are supposed to represent the general interests rather than the
special interests of these credit card companies.
It is an outrage that this body would allow this kind of a practice
to continue. It is an outrage that the well-connected shysters who
engage in this practice are not stood up to unanimously by 435 people
in this House.
So all I can say is if the majority wants to hide behind the
technicalities to protect yet another well-paying special interest, I
cannot do a whole lot about it except raise my voice, and that is what
I am doing today.
I would hope that the American consumers would take notice who it is
that decides that the technicalities of the rules are more important
than giving the consuming public a fair shake.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. As the designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, last week the full Committee on
Appropriations voted 33 to 25 to accept this provision that prevents
credit card issuers from using totally unrelated consumer information
to raise the annual percentage rates on cardholders. The provision
could have been protected by the Committee on Rules. It was not.
Therefore, the point of order was possible. The gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has accepted the point of order reluctantly.
But this provision in no way prevents companies from raising interest
rates, but simply states that banks can only base that decision on the
interest rate on information that is relevant to the account that they
issue. This provision would make sure that people who pay their credit
card account on time and remain within their credit limit do not have
their annual percentage rates increased.
The practice of using unrelated information to increase those rates
is not allowed when lenders issue home mortgages, and it simply should
not be allowed when they issue credit cards. It is outrageous that this
practice is legal.
I hope that the discussion here, since the issue has been ruled out
of order, will be the impetus for the Committee on Financial Services,
which has raised the point of order, it will be the impetus to get rid
of this practice.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I find this inexplicable. This is the
House of Representatives. We are here purposefully to protect the
interests of the American people. There is no situation in which it is
more clear as to where the interest of the American people lie than in
the context of this amendment that has been offered today by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). I assume that is why it passed the
Committee on Appropriations by such a strong vote.
But for political reasons, the Committee on Rules has decided not to
protect the amendment, not to allow it to come out here and not be
subject to the kind of opposition it received a moment ago from the
gentleman from Florida.
This issue should be debated on the floor of this House. This
amendment should be passed. Why? Because the credit card companies are
increasingly putting American families deeper and deeper and deeper in
debt. The average debt now, according to the Federal Reserve, the
average debt of the average American family is 115 percent of income
and the main reason for that is credit card debt.
The credit card companies attract consumers, often attracting them in
at relatively reasonable interest rates, and then very rapidly for
extraneous reasons and circumstances, increase those rates. And the
debt that people owe to credit card companies is going up and up and
up.
That is one of the reasons why this House of Representatives passed
that atrocious bankruptcy bill not long ago, a bankruptcy bill which,
in effect, in large part was influenced strongly by the credit card
companies. What have we become? This House, which is supposed to
represent the interests of the American people, the average American,
the average American family, has fallen now to represent narrower and
narrower special interests, and the obvious special interest in this
case are the credit card companies which has become the fastest growing
and one of the most lucrative businesses in America. And why? Because
we are not doing our job. This House of Representatives is not doing
what it is supposed to do: Protect the interest of the average family
and not allow usurious interest rates to take place here over and over
and over again.

{time} 1045

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the practical result of the point of order
lodged by the gentleman from Florida is to make the credit card
companies the only people in America who can raise the price of
something you bought after you bought it. If people are comfortable
putting themselves in that supine position, I cannot do anything about
it. But I find it interesting that the gentleman is a member of the
Rules Committee, which cleverly left this measure exposed and then
exploited that failure on the part of the Rules Committee in order to
knock this language out of the bill. That is a nice sleight of hand
operation.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Sec. 946. Unless otherwise authorized by existing law, none
of the funds provided in this Act or any other Act may be
used by an executive branch agency to produce any prepackaged
news story intended for broadcast or distribution in the
United States, unless the story includes a clear notification
within the text or audio of the prepackaged news story that
the prepackaged news story was prepared or funded by that
executive branch agency.
Sec. 947. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to administer, implement, or enforce the amendment
made to section 515.533 of title 31, Code of Federal
Regulations, that was published in the Federal Register on
February 25, 2005.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Simmons

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

Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Simmons:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) Limitation on Use of Funds.--None of the funds
made available in this Act may be used to enter into,
implement, or provide oversight of contracts between the
Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee, and private
collection agencies. Notwithstanding this provision, the
Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee, may continue to
utilize any private collection contract authority in effect
prior to October 22, 2004. Nothing in this provision shall
impact the administration of any tax or tariff.
(b) Corresponding Reduction in Funds.--The amount otherwise
provided by this Act for ``internal revenue service-business
systems modernization'' is hereby reduced by $5,000,000.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.

[[Page H5489]]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons).
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My amendment is very straightforward. It simply requires that the
collection of Federal taxes will continue to be done by officials of
the IRS and not by private contractors. This amendment is similar to
one that was introduced by the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito) last year and passed by voice vote, although it was ultimately
taken out of the bill in conference.
I think all of us, Mr. Chairman, want a Federal system that
efficiently collects taxes, but we cannot do it at the expense of
taxpayers' rights or privacy. If the IRS is allowed to go forward with
the outsourcing of tax collection, millions of taxpayer files will be
made available to private debt collection companies. These companies,
in turn, will collect up to a 25 percent fee for any collections from
American taxpayers.
This type of incentive system on the part of collectors is ripe for
abuse and ripe for harassment, which is why the IRS specifically
prohibits its own employees from being engaged in a quota system with
regard to tax collection.
Mr. Chairman, each year millions of Americans voluntarily disclose
sensitive personal information to the IRS with the expectation that it
will be handled with the utmost discretion and care, that it will be
protected from erroneous or deliberate disclosure outside the IRS. Yet
current law allows the IRS to disclose this information to third-party
contractors. This cannot be allowed to stand.
Do we really want to release commission-hungry tax collection agents
on the American public? Is this really good public policy?
Mr. Chairman, at a time when we are concerned about identity theft,
we should not be in the business of putting sensitive information into
the hands of private contractors. Just today, the Washington Post did
an editorial, Have You Been Stolen? And it says, ``Once your name, date
of birth, address and Social Security number go astray, you are
permanently at risk.''
Yet, if we do not pass this amendment that I have offered here today,
millions of American taxpayers will be permanently at risk.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join with my colleague
from Connecticut in offering this amendment to ensure the fair
treatment of the American taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, it was just back in 1998 that, in response to overly
aggressive IRS collection tactics, the Congress passed the IRS
Restructuring and Reform Act. That act specifically prevented IRS
agents and their supervisors from being evaluated based on how much
taxes they collected. They couldn't get a bonus based on how much tax
they collected. The reason was pretty simple. We wanted to make sure
that the IRS agents had an objective approach, that they weren't
harassing taxpayers for their own personal benefit.
That brings us to why we are offering this amendment here today. The
provision that was included last year in the FSC corporate tax bill
reversed that policy. In fact, even worse, it said that private
collection agencies could go out and collect these taxes and that they
would get a 25 percent bonus if they collected those taxes. In other
words, they were on a commission, based on how much they collected,
which creates exactly the wrong incentive, an incentive that we tried
to address back in 1998 when we passed that earlier legislation.
Furthermore, it hurts the American taxpayer in another way. Right
now, when the IRS agent goes out and collects taxes, 100 percent of
those taxes go to the public Treasury to be spent on education and
health care and other things that this Congress may decide to invest in
for the American people. Under the existing special interest provision
that got stuck into the law last year, 25 percent of those moneys are
now going to go, not to the Federal Treasury for public purposes, but
they are going to be pocketed by these private bounty hunters,
essentially, debt collectors who are out there, who have an incentive
to be overly aggressive with the taxpayer, have an incentive not to
look at the issue fairly; and at the end of the day, they pocket 25
percent instead of those funds going to the benefit of the American
taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment and
I urge its adoption.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time I have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, in those 30 seconds I would like to say
that taxes today are complicated. Senior citizens have problems with
them. Single moms have problems with them. Small business owners have
problems with them. Mistakes can be made. But the collection should not
be turned over to commission-based bounty hunters. We should not adopt
a policy that turns these people loose on our citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this amendment be
withdrawn, as I understand that there is a point of order against it.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman's amendment is
withdrawn.
There was no objection.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do understand that the point of order lies, and I
understand why my chairman has raised the point of order. I just want
to make something clear on the record, however, that I believe that
collection of tax is an inherent role of government, and if the point
of order had not lay against the provision, I would have supported the
amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Connecticut.
Given the ongoing reports of identity theft and lost data these days,
I have come to abhor the very idea of putting private and sensitive
information in the hands of debt collectors. It seems to me, as I have
already pointed out, it is an inherent role of government to collect
taxes. It is a fundamental responsibility of government. We shouldn't
privatize this activity, particularly when it will cost taxpayers more
money than collecting the owed taxes by Federal employees.
For that reason, I would have supported the amendment, but I do
understand the point of order as my chairman has raised it.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the
amendments made to section 515.561 of title 31, Code of
Federal Regulations, as published in the Federal Register on
June 16, 2004, with respect to any Member of the United
States Armed Forces.
(b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to the
implementation, administration, or enforcement of section
515.560(c)(3) of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point
of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. A point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the house of June 29, 2005, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
had assumed that a point of order would be raised. I know that those
opposing this amendment don't want to talk about this amendment, and I
can understand why.
Carlos Lazo escaped from Cuba in the late 1980s. He hopped a raft,
but unfortunately he was caught; he was caught by Castro's forces. He
was taken back to Cuba where he spent 1 year in Castro's prisons.
A little later he decided that the pull from freedom was strong
enough that

[[Page H5490]]

he would try again, and he did. He got on another raft and this time he
made it. He made it and he became an American. Not only did he become
an American, he became a soldier. Not only that, he went over to Iraq
and served us proudly. In fact, Sergeant Lazo was recently awarded the
Bronze Star for bravery in action in Iraq.
Last June, when he came home from Iraq, he wanted to visit his two
sons who are still in Cuba. He is divorced. They and their mother live
in Cuba. He tried to do so. He went to the Miami Airport only to find
that since he had been in Cuba once in the past 3 years, he couldn't go
again for another 3 years. He was prevented from going to see his
family.
Here we are, our government, telling one of its finest, a soldier who
put his life on the line in Iraq, a soldier that we trust in Iraq, but
don't trust to be able to go and see his family more than once out of
every 3 years. We acknowledge that he should be able to go see his
family, but only once every 3 years.
What kind of a policy is that for us to have? And who would object to
that? How hard-hearted do you have to be to say a soldier serving his
country cannot go home and see his two kids?
Those on the other side might say, well, why don't we just bring his
family over here? And he says, well, I have a good relationship with
their mother and she wants them to stay there, and who am I to say any
different? He also would like to see his grandmother and relatives
while he is over there, that couldn't come here.
The notion that we should tell him what is best for him is at the
root of this whole policy of denying Cuban-American families the right
to see their families. If this amendment is indeed ruled out of order
and we are unable to decide the fate of Sergeant Lazo, the only
alternative is to vote for the Davis amendment that will be offered
shortly.

Point of order

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Is debate supposed to be on the
point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida reserved a point of order.
The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Arizona for 5 minutes on
his amendment pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me point out again, this is another
thing that the other side doesn't want you to hear. That is why I was
just interrupted.

{time} 1100

The only way we can allow Sergeant Lazo to see his family is to vote
for the Davis amendment, which will allow him and other Cuban American
families to go see their families better than once every 3 years.
I think Sergeant Lazo says it best. He says, Cubans pray every day
that their parents die 3 years apart if their parents are in Cuba, so
they are able to go see them.
Who are we? Who are we as Americans to tell other Americans that they
should only be able to go and see their family, their mother, their
father, or their kids in this case once every 3 years? What kind of
policy is that?
Again, I am not able to offer this amendment. It is going to be ruled
out of order. So the only way we can allow Sergeant Lazo or other Cuban
Americans or others to see their families more than once every 3 years
is to vote for the Davis amendment that will be offered shortly.
Again, Cuban Americans are only allowed once every 3 years. If they
have a mother in Cuba and she dies and they decide to attend her
funeral, if their father's dies 2 years later, they cannot go to his
under this policy unless we vote for the Davis amendment.
I ask my colleagues to please look at their hearts here, see if this
is what they want to do as an American to deny another American the
right to see their family in Cuba. That is what this amendment is all
about. Because we are unable to offer this one, that is what the Davis
amendment will be about.
When we are debating the Davis amendment, I suppose we will hear on
the other side, as we have heard in the past, hey, we oppose this, we
live in a Cuban American community, we know that they do not want to go
see their families. Perhaps the people they know feel that way, but I
can tell my colleagues, I represent some Cuban Americans as well.
People do all over.
Sergeant Lazo comes from the State of Washington, and they would like
to go. And who are we, who is anyone to tell others that they cannot go
there?
At the root of what we are trying to do is to give people the freedom
to make that choice themselves rather than imposing that choice upon
them, a choice whether to go see their families, to be able to visit
their kids, as a soldier. And there are other soldiers as well; he is
not the only one.
I would ask Members to please vote for the Davis amendment if we are
unable to vote for this one.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, the hypocrisy of this Administration is
stunning. Sergeant Lazo was sent by his commander in chief to fight in
a war that President Bush has claimed is a ``fight for freedom.''
Yet this same Sergeant Lazo, an American citizen, has been told by
the Government he serves that he is forbidden from seeing his children
simply because they live in Cuba.
This tragedy is an extension of the administration's idiotic policy
to restrict travel to Cuba.
This myopic policy is anti-family, anti-democratic values and it must
be repealed.
I have been a strong supporter of lifting the travel ban and embargo;
there is no better way to spread democracy and improve relations
between Cuba and the United States then by allowing for people-to-
people exchanges and unlimited family travel and promoting trade
between our two countries.
But because of the restrictive travel policies implemented by this
administration, each and every U.S. citizen should be very concerned
that fellow American citizens do not enjoy the same rights and freedoms
that each one of us has.
Sargeant Lazo is a tragic victim of a flawed 40-year-old policy. It
is time for change. Support the Flake amendment and allow Sargeant Lazo
to visit his children.

Point of Order

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of
order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law
and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.'' The amendment at hand requires a new
determination. And so I make the point of order against this amendment.
We will have discussion today, Mr. Chairman, on the right of all the
people of Cuba to be free and the right for them not to have families
divided. They pray every day for freedom, and they work for it. We will
have that debate. But not on amendments that violate the rules of this
House.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Hearing none, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new
determination by Federal officials to discern whether a person is a
member of the Armed Forces. The amendment therefore constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe what has just happened on the floor of
this House. In effect, what has happened is that some of these same
people who tried to stick their noses into the question of how the
Schiavo family should deal with an end-of-life issue at a time of great
pain for that family, some of the people in this House who felt
compelled to stick their noses into that case are now trying to stick
their noses into the question of how often someone who is wearing the
uniform of the United States can see their family.
I am getting awfully tired of having people on this floor bleat about
family values and then take actions which keep families apart. I am
awfully tired of hearing people, in effect, suggest that because we
dislike Mr. Castro so much that the only way someone wearing the
uniform of the United States is going to be able to see his family in
Cuba is only if they are lucky enough to see Castro go.
What happens in the meantime? Where are these vaunted family values?

[[Page H5491]]

I will tell the Members where they are. When they get in the way of
people's political ideology or family squabbles in Cuba, they get
tossed out the window. What a pitiful joke.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Davis of Florida

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

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Davis of Florida:
Page 224, insert the following after line 8:
Sec. 948. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act
may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the
amendments made to section 515.560 or 515.561 of title 31,
Code of Federal Regulations (relating to travel-related
transactions incident to travel to Cuba and visiting
relatives in Cuba), as published in the Federal Register on
June 16, 2004.
(b) The limitation in subsection (a) shall not apply to the
implementation, administration, or enforcement of section
515.560(c)(3) of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I first ask, as a matter of
procedure, who will be claiming time on the other side?
The CHAIRMAN. Time has not yet been claimed.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\3/4\ minutes.
Today I am offering an amendment to repeal the administration's rules
restricting family travel to Cuba. I offered this same amendment last
September. It passed by a vote of 225 to 174. Unfortunately, the
amendment was not included in the conference report. I am asking my
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to join me again today in
correcting this cruel injustice.
As was just described in the prior amendment, the Department of
Treasury introduced rules in June of 2004 that limit to once every 3
years the opportunity of anybody in my home State of Florida of the
United States to visit their own flesh and blood, their family, in Cuba
regardless of the circumstances.
Furthermore, the policy that I seek to repeal through this amendment
is an unforgivable policy that redefines the family to exclude aunts,
uncles, and cousins. And I ask anybody on the floor of the House today
to stand up and defend this indefensible aspect of the policy.
A vote for my amendment is to reinstate the prior rule that allowed
people here in the United States to visit their own family once a year
and to apply for a specific license if there were an emergency: a
birth, a death, or someone who is very sick and might die.
I represent hundreds of people in the Tampa Bay area, like many
Americans, who simply would like to be with their family in these
tragic times. This policy prohibits it.
Let me be clear. My amendment does not address the broader issue of
the embargo or unfettered travel to Cuba. That is a debate for another
day. This is simply about families. This Congress, this country should
be in the benefit of supporting families, not undermining them, not
separating. This policy punishes Cubans on both sides of the straits,
and it has no positive impact on the embargo issue. I represent many
people who are trying to reach out to their families at a time they
have little hope, little support, under this oppressive regime in Cuba
I have seen with my own eyes.
As was mentioned earlier, Sergeant Lazo was good enough to be sent to
Iraq to defend our country as part of the Washington National Guard. He
has two sons in Cuba, one of whom, I understand, is in the hospital. He
is not allowed to go visit his own son because he was in Cuba 2 years
ago.
A deputy assistant secretary of the United States State Department
summed this up last year. He said, an individual can decide whether
they want to visit Cuba once every 3 years and the decision is up to
them, and if they have a dying relative, they have to figure out the
best time to travel. These are words that no one would dare speak on
the floor of this House of the United States of Representatives. How
outrageous.
This Chamber is constantly taking steps to defend and support
families: tax relief, marriage penalty relief, child tax credits.
Everyone on the floor of this House of Representatives talks about
family values here and at home. This is a chance to act on family
values. We have an opportunity today to support families who may be
divided in geography, but they are not divided in flesh and blood and
commitment to each other.
I hope this body, which is divided on the embargo, will come
together, support families, and adopt the Davis amendment.
Today I am offering this amendment to repeal the administration's
rules restricting family travel to Cuba.
As you may remember, I offered this same amendment last September.
The House of Representatives recognized this injustice and passed my
amendment by a bipartisan vote of 225 to 174. Unfortunately, my
amendment was not included in the conference report. I call on my
colleagues to pass this amendment once again.
On June 30, 2004, the Department of Treasury implemented new
restrictions on family travel to Cuba. Cuban Americans are now limited
to one 14-day visit with their Cuban relatives every 3 years.
The administration has also attempted to redefine the Cuban family.
Cuban-Americans are no longer permitted to visit their aunts, uncles or
cousins in Cuba.
My amendment would prohibit funds in this bill from being used to
implement, administer or enforce the changes made to family travel.
A vote in favor of my amendment is a vote to reinstate the previous
policy, which allowed Cuban-Americans one trip per year under a general
license, allowed for additional emergency visits under a specific
license and kept aunts, uncles and cousins where they belong--as part
of the family.
Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. This amendment deals exclusively with
keeping families together and would not permit unfettered travel.
But the United States should not be in the business of separating
families. The new family travel rules undermine families, punish Cubans
on both sides of the Florida straits and have minimal effect on the
Government of Cuba.
The Cuban people are talented and ambitious, but under Castro's
oppressive rule, they are left with little hope. For many, their only
lifeline is the emotional and financial support they receive from
relatives in America.
Mr. Chairman, I have spoken with numerous Cuban Americans in my
district of Tampa Bay and across Florida who were heartbroken by these
regulations. And, most recently, I met with SGT Carlos Lazo, a Cuban
American who bravely served our country in Iraq. He is not even
permitted to visit his two sons in Cuba.
In fact, last year, a deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Sate
Department summed up the outrageous insensitivity of these rules when
he was quoted by Reuters as saying, ``An individual can decide when
they want to travel once every three years and the decision is up to
them. So if they have a dying relative they have to figure out when
they want to travel.''
Mr. Chairman, this chamber is constantly celebrating and supporting
America's families. We've passed marriage penalty relief and child tax
credits. But these sweeping changes on family travel to Cuba were
enacted without so much as one hearing in Congress.
Again, we have an opportunity to right this wrong. We have an
opportunity to celebrate the positive relationships between the United
States and Cuba. We have the opportunity to support families who may be
divided in geography, but not in flesh and blood and certainly not in
love.
This body may be divided on whether the United States should allow
travel to Cuba for tourism or business reasons, but I hope that today
we can unite in support of families. I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of the Davis amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the
time in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman
from Florida's amendment.

[[Page H5492]]

A year ago I too had concerns about the changes in the regulations on
family travel when they were first introduced, and I voted with the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) because I believed that Cuban
Americans had virtually no notice that the regulations were about to be
changed and they could not plan their travel to Cuba accordingly. But a
year later my view of these concerns no longer applies.
So now the question becomes the focus on the impact of travel to
Cuba, and I would like to share with Members of the House a letter that
many of us recently received from the leading Cuban opposition leaders:
Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello, Rene de Jesus Gomez Manzano, Felix
Antonio Bonne Carcasses. These are the same opposition leaders who, on
May 20 of this year, organized an historic Assembly to Promote Civil
Society on the 103rd anniversary of Cuban independence.
This event brought many civil society organizations together for the
first time to discuss democracy in Cuba. And as we learned in a hearing
earlier this year in the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, of
which I am the ranking Democrat, the organizers and the participants in
this event risked their personal freedom for the freedom of the Cuban
people. In fact, these leaders have already suffered in Castro's jails
for speaking out on behalf of the Cuban people. And it is the same
group of leaders who risked their lives for democracy in Cuba, not
those here in the diaspora, but those who are inside of Castro's Cuba,
who ask this Congress in their letter not to adopt any changes, any
changes, which would either partially or totally change the nature of
the embargo.
In fact, they clearly state that any such change would be interpreted
as a new policy of compromise with the Castro regime and cite that
nothing has been done by the regime to move forward to an accommodation
with that element of civil society that ultimately seeks to change the
fundamental basics of human rights that we seek to promote throughout
the world. And I think we have to heed the warning that they are
sending, and we must send a clear message to the Castro regime that we
will not compromise when it comes to human rights, freedom, and
democracy in Cuba; that we will not dilute the embargo in any way and
that we must respect the voices of those very same Cubans who suffer
under the regime.
And, finally, let me just say that one cannot seek political asylum
from a country and then constantly travel back to it. One is either a
political asylee or one is not. One cannot keep traveling back to a
country from which they are a political asylee.
And, lastly, we all know the great difficulties, those of us who are
not only Cuban Americans but who represent 99 percent of all Cuban
Americans in the country; and they have one voice, and that voice is to
do everything we can to end the suffering of the Cuban people.
We hear those voices from Cuba. We should listen to them.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, some may ask why the Cuban American community
overwhelmingly not only supports these measures to limit resources to
the terrorist regime, but elects Members, each and every Member, Cuban
American Member whether they are Republicans or Democrats, who also
agree with the overwhelming majority of the Cuban American community on
measures to limit resources to the terrorist regime.
Among the reasons for that, obviously, it is because it is a
terrorist regime, an anti-American terrorist regime, that oppresses the
Cuban people and has done so for 46 years; but also because Cuban
Americans know that freedom never comes free. The only country in the
world that has the benefit of a law here in the United States that says
one reaches soil in the United States and they are treated like a
political asylee are Cubans. And with those great privileges, the great
privilege of the Cuban Adjustment Act, come responsibilities.
If one is from any other country in the world, as the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) said, and they are a political asylee, they
cannot go back once every 3 years. They cannot go back, period, until
the political situation changes in the country they have left. But
Cubans not only are treated, and rightfully so, because they are
fleeing a Communist tyranny in this hemisphere, as though they were
jumping over the Berlin Wall, they are treated as political asylees,
but they can go back and visit family every 3 years; whereas from any
other country in the world, political asylees cannot.

{time} 1115

So, at this point, I would say this is a very serious issue, but
suffice it to say that it is not by chance that all the Cuban American
Members of this House and the overwhelming majority of the community
support all of these measures to limit resources from the terrorist
regime.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The argument has been made that this debate is about limiting
resources. Does anyone want to stand on the floor of this House of
Representatives and tell anyone that they cannot go visit a dying
member of their family because that is an appropriate limitation on
resources?
I have been down to Cuba and seen with my own eyes the suffering and
injustice and misery under this oppressive regime. This government is
treating their people terribly. One of the few things they have left in
life, apart from their own faith and pride, is the support of our own
family. No one, no one dares stand on the floor of this House today and
answer the question, what do you tell somebody I represent or you
represent when someone in their family is having a baby, is approaching
death or may die and cannot go down to visit their own family because
they were just there 2\1/2\ years ago. That is indefensible. It is
unforgivable. This is not a debate about the embargo. This is a debate
about whether we are going to stand on the floor of the House of
Representatives and support families and support family values.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance
of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the
distinguished leader and Member from the International Relations
Committee.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, when we eliminate all the emotional
rhetoric here on the floor, what we get to is this amendment. This
amendment provides an economic lifeline to the dictatorship. By
prohibiting OFAC from enforcing U.S. laws and regulations, this
amendment removes those safeguards and it provides the Castro regime
with the much needed currency to continue its reign of terror.
Prisoners of conscience are languishing in squalid cells in Cuba, and
yet, what are we doing? We are going to bestow this pariah state
another victory. Castro is very happy when we do these amendments.
Former political prisoners in my Congressional district who endured the
most inhumane treatment are the first ones to oppose any weakening of
these restrictions.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Davis amendment.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to anyone who
opposes this amendment, that wants to defend a policy that says that
your family or mine or anybody's family cannot include aunts, uncles or
cousins.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart).
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the reason that
President Bush implemented these regs, the reason we have an embargo is
because we want the political prisoners freed, because we want
political parties legalized, labor unions legalized, the press
legalized, and elections scheduled, and we want to retain the leverage
of those billions of dollars in travel until the dictatorship releases
political prisoners. And you know something, yes, there is pain
involved in the Cuban tragedy. But the pain comes from the tragedy of
the dictatorship and not because of our policies.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the silence
is

[[Page H5493]]

deafening here. With all due respect to my colleague, with whom I agree
on many Cuba policies and respect, no one dares stand on the floor of
the House of Representatives and answer the question why we are
supporting a policy that says that your uncle, aunt or cousin is not a
member of your own family, your own flesh and blood.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Did the gentleman not hear when I
spoke 10 seconds ago?
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this is not a
debate about the embargo. This is a debate about who is considered a
member of the family. No one dares stand on the floor of the House of
Representatives today and answer the question why we are going to deny
to an individual the right to visit a member of their own family who
may be having a child, who may be dying. I represent people who every
day are facing the cruel injustice of this policy. For them it is not
about a message. It is not about rhetoric. It is about the facts. The
fact is we are denying Sergeant Lazo, who was good enough to represent
our country and our families, including our aunts, uncles and cousins
in Iraq, the ability to visit his own sons in Cuba, including one who
in the hospital. This is an unforgivable indefensible policy.
I would urge Democrats and Republicans to once again adopt the
amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the author and proponents of this amendment,
which would lift the longstanding prohibition on American travel in
Cuba, support it for perfectly valid motives. They believe the infusion
of both American money and American culture--however limited--will be a
net positive for Cuba's struggling economy. And if, in fact, Cuba's
economy was simply struggling, I would whole-heartedly support this
amendment. But Cuba's economy is not struggling--it is strangled. It is
dominated, oppressed, and leeched by Fidel Castro's terrorist regime in
Havana.
Cuba has no economy, not in the way we understand the term; it merely
has economic extensions of Castro's tyranny. In Castro's Cuba, any
money taken in from tourists is pilfered by the government and used to
fund its decades-old machinery of oppression. There is no free market;
just a command economy. There are no small businessmen; just Castro's
button-men. There is no service industry; just a giant money-laundering
apparatus for a murderous tyrant. Proponents of this amendment, Mr.
Chairman, would have us believe Cuba could become America's playground
if only the economic sanctions were lifted--that once Cuba's economy
and culture were exposed to American dollars and sensibilities, we
would have a tropical paradise, an exotic vacation Mecca, right around
the corner.
But Mr. Chairman, the difference between Cuba and Bermuda is not the
absence of tourists in the former but the absence of secret police in
the latter! The money Americans would spend in Cuba under this
amendment would directly--not indirectly, but directly--benefit Fidel
Castro's dictatorship, his aiding and abetting of international
terrorism, his oppression of the Cuban people, and his hijacking of
Cuban history. The only solution is to not spend that money in the
first place.
President Bush is right, as he has been for four years, to promise to
veto any legislation that enriches Fidel Castro or benefits his regime.
The president is right. I stand with him, and I urge all my colleagues
to do the same.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, these cruel anti-family restrictions need
to be reversed. They have already caused too much human pain and
suffering.
Nelson Diaz arrived in the U.S. in 1981, leaving his father, brothers
and extended family in Cuba. He visited his family in May 2004--and is
now not eligible to return until May 2007. His father is 87 years old
and in failing health. If he is forced to wait the full three years,
Diaz will not see his father alive again.
Waldo Parravicini left his family behind in 1958 when he came to the
U.S. Until last June, he saw them on a regular basis, delivering vital
medicines to his aging father. Under the new restrictions, Waldo has
missed the deaths of his father and grandfather, aunts, uncles, cousins
and friends, as well as the births and baptisms of nieces and nephews.
If Waldo and his 93-year-old mother have to wait two more years, she
may never see her oldest daughter and grandchildren again. Regarding
the new limits on family travel, Waldo says they are ``not worthy of
any nation that truly values family and God.''
Ana Karim, a pastor with the Richmond Mennonite Fellowship in
Richmond, Virginia, has family throughout Cuba, who she visited
regularly until last year. She brought medicine, clothing and food to
her two uncles, one suffering from cancer and the other from
Parkinson's disease. Now Ana cannot visit any of her family in Cuba
because the new law declares that her uncles, aunts and cousins are not
immediate family.
Mr. Chairman, who in this Chamber can possibly, in good conscience,
support a policy that deliberately creates such family pain and
suffering?
We're supposed to be the good guys.
Stop punishing these innocent families.
Support the Davis amendment.

Profiles of Cuban-Americans Harmed by the New Family Travel
Restrictions on Cuba

Marisela Romero

Marisela Romero is a 56-year-old Cuban-American woman who
lives in Miami. Her only sister and her mother had died in
Cuba several years ago, leaving her to manage the care of her
elderly and demented father who lived in a small coastal town
on the island. Prior to last summer she had traveled every
two to three months to visit him. She sent him medicines,
diapers, and other supplies to make his life easier, and
hired several Cubans who provided him with the round-the-
clock care that allowed him to stay in his own home. Then, in
2004 our government dramatically restricted Cuban-Americans
in terms of both traveling to Cuba and sending material aid.
She was forbidden to send money to those who were caring for
him. She was forbidden to visit him more often than once
every three years. She was even forbidden to send him the
diapers he needed because they were not deemed to be
``medicine.'' After several months of not seeing his only
living child, he died. Both he and his daughter suffered
irreparable harm because of the new regulations. It is
unacceptable to treat either American families or Cuban
families with such cruelty.
____

Nelson Diaz

Nelson Diaz arrived in the United States in 1981, leaving
his father, brothers, and extended family in Cuba. He was
able to visit the island in May 2004 and is not eligible to
return until May 2007. However, his father is 87 years old
and in failing health. Diaz fears that if he is forced to
wait the full three years that he will not see his father
alive again. He also worries about his limited ability to
send money and goods to the rest of his family. Despite
having built a successful life in the United States,
according to Diaz, ``I cannot be completely happy if my
family and friends in Cuba are in need and I cannot help
them.''
____

waldo parravicini

Leaving behind his family in Cuba, Waldo Parravicini came
to the United States in 1958 to attend college after Batista
shut down the University of Havana. Until last June when the
regulations governing family travel to Cuba changed and
restricted visits to once every three years, Parravicini
visited his family on a regular basis, delivering vital
medicines to his aging father during his long battle with
illness.
Referring to the travel restrictions, Parravicini says,
``its hypocrisy and double standard are incredible . . . and
not worthy of any nation that truly values family and God.''
Because of the limitations on travel to Cuba, Waldo has
missed important family events including the deaths of his
father and grandfather, aunts, uncles, cousins, and friends;
and the births and baptisms of nieces and nephews. If Waldo
and his 93-year-old mother have to wait two more years to
visit Cuba, his mother may not be able to see her oldest
daughter and grandchildren again.
____

ana karim

Ana has family throughout Cuba and has made a habit of
visiting them at least once a year. On her visits to Cuba,
Ana brings medicines, clothing, and food. These gifts are
particularly helpful to her two uncles, one suffering from
cancer and the other from Parkinson's disease.
While her uncles have received free medical treatment from
the Cuban government, they face a drastic shortage of
medicine, particularly ibuprofen. When Ana visited last May,
she took several bottles of the pain medicine with her; a
gift which was immensely appreciated.
Under new travel restrictions, effective June 30th, Ana is
no longer able to visit her family in Cuba. The new law
dictates that aunts, uncles, and cousins are not in one's
``immediate family'' and Cuban Americans cannot legally visit
those relatives.
Ana works as a pastor with the Richmond Mennonite
Fellowship in Richmond, VA. She has traveled to Cuba in this
capacity as well leading two-week seminars in Cuba that
fulfill a class requirement for students at Baptist
Theological Seminary at Richmond. The new restrictions now
prohibit any programs lasting shorter than 10 weeks, severing
this opportunity from her as well.

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Davis
amendment to the Treasury Transportation bill.
Our foreign policy should reflect our Democratic values. The
Administration claims that family values are the bedrock of our
society,

[[Page H5494]]

yet this same Administration has instituted one of the most anti-family
policies in US history.
In June 2004 the Office of Foreign Assets Control issued regulations
that only permit Cuban-Americans to visit their immediate family
members in Cuba every three years.
Are any of us willing to trade places with Cuban-Americans living in
the United States who are denied the opportunity to visit freely with
their family members . . . because of geography? I think not.
What does such a restrictive policy say about American values to
Cuban Americans? What does such a restrictive policy say about American
values to the rest of the world? What does such a policy say about the
civil rights of Cuban Americans living in the United States?
It is akin to a ``separate but equal'' policy since Cuban Americans,
who should enjoy the same civil liberties that all other Americans
enjoy, cannot freely visit their families in Cuba.
As this Nation prepares to celebrate its 229th birthday on July 4, I
urge my colleagues to remember the democratic principles our Founding
Fathers enshrined in the Constitution. Don't treat Cuban Americans as
``separate but equal.''
Overturn the ban on travel to Cuba and support the Davis amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, none of us come here to defend the Cuban
Government or its historically poor human rights record and repressive
system of government. But 46 years of the same failed policy have
accomplished nothing. And the more we normalize relations with Cuba,
the faster Fidel Castro will lose his grip on the Cuban people. This is
why we should be making it easier for Americans to go to Cuba.
Yet we seem to be going in the opposite direction. Rather than being
committed to political openness and the free exchange of goods and
ideas--powerful forces--we are clamping down on our own citizens--in
the process, preventing any liberalization of the Castro regime and
penalizing law-abiding Americans.
Last week, I met with U.S. Army Sgt. Carlos Lazo, who has two sons in
Cuba, one critically ill. This is a man who won the Bronze Star for
fighting in Iraq, but our government will not let him visit his own
son. Why? Because he traveled to Cuba last year. Even the Cuban
government has said Sgt. Lazo's son can come here to visit his father.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of human rights and economic
freedom. Limiting the rights of Americans to travel back to Cuba, or to
send money home to their families is no way to bring change to Cuba.
In committee, we already acknowledged as much from the business end.
There, we recognized how much progress we have made in the last few
years on the economic front, with agriculture sales growing to almost
$400 million from almost nothing 4 years earlier. That is why the
committee unanimously agreed to loosen traveling restrictions to Cuba
with respect to agribusiness.
There is no reason we should not do the same for these families. Now
is a time for compassion. Particularly when we are talking about men
and women in the United States military uniform, who are defending our
freedom overseas, we should show them that their Congress recognizes
that freedom begins at home. Support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) will
be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Flake

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Flake:
Page 224, insert the following after line 8:
Sec. 948. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to amend section 515.566 of title 31, Code of Federal
Regulations (relating to religious activities in Cuba), as in
effect on June 29, 2005.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point
of order on Mr. Flake's amendments. He has got, I believe, eight of
them, and I am not sure if all of them are consistent with the rules of
the House. So what I would like to do because I do know that some at
least or at least another one is not, I reserve a point of order on Mr.
Flake's amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I would rather respond to the questions on this. What
this amendment simply does, those who are opposed to change in Cuba
have said let us keep the current regulations. Let us keep the current
exemptions that we have. Let us keep it all the same. The gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) just stood and said the dissidents are
saying that, let us keep it exactly the same.
This amendment, with regard to the religious exemption that exists,
says keep it the same. That is what we are doing with this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again, I was not
aware of which of the multiple amendments that the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake) has filed he was going to bring up at this time. My
understanding is that this particular amendment, of the many that he
has filed, is in order. So I look forward to the debate.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman withdraw his reservation of the
point of order?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the
reservation of the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
My understanding of this, of the many amendments that Mr. Flake has
filed with regard to matters that would increase currency to the
regime, this amendment states that he wants to tie the President's
hands from issuing any further regulations that could have the effect
of changing the current regulation that does permit religious travel to
Cuba. So I want it to be clear, there is currently a category in U.S.
law that permits travel for religious purposes to Cuba.
What the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is saying is, well, I do
not know if in the future the President could do something that I
disagree with, and so I want to prohibit something the President may do
in the future with this amendment. For example, the regime, colleagues,
I am sure are aware of the fact, has had about 15 spies arrested in the
United States in the last 3 or 4 years. If the administration should
find that the religious travel category were being utilized to either
train spies or intensify the efforts of Cuban state security against
the United States, this amendment would prohibit the President from
issuing, in effect, further regulations on that.
Religious travel is legal. That is not being debated at this time.
What the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is saying is that he wants
to tie the hands of the President in the future with regard to one of
the six remaining terrorist states in the world. It is wrong. We should
not tie the President's hands, and so I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I offered this
amendment to see what the other side would do on this, and just to let
this body know how far we are going here. They claim to respect
religious liberties and to allow religious visits to Cuba. Yet, when I
say let us protect that current exemption that exists, they say we
might want to go further. We might want to apply a religious test and,
in fact, it is happening right now in Miami. There are groups that are
going down under a certain religion, and now we have our own Department
of Treasury and the Congress apparently saying we are not sure you are
really that religion, we are not sure you really believe that. And so
we might restrict that further.
In fact, regulations were just issued a few months ago to say that,
you know, we think, and this is without approval of Congress, just new
regulations saying it ought to only be 25 people that could go at one
time. Anything else is unreligious apparently. That is where we are
going. It just baffles me to see where we are going here.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute

[[Page H5495]]

to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from Arizona's
amendment is very dangerous. Let me tell you why. Read the amendment.
It says none of the funds made available in this Act can be used to
amend this section relating to religious activities. If the
administration or any future administration, if this amendment were
adopted, wanted to increase the flow of religious activity into Cuba,
which is permitted under existing law by license, is permitted under
existing law by license, if there came a point in time in which the
floodgates wanted to be open, the gentleman from Arizona's amendment
would prohibit the Federal Government from doing so.
That is a prohibition that is not in the national interest, security
or in the foreign policy of the United States, and it is very clear
that religious institutions right now have all the wherewithal and have
been traveling to Cuba.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman,
believe me, given the history of this issue, the last thing any of us
worry about is for those who oppose changes on the Cuba issue to
liberalize or to allow more religion and more religious travel, because
every effort is to restrict, is to tell people we know better than you.
We apparently can define whether you are really religious or not or
whether you really believe in that faith. That is what this is about.
We are simply trying to protect it.
I would love the President to say, hey, let us open it and I would
sponsor legislation to do that certainly. I have. But the last thing we
are worried about here is for religion to be opened up because every
effort by those who oppose the freedom to travel to Cuba has been to
restrict people's freedoms and rights and religion.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance
of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Florida for
yielding time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is prospective. It seeks to prohibit the
use of funds on something that may or may not happen, may be looser,
may be stricter, legislating on hypotheticals. And once again, U.S. law
already allows individual members of religious organizations to travel
to Cuba for religious purposes. The only requirement is that they have
a specific license. That is a safeguard in U.S. law to ensure that
travel is in fact for the stated purposes, and not for the purposes of
tourism.

{time} 1130

The regulations ensure that financial donations are not provided to
the regime under the guise of religious activity. Current law seeks to
prevent the manipulation of legitimate activities to practice or share
as one believes about the Cuban people.
The practice of religion should be reaching out, in solidarity, in
total respect for the fundamental rights of each and every human being.
But what happens in Cuba? The Cuban people continue to live mired in
misery and oppression. In Cuba, people are denied their freedom of
conscience, their freedom of belief, their freedom of religion. They
are persecuted, prosecuted for those beliefs because they run contrary
to the Communist doctrine.
Proponents of this amendment and others seeking to revoke U.S. policy
toward the Castro dictatorship argue that they are doing it to help the
Cuban people. But when we speak of helping the Cuban people, Mr.
Chairman, we need to focus on the freedom of the Cuban people. Help is
liberty. Help is helping to ensure that every Cuban can speak their
minds, not be imprisoned or threatened or beaten to death for it. Help
is ensuring that the Cuban people are permitted to practice their
religion in true freedom. That is not taking place in Cuba right now.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. This amendment
will just free, open so much of the lawlessness that is going on with
the permitting process. It promotes lawlessness because it states we
are not going to regulate it in the future. We do not know what will
happen.
Reject this amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment to allow people to see what
this is all about. And the notion that what the other side wants to
defeat this amendment for, because they might allow more religious
travel, is pretty much laid bare by opposition to the other amendments
that have been offered, allowing family members to travel or military
members to travel, or support for regulations in the past to restrict
religious freedom; to say, hey, if you are of a certain religion, then
we at the Department of Treasury, we are going to decide how many are
really in your congregation, what kind of religion you have or whether
it is really a religion at all. That is what this is about.
But I am cognizant of the fact that if this is twisted, like many of
the amendments offered on Cuba are, and people misunderstand it as this
is something to lift the whole embargo, in fact, the talking points
just read refer to a different amendment because it talked about
lessening.
I am talking about keeping. I am cognizant that if this were to go
down, that would embolden this side to restrict religion even further,
saying we have license. The House has said, let us restrict religion
even further.
That is the last thing I want, and I will not be party to that.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Arizona?
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005,
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) and a Member opposed will
each control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple and, hopefully, should be
very noncontroversial. It passed this body last year by voice vote, and
I am asking for support again this year. This amendment is good for
education, the budget, and our national security concerns and it
supports our students. It is good for the spread of democracy. Let me
explain why I say that.
This amendment prohibits funds in this bill from being used to
enforce new regulations, promulgated in June of 2004, that severely
restrict and in many cases eliminate opportunities for United States
students to study abroad in Cuba.
The revised travel regulations take our policy towards Cuba in
exactly the wrong direction. These regulations are plain punitive and
undemocratic. They simply do not make sense for Americans. Regulations
that have already denied and will continue to deny many American
college students the basic opportunity to gain experience, knowledge
and insight through study abroad in Cuba should not be funded.
This is an issue of freedom for our students to travel and gain
invaluable experience and educational opportunities that only
international study abroad programs can provide.
After the House passed this amendment last year, students and
institutions from across the country were

[[Page H5496]]

very relieved. They want the opportunities to conduct their studies,
learn about other cultures, and make independent judgments for
themselves.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply moves students closer to what
they really deserve. And make no mistake, isolating Cuba and preventing
these important contacts between students and Cuba will not change the
Government of Cuba.
In 1963, let me remind you that Attorney General Robert Kennedy
sought to lift the entire U.S. travel ban to Cuba. He believed that the
travel ban was inconsistent with our views, our views of a free
society. More than 40 years later we are still debating an outdated
policy from a bygone era, but this is just a very simple amendment that
will speak right to our American students. We need this policy to allow
our young people to change ideas, values and experiences.
These types of exchanges are what will truly bring change to Cuba.
Our students are the best ambassadors for democracy. Also, Mr.
Chairman, money spent enforcing these regulations, I think this money
would be better spent tracking down terrorist finances.
Before the new regulations were enacted, the Miami Herald reported
that the Office of Foreign Assets, which, of course, is the department
responsible for tracking the finances of terrorists, international
narcotics, and weapons of mass destruction, has six more times
personnel, I could not believe this, six more times personnel working
on Cuba licensing than tracking bin Laden.
Now, OFA officials are tracking students and Cuban American families
instead of focusing on terrorists.
Today, I stand against squandering our resources to enforce these
ineffective, outdated policies as they relate to our students and to
our education. And I ask Members to support the ranks of American
students to be educated, to travel abroad, to gain experience and to
make judgments for the themselves.
American students are allowed to visit and participate in educational
opportunities and programs in China and in other countries which we may
or may not agree with, and so I believe that our own young people
deserve this right. It is basic to their educational desires if they
choose to do this.
Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that last year the State
Department and the 9/11 Commission both underscored the importance of
our youth in spreading American values. Patricia Harrison, Assistant
Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs, stated before
the Committee on International Relations, on which I serve, she said,
One of our greatest assets in public diplomacy is the American people
themselves. Programs, she said, that which bring Americans and foreign
citizens in direct contact, can and do have tremendous positive impact.
The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report stated that we must
rebuild the scholarship exchange and library programs that reach out to
young people and offer them knowledge and hope. I cannot agree more. It
is in our best interest to allow our youth to spread the message of
American values and hope so that people can see for themselves who
America is and what we stand for.
This amendment is straightforward, Mr. Chairman, and should not be
controversial. We are talking about mainstream family values,
education, freedom to learn and the freedom to export our American
principles.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Lee amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the
time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is interesting how amendments make themselves to the
floor, find their way to the floor with regard to the Cuban terrorist
dictatorship, with language of freedom, talking about education,
talking about reunification, talking about students.
Over 100 pro-democracy activists, leaders in Cuba met last month at
great risk to their lives and to their families' lives, and they met
publicly for the first time in 46 years. They held a convention. Many
of them were not permitted to arrive. State security kept them in their
homes, threw them in prison, but over 100 did arrive at the convention.
They met there and for the first time in 46 years they had elections
and they elected leaders of the prodemocracy movement. They issued
positions calling for the release of political prisoners and democracy,
free elections. And they sent us a letter, Mr. Chairman, signed June
24, the three leaders of the Assembly to Promotes Civil Society.
They asked us in this letter with great respect for the decisions of
a sovereign Congress, to reject each and every amendment that was going
to be presented this week, either completely or partially eliminating
sanctions against the dictatorship. And the dictator, Mr. Chairman, has
gone on his state television, obviously, the only channel that belongs
to him, and has said, ``A severe response'' awaits those mercenaries.
The omnipotent, totalitarian dictator, Mr. Chairman, until one day,
omnipotent, goes on television and says ``a severe response'' awaits.
The Cuban people know what that means. At any moment these leaders or
their families will be thrown in dungeons and subjected to the torture
that thousands of political prisoners are subjected to in Cuba each day
and hundreds of thousands have been subjected to for 46 years.
Now, this letter, should we give it the credence and authority and
respect that its courage, its heroism demands? I believe we should.
This is a very serious issue. We have a policy to help the Cuban people
and not the jailers of the Cuban people, not the oppressors of the
Cuban people.
Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart)
has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, let me comment with regard to the gentleman's presentation,
and I thank the gentleman for calling to our attention the letter. But
I am opposing U.S. foreign policy. And it is my contention that we
should not allow letters from foreign citizens to dictate those types
of foreign policy measures that the United States of America should be
making in terms of our educational programs for our American students.
This is about American students and their right to participate in
educational programs. It has nothing to do with any of the issues that
this letter addresses.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, with over 160,000 American students
studying abroad each year, the United States acknowledges the potential
contribution of true educational exchanges, and Cuba is no exception.
Under current law, educational activities by American students in
Cuba are permitted. In fact, under current law, these activities are
enhanced by regulating the manner in which students may fulfill these
study semesters abroad. Therefore, if it is truly the opportunity for
education that the Lee amendment attempts to preserve, then I would
like to respectfully remind my colleagues here today that American
students are afforded this opportunity through the implementation of
current regulations.
The regulations in place merely serve to ensure that those students
traveling for educational purposes are doing just that. Current law
establishes that specific licenses for educational activities be
preserved for undergraduate and graduate institutions. These measures
were enacted and must been enforced to prevent the abuse of educational
activities such as spring break getaways and island shopping sprees.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' for the Lee
amendment because educational travel is already permitted.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, how much time is
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart)
has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute

[[Page H5497]]

to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening
to this debate, and one of the things that was said today is that we
should not accept letters from even freedom fighters, heroes who are
suffering under Castro's oppression.
If we should not listen to them, maybe we should listen to what the
dictator himself has said about amendments such as this in the past.
When an amendment such as this passed a couple years ago, he said,
``The House of Representatives voted with determination and courage for
amendments that bring glory to that institution. We should always be
grateful for that gesture.''
That is the dictator himself, grateful for amendments like this.
Should we be on the side of the Cuban people or should we be taking
actions that the dictator himself calls glorious?

{time} 1145

I think that is something that clearly this body needs to take in
consideration.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the
remaining time.
I would ask all of colleagues who may be watching this debate to
realize this is a very serious issue, that the policy of the United
States is a well-thought through policy. It permits travel for
educational reasons, humanitarian reasons, family reasons. There are 13
categories of legal travel.
Remember, it is terrorist state that has shot down Americans just
years ago, that has the head of its air force indicted for murder of
American citizens, shot down over the straits of Florida. It has the
head of its navy indicted for drug trafficking. It is a terrorist
state, one of six remaining states.
So these are serious issues. We must keep this policy to deny hard
currency to the regime while permitting the 13 categories of legal
travel.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Ms. Lee)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Sanders:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following: ``None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to provide for the competitive sourcing of flight
service stations.''

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005,
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This tripartisan amendment is being cosponsored by the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms.
Herseth), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays),
and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). It also has the
strong support of the AFL-CIO, representing 13 million American
workers, the Transportation Trades Department, the Professional Airway
Systems Specialists and the National Association of Air Traffic
Specialists.
Mr. Chairman, on February 1, 2005, the FAA awarded a $1.9 billion
contract to Lockheed Martin to close 38 out of 61 automated flight
service stations across the country and privatize 20 others. This
contract is not scheduled to go into effect until October 1, 2005.
If this contract is implemented, over 1,000 highly trained air
traffic control specialists will be in danger of losing their jobs, and
the retirement benefits of some 2,500 Federal aviation workers will
also be in jeopardy.
Mr. Chairman, this privatization scheme is a bad idea, a wrong idea
for a number of reasons. First and foremost is the question of air
safety, something that is on the mind of every Member of Congress and
every American person who flies.
Flight service stations are crucial to the safety and security of our
Nation's air space. They provide a host of critical services to more
than 600,000 general aviation pilots, as well as providing assistance
to military and commercial pilots.
Air traffic control specialists advise pilots on such information as
terrain, pre-flight and in-flight weather information, suggested routes
of flight, altitudes and indications of turbulence or icing. As a
matter of fact, when this country was attacked on September 11, 2001,
the key national security function of air traffic control specialists
was on full display. During that national tragedy, air traffic control
specialists communicated crucial information to planes in the air and
on the ground and were responsible for restarting air traffic in the
days following. In addition, Mr. Chairman, keeping airplanes out of
restricted air space is the responsibility of air traffic control
specialists.
Further, air traffic control specialists are critical to protect our
airways during a natural disaster. When hurricanes hit the southeast
last year, flight service stations remained open, and air traffic
control specialists remained working to ensure the safety of airline
passengers, even though other FAA facilities were shut down.
Mr. Chairman, it is my very strong opinion that we should not be
compromising air safety by privatizing air traffic control specialists
to a corporation, Lockheed Martin, whose main function in life is
making a profit. When passengers get on a plane, when passengers take
off and land at an airport, they want to know that everything possible
is being done to protect the safety of those flights and not that
operations have been turned out to the lowest possible bidder.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, Congress has already passed a
provision prohibiting three flight service stations in Alaska from
being privatized, and that provision has been signed into law by the
President. Mr. Chairman, I support that law and believe that what is
good for Alaska, a State highly dependent on air travel, should be good
for the rest of the country and that we should prevent flight service
stations across the country from closing, which is exactly what this
amendment will do.
Mr. Chairman, the second important reason that we should pass this
amendment is that at a time when millions of American workers are
worried that the pensions that have been promised to them will not be
there when they retire, we must show that Congress will not be
complicit in that process and that we will stand up for them when their
pensions are going to be slashed.
Mr. Chairman, if this amendment fails, not only will 1,000 highly
trained air traffic control specialists be in danger of losing their
jobs, but the retirement benefits of some 2,500 Federal aviation
workers, most of whom are over the age of 40, will be in jeopardy. That
is wrong.
The Federal Government must set an example to the private sector.
When we promise a Federal employee that he or she will get a pension,
that promise must be kept. If we do not keep our promises regarding
pensions to Federal employees, how can we expect that United Airlines
or other major corporations will keep their promises?
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me respond to the Sanders amendment, which I am opposed to. It is
a transparent attempt to void a contract that would deliver tremendous
benefits to the general aviation community and save the FAA $2.2
billion over the next 10 years.
It also could result in up to $350 million in additional costs to the
FAA in the form of termination penalties.
There is no erosion of safety associated with contracting out flight
service stations. Simply put, flight service stations do not control
air traffic. Flight service stations receive and file flight

[[Page H5498]]

planes and provide pilot weather briefings, en route communications,
and search and rescue services to general aviation pilots.
The contract will enhance all of these services to the general
aviation community. It has strong support from private pilots because
they know that better services will result in a safer system.
This contract will have little or no impact on commercial or military
pilots who get these services from different sources.
It also protects existing flight service station employees. Lockheed
Martin will offer jobs to all incumbent employees. Salaries will be
matched, including locality pay. Lockheed Martin will provide a sign-on
bonus, as well as a retention bonus for many positions, as well as up
to $50,000 for relocation allowances. Additionally, Lockheed Martin
will offer a 401(k) savings plan, income protection plan and
performance bonuses.
The contract was fairly bid, and the flight service station employees
competed in the offering.
This contract has been years in the making. Congress should not step
in after the fact to stop this contract and deny better services to
more than 600,000 private pilots.
Let me turn to some of the pilot private pilots on this. This is a
quote: ``After spending 90 minutes getting an advance look at a 21st
century flight service station and asking hard questions, all I can say
is, Wow! On the basis of what the contractor will deliver under the
contract, pilots are going to be much better served and much safer.''
Another: ``For the first time in history, pilots are going to get a
contractual guarantee that a live briefer will answer their phone calls
within 20 seconds and acknowledge their radio calls within 5 seconds.
Flight plans will be filed within 3 minutes. It's in the contract.''
Then: ``And as any pilot who has been stuck on hold for 20 minutes
trying to get a weather briefing can tell you, the system is overloaded
and frequently non-responsive.''
These are all quotes from people who actually are involved in this
process. So I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), of which
I am a cosponsor.
It is very important that we pass this amendment to protect aviation
security and safety. The service provided by the flight service station
specialists is an inherently governmental function. It is important to
the community of McAlester, Oklahoma, in my district where we have
many, many people employed and not only to McAlester, Oklahoma, but to
our Nation because flight service stations across the country are a
critical component of our air traffic system.
At a time when we all agree it is critical to strengthen aviation
security and safety, privatizing these jobs is the wrong way to go.
While there is a role for the private sector to competitively provide
certain government services, this is not one of those services.
It is imperative they not be turned over to a for-profit company. We
should not outsource our Nation's air traffic control functions. The
safety of the flying public should not be offered to the lowest bidder,
and these highly trained and experienced specialists should continue to
provide their critical service to keep our Nation's air space safe and
secure.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time,
and I rise in very strong opposition to the Sanders amendment.
I chair the Subcommittee on Aviation, and I can say that we have been
involved for a number of years. We have had a comprehensive 3-year
study by the Federal Aviation Administration, and in February of 2005,
we awarded a contract to provide automated flight services for the next
10 years by a competent contractor.
This competitive sourcing process was supported by the aircraft
owners and pilots association. They are the primary organization that
represents many of the 600,000 pilots that we heard the sponsor of the
amendment refer to. They are the main users of flight service stations,
private pilots.
Flight service stations do not control air traffic. Flight service
stations receive and file flight plans and provide pilot weather
briefings, en route communications, and search and rescue services to
the general aviation pilots.
According to their pilots, again AOPA, and this is Phil Boyer, he
said this is the way the current system works for the safety of our
pilots and so-called security in the air: ``Any pilot who has been
stuck on hold for 20 minutes trying to get a weather briefing can tell
you, the system is overloaded and frequently non-responsive. The system
had to change, and this is a change for the better.'' He also said,
``Pilots are going to be much better served and much safer.''

{time} 1200

Now, private pilots do recognize that the current system that we have
in place is antiquated and it is costing us more than $600 million a
year. So the worst part about this is we are paying more and getting
bad service, or no service, as the head of the Aircraft Pilots
Association has said.
So this contract is estimated to save the taxpayers about $2 billion
over the next 10 years and provide dramatically improved service. If
this amendment passes, in fact, there will be no transition money; and
on top of that, there will be a $350 million penalty for termination of
the contract.
Under the FAA reform plan, $2.2 billion in taxpayers' dollars will be
saved, and again we will have new technology to make the airspace for
our general aviation pilots safer, with the best, most efficient, cost
effective technology and, at the same time, we protect the employees
that are in place.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to consider this amendment and defeat
it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to
protect hard working Federal employees in my district from having their
jobs transferred to the private sector and ultimately lost.
The Federal Aviation Administration recently awarded to Lockheed
Martin to run the Flight Service option of air traffic controller. The
AFSS facilities in Cleveland, Ohio, will be closed down in the next
year or 2, and approximately 32 jobs will be lost.
The only winner here is the contractor, Lockheed Martin, who will
certainly profit handsomely. From my past experiences with the A76
process, I can predict with certainty that the Federal Government will
lose money, many jobs will be lost, and the essential services of air
traffic control will suffer. Privatization of essential government jobs
is dangerous and unnecessary.
The FAA has steadfastly refused to answer several questions I and
several other Members of Congress have asked about this privatization
effort. We asked questions about the process of this privatization
effort, employee transfers, the retirement options, opportunities to
challenge the privatization, and future health care benefits. These are
the sort of questions that employees should have had answers to months
ago but still lack today.
We raised concerns as Members of Congress about how the vendor bids
were evaluated, how risk was assigned to these bids and how the
priority of the relationship between the FAA and the winning vendor was
justified. We asked for copies of various vendor bids to make sure the
process was fair. To date, the FAA has not responded to any letters
that Members of Congress who are concerned about this have sent. This
is outrageous and evidence that FAA privatization is faulty.
If the FAA cannot even respond to simple Congressional inquires, I
question their ability to perform a fair process. Employees deserve
better. Support the Sanders amendment and stand up for Federal
employees.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters).

[[Page H5499]]

Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the gentleman from Vermont
for bringing this issue before us today.
Mr. Chairman, I have a station in my district that would be impacted
by this; hard working people who work to protect all of the general
pilots that come into that area, the City of Hawthorne, will lose their
jobs. I do not understand why somehow the Alaska Flight Service
Stations are protected from this privatization effort but all of the
other stations are not, and they are going to consolidate and basically
close down most of these 61 Flight Service Stations in the United
States that service the needs of general aviation pilots, but not the
Alaskan service stations.
In addition to that, I do not know what pilots the gentleman is
referring to who have gotten behind consolidation and closing down
these stations. It is not true of the pilots who call me. They do not
like the privatization. They want to do away with it. They support the
amendment of the gentleman from Vermont that we have before us, and I
would ask the Members of this Congress to stand behind this amendment.
Save these Federal jobs and keep the protection that we have with
these very caring Federal employees who do not want to be placed in a
situation of unemployment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, pardon me, but what is the time
allotment on the other side and here?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has 30 seconds
remaining and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how many more speakers
the gentleman from Michigan has?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I have no speakers left, but I reserve the right to
close, so I want to continue to reserve my time.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the issue here is a simple one: We cannot compromise
the air safety of the United States of America to the lowest bidder,
whose main function in life is profiteering rather than protecting the
needs of American air travelers.
Equally important, we cannot turn our backs on the promises made to
2,500 Federal employees in terms of their pensions. If we turn our
backs on them, we are turning our backs on millions of American workers
whose pensions can also be slashed. Let us protect Federal employees.
Let us pass this amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me close with just a few points, Mr. Chairman. To summarize:
Contracting out Flight Service Stations will result in no erosion in
safety. It is a safer system and 600,000 general aviation pilots will
get better service. The contract will save taxpayers money. Not a bad
idea. Employees will be protected. This, in my judgment, is a no-
brainer.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's amendment very strongly and
urge all Members to oppose this amendment.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this
amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it for several reasons.
This amendment would prevent the FAA from privatizing the critical
flight safety functions that are currently performed by highly trained
flight service professionals. Some government functions, like ensuring
safe airspace for the flying public, play such a significant role in
protecting public safety and enhancing homeland security, that we must
insist that they remain government functions. Privatization, when used
selectively, can deliver savings and efficiency, but not all functions
are good candidates for privatization. Flight service falls into this
category.
We have a flight service facility in Huron, South Dakota, that
employs specialists who live in the community, and many of them are
pilots themselves. The decision by the FAA to close Automated Flight
Service Stations across the country would include the Huron station.
Its functions are set to be delegated to facilities hundreds of miles
away in other States. Taking this step would greatly strain the
national capacity of the flight service and reduce pilots' access to
the localized knowledge of weather and topography that the Huron
station currently provides.
Of even more concern, this decision also could mean the elimination
of virtually all of the flight service stations across the Northern
Plains; an area of the country that relies on general aviation much
more than the more densely populated regions of the country.
Finally, this step will not only weaken our Nation's air safety
system, it will unfairly treat thousands of dedicated flight service
employees that would be affected. While I agree that we cannot oppose
privatization proposals solely because some Federal employees might
lose their jobs, we also have an obligation to treat our dedicated
public servants fairly. Most of the professionals that would be
affected by this change, including many at the Huron flight service
facility, have given many years of their professional lives to the
Federal flight service. Many are within years or even months of
qualifying for their Federal Government pensions. This policy would
have the effect of unfairly slashing the retirement benefits that they
have earned, and it is another reason why we should delay this action
for a year and devise a more reasonable approach.
This amendment will give us time to devise a plan to ensure that
vital aviation safety functions are provided by a well-trained and
highly qualified workforce, and it would enable us to treat fairly
those that have worked for many years to provide this important
service. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel

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

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

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, right now in the Committee on Ways and
Means there is a lot of discussion going on in reporting out a Central
American Free Trade Agreement, which includes the Dominican Republic.
This is part of an effort on the part of our great country to try to
open up the doors and to make certain we give an opportunity to people
throughout the world, but especially those in our own hemisphere to
have an opportunity for a better quality of life.
This concept has been extended to Communist China, to North Korea,
and to other countries. But here, we believe, in Cuba, it has nothing
to do with anything except politics. It has nothing to do with the
economy. It has everything to do with a small group of people in
Florida. With all due respect to their strong feelings against Castro,
it would seem to many of us that the best way to get rid of a dictator
is to really open up the country; to be able to go to send remittances
to families; to be able to travel; but certainly to be able to have an
exchange of commodities between their country and ours.
It seems to me that American businesses are losing billions of
dollars by not being able to trade. And who is being hurt? It is
certainly not Castro. It is the poor people in the country. And if we
cannot believe or bring ourselves to see that this policy for over 45
years has cost us in prestige around the world that respects
international trade agreements; that has cost us in money; but I really
believe it has cost us by allowing Castro to tell the people in Cuba
that every economic crisis that

[[Page H5500]]

they have is based on the United States' embargo.
As an American, if every country in the world has recognized this
man, why can we not say that we recognize the Cuban people? Why can we
not allow our business people to establish a relationship so that we
are not blamed for what is happening in Cuba?
We have tried to do this before. The United Nations believes that we
are in violation of international law. The CARICOM nations in the
Caribbean believe that we are violating the law. The World Trade
Organization certainly cannot support what we are doing. In many areas
it is considered an act of war to surround a nation and not allow ships
to go in or to penalize a country.
Most importantly, however, this is an un-American concept. We should
not be afraid that any small island nation can take away from the
strong deep-seated principles of democracy that we enjoy here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rangel amendment.
The current policy of trying to starve Castro out of Cuba by imposing
travel bans and embargoes was put in place in 1960. Since then, Castro
has outlasted nine Presidents, from Eisenhower to Clinton, and he may
outlast a 10th.
It does not seem like this policy has been very successful. It has
not driven Castro from power. It has not caused him to improve his
human rights' record. It has not prevented him from oppressing his
people. In the meantime, the power of American economy and culture has
brought about changes in terrible and despotic regimes in various
corners of the world.
This amendment, and others like it, simply recognizes the truth about
the situation; that our current policy is a failure and needs to be
replaced by something that has demonstrated success. By easing travel
restrictions and the economic embargo we have a chance to overwhelm
Castro with America's culture of freedom, democracy, and free markets.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Rangel amendment.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in
opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, just 2 years ago three young men, three young black
Cubans, tried to leave Cuba to come to the United States for a better
life; obviously fleeing the oppression of the totalitarian regime. They
were captured by the dictatorship and, under orders of the dictator,
they were summarily executed.
The distinguished gentleman from New York at that time stated, and I
saw his quote in a New York newspaper, La Prenza, ``I am shocked,'' he
said. ``There is nothing that the Cuban government could tell me that
would interest me. It is totally incredible that a government would
justify this type of action. The execution of these people puts an end
to any possible discussion there could have been.''
Now, that was 2 years ago. What we have seen in the interim, further
repression, further torture of political prisoners, and, just in the
last 2 months, more than 500 young men, over 90 percent of them black,
have been rounded up by the dictatorship in Cuba and thrown in prison
under what is known as preventive, preventive detention. And they are
thrown in the most brutal of gulags under the concept of preventive
detention.
That is what is new since the author stated that he was shocked. Also
what is new, what is current, is that there are indictments at this
time against the head of the Air Force of the Cuban dictatorship for
murder of American citizens, indictments at this time for drug
trafficking against the head of the navy of the Cuban dictatorship;
that 15 spies of the dictatorship have been sent to prison in the
United States in the last year alone for spying against American
interests. That is what is new. What would be rewarded, in effect, Mr.
Chairman, by the amendment if it were to pass.
This is a normalization of relations amendment that would reward the
most brutal conduct by the only dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere.
I ask our colleagues to reject it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1215

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, in the Committee on Ways and Means we are
debating CAFTA, and market analysts estimate the U.S. economy is losing
up to $1.24 billion annually in agricultural exports alone because of
the Cuban embargo.
According to the USTR, CAFTA would bring $1.5 billion in agricultural
trade. Six countries, $1.5 billion; one country, $1.24 billion in
trade.
The administration says CAFTA is a way for America to support freedom
and democracy and economic reform in our hemisphere, yet the Cuban
embargo they say is also a way to support freedom, democracy and
economic reform to developing Cuba.
The consistency in your trade policy would bring a smile to George
Orwell's face.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mack).
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment
and would start off with the simple question: Do we want to reward the
most notorious human rights abuser in our hemisphere with American
trade, American travel, and American currency? Does this House want to
appease the only state sponsor of terrorism in this hemisphere? I think
the answer to that is no.
This is a call to conscience in this body. Do we stand for freedom,
or do we stand with tyrants? The choice today could not be more black
and white. Either you stand for freedom, or you stand with Fidel.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. There
have been many examples where Fidel Castro has abused any kind of
trade, any kind of currency that is brought to his country, where he
has done so only for himself, always looking to oppress and to hold
down the wishes and hopes of others.
I today stand with the Cuban people, not with a dictator who only
seeks harm.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Rangel) for his leadership and for helping us correct a failed 40-year
policy which does not work.
This is about the right of American businesses, the right of
Americans to travel, to create jobs, to create a level playing field
for our country and the world economy.
Let me just respond to the gentleman from Florida. I think what the
gentleman just talked about in terms of Cuba's black population, I need
to remind the gentleman of the prison population here in America of
African Americans. Look at the health disparities and look at the
unemployment rates.
I think we need to understand that we who are supporting this
amendment are talking about the right of Americans to travel, to create
businesses, to create business opportunities and jobs. This is about
giving Americans the opportunity to develop their own perspectives and
own opinions. It has nothing to do with incarceration rates, and it has
nothing to do with our own incarceration rates in America.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what was pointed out by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee). I have no idea why the gentleman
from Florida would refer to the victim of this atrocity that was
committed in Cuba as being black. I do not see what that adds to the
discussion as to whether or not as a free country we should not
continue to respect international trade. I think that is what we are
trying to do.
We are trying to say the best way to get after dictators is to make
certain that we have communication between nations. The best way to
have people to understand what democracy is all about is to demonstrate
what democracy is about by allowing Americans to

[[Page H5501]]

go where they want to go when they want to go, to allow Americans to
send money to whomever they want to send money to in Cuba.
I truly believe all of the things that have been said, we would all
agree. I believe that Saddam Hussein was a terrible man; but I do not
believe we had a right to have a preemptive strike against a country.
What we are trying to talk about is the value of trade, the value of
countries communicating with each other.
Who is being penalized? No embargo works when only one country is
perpetrating the embargo. If all of the countries in the world are
trading with Cuba, the best we do is lose money and restrict ourselves
from showing that when it comes to competition, quality goods, farm
goods, that America is the best. But when people say they do not want
to offend a handful of people in Cuba, and therefore we put an embargo
against an independent country, it is not the democratic, American
thing to do.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I simply add to the gentleman's thoughts this
point. I find it quaint, indeed, that this House would appear to want
to try to promote the freedom of Cubans by denying freedom to
Americans. That makes no sense to me.
The last time I looked at it, we are supposed to be representing
Americans; and the people I represent ought to have a right to travel
anywhere they choose so long as they are citizens of what is supposed
to be the greatest, freest democracy in the world. I wish everyone in
this Chamber would have a better understanding of that than they seem
to have. I thank the gentleman for his efforts.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the previous
speaker asked as to the relevance of the fact that the dictator had
summarily executed three young black Cubans 2 years ago. It is quite
relevant and it is quite consistent with the fact that the dictator has
consistently embarked on policies of hatred against the Cuban people,
especially the black people of Cuba, which should not surprise anyone,
because at the end of the 19th century, his father was sent to Cuba as
a member of the Spanish Army that was fighting against Cuba. He is, in
effect, the historical revenge of Spanish colonialism.
And, yes, the prisons are full of young men and women, especially
young black men, that he summarily rounds up and puts under preventive
detention. This is a very relevant issue, Mr. Chairman. It is very
relevant. The oppression of the Cuban people and the hatred of the
dictator against the Cuban people, especially the black people, it is
very relevant.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, we have had sanctions in different parts
of the world: Jackson-Vanik with Soviet Jewry, disinvestment in South
Africa. There are those who would seek disinvestment and sanctions in
the Sudan and many other parts of the world, so we understand that
these are ways that we can ultimately bring the end of totalitarian
regimes and democracies to those people, yet we hear no voices in
opposition to that.
After 2 million people visit Cuba every year, spending $2.3 billion,
this regime has become more repressive, not less repressive. Let us not
add to that repression.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel)
will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Souder

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Souder:
Page 224, insert after line 8 the following:

TITLE X--LIMITATION

Sec. 1001. None of the funds contained in this Act may be
used to enforce section 702 of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7--2507.02, D.C. Official
Code).

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005,
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an extremely simple, commonsense
amendment that is a first step towards restoring the rights of self-
protection, a right guaranteed under the second amendment to the
citizens of the District of Columbia.
My amendment would restrict funds from being used to enforce section
703 of the D.C. Firearms Control Act. This section requires that every
registered gun owner ``shall keep any firearm in his possession
unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device
unless such firearm is kept at his place of business or while being
used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of
Columbia.''
This amendment does not legalize anything that cannot be legally
owned now: No machine gun, sawed-off shotguns, AK-47s, or Uzis. All it
does is let people keep the handguns purchased before 1976, shotguns,
or rifles unlocked or loaded that they already have registered in their
homes.
My amendment gives D.C. citizens the same rights at home as they have
at work. Under the current law, a legal gun owner who owns a business
in the District of Columbia can register a gun at their place of
business to defend their business against criminals. The same person
cannot use a legally registered gun to protect his or her life or
family at home.
Over the past 30 years, there have been too many times where staffers
or residents who live and work right here on the Hill have been at home
and have come under attack from dangerous criminals. The way the
current law is set up, these law-abiding citizens are forbidden from
using a legally registered gun in defense of his or her home or family.
I believe the good people of D.C. deserve the recognition of this basic
civil right.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder) has pulled back from total repeal of our gun safety laws. I
wish I could thank him, but I do not think Mayor Williams or Chief
Ramsey would yet be ready to do so. Our moderate, even-tempered Mayor,
who has worked so well with this Congress and the administration, is
much praised in this Congress, is really beside himself when at a time
crime is at a 20-year low, here comes the Congress to do what he and
the police chief say will surely increase crime.
Disassembled weapons, yes, citizens may have them in their house.
Look what this does: loaded shotguns, loaded handguns, as long as
citizens had them before 1976, in your home or in your place of
business. Let me say that the Board of Trade does not want them in our
places of business. They came to testify in total support of the laws
as they are. The businesses of the District of Columbia have petitioned
the Congress to keep our laws exactly as they are. Businesses say the
last thing they want is the kind of liability and responsibility they
would have for keeping a gun in the place of business, so they do not
do it.
Post-9/11, do Members really want to legalize shotguns, handguns
grandfathered in the District of Columbia at a time when we are still
stopping people at checkpoints to see whether they are terrorists? Do
Members know what can happen here? Someone can take one of these rifles
or shotguns to the roof of an apartment or office building, aim it at
foreign visitors, tourists, Members of Congress or their families, not
to mention residents of the District of Columbia. I am particularly
worried about children, teens.
Imagine big long guns, now loaded. Some people would call that an
attractive nuisance. That is a term of art in the law. Parents, I
think, would call it an unattractive, deadly, very lethal weapon. That
is who is most likely to be attracted by this new set of gear that you
can have loaded in your home.

[[Page H5502]]

There must be countless handguns that have been disassembled that
were held before 1976. Now just load them up. So the same kids who knew
they were unloaded before, do not know perhaps that now the guns are
loaded, and here we have kids among the thousands who die every year in
play from guns.

{time} 1230

Mr. Chairman, no Member of Congress has the right to usurp our right
to protect ourselves and our kids as we see fit. That is a basic right
of self-defense of every jurisdiction.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. She serves on
my subcommittee. We work together on many issues and we have a deep
disagreement on this one. I believe a constitutional right to bear arms
supersedes local authority.
A couple of facts here are very stubborn things: One is that as far
as accidents, the total rate of firearm accidents from 1981 to 2002 in
the District of Columbia was 2.5 times higher than across the border in
Maryland which does not have a storage law. The fact is that it has not
reduced accidents. It is a nice thought to talk about that, but the
facts don't bear that out. Secondly, this has nothing to do with
businesses. This is about self-protection in your home. If a rapist is
breaking into your house or a murderer is coming after you and your
children and you are struggling to find the key to the lock and then
have to get your gun out and put it together, odds are pretty good you
are not going to make it. And under current D.C. law, if you find the
lock and get your gun out and get your gun put back together and defend
yourself, you can be prosecuted. What in the world is going on?
We heard that the crime rate has dropped in the District of Columbia.
For 15 of the last 16 years, the District of Columbia has been the
murder capital of the United States. In the last statistics, they were
again for the fourth year in a row. How can it get worse than that?
Former Mayor Barry has one of my favorite quotes: Outside of the
killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in America.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe in gun control laws. I think in most
instances they don't work and I think lots of times they are designed
by people who would not know one end of a gun from the other. But
having said that, there is something that bugs me about this amendment,
and that is that I did not come here to be a city councilman for the
District of Columbia. I represent the people of my congressional
district. The other thing that bugs me is that the citizens of the
District of Columbia have no vote in this body, and in my view, as long
as the citizens of the District of Columbia have no vote in this body,
this body has no business telling the District of Columbia what their
municipal laws ought to be.
Now, I have an amendment that I am going to offer if this amendment
passes and that amendment reads as follows: ``The salary for individual
Members of Congress shall be paid out of the funds provided in this
bill for the District of Columbia and shall be limited to $92,500.''
That is the salary of a District of Columbia city councilman. If the
people of this House want to act like you are a D.C. city councilman,
then you ought to get paid like you are a D.C. city councilman, which
means you can take about a $70,000 pay cut and I think that would be
fitting.
I do not have the slightest idea what kind of laws the District of
Columbia ought to have with respect to guns, but I do know one thing. I
very often simply vote ``present'' whenever any matter affecting the
District of Columbia comes up on this floor, because I think we have no
business trying to interfere with what the city does on any subject so
long as that city and its citizens do not have a vote in this Chamber.
The gentlewoman from the District can speak, but when it comes to
voting, she is out in the hall, just like anybody else who is not a
Member of Congress.
So what you are saying is that you are going to take advantage of the
fact that she has no ability to defend her district by voting in this
place and you are going to say, ``Well, that's tough, but we're going
to impose our judgment.'' If you want to tell the District of Columbia
what their laws ought to be, run for the city council. This is not the
city council. We look ridiculous and abusive when we try to act as
though we are.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
The gentleman talked about somebody breaking into your house. What
his amendment does is to legalize shotguns, rifles. Already it seems to
us insane that you would have a handgun at the ready when somebody
broke in. And, remember, handguns grandfathered before 1976 would be
legal. But imagine somebody breaks in and you go get a long rifle or a
shotgun. This isn't about self-defense. This is about pressing forward
the gentleman's preferences on the District of Columbia where
unanimously every mayor of the city of D.C., every city council member
overwhelmingly, all the residents have voted ``no.''
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia has 1 minute remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. No
Member of Congress has the right to encourage guns in homes where the
overwhelming evidence is that they are mostly used for suicides and in
domestic quarrels, and please do not do that here in the District of
Columbia because that is the most likely use of such guns in homes. The
most bankrupt rationale offered for this outrageous interference in a
local jurisdiction is that we already have gun violence in the District
of Columbia. Let me hear the cosponsors argue with a straight face that
allowing guns in people's homes will reduce rather than increase the
gun violence in the District of Columbia.
The most deeply held principle of the Founders was local control.
First local from England, and then because they were so deeply
principled, they denied to the national government that they themselves
created any control of the local jurisdiction. The Congress gave us
this control in the Home Rule Act. I ask the Congress of the United
States to respect the mayor, the council and the residents of the
District of Columbia by in fact defeating this amendment.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SOUDER. Do I have the right to close at this point?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does have the right to close, and
the time of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has expired.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the ranking
member from Massachusetts, and I also want to associate myself with the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin and his remarks. We have no
right to overturn a law that has been on the books for three decades.
The gentleman from Indiana, I know, believes in democratic governance.
But he wasn't elected by D.C. residents. He was elected by his
constituents in Indiana. What right does he have to overturn D.C.'s law
particularly in this situation that puts D.C. residents at such serious
risk? If the Souder amendment were made law, it would allow anyone who
owns a firearm to carry it loaded and without a trigger lock on city
streets throughout the District of Columbia. How does that make sense
from a homeland security perspective? We have spent hundreds of
millions of dollars to secure our Nation's Capital from terrorists and
now we are going to turn around and make it okay to carry a loaded AK-
47 or a .50-caliber sniper rifle down Independence Avenue? Are we
serious? That is perhaps the unintended effect, but it is clearly the
effect of this legislation.
In 2003, the police confiscated 1,982 firearms from criminal
suspects. They would not be able to do that if this amendment passes.
They confiscated almost 2,000 last year. This overturns their ability
to do that. This amendment is an affront to the concept of

[[Page H5503]]

home rule, my colleagues, a slap in the face to the people of the
District of Columbia. It gives a new meaning to hypocrisy when we talk
about fighting so hard to achieve democracy in Iraq. We have an
insurgency raging in another part of the world. We are committing lives
and billions of dollars to achieving that objective of a democracy, of
giving people the right to represent their own interests, to have the
people they elect making the laws that govern them. Yet we would
consider an amendment that opens another front on the city streets of
our Nation's Capital? This is unbelievable that we would even be
considering such an amendment.
I strongly urge a negative vote against this outrageous amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms.
Carson).
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Chairman, certainly no disrespect is intended to my
colleague from Indiana (Mr. Souder). I have come to this microphone
before this year criticizing Congress for meddling. I think this is
another clear example of how Congress meddles in areas in which he or
she has no business. I was reminded of a story in my district where a
lady came home with her baby from the hospital, her 2-year-old was
playing at her feet, went on the couch and got a gun, shot it, a 2-
year-old, mind you, and killed the mother and the newborn baby. If the
gun had been protected, that tragedy would have never existed.
Homicides remain unabated, especially among kids from 14 to 18. A lot
of those guns are stolen from people's homes. If we had a mechanism
that would prevent those kind of incidents, perhaps all of society
would be better. I would encourage you to vote down this amendment with
no deference to the author.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform which is
the committee of jurisdiction for our Capital City.
(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, let me just make a couple of
points. My friend from Indiana with whom I have worked on so many
issues, I tend to agree with him on the substance of the issue, an
individual being able to keep a weapon in their own home to defend
themselves, but the issue here is larger than that. It really goes to
the question of respecting the rights of the District of Columbia to
make their own laws and the mayor and the council have spoken on this
innumerable times. They seem to have the support of the vast majority
of the city.
Our committee held a lengthy hearing on this, hearing from all sides
just 2 days ago. It was an illuminating hearing that I think
highlighted both sides very, very well. But to me the issue comes down
to one of home rule. Are we going to allow cities and States to make
these jurisdictions or are we going to try to federalize everything out
of Washington? I would just caution my colleagues that once we start
doing everything out of Washington, it may be on your side, but
tomorrow it could go the other way. We have to respect the Federal
system that was set up.
This does not affect the workings of government, so in my judgment,
Congress really should not be intervening in this matter although we
have the legal right to do so.
I also want to note that there is pending the case of Parker v.
District of Columbia that offers the opportunity for second amendment
advocates to answer with finality the question of does this violate the
second amendment. Passing this amendment today could possibly moot that
decision which is currently on appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
This is one opportunity because the court has looked for ways out of
deciding this decision. This is a way we may be able to speak with
clarity and finality. If this amendment passes, we won't have that. It
is a very two-edged sword, and I urge opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the D.C. Personal
Protection Amendment. Let me say that I respect my colleague from
Indiana's perspective on this issue. There is room in the Congress for
debate on the merits of some of our nation's gun laws. My opposition is
based on the legislation's blatant and potentially dangerous assault on
home rule in the District of Columbia.
The Committee on Government Reform held a hearing this week on this
very issue. We heard compelling stories from Mayor Tony Williams, Chief
Charles Ramsey, and an array of witnesses, including residents of the
District of Columbia and representatives from national think tanks and
community organizations on both sides of the debate. I was disappointed
that my friend from Indiana, the author of this amendment, was not able
to attend the hearing to hear these views himself.
I am a strong supporter of Home Rule. For our system of federalism
and democracy to work, states and localities need to be able to make
their own decisions on these sorts of matters--even if some of us think
they're bad ones.
There is an appropriate place for a debate on D.C.'s gun laws--and
that place is the chambers of the District of Columbia Council, not the
floor of the House of Representatives.
Proponents of this bill want to frame this debate in terms of the
Constitutionality of the District's law. Various lawsuits have been
filed in recent years questioning the constitutionality of the D.C. gun
law under the Second Amendment. There's a case pending on appeal right
now, Parker v. District of Columbia, that offers the opportunity for
the Second Amendment challenge to be answered with finality. Proponents
of this amendment have the opportunity for the courts to declare that
the D.C. ban violates the Second Amendment. So what's the rush? What
are they afraid of? We (and for that matter, the City Council) can
consider the gun ban in light of the result of that case. In fact, if
this Amendment becomes law, it could moot the ability of the Court of
Appeals to address this critical 2d Amendment with finality. We are
only here today because of Congress' plenary power over the District.
This is a constitutional authority that is, unfortunately, occasionally
abused, as is the case with this legislation. D.C. leaders have enacted
gun laws that reflect their constituents' view that any increase in the
number of guns in the District increases the odds that crimes will be
committed with those guns. That's their view, and it should be
respected.
I'm not saying I agree with the District's gun ban. Frankly, I don't.
But I strongly oppose this amendment because I have a profound respect
for Home Rule, for the right of local jurisdictions to craft their own
local laws--even laws some of us don't agree with. This District law
has no bearing on Congress and no bearing on the ability of the federal
government to conduct its business. That should be the litmus test for
federal involvement in the District.

{time} 1245

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First, I want to say again for the record this only applies to one's
home. It does not also apply to Uzis. It applies to already registered
legal guns that one is forced to put under lock and key and separate;
and if a criminal breaks into their house, unlike a business, they have
to find their key, unlock the box, put the gun together to defend
themselves, and if they defend themselves, they can be prosecuted.
This is a straight second amendment vote. If Members believe in the
right to bear arms, if Members believe in the second amendment, it is
not a question of home rule. Home rule does not cover the right to
abrogate constitutional rights. It does not give the right to abolish
free speech. It does not give the right to abolish freedom of religion,
and it does not give the right to abolish the right to bear arms.
Last year on a broader vote, we had 250 votes in this House. We had
230 cosponsors of this bill. We have 210 this year. This is a much
narrower amendment. But I would urge my colleagues who support the
second amendment, who believe that the Constitution overrides local
laws, to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to
the Souder Amendment that would prevent the use of funds in the bill to
enforce the District of Columbia's laws prohibiting the possession of a
firearm or ammunition, as well as laws relating to keeping a firearm or
a pistol. It is the apex of hypocrisy to defend the right of local
communities to govern themselves free from the burden of needless
federal interference, but deny that very right to the citizens of our
Nation's capital. I encourage members of this body to agree that we
need not agree on the merits of the District's gun safety laws to
respect home rule for the District of Columbia.
Since the passage of the District of Columbia Self-Government and
Governmental Reorganization Act or Home Rule Act in 1973, the District
has utilized its authority to not only

[[Page H5504]]

elect a Mayor and a City Council, but also to regulate firearms. In
1976, the District of Columbia Council passed the Firearms Control
Regulations Act, establishing one of the most robust limitations on gun
ownership in the nation with the intention of and protecting public
safety.
Specifically, this gun safety law required all firearms in the
District be registered, restricted the classes of individuals who can
register a firearm, and generally banned the registration of all
handguns. Despite the suggestion by my colleagues on the other side
that all firearms are banned in the District, it must be noted,
however, that since 1976, 100,000 firearms have been lawfully
registered.
Although Mayor Williams and Metropolitan Police Department Chief
Ramsey testified just yesterday before the Committee on Government
Reform that they passionately support the District's gun safety laws,
this amendment would undermine their efforts to safeguard their city
from the ravaging effects of gun violence.
In evaluating the District's limitations on firearm possession, one
is compelled to ask two central questions: one, are the District's gun
safety laws effective; and two, are they constitutional? In short, the
answers to both those questions seem to be yes. The District's gun
safety laws are effective at discouraging gun violence by making
firearms less widespread throughout the city and assisting law
enforcement efforts in recovering unlawful firearms that endanger the
lives of police officers and law-abiding citizens. What is most tragic
is the fact that some in Congress would seek to undermine or repeal the
District's gun safety laws at a time when the District's homicide rate
is the lowest it has been since 1986.
Secondly, the two lawsuits challenging that the District's gun laws
are a violation of the Second Amendment rights, failed to overturn
these laws on constitutional grounds. Specifically, the judges in both
cases ruled that the District's gun safety laws were constitutional
declaring that the Second Amendment does not confer a protected right
of private gun ownership, rather the Second Amendment applies solely to
State militias.
Mr. Chairman, it seems wise to move forward guided by the principle
that democracy often functions best when those closest to an issue are
empowered to address it. The residents of the District of Columbia
speak through their elected Mayor and City Council that their existing
approach to gun safety is best for their community.
If the residents of the District want to repeal their gun safety
laws, then we should let democracy work and permit them to elect those
leaders who will ease the existing restrictions on firearms within the
city. Until then, let us embrace the constitutional principle from
whence our great Nation was born--the right of self-determination--and
let the District of Columbia manage this matter how best it sees fit.
When the sun rises tomorrow, let it rise upon a city where the right of
self-determination is not subject to the interest of the NRA or a
congressional veto.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bass). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SOUDER. 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 Indiana (Mr.
Souder) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. 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. Obey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. . The salary for individual Members of Congress
shall be paid out of funds provided in this bill for the
District of Columbia and shall be limited to $92,500.

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29,
2005, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the Clerk will report the
amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is simple. I happen to
agree with the gentleman from Indiana that I think that the provision
in D.C. law that he referred to on guns is a dumb law, and I would hope
that it would be overturned by the city council. But what I resent is
year after year after year having to vote on issues that belong in the
backyard of the D.C. City Council, not the House of Representatives.
I have taken this position for a good long time. The second term I
was here, I organized the effort that eventually freed up the money for
the D.C. subway, when our distinguished friend Bill Natcher decided to
hold up that money until the District of Columbia was forced to proceed
with building the Three Sisters Bridge. Thankfully, that bridge was
never built, and the Congress did not dictate to the District that they
do so.
But the purpose of this amendment is simply to illustrate the fact
that the Congress is acting like it is the city council for the
District of Columbia; and as long as it is acting that way, that is the
way it ought to be paid.
I do not object to any Member of Congress having any view he wants
with respect to the District of Columbia, but I feel strongly that it
is wrong for this Congress to dictate to the District what any of their
local laws are so long as their representative does not have a vote.
That is the point that I am trying to make to the gentleman from
Indiana. The problem is not that Congress has opinions about the
District. The problem is that the District of Columbia has no way to
express their own views on their own issues through their own elected
representative because their elected representative does not have a
vote in this Chamber. Until she does, I think the Congress ought to
stay out of these issues.
Much though I agree with the gentleman from Indiana on the substance,
in this case it seems to me that democratic processes are much more
important than my individual opinion on any subject matter.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of Order

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, a point of order has been
reserved, and I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order
against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California has made a
point of order. I am simply offering the amendment to make a point.
I concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the
amendment is not in order.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey:
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 enforce the judgment of the United States Supreme
Court in the case of Kelo v. New London, decided June 23,
2005.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005,
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) and a Member opposed each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
I rise today to offer an amendment to help protect one of America's
most cherished rights of an American, to own their own home, to own
their own property.
Last week the U.S. Supreme Court, by the slimmest of margins, ruled
that

[[Page H5505]]

a local government can come in and seize people's homes, seize their
small businesses against their will for other private economic
development. This decision now will allow cities to come in and
bulldoze their house, bulldoze their business, tear it all down just so
that they can build a shopping center owned by somebody else.
The Garrett-Kennedy amendment seeks to prohibit any funds made
available under this act from being used to enforce the judgment of the
U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. New London.
The practical effect of this will mean that we will prohibit Federal
dollars from going out to be used for support purposes, infrastructure
and the like, so that a private developer will benefit from the loss of
these people's homes. It will mean that a bus stop will not be able to
be built on what was once their home in order that a commercial
building can be built there instead. It will prohibit Federal dollars
from building a new entrance ramp or an exit ramp in partnership with
that developer so that that developer can build a strip mall there
instead.
I believe that if a private developer is going to push someone off
their land, out of their house, and destroy that house or small
business, then he should foot the bill for any infrastructure that he
is going to build. I want to ensure that the Federal Government does
not contribute in any way financially to this terrible Supreme Court
decision.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, America has enjoyed the oldest and the most successful
democracy in the history of the world. I think this amendment puts us
on a very slippery slope. This amendment places our greatest document,
the Constitution of this country, which gives us three co-equal
branches with a separation of powers among those branches and a whole
host of checks and balances set up within that Constitution, it puts
the whole Constitution under attack. When the Supreme Court of the U.S.
gives final adjudication, that is the law of the land, whether it is a
9-0 or a 7-2 or a 5-4 decision.
Let me just mention a few of the 5-4 decisions that I believe I am
correct on: one of them was Chief Justice Marshall's 5-4 decision
against a government policy to remove American Indians west of the
Mississippi River. Then President Andrew Jackson was quoted roughly,
and I am perhaps not being precise in this quote: Judge Marshall has
spoken, or has ruled, I guess was probably the word he used, now let
them enforce it. And there resulted the complete removal of American
Indians west of the Mississippi River, which was one of the blackest
blots on our history.
Brown v. Board of Education, if I remember correctly, was a 5-4 vote.
With an amendment of this nature, we would still have segregated
schools. And then there was a 5-4 vote that assured one person, one
vote. It was called ``one man, one vote'' at that time, which has
assured each and every citizen that their vote would be of about the
same value. That decision was not enjoyed by a sizable number of
people.
I think this amendment leaves us with serious problems, and I urge
the Members to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Knollenberg).
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I rise in opposition to the amendment as well. The Supreme Court has
ruled on the matter of eminent domain and its constitutionality.
Yesterday, we debated for quite some time the issue of eminent domain,
for 45 minutes I would suggest. We voted and we overwhelmingly
rejected, by a margin of 42 to 374, the 374 opposing, obviously, the
amendment, which I thought was a very punitive amendment, to cut funds
from the Court because of its ruling.
This amendment, I am afraid to say, sets a more dangerous precedent.
It would allow the legislative branch to override the independent
decisions of the Court. If this passes, then what will be the next
Supreme Court decision that will be effectively overturned? While we
may not agree with the Court's ruling, and I understand the gentleman
has a right to believe what he wants, if we do not agree on the Court's
ruling, we must respect it.
For this reason and for those that have already been mentioned, I ask
all Members to vote ``no'' against the Garrett amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I have been reminded that the Brown v. Board of
Education was actually a unanimous vote, and I just want to say that
regardless of whether it was unanimous or a 5-4, it is the Court's
decision to make, not ours, and one where the separation of powers and
the checks and balances should be upheld.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to stand with
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) because I am deeply
concerned about the potential effects of the recent Supreme Court
decision in Kelo v. The City of New London.
The fifth amendment of the Constitution provides that private
property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
The language is meant to prohibit government, not give a grant of power
to government. However, on June 23, the Supreme Court handed down this
decision under which any private property may now be taken from its
owner for the benefit of another private property.

{time} 1300

The Court held in this decision that even the possibility of positive
economic effects to the city was sufficient public purpose to justify
the taking of one's properties. Under this standard, the seizure of
virtually any private property for almost any purpose would be
allowable.
Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the grave effects this
decision will have on property owners. Because of this decision, State
and local governments now have the power to determine that a property
owner is not sufficiently using his or her own property. I urge my
colleagues to think about how this decision will disproportionately
affect the poor, the elderly, and minorities. Cities may choose to take
a person's property for anything they believe will increase their tax
base. Certainly, those with less political power and less resources
will make for the easiest targets.
As Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissenting opinion: ``Nothing is
to prevent the State from replacing a Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, any
home with a shopping mall, or a farm with a factory.''
The fifth amendment was supposed to stop that, Mr. Chairman. That is
why this decision was opposed by such groups as the NAACP, the AARP, in
addition to the National Taxpayers Union, the Americans for Tax Reform,
the Institute for Justice, the NFIB, the National Association of
Homebuilders, and the list goes on.
Mr. Chairman, property rights are fundamental freedom. There is an
opportunity for every American to control their own destiny. They serve
as our fundamental protection from the utter destruction of government.
Congress must take action to protect property owners in the aftermath
of this flawed decision.
I encourage all Members to stand with the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Garrett) and me on this important amendment.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I will just close by addressing the comment by the chairman, and I
appreciate the chairman's remarks.
This decision of the Supreme Court will continue to be respected by
this House and by the people of New London, Connecticut and the State
of Connecticut as well. This legislation simply sees to it that the
taxpayers of that community and the taxpayers and the citizens of the
United States of America will not subsidize those private developers in
that instance.

[[Page H5506]]

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, if this amendment passes, you might as well tear up the
Constitution and toss it in the ash basket. That is what this amendment
does.
I happen to think that the Supreme Court decision that came down last
week was nutty, and I agree with the gentleman on the substance. But if
we disagree with court decisions, folks who are a heck of a lot smarter
than we are, the Founding Fathers, spelled out a way to deal with that.
It is called passing a law.
All we have to do if we do not like the Supreme Court decision is to
bring legislation into this House, take it before the proper committee,
have the committee have sensible hearings so that all points of view
can be heard, and then bring to the floor either a piece of legislation
or a constitutional amendment, whichever you want.
But the idea that this House, every time we do not like a court
decision, should decide that we are not going to allow Federal money to
be used to enforce that court decision is as nutty as the original
court decision in the first place.
So I would hope that we would recognize that the Founding Fathers
created the system of separation of powers; they created three
independent branches of government for a purpose.
I would not ordinarily rise to oppose an amendment like this, because
it is so ridiculous on its face, but it follows in a long line of
actions that I have seen coming from that side of the aisle since the
beginning of the year.
First, you called the Congress back in order to try to pass
legislation saying that you knew better than the Florida courts in the
Schiavo case. Then we had another attack launched on independent judges
in the form of speeches given by your majority leader and others, and
then we have seen various other activities; in fact, I listened to the
majority leader himself in a conversation the other day tell some
Supreme Court Justices that they were way out of line, and that if they
wanted to understand American public opinion, they needed to go through
the United States Congress.
Well, God help us if the Supreme Court ever starts going through the
United States Congress for its advice on every subject under the sun.
They are supposed to use their own independent judgment and, once in a
while, they may make a screwy decision, and I think they did last week.
But that does not mean that we ought to act in a way which is just as
screwy as the original Court decision.
I would urge that we vote down this ridiculous amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be
postponed.

Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

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

Amendment offered by Ms. DeLauro:
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 enter into any contract with an incorporated
entity where such entity's sealed bid or competitive proposal
shows that such entity is incorporated or chartered in
Bermuda, Barbados, the Cayman Islands, Antigua, or Panama.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29, 2005,
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 7\1/2\ minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
This amendment would prevent the Departments and agencies under this
bill from using any funds to contract with American companies which
have created shell corporations in tax-haven countries in order to
reduce their U.S. taxes. The Department of Homeland Security is
operating under a similar contracting ban.
Recent data shows that despite costing our government $5 billion in
lost revenue, corporate expatriates reaped $1.4 billion in Federal
contracts in 2002 alone. This in the middle of a budget crisis. In
every appropriations bill we have considered this year, we have heard
the same refrain: we have done the best we could under the
circumstances. But this budget crisis did not create itself; it is a
direct result of the budget and tax choices of this Congress; and as a
result, this bill lacks sufficient funding for public transit, Amtrak,
housing. Perhaps if we did more to discourage companies from setting up
post offices overseas to reduce their tax burden here, we would have
more funding available for these critical investments.
Four of our top 100 Federal contractors have incorporated in tax-
haven countries. One of them actually holds a contract with the IRS.
The agency charged with collecting taxes willingly contracted with a
company that is determined to avoid paying them.
These companies are not overtaxed. In fact, effective corporate tax
rates have fallen by 20 percent since 2001, even as pretax profits
jumped 26 percent. Between 2001 and 2003, our 275 largest companies
paid taxes totaling about half of the 35 percent corporate tax rate.
I should emphasize that this amendment will not affect existing
contracts. It will not affect existing contracts. It simply ensures
that in the future, we will favor good corporate citizens with
government contracts, rather than rewarding companies for moving
overseas and putting tax-paying American companies at a permanent
competitive disadvantage. Corporate expatriate companies have made a
clear choice: leave the country and not pay their taxes. It is up to us
to make the choice and set a standard. If they are going to manipulate
loopholes in our Tax Code, they should no longer be able to reap the
benefit of current government contracts.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment and
also to manage the time on this side of the issue, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, Congress addressed the issue of corporate inversions in
the JOBS Act, the Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The JOBS Act added a new
section to the Tax Code, section 7874, which treats U.S. companies that
complete a corporate inversion transaction after March 4, 2003, as
domestic U.S. corporations for tax purposes.
Congress also addressed the issue of corporate inversions by enacting
a contracting ban. Section 835 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
does prohibit the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security from
entering into contracts with companies that have completed corporate
inversions as defined by the act. Congress revisited the issue in the
2005 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act where Congress
expanded the scope of section 835.
Critics may argue that companies that have engaged in corporate
inversions prior to March 4, 2003, should be covered by the JOBS Act.
However, Congress should not bar companies from competing for
government contracts because of legal transactions that they performed
more than 2 years ago. Companies that qualify for government contracts
and successfully fulfill their responsibilities should not be barred
from future contracts because of retroactive legislation.
The rules for competing for Federal contracting should not be changed
in midstream.
Retroactively imposing a contracting ban on companies would be
severely punitive, particularly if a company's incorporation was
conducted in compliance with existing law.
I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5507]]

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Berry).
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for
yielding me this time. She has provided great leadership on this
matter, and I think it is the right thing to do.
This amendment very simply would prohibit companies that have
renounced their American citizenship in an effort to avoid their
responsibilities as American citizens from taking part in getting
contracts where they would be paid with taxpayers' dollars.
At a time when we have men and women on the battlefield and they have
to pay taxes on the monies that they receive for their families; at the
time when they are on the battlefield to protect this country in the
most unselfish way you can imagine, we are going to say, if you
renounce your American citizenship and avoid taxes and get an
advantage, then come and bid on our contracts and take taxpayers'
dollars. That makes me want a dip of snuff.
I cannot imagine why anybody would do anything like that. I cannot
imagine why this government would do it. I know the gentleman that
opposes this. I know several of them. They are good people. They have
good sense. I do not understand why we cannot as a body deal with this
issue and stop people from getting good hard-earned taxpayers' dollars
when they have renounced their United States citizenship. If they do
not want to be citizens of the United States, as far as I am concerned,
good riddance. Let them go. Excenture can go to Bermuda or wherever in
the Sam Hill they want to go. And I say, good, let us be rid of them,
but do not give them U.S. contracts in the government. Do not give them
government contracts. That is all we are talking about doing here.
Mr. Chairman, it is time to hold these people accountable, and it is
time for us to be responsible to our men and women on the battlefield.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. First of all, we should understand that
the companies that are at issue here pay American taxes. They pay taxes
on all of the income that is derived from Federal contracts that they
are performing and on work done in the United States. Many of these
companies are multinational corporations, and they may be headquartered
in Panama or Bermuda for other reasons, and maybe how they treat their
global income, but their American income is all fully taxed.
We should not force companies to reincorporate in the United States;
and, in the case of a company just mentioned here, it was never
incorporated in the United States. They just happened, as a
multinational partnership, when they decided to go as a corporation, to
locate their headquarters outside the United States, but they employ
tens of thousands of Americans who are paying taxes every day. Why do
you want to put them out of business, particularly if they are
providing a service to the American Government that is the best value
for the American taxpayers?
Why, if a company provides the best body armor or provides the best
mechanics or the best service, are we excluding them and making the
American taxpayer pay a higher rate for the same service that may be
inferior? That is what this does.

{time} 1315

Our procurement system should be based on getting the best value for
the American taxpayer. If you do not like the tax system, let us go
back to the Tax Code. And as the chairman said, Congress addressed this
issue of corporate inversion in the JOBS Act. The JOBS Act added a new
section to the Tax Code which treats U.S. companies that complete
inversion transactions as domestic, U.S. corporations for tax purposes.
This amendment is not going to produce any more jobs, but it will
produce higher costs for American taxpayers that buy goods and
services. It will produce less of a marketplace that we can go out and
shop and get the best value for our troops in the field and for
government services. And for that reason it ought to be voted down.
This is outdated in a global economy.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment does not affect existing contracts. That is something
people would like to portend to our colleagues, but it is not the fact.
And later in the conversation, I will talk about dispelling some of the
inaccuracies that have been talked about this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
time to me. And frankly, if this business had been taken care of in the
JOBS Act we would not be here today trying to pass this amendment.
And no corporation just happens to go to Bermuda to incorporate. They
go so that they can avoid paying taxes. You know, let us be realistic
about it.
I want to support this amendment because new contracts would have to
go to companies that pay taxes and operate in America. Corporations who
set up the offshore tax havens cost us approximately $5 billion a year
in tax revenue. And of course, as you say, the employees that they have
here pay taxes. But all of us pay more taxes when corporations get out
from under their tax liability. These companies received $1.4 billion
in Federal contracts in 2002 alone.
Now, corporations located in the United States that conduct their
business in the United States and employ most of their workforce in the
United States should not skirt their tax obligations by opening a Post
Office box in Bermuda. And it is unconscionable that we would reward
these corporate tax cheats with millions of dollars in taxpayer funded
Federal contracts. The corporate expatriates hurt the other U.S.
taxpayers by shifting more of the tax burden on to their shoulders.
This is a point that somehow we fail to grasp here. When other people
get out of the burden of paying taxes the taxes do not go away. They
are simply shifted to the rest of us. They drain funds from this budget
that are desperately needed here in America for essential services,
Medicaid, Social Security, health care for veterans from Iraq. You have
heard already that that is underfunded by $2 billion. For education,
housing, child care, transportation programs, that just names a few.
This government needs a stronger safeguard to ensure that we are not
pumping hardened American tax dollars into the coffers of the same
corporations that maneuver and scheme to exploit tax loopholes. This is
a pro business amendment that ensures that only the responsible U.S.
companies can benefit from Federal contracts.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the
chairman of the appropriation subcommittee for yielding me the time.
Notwithstanding what my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro) said, this really goes back to a contract that was issued
more than a couple of years ago. It was as a result of very competitive
bidding and the winning contractor is required to pay U.S. taxes on
every dollar earned in the United States. Every employee employed has
to pay U.S. income taxes on the revenue they earn.
Now, if the gentlewoman wants to suggest that there are any contracts
where money is not being paid in taxes for revenue earned in the United
States, I would agree with her, or if there are employees working in
the United States not paying taxes I wholly agree we should collect
from them.
But also bear in mind when we do these things, they often come back
to haunt us. Trying to change the Tax Code in an appropriations
committee is generally not the most effective or appropriate place to
make tax law. It can come back to haunt us because we have got so many
other corporations that are doing business in other parts of the world
and we do not want to be suggesting to them that they ought to shut off
that business. What goes around, though, generally comes around. The
revenue earned overseas does generate tax revenue into our government
here. But it won't if foreign countries decide to punish American

[[Page H5508]]

corporations who might win bids on European or Asian or Latin American
government contracts.
Like it or not we must compete in a global economy. We have got to be
very careful with the precedent that we set. The contract that was
issued was competitive. It is a Homeland Security contract. And from
everything I understand, they are doing good work and paying 100
percent of the taxes due.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Let me just try to correct some inaccuracies. First of all, once
again, this amendment does not deal with existing contracts. It is
contracts in the future. We are not discussing the Homeland Security
bill. We are discussing the Transportation Treasury bill, so this does
not affect what happened with Homeland Security.
I might also add under the Homeland Security bill, this ban is in
place and we voted on it in this institution.
Secondly, my colleagues have talked about the JOBS Act. Very quickly,
the JOBS Act does not solve the existing problem that we have here
today. Corporations who are paying their taxes in the U.S. to the full
amount. Let us take a look at what Accenture is doing. Accenture earned
$503 million in the United States in 2004, up from $243 million in
2002. They reduced their tax liability to $135.5 million from $241
million. Their tax burden is going down because they have set up very
intricate and elaborate structures in order to reduce the amount of
taxes owed in the United States. That is what this is about. They are
free to go to tax haven. They should not get any contracts because they
are lowering their tax obligation to the United States at a time of a
budget crisis and a time of war.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it is rare that I find myself in
opposition to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut. But I
thought that we had settled this the last time around. And this is an
example of why it is so difficult to legislate tax matters on an
appropriations bill.
The company in question did not flee the United States and create an
elaborate tax structure. I went back and checked this because it came
up prior. And the fact is, my research indicated this company had never
been incorporated in the United States. It is international in scope,
although it employs tens of thousands of Americans, and the information
I put in the record last time indicated that their tax rate was
actually above the effective corporate tax rate at that time. And I
looked at more recent information. But the point is, they are paying
taxes. They have never been incorporated in the United States. We want
to make sure that we are sending the right signals at the right time.
And I could not agree with the gentleman from Virginia more.
I am going back at the break to Oregon. I am setting up meetings with
Oregon companies that are practiced in sustainable development, in land
use planning, in environmental technology. I am working with them so
that they can be more effective marketing their goods around the world,
in China, in India, in Japan, in Singapore.
And for us to sit here and say we are not going to permit
opportunities for people who are incorporated in targeted companies is
undercutting a message I am taking back home. But as I say, I really
think we have solved this before and I have not heard anything new that
makes me think that this amendment is good policy.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.
I think the points that have been made by the several individuals who
have spoken out against this amendment pretty much says it all. I just
would follow by saying I urge strongly a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
You know, of all the many, many injustices for which this House
Republican leadership is responsible, surely there are few that are
less defensible than their defense of corporations that flee America.
And how appropriate that we bring to the House this amendment at this
time as we approach our Nation's Independence Day on July the 4th,
because a few corporations have declared their independence from
America when it comes to paying their taxes. They formally fled our
shores. They dodge their taxes by reincorporating in some tax haven,
buying a mailbox and having a beach-side board meeting.
To add insult to injury, the same corporations that renounce America
stretch their hand out to all of us who are paying our fair share,
businesses and individuals, and say ``can we have some of your tax
money?'' They ask to be given the opportunity to bid on government
contracts that they are not contributing to pay for. That is right. An
outrage that exists that has been defended by this Republican
leadership. Why do we do this in an appropriations bill? Because the
House Ways and Means Committee, on which I serve, has, under the
Republican leadership, as its primary responsibility to protect
corporations just like those that flee and then ask to do government
business.
What about this argument that these corporations are paying taxes on
their government business? Well, frankly, it is a half truth. Let me
tell you, these corporations do not go to Bermuda for the shorts. They
do not go there for the suntan. They go there to dodge taxes. And the
way they do that, as in the case of Accenture, one company that has
been mentioned, is to strip away earnings and have them taxed there--at
non tax rates really--in Bermuda. For example, the name Accenture did
not exist a few years ago.
And so Accenture used its American presence to advertise and build up
the value of the name. And so when they come to their name being owned
by a foreign corporation, when they come to calculate any taxes they
owe in the United States, they deduct all the royalties that they pay
to that foreign corporation. So they may be paying a certain tax rate
on their income, but they do not include all their income because they
have stripped it and sent it abroad.
What of the argument that we will lose the opportunity for the best
contract? We are not saying that Accenture or any other company cannot
contract for business. Just pay your fair share of taxes like every
other American is all that we say through this amendment.
And what makes the opposition to this amendment particularly shameful
at this time is that wealthy tax-dodging corporations are not
sacrificing at all, while we call on some young Americans to give their
all and sacrifice for America. Middle-class Americans are paying
hundreds of billions of dollars for this adventure abroad, while tax
dodgers and tax cheats avoid paying their fair share. It is wrong. We
ought to correct it with approval of this amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Let me just first say once again, and I will say it as many times as
we have to. This does not affect existing contracts. It does not affect
existing contracts.
Second, the Department of Homeland Security is operating under a
similar contracting ban now. We are not talking solely about one
company. There are some 25 or 26 companies who, in fact, have
reincorporated in tax haven countries in order to be able to diminish
their tax obligation to the United States. Accenture, in fact, has its
roots back to 1953, as part of the Illinois-based Arthur Andersen
Company. It incorporated in Bermuda in 2001. Their CEO was based in
Dallas. And the fact of the matter is that they are now having it both
ways.

{time} 1330

I would make the point that this comes down to a question of values.
Do you stand with corporations who have abandoned our country in a time
of war, who have gone through these elaborate contortions to reduce
their U.S. tax burdens, or do you stand with the companies who, in
fact, have been good corporate citizens? They are paying their taxes,
they are employing Americans, and they are living up to their
obligations of their country.
Now, as it has been said by my colleagues, these companies can go and
do

[[Page H5509]]

what it is that they would like. And if they want to diminish their tax
burden here, we should not allow it, but we do at the moment. But the
fact is, should we then add insult to injury to other American
corporations and to American citizens by allowing these companies to
get billions of dollars in Federal contracts? Again, it does not affect
existing contracts.
We have a historic low in Federal corporate income taxes. The fact is
these folks set up these mailboxes overseas. That they are overtaxed is
not, in fact, the case. It is time we tell these corporate expatriates
the free ride is over. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms.
DeLauro) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Markey

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Markey:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 948. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used in contravention of section 552a of title 5, United
States Code (popularly known as the Privacy Act) or of
section 552.224 of title 48 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 29,
2005, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would just briefly explain the intent of this
amendment.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to accept the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. MARKEY. If I may explain what the amendment is before the
gentleman accepts it?
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. We know what it is; but if the gentleman wants to
take a moment or two, yes.
Mr. MARKEY. Reclaiming my time, I will take just a moment.
There has been a recent wave of massive privacy breaches that has
highlighted the need to reaffirm the principles of the Privacy Act.
This week the IRS announced that they are going to have a $20 million
contract with ChoicePoint, the same company involved in a massive
privacy breach in its operations in February of 2005. This reminder of
the potential compromise of information is, of course, very necessary
if the IRS is going to contract with ChoicePoint, with the very
sensitive information of Americans.
So this amendment restates the importance of the Privacy Act being
implemented. I ask the House to adopt this 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
The amendment was agreed to.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

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. 4 by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Davis), amendment by the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee), amendment by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders),
amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), amendment by the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), amendment by the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Davis of Florida

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Davis) 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 208,
noes 211, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 345]

AYES--208

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cox
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--211

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berkley
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Engel
English (PA)
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo

[[Page H5510]]

Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Pallone
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Bachus
Bishop (GA)
Cooper
Cramer
Everett
Kingston
Moore (WI)
Peterson (PA)
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Westmoreland

{time} 1357

Messrs. BARRETT of South Carolina, JONES of North Carolina, UPTON,
DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, and BAKER changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HIGGINS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. I was unavoidably detained and missed the
vote on this amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

personal explanation

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 345 I am recorded as having
voted ``aye.'' I intended to vote ``no,'' and ask that the Record
reflect this.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) 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 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 233, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 346]

AYES--187

Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson
Castle
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herger
Herseth
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--233

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Berkley
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
English (PA)
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Bachus
Bishop (GA)
Boozman
Cooper
Cramer
Everett
Kingston
Peterson (PA)
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Westmoreland

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Shimkus) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1405

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

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on rollcall No.
346. I intended to vote ``aye'' on rollcall No. 346.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

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

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.

[[Page H5511]]

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238,
noes 177, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 347]

AYES--238

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conaway
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (MI)
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--177

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Cox
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Souder
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--18

Bachus
Barrow
Bishop (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Cooper
Cramer
Everett
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kingston
Ortiz
Peterson (PA)
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Stearns
Westmoreland

{time} 1412

Mr. NUSSLE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 347, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Amendment Offered by Mr. Rangel

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

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169,
noes 250, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 348]

AYES--169

Abercrombie
Allen
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Harman
Herger
Herseth
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reyes
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wynn

NOES--250

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berkley
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Engel
English (PA)
Etheridge
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)

[[Page H5512]]

Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Menendez
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Bachus
Bishop (GA)
Cooper
Cramer
Evans
Everett
Kingston
Peterson (PA)
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Shadegg
Westmoreland

{time} 1421

Mr. DICKS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Souder

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) 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

[Roll No. 349]

AYES--259

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Baird
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Feeney
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kind
King (IA)
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wu
Young (AK)

NOES--161

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Obey

NOT VOTING--12

Bachus
Bishop (GA)
Cooper
Cramer
Everett
Kingston
Peterson (PA)
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Westmoreland

{time} 1430

Mr. MEEK of Florida and Mr. SMITH of Texas 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. Garrett of New Jersey

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett)
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

[Roll No. 350]

AYES--231

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)

[[Page H5513]]

Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Costello
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Emerson
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hoekstra
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kline
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Pallone
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--189

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Cleaver
Costa
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hinojosa
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wolf
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--13

Bachus
Bishop (GA)
Cooper
Cramer
Everett
Kingston
Peterson (PA)
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Tiahrt
Westmoreland

{time} 1438

Ms. DeLAURO and Mr. RYAN of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Messrs. BOREN, LINDER, and CONYERS, and Mrs. MUSGRAVE and Ms. LORETTA
SANCHEZ of California changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 350 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 351]

AYES--190

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schwartz (PA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--231

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley
Hostettler
Hulshof

[[Page H5514]]

Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watt
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Bachus
Cooper
Cramer
Everett
Gillmor
Kingston
Peterson (PA)
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Westmoreland

{time} 1448

Mr. JEFFERSON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri) assumed the chair.

____________________