Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 748.
September 29, 2004
View full timeline
Introduced in House
April 11, 2003
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
April 11, 2003
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E771)
April 12, 2003
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 108-680.
September 13, 2004
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 419.
September 13, 2004
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
September 14, 2004 • 11:24 AM
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7090-7092)
September 14, 2004 • 11:24 AM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1787.
September 14, 2004 • 11:24 AM
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
September 14, 2004 • 11:40 AM
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7097-7098)
September 14, 2004 • 12:28 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 397 - 3 (Roll no. 446).(text: CR H7090)
September 14, 2004 • 12:36 PM
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 397 - 3 (Roll no. 446). (text: CR H7090)
September 14, 2004 • 12:36 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
September 14, 2004 • 12:36 PM
Received in the Senate.
September 15, 2004
Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
September 28, 2004
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 748.
September 29, 2004
Voting History
1 vote recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
24 membersWhat members said about H.R. 1787 on the floor
JWO
EMK
JAC
EJI
MGO+19
Floor Debate
24 membersWhat members said about H.R. 1787 on the floor
Mr. Chairman, I think we now have reached a second level of ignominy at this point because here we are now into a whole second bill which has not been authorized. It has not been authorized. It is…
Mr. Chairman, I think we now have reached a second level of ignominy at this point because here we are now into a whole second bill which has not been authorized. It has not been authorized. It is not a bill that is only 9 months or 11 months late of authorization, but rather the bill for the Federal Rail Administration and Amtrak is one that is a year and 11 months late at least, if not 2 years and 11 months late.
So while earlier items which have been stricken by the points of order dealt with highway administration programs and obviously will also apply to FTA, Federal Transit Administration programs, and have already stricken the two major safety programs that I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks which had been already cut by the Committee on Appropriations to only 75 percent, cut from the President's request, a dollar figure had been cut 25 percent or giving them only 75 percent of the President's request, those highway safety programs have already been stricken from this legislation. That is also carried with the general highway administration T&I authorization.
But here we are now in the Amtrak and highway administration bill. I just want to point out that this is an area where I intended to offer two different versions of an amendment to add funding.
Mr. Chairman, I will defer my comments to a striking of the last word immediately after the Chair sustains this point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to express some of my frustration, and maybe then the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) will do the same.
We have now stricken what was already an appropriation of $900 million which was the President's request, true, but which was already low by $300 million, lower than what each of the last 2 years had appropriated after the final operation of the Committee on Appropriations and the conference committee reports for the operation of Amtrak.
It is silly to think they even could have operated within $900 million in this year without ending up in a shutdown situation, or without leaving us
with an ever-worsening deferred maintenance problem.
I want to use this time to point out that Amtrak is a hybrid program. It runs on 600 miles of the Northeast Corridor roughly, which is owned by Amtrak and is the direct responsibility of that governmental agency. That 600 miles of trackage takes more than half of all of the passengers that are being dealt with by Amtrak.
Now that is the part that we have direct responsibility for. The rest of the Amtrak lines operate on some 20,000 other miles of trackage that is run by private freight carriers and Amtrak has contracts with them and has priority to use that trackage. But we do not have specific direct maintenance of those. We have the responsibility of making certain that on the 600 miles the use of that track and that commutation that is involved will be safe, and we have some responsibility to make certain that the maintenance of that trackage does provide safety for the people who are using it.
Now Congress has said several times by appropriating, has said, keep the national rail system open; and Congress has not suggested that any particular lines are supposed to be cut out even though they are not profitable or ever may be profitable. We are waiting for an authorization; there is no authorization. But the use of Amtrak remains, and it is an exceptionally important use which moves a very large number of people, 20 million people or thereabouts, on the northeast line itself.
Furthermore, we have now eliminated by points of order that one thing that many people think is a wonderful idea for the future, namely high- speed rail. High-speed rail was already reduced by two-thirds from last year's appropriation, more than two-thirds; but it also now has been stricken and is not authorized either.
So high-speed rail, which is a process used in various parts of the world, in Japan, Europe, running 120 to 150 miles an hour, where one moves large numbers of people for relatively short distances between large metropolitan areas, manages to move people that otherwise would have to be in the air, and it is done that way much more efficiently.
Now we take out that possibility as well in the motions that have occurred.
Mr. Chairman, the Congress has appropriated $1.3 billion in the year 2003, $1.2 billion in the year 2004, an average of $1.1 billion over each of the last 5 years, some of which came under authorizations that were in effect, but the last two of which apparently occurred after there was no authorization, but we managed to get the job done; and the important thing is that we managed to get the job done. Even at the level of funding that Amtrak was appropriated for over the last couple of years, they cannot provide for the critical capital investments that are particularly needed on the Northeast Corridor where we are directly responsible for the maintenance and for the safety of the people who are using that program.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is well understood at this point that we should be appropriating at least what has been out there for the last couple of years, or we are not doing the duty that we have to the passengers who are using that system at the present time.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the chairman that in every place, in every metropolitan area, at least that I know of in this country, that has commuter rail, those commuter rail systems are subsidized. None of them operate on a profitable basis. So the real unreality here has been always the concept that Amtrak, that our passenger rail system could operate and would operate on a profitable basis. There has been no passenger rail system that has been run in any industrialized country anywhere in the world that has operated on a profitable basis.
The rest of the unreality here is that at the same time that we are saying they should do that while leaving Amtrak with the mandate of providing a national rail system with routes which have been designated and mandated by the Congress and then blaming them for not being able to do this in a profitable way, the ultimate unreality, it seems to me, is what we started in the direction of high speed rail where we have created 10 corridors, hopefully in the belief that there may be some way of providing high-speed rail, which is extremely costly in its infrastructure development in the first place, in its capital cost, that that can possibly be done; and I do not disagree with the chairman that there are things that probably ought to be done in dealing with a rail system and in trying to make them more efficient.
We are being totally unrealistic, but we still have a very large number of commuters who are using the system as we have it, and this Congress has not managed to pass an authorization suggesting how it is otherwise to be done. So we still have the problem; we still have people who are operating every day in an ever less safe manner because we are funding as low as we are and here we have stricken the money from the legislation. The unreality here is monumental.
I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Page 70, line 3?
Well, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to page 68, line 16.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out, as I did in my earlier comments in the opening statement, that the IRS tax enforcement program has been underfunded by $286 million compared with the President's recommendation.
Mr. Chairman, the tax law enforcement program is an exceedingly important program. The President has requested $286 million more than the bill before us provides, and the Commissioner of the IRS has given us sworn testimony that the proper use of that money would afford us at least a 6-to-1 margin on revenue gained for the use of the $286 million.
Now, in fact, in my discussion with the IRS Commissioner, he has made it clear to me that that is an average over all of the administrative uses of the tax law enforcement program; and that, at least, if one were to use that in some areas of enforcement, that one might be able to get as much as a 15- or 20-to-1 return for the amount of money; but that in the process of trying to organize an orderly program for the enforcement, that you try to balance that program, as we have been talking about a balanced transportation program, and only enforce very hard in one area or another; but that it is possible in some areas to mix what would be enforcement gains of as much as 15- or 20-to-1 with other places, so that we really ought to put some effort into where the gain may be only 2- or 3- or 4-to-1 and end up with an average in the range of approximately 6-to-1.
Now, with that money, the revenue gained by the use of such enforcement monies, which the President requested, of just under $300 million, then we have an opportunity to gain $2 billion of revenue, which can be used in a variety of ways: to cut the debt; to take care of problems such as we have in this bill even before the charade of all of the points of order that have been added here or have been taken here; or for what I originally called the most serious problems of lack of funding for things like transit new-starts for Amtrak and other things in the Highway Safety Administration.
Besides that, one has to think of exactly where this money is coming from. The Commissioner of the IRS points out that there is at least $300 billion every year of money which is owed under the law to the Government, which is not collected, which is evaded, in essence, evaded. And every time there is that kind of evasion, since that is roughly $1 of $6 or $7 of tax revenue that the whole Government raises, that when that happens, that people, honest people who have paid their taxes, as they ought to, in what is basically a voluntary system that we have, when those people pay their taxes, then the six out of seven or so that do pay the taxes that are owed under the law end up subsidizing the one out of seven that is evading the taxes and not paying any.
So those people, that six out of seven, have to put in a sum of money which is 10 percent higher or 15 percent higher by the rate in order to make up for those who are not paying taxes at all.
Mr. President, I'm pleased to join my colleagues to introduce the No Child Left Behind Improvement Act. Our goal is to chart a better course for bringing the reforms under the law to all students…
Mr. President, I'm pleased to join my colleagues to introduce the No Child Left Behind Improvement Act. Our goal is to chart a better course for bringing the reforms under the law to all students across the country.
I was proud to stand with President Bush in January 2002 as he signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law. At that time, Republicans and Democrats came together to recognize the need to create a strong education system where every child attends a good school with a good teacher. Together, we recognized the importance of achieving that goal for the future of our democracy, economy, and national defense.
In drafting the No Child Left Behind Act in a bipartisan manner, we made great progress from the days when Democrats and Republicans were light years apart on school reform, with some trying to abolish the U.S. Department of Education and privatize our public schools.
No Child Left Behind made improving our public schools a national priority. It laid the cornerstone for a solid accountability system in every State. It called for high academic standards in reading, math, and science, and high-quality tests to measure progress toward those standards. For the first time, it placed our low-income children, children with disabilities, minority children, and English language learners at the top of the school reform agenda. No longer would their needs be hidden, overlooked, or ignored.
It also provided the building blocks for quality in all schools. A fully-qualified teacher in every classroom and better teacher training to make it happen. More after-school tutoring and supplemental services to help students with the greatest needs. Special programs for English language learners. Expanded support for reading in early grades. School report cards to provide information to parents and motivate them to be part of their children's education.
No Child Left Behind promised a great deal to our students and to their families. It's still the right promise. But it hasn't been kept.
Since the law passed, the country has seen the promise of funding No Child Left Behind flagrantly broken by the Bush administration, time and time again. President Bush proposed to cut funding for the law by $90 million just 1 month after signing the bill. His next education budget cut funding by far more--$1.2 billion.
Today, he's leaving 4.6 million children behind, and he's underfunding the law by $9.4 billion. At the same time, President Bush proposes to give tax breaks for the top 1 percent of Americans that total five times the funds promised but never delivered under the No Child Left Behind Act.
Despite these broken promises, our schools are trying to do their part. They've been asked to help all students reach proficiency, and they are responding. Teachers and other school professionals are beginning the hard work of tackling disparities in student achievement, and putting into place the curriculum needed to turn-around thousands of schools that have been identified as needing improvement.
School leaders are struggling to respond to the challenges of providing more highly qualified teachers, supplemental services, and after-school programs in school districts. They're laboring hard in their work to implement the No Child Left Behind Act and bring the promise of true reform to more children and their parents.
The work of school reform is not easy, and schools are struggling to succeed under No Child Left Behind. But on top of the broken promise to provide schools the resources they need to get the job done right, the administration has undermined the efforts of schools to comply with the law, and crippled reforms through its ineffective implementation effort.
Since No Child Left Behind passed, the Department of Education's track record in issuing basic guidance under the law been mired in delay. Final accountability guidelines for children with special needs and limited English
proficient children were announced 2 years after the law was enacted, and long after the law's accountability requirements were already in place for schools.
The administration has abandoned requirements to measure adequately the progress of English language learners in a valid and reliable way. They've suggested to States that they don't have to bother to develop native language assessments, and they've done nothing to help improve assessments for children with disabilities.
They've ignored standards for supplemental service providers, and failed to enforce the civil rights protections that are so essential to providing all children fair access to such services. Families are relying on tutoring and extra support to help their children. But the administration's guidance actually prohibits States from requiring high standards for that supplemental support. A highly qualified teacher in every classroom is good policy. Why shouldn't the same apply for supplemental services?
The administration's ham-handed implementation of public school choice has ignored questions of capacity in school districts with overcrowded classrooms.
And their weakened regulations undermine protections against high dropout rates--especially for low-income and minority students. Without information and reporting of those rates for each subgroup of children, the public won't have a complete picture of how children are succeeding.
It's time for the administration to correct these problems and do their part to improve implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act.
The bill that I'm introducing today gets these reforms on track. It will help keep the promise of public school choice, promote quality and access in supplemental services, provide for better assessments for children, and ensure better reporting by schools and states of graduation and dropout rates so that children don't fall through the cracks.
It's important to acknowledge what this bill does not do. It does not make fundamental changes to the requirements under No Child Left Behind. Those reforms are essential to improving our public schools. Every child deserves a chance to learn in a good school, and that chance depends on whether we succeed in implementing the law.
The No Child Left Behind Improvement Act will ensure that school districts consider health and safety codes as they draw up their plans for providing public school choice to students, consistent with the law. In order to ensure that public school choice actually helps children succeed educationally, we must provide an environment that is safe and conducive to their learning--not overcrowded.
It will provide better access to quality supplemental services for eligible students, and ensure full enforcement of civil rights protections under those provisions. The administration's policy of relaxed enforcement in this area allows some private providers off-the- hook from serving children that need the most help. That's wrong.
All students should have a fair chance to choose a supplemental service provider that meets their needs. Limited English proficient children and children with disabilities are often those students that need the most extra help and assistance in our public schools, and this bill would ensure that each State select some providers with the skills to serve those populations.
This bill will also better enable teachers and para-professionals to meet the required standards for teacher quality under the law. A highly qualified teacher is the single most important factor in improving student achievement, and the No Child Left Behind Act requires that every classroom have a qualified teacher by 2006.
We must provide for a system that ensures all teachers have the opportunity to meet that goal. The No Child Left Behind Act includes an alternate standard for veteran teachers to demonstrate their competence and be counted as highly qualified in the subject matter that they teach. This bill ensures that every State develop and implement that standard under the law, and that every state provide para-professionals with the opportunities provided under No Child Left Behind to demonstrate their competence.
Fifteen States have not yet developed or applied standards for veteran teachers. We must do better especially for the 67 percent of all public school teachers that have been teaching for more than 5 years.
And finally, for No Child Left Behind's accountability provisions to be useful, they must be accurate. We need accurate determinations of whether schools are making progress.
The Department's delay in issuing adequate accountability rules for counting children with disabilities and limited English proficient children has created unnecessary confusion, caused a potential mislabeling of schools, and misdirected resources from the schools and students who actually need them. The Department should apply those regulations retroactively, so that schools may be judged on the same standards for the past year as they will be in the future, not by different criteria for different years. In June, I introduced a bill-- The No Child Left Behind Fairness Act--to accomplish that goal. The bill that I'm introducing today also includes those requirements.
We're at an important crossroads in reforming our public schools. Schools are hurting, crippled by shrinking budgets and a broken promise of funding under the law. The ineffective track record of this administration in implementing No Child Left Behind largely has contributed to their problems and frustrations.
We must do better. Turning our back on the reforms in the No Child Left Behind Act is no solution. Neither is turning our back on public education. I urge my colleagues to act to ensure that the promise of the essential reforms under No Child Left Behind are realized. Our students and families deserve no less.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With immense respect to my good friend, the Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the Congress has already passed the PATRIOT Act.…
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
With immense respect to my good friend, the Chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the Congress has already passed the PATRIOT Act. The Secretary of the Treasury was required under the PATRIOT Act to prescribe regulations that set forth minimum standards for financial institutions to open a bank account. The authorizers have already spoken on this, and the law requires the minimum requirements for banks to verify the identity of a person opening the account, to maintain records of that person's identity, and consult lists of known or suspected terrorists.
I would not have offered this amendment in subcommittee and full committee, and the Committee on Appropriations would not have felt it necessary to put this in the bill, had the Treasury Department honored the PATRIOT Act. In the opinion of the Committee on Appropriations, in the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has objected to the Treasury Department's rule.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) stated that he believes the reference to regulations adopted by Treasury are insufficient to address the intention of the PATRIOT Act to accurately identify and track individuals opening bank accounts. The law could not be any clearer. Yet the Treasury Department yielded to pressure from the banks, although the banks were required to verify identity, keep documents of records used to open the account. The Treasury adopted a rule which specifically allows the banks to shred photocopies of the person's identifying documents. So there is no record being kept.
I am quoting directly from the rule, in violation of the PATRIOT Act, the Treasury rule says that any foreign government-issued document that evidences nationality, as long as it bears a photograph, is valid to open a bank account. That is in complete violation of the PATRIOT Act. So the regulation the Treasury Department adopted does not even meet the express letter of the law in the PATRIOT Act. So we had no other choice but to cut off the funding to this regulation.
The parents of the families of the victims of September 11 have written a letter in opposition to this amendment because the parents, and I am quoting from the 9/11 Families For a Secure America, all of our members are aware of the fact that the 9/11 murderers relied upon government-issued identification to open bank accounts and charge accounts, rent cars and apartments and maintain an aura of legitimacy during the months that they planned, rehearsed, financed and carried out their conspiracy. Finally, on the morning of 9/11, government- issued IDs permitted them to board the planes they used to murder our loved ones.
For that reason, the parents of the families of 9/11 are scoring this vote. The parents of 9/11 are asking that Members vote against the Oxley-Frank amendment.
This is a straight-up national security vote because the FBI has testified, the Department of Justice also has objected strongly to this Treasury Department regulation. The Department of Homeland Security, all Federal law enforcement, uniformly objected to this Treasury Department regulation because, number one, these consular ID cards that foreign nationals would use to open bank accounts are widely known to be easily forged.
The FBI and the Department of Justice have concluded that the matricula consular is not reliable. It is not a reliable form of identification due to the nonexistence of any means of verifying the true identity of the cardholder.
So we have a situation today, Mr. Chairman, where we know the terrorists are coming back to hit us again between now and the election. The FBI agent in charge of the southern border in Texas has seen a large number of countries with al Qaeda connections that are exploiting the southern border, utilizing long-established and well- disciplined alien smuggling organizations in Mexico to transit individuals, foreign nationals through Mexico, into the United States. It was brought to my attention by Federal law enforcement authorities in Texas that they have now identified a number of individuals from Islamic countries changing their Islamic surnames to Hispanic surnames, coming across the border with all the illegals crossing the border.
So we have a situation where we are about to be hit. We have individuals using false identities, and we have a rule adopted by Treasury that essentially, according to the Committee on the Judiciary chairman and the FBI, is making it easier for individuals to create false identities and open bank accounts.
The Treasury regulation is so wide open that an Iraqi listed on the 50 Most Wanted List but who is not yet apprehended could open a bank account using an ID card printed in Arabic, issued in 2001, and the bank would still be in compliance. So the Treasury Department's already had their chance to comply with existing law, and they did not. So the appropriators had no choice.
If I could, if my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), is available, I will be sure to yield to him.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to briefly say that the Department of Justice is on record in opposition to these regulations before they were issued, and then when they were issued the Department of Justice issued strong objections.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).
(Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Had the Department of Treasury actually implemented the PATRIOT Act, the Committee on Appropriations would not have shut off funding to this regulation.
The Treasury-Transportation bill, and this is within our jurisdiction and the full Committee on Appropriations, cut off funding to implement or enforce the Treasury regulation which is on the books, and let me quote from it again, ``The Treasury regulation authorizes banks to open a bank account for any non-U.S. citizen who can produce any foreign government issued document with a photograph.''
Now that rule that Treasury adopted is in complete violation of the PATRIOT Act. That is the opinion of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. Statute 326 has not been complied with by the Treasury Department. It requires Treasury to adopt a rule that requires banks to verify identity, maintain records of the person's identity and consult lists of known terrorists.
This rule is so bad and so broad, the banks can shred photocopies of the person's identifying documents as soon as you make the deposit. So the Appropriations Committee had no choice but
to shut off funding to this regulation. And before the regulation was adopted, the Justice Department and the FBI and Homeland Security were all opposed to it. The Department of Justice was on record.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
I certainly agree under current law, but the rule adopted by Treasury, and again I am quoting from the Department of Justice, the Department of Justice objected very strongly to these last-minute changes in the Treasury rule because Treasury did change the rule at the last minute to allow these records to be destroyed and that is in the rule which is why we cut off the funding. This is the only way that we could stop the implementation of this rule which violates the spirit of the PATRIOT Act by cutting off the funding, because the Treasury ignored the PATRIOT Act's very clear requirements.
From the Justice Department today. Yes, the Justice Department is being a good team player. The Justice Department testified formally in objection to this rule July 31 when it was adopted. Quoting from the Justice Department:
``The Department of Justice believes that consular identification cards issued by foreign governments should not be among the documents that could be accepted by financial institutions.''
Once the Department of Justice made that argument, they lost that argument. Treasury adopted this very broad rule that allows anybody from a foreign country to walk in the door with any kind of photo ID and open a bank account. The Justice Department lost that argument, and obviously they have gotten on board.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), the chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights.
(Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. Chairman, I insist the point of order be expanded to lie against the entire paragraph; and as so expanded, I…
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Chairman, I insist the point of order be expanded to lie against the entire paragraph; and as so expanded, I would concede the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order be expanded to lie against the entire paragraph; and as so expanded, I would concede the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, of course the effect of the point of order raised is to take the money that was in the bill, $900 million, the amount requested by the administration for Amtrak, and to remove it. I regret that the people who are staunch proponents of Amtrak want to continue it the way that it is running now.
The administration opposes any more than $900 million for Amtrak without reforming it. Amtrak has not been authorized since December of 2002 when the prior authorization bill expired. I think it is important that we recognize why it has not been reauthorized. Until a couple of years ago, Amtrak was still telling us, oh, they are about to start making a profit and not to need Federal subsidies anymore.
After operating for 30 years, Amtrak has received over $40 billion in Federal subsidies. It still only provides one-half of 1 percent of all inner city transportation. Half of it is in the Northeast Corridor. In the last 5 years, the subsidies by taxpayers through the appropriations process have gone up 71 percent. In the same time, Amtrak's ridership is only up 11 percent. It is a huge gap.
It continues to operate with substantial losses. Why? Because we do not apply business principles. We do not apply proper principles to it. Amtrak is only, I think, about 5 percent of all the rail passenger service in the country. Most of the rail passenger service is commuter rail. Amtrak functions in many areas actually as commuter rail and the subsidies are astounding. If Amtrak is operating to provide commuter rail passenger service, why is all the subsidy dumped on the Federal taxpayer? Where are the States? Where are the cities? The administration wants to create partnerships with them to have participation of the people who benefit from Amtrak and who want a subsidized rail service which is limited to certain parts of the country. Those parts of the country need to be the ones that come to the table and say we want this and therefore we are willing to pay for part of it.
Amtrak passengers in some cases on some routes receive hundreds of dollars per passenger in taxpayer subsidies. There are plenty of examples where it is cheaper to hire a private limousine and driver to pick up somebody at their door in one city and transport them to another city to the door of their destination; it is cheaper to hire them a limo and a driver and give them personal service than to have them ride Amtrak in some situations.
We are not taking a realistic look at this. We should not be bemoaning the fact that Amtrak is not being given more taxpayers' money. If you want subsidized rail travel, you need to get your mayors, you need to get your Governors, you need to get your local communities and officials willing to pay for some of the costs of what operates for many of them as a commuter rail service.
If you take the train, as I have done, between Washington and New York City, so often you will find when it leaves Washington it does not have that many people on it. When it gets to Baltimore it still does not have that many people on it. Only when you get to the outskirts of New York City do you start picking up a lot of passengers because it is a commuter rail to them.
Why are we not talking to the communities about saying, you have a role in Amtrak if you want it. Do not tell us it is all a Federal responsibility. I know that the people feel passionately about it; but we have a failed approach to Amtrak, and it is time that we recognize it. If we want to do something about rail passenger service, we need a lot more realistic model than we have with Amtrak. I support the administration's proposal, which is to say we should not be increasing funding for Amtrak until such time as we have reform legislation that brings local and State people to the table and the private sector as partners in that.
Mr. Chairman, I insist that the point of order must be expanded to lie against the entire paragraph and, as so expanded, concede the point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, due to the points of order that have been raised, we have many amounts, of course, that have been stricken from the bill. Some of the amounts would have added money to the bill through the point of order strikings. Some would have subtracted money from the bill. The net of those is this $1.7 billion figure. We need a place to put that. I know it might be nice to put it on the national debt or such, but that would still under parliamentary procedures allow people to offer an amendment to spend it someplace else.
We have in the General Services Administration the Federal Building Fund, an unmet backlog of I believe some $7 billion in unmet Federal construction needs. Although it is not my intent to keep this money back when this bill goes to conference, it is my intent essentially to restore and to resolve the parliamentary problems and to restore it to the accounts of which it was taken.
Nevertheless, for the purpose of this bill today, I offer this amendment to take this money that has been stricken from the bill and put it in the Federal Building Fund.
I reserve the right to object, Mr. Chairman.
I was trying to grant the gentlewoman the courtesy to state her intent, but I do intend to assert my objection.
Mr. Chairman, I object.
Mr. Chairman, I object to the unanimous consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the presentation by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
FinCEN financing in this measure is already increased by 12.7 percent over the last fiscal year. We have added significant dollars in the full committee to the FinCEN appropriations, and the FinCEN appropriations is at the level that was requested by the administration. However, for the gentlewoman from New York and other Members who are concerned, we will continue to work with them on this issue to make sure that we do not disagree, have a disagreement with the administration, and might perhaps be persuaded that there might be some different number that should be in the final vote of conference.
However, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be constantly in this process with a long night ahead of us going back and reopening different parts of the bill that have been closed. We all know it is a slow moving process as it is. And if we start accepting every unanimous consent, we would not be completed.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 1 hour and that the time be equally divided.
Mr. Chairman, that is satisfactory.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the time in opposition to the gentleman from Ohio's (Mr. Oxley) amendment to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), a member of the subcommittee to let him control that debate.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and in support of the language that is in this bill which was adopted in the Committee on Appropriations.
Certainly the arguments that are being heard today played out in the committee, and we decided that this was indeed an issue that relates to financial institutions, sure, but it relates to homeland security as well. The gentleman from Arizona that spoke before me, talking about the problems with porous borders, look at the latest issue of Time Magazine if they want to look at challenges of it and remember that we have adopted a great amount of legislation telling financial institutions they need to know their customer. We are talking about the financial center that is in the Treasury Department to track terrorism money. And if we do not have valid identification for the people when we are trying to track foreign assets in the United States and spot those that are using phony IDs to cover up terrorism, then why are we spending all the tens of millions and hundreds of millions and billions of dollars on homeland security if we say, oh, this is just a matter for the federally chartered, federally regulated financial institutions? We are going to put a loophole in the Federal law and all of our efforts to track foreign and potentially terrorism money are going to be undone because we can use unreliable identification. In the name of political correctness, we are going to accept the matricula consular? I think not.
I oppose this amendment. I ask that the Members reject the amendment and keep in the language that is put in this bill by the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that half of my time be allocated to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial…
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that half of my time be allocated to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself and the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, as well as a respected member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Our amendment will strike ill advised language adopted in the Committee on Appropriations that, if allowed to remain in the bill, would prevent the Treasury Department from enforcing regulations implementing customer identification provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act that are critically important to combating money laundering and disrupting the financing of terrorism.
I note at the outset that the Bush administration has issued a strongly worded statement of administration position opposing the language that the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment would strike from this legislation.
My colleagues are going to hear a lot in today's debate about what whether one form of ID is better than another; but as the author of the USA PATRIOT Act's anti-terrorist financing provisions and as a former FBI, agent, let me set the record straight. Today's debate is not about good or bad ID. It is about whether we are going to ask financial services customers for any ID at all. My amendment says yes; and the bill, as currently constructed, says no.
By way of background, the regulations that the bill seeks to block were issued by the Treasury Department last year under section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which I authored. That provision was intended to enhance the ability of financial institutions to detect and prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism by requiring those institutions to develop comprehensive procedures for verifying customer identity at the time of account opening. Among other things, the provision requires financial institutions to consult lists of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist organizations when opening accounts for new customers.
In implementing section 326, the administration ultimately decided to give institutions the flexibility to tailor their customer identification programs to the risks of money laundering or terrorist financing posed by their products, services, and customer base. Consistent with this risk-based approach, the final regulations give financial institutions the discretion to determine which forms of identification issued by foreign governments they will accept and under what circumstances.
Make no mistake, the regulations do not mandate or require the acceptance of the matricula consular card. If financial institutions are concerned about their validity, they are free to reject the use of those cards as identification.
These regulations were finalized only after two lengthy public comment periods, which included extensive input from the financial services industry, law enforcement agencies, and a host of other interested parties, and after careful analysis and study by the Treasury Department and other financial regulators. The regulations, effective last year, are currently being enforced by Treasury and the Federal financial regulators and implemented by financial institutions across the country.
The so-called Culberson amendment throws into question the obligation of financial institutions to verify the identities of their customers and ties Treasury's hands in enforcing one of the centerpieces of the post-September
11 congressional response to the terrorist financing threat.
Indeed, when he appeared before our committee last month, 9/11 Commission Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton, a former distinguished colleague of ours, singled out section 326 for particular praise, calling it a ``significant tool to assist fast-moving terrorism investigations.''
Failure to adopt this amendment will result in this critical tool being taken from the Government's hands. I would suggest to my colleagues that now is not the time to be unilaterally disarming in the financial war against terrorists.
The Bush administration and the Treasury Department have registered their strong support for this amendment, arguing that denying access to the mainstream financial system serves only to drive consumers into the underground financial economy, making it virtually impossible to track their financial activity and frustrating the Government's efforts to enforce antimoney laundering and antiterrorist financing laws. In the words of Secretary Snow, if the section my amendment seeks to strike becomes law, ``it will be a step backwards in the financial war on terror.''
Let us be very serious and understand that that is what the PATRIOT Act is all about. This is an effort to repeal part of the PATRIOT Act that has worked so successfully in protecting American citizens.
Finally, let me express my frustration with this kind of back-door legislating in appropriations bills. This is simply not the way we should be operating in this House.
My colleagues have a simple choice before them: vote for our amendment and give our financial regulators the ability to track, seize, and freeze terrorist funds or vote against us and drive terrorist money laundering even further underground. The choice is clear.
Support our fight against the funding of terror. Support the Oxley- Frank-Kolbe amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), a subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.
(Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think there has been a very broad misunderstanding about the destruction of those photographs and/or records. The law clearly requires that the financial institutions keep those documents for 5 years. That is not a change in policy. Treasury has recognized that for a number of years. The law has recognized that for a number of years. Financial institutions have recognized that for a number of years. It is simply not accurate to say that those records are destroyed immediately by the banks. They are required by law to keep those records for 5 years.
If the gentleman will continue to yield, let me just quote from the letter from the Department of Justice: ``The Justice Department supports the administration's determination to permit the acceptance of matricula consular cards by financial institutions under circumstances where financial institutions reasonably believe they can properly identify the new customer.''
That is from the letter of the Justice Department.
That letter was dated today. The Justice Department clearly supports the Oxley amendment.
I thank my good friend from California for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, let me say, this bill was drafted in our committee. I was the lead sponsor of the legislation. We have fully determined the efficacy of using these matricula consular cards. By the way, it is not the only form of identification. As a matter of fact, matricula consular is not even mentioned in the statute, nor is it mentioned in the rules and regulations from Treasury Department.
I would invite the gentleman and the gentleman from Texas to introduce a bill and to have it referred to the appropriate committee, the Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Show 8 more
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 143, on page 27, lines 10 through 17. Mr. Chairman, the second sentence of section 143 would prevent any State or agency from enforcing the U.S.…
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 143, on page 27, lines 10 through 17.
Mr. Chairman, the second sentence of section 143 would prevent any State or agency from enforcing the U.S. Department of Transportation hours-of-service regulations for operators of utility service vehicles. This provision imposes a new duty on the Department and the States and agencies. This section is legislative in nature and is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, page 32, line 26, through page 33, line 5, I would make a point of order against the last proviso of the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program paragraph. The proviso begins on page 32, line 26, and ends on page 33, line 5. This proviso would require Amtrak to repay its loan and interest in full to the Federal Railroad Administration within 30 days; it is legislative in nature and in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
Mr. Chairman, I must confess I share the frustration of the gentleman from Massachusetts. We produced out of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure a bipartisan bill a year ago that has never been brought to floor action.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, there is an ongoing debate that I find somewhat ironic. There is, on behalf of some of my colleagues, an almost theological belief that the United States should be the only industrialized country in the world that does not have subsidized passenger rail service, that it is not an integral part of our transportation system. We have Amtrak today because the private sector that had rail passenger service from the 1830s until 1970 and was mammothly subsidized by the Federal Government to do so, reached the point where it was not particularly profitable for them to do it. Then the private rail roads with Congress and the Nixon administration, created Amtrak so that there would be a rail passenger alternative.
Some people now think that somehow the private sector is going to step in and run a national system so that we would not be actually the only country without passenger rail. Even most Third World countries have rail passenger service as well as all the developed countries that surpasses the United States. I find that somewhat ironic because this Congress year after year after year puts billions of dollars into the air passenger service which in its long illustrious history of being force fed by Federal subsidies, starting with airmail, dealing with air traffic control and the construction of airports, in its entire history has a net profit of zero. And we continue, appropriately, to put billions of dollars into it because it is an important part of the Federal transportation infrastructure.
Now there are those that want to pull the plug on Amtrak. We passed out of our Rail Subcommittee and then our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee a year ago with broad bipartisan support, there may have been one or two people who voted against it, in the largest committee in Congress, maybe one or two, but I cannot remember them, that bill has been languishing for 1 year because the Republican leadership cannot somehow bring it to the floor and allow the will of Congress to be worked.
So we have this travesty today where we have a program that is not authorized despite the fact that the authorizing committee did its work a year ago.
This embarrassing charade, and I am embarrassed for the majority party that we are going through this, is not going to be sustained. As George Will pointed out in his column of June 2003 when we were going through the last shutdown charade, that support for Amtrak is strong enough among all regions, ages, education levels, and income groups. A CNN/Gallup/USA Today poll put it, at the height of last year's funding crisis, at 70 percent American public support. No indication of anything that that is not even stronger today.
So ultimately we will bump along, we will go through this, we will fund Amtrak. Unfortunately, the inability of this Congress to move forward to meet the other body in a responsible fashion and put a reasonable authorizing bill on the floor means Amtrak is going to continue to be hamstrung. You will not kill it because the public will not let you. When we will have a crisis like 9/11 where if we did not have our rail transportation system, the east coast would have been shut down in gridlock from Alexandria to New Haven. Ultimately, this bill will fail, but it continues to cut away at the ability of the new administration in Amtrak to move forward, to build on the strong ridership increase and to build the private and public partnerships with State and local government that will be necessary, ultimately, to have a successful program.
I as a Member of Congress am embarrassed that we are going through this again. As somebody who cares about a balanced transportation system, transit, air, road and rail, I am embarrassed because we need this as a critical component. We will get there, but today's failure makes it harder, more expensive, as Congress is increasingly marginalized.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, I had hoped to deal with just the notion that somehow Amtrak had promised that it was going to turn a profit. I sat in committees and watched people browbeat the previous administration; but what people made clear is that it was going to be necessary to fund the capital requirements of Amtrak.
There is a planned infrastructure improvement over 5 years, reconstructing interlockings; installation of almost a million concrete ties to improve efficiency; 423 miles of track undercutting; new rail, 352 miles; rebuilding of major bridges; cable signal replacement. These are things that will improve the efficiency of the operation.
Congress has never fully funded the capital requirements, making it inherently inefficient and chipping away at it. The Amtrak administration has requested a reasonable capital budget to be able to move it forward to meet the mandate that Members of Congress had for more efficiency.
I would respectfully suggest when we look at the funding that we lavish on the capital for airlines, what we do for highways, only a portion of which comes from the user fee, only a portion of which comes from the user fee, that we are selling this important element short at a time when, if we would enhance it, it would actually reduce demand on the roads. We would also reduce demand in congested airports when now a third of our flights are 350 miles or less. We are not thinking this through in a proper fashion.
I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me because I wanted to make that point about its capital investment, which is critical if it is ever going to operate the way my friend on the other side of the aisle knows I would like to see, but we cannot starve Amtrak first.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 161, which begins on page 37, line 23, and ends on page 38, line 25. Section 161 would require the Department of Transportation to develop and implement a procedure of competitive bidding for State-supported passenger rail routes, to require Amtrak to provide service in some routes and a compensation determined by the Secretary and to allow the Secretary to reprogram up
to $2.5 million from Amtrak operating funds to support this effort. This is clearly legislative in nature and is in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of observations, in a sense give a progress report on what has happened on this bill so far, given what the…
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of observations, in a sense give a progress report on what has happened on this bill so far, given what the Rules Committee did in exposing this bill to these points of order. There are a lot of things that have happened to this bill so far, but I would like to simply talk about the values that have led the House at this point to strike certain programs from the bill, while not striking others.
As I understand the actions that have been taken so far by points of order raised by Members of the majority, as I understand it, we have so far eliminated formula highway grants to the States; we have done serious damage to the essential airline service for small rural airports; we have done significant damage to FAA grants for airports, all of which will impact States' and localities' ability to develop their economies. But let me describe something that has not been eliminated from this bill.
This bill still contains--and it is interesting that this provision was not stricken by any of those who lodged their motions--this bill contains a provision that extends government-offered reduced rate insurance for airlines operating in the domestic United States. Premiums are set under that program at no more than twice what commercial rates were 3 years ago. This means that airlines only pay about one-fifth what they would pay if they were forced to obtain their insurance from the private sector.
My understanding is that this year airlines will pay about $150 million for government-subsidized risk insurance as opposed to $700 million they would have to pay on the open market. So, once again, we are keeping a let-us-pretend industry afloat, an industry which for all practical purposes is bankrupt. All you have to do is watch what has happened with USAir, I do not know how many times USAir, Continental will go bankrupt before they are bankrupt; but all you have to do is watch that to understand that if you are big enough in this society, you have a safety net created which holds you up no matter how many times you tend to fall. But we do not provide that same kind of safety net to average workers in this country.
What it demonstrates, for instance, is that the Federal Government is now willing to provide this huge subsidy in order to provide insurance to big airline corporations around the world or around the country, at the same time that this Congress continuously refuses to provide health insurance for 45 million Americans. I find that distinction interesting. I do not find it surprising, given the values of this Congress that I have come to expect, unfortunately; but it does say something about our national priorities.
If we are willing to exempt from our parliamentary purity our concern about language in this bill when it affects some of the big industries in the country, but we are not willing to skip over it when it comes to inconveniencing and damaging State economies and the transportation ability of small units of government, I find it especially interesting that while the Congress continues to deny actions that would provide health insurance for the 45 million Americans who do not have it, and every time we talk about doing that work we are being for socialized medicine; yet we are willing to socialize risk when it comes to insurance costs for the airline industry. That is a great set of values, isn't it?
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to note my agreement with the comments of the distinguished gentleman from Florida. Even before this bill came to the floor, we were faced with the prospect of having a miserable record in producing appropriation bills and finishing them before the end of the fiscal year before we go home to face our constituents in the new elections.
The House has passed all but, I believe, two appropriation bills, this one and the VA-HUD bill. And many of the bills that have passed have, I think, been in pitiful shape, but at least they have passed. None of them, except Defense, has been signed into law.
This bill was at least on track to pass in inadequate though meaningful form before we leave here for the election, but now, as the gentleman from Florida has said, we are facing an even bleaker situation. We are going to leave here in October with even less of the people's business done than would have been the case if this debacle had not occurred on the floor today.
What has happened is essentially this: The transportation authorizing committee, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, or the No Transportation, No Infrastructure Committee, as it probably ought to be called, their basic highway authorization, for instance, expired 9 months ago. They have not yet been able to renew that basic legislation. The reason for that is that they have a three-corner debate going with themselves.
There is a debate between the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure members in the House, those in the Senate, and the wizards in the White House Budget Office, and none of them want to give. So, as a result, what do we have here? The authorizing committee has not been able to get its job done, so the Committee on Appropriations has tried to at least keep these programs afloat while we continue to go through this Little League debate between the White House and the authorizers.
But in fact now I guess the situation is that if the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure cannot pass their legislation, they do not want anybody else to pass meaningful legislation either, or perhaps they somehow think they are producing leverage for themselves by shredding this bill. This is, as I said earlier, this is a sad case.
My great friend and mentor Dick Bolling, who used to be the chairman of the Committee on Rules, and in my view is the greatest Member of this body who never became Speaker. Dick Bolling used to deride Members who practiced what he called dung hill politics, Members who were more interested in protecting the jurisdiction of their own committee than they were in protecting the legislative reputation and record of the House as a whole.
What we have seen today is a sad, sad example of what Dick Bolling worried about when he referred to that practice of ``dung hill politics.'' I wish the House were in a more mature mood, and I wish that the leadership had led so we could have avoided this point today.
There is no point, in my view, in proceeding further with this bill. I intend to vote against it on final passage because there will be nothing left of it except the title. We have a motion around here called ``striking the enacting clause.'' Instead, I suggest today we should probably strike everything except the enacting clause because we will have almost done that by the time we get to the last page of this bill. All we will have done is waste a day and a half of the House's time when we could have been dealing with more serious business, and that, indeed, is a shame.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the leader had to leave early to catch a plane. So for the purpose of inquiring of the chairman of the Committee on Rules the schedule for the coming week, I yield to the…
Mr. Speaker, I understand the leader had to leave early to catch a plane. So for the purpose of inquiring of the chairman of the Committee on Rules the schedule for the coming week, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.
I might ask, and I know it will be the leader and the leader's office, but part of the leader's distinguished staff is on the floor, so he will hear us. I know my friend from California will be appreciative of this.
As I understand it, one of the planes to California is at 2:55, or late, just before 3. This says ``early afternoon.'' The request on our side has been that if we could try to conclude by 1:30 so they could get from here to Dulles in time to catch that plane, so, of course, they could get home by sunset, if we could try to do that?
Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
With today's vote, the House and the Senate have now both gone on record in a bipartisan fashion in overruling the overtime regulations which were perceived obviously by a majority of the House and a majority of the other body as putting at risk millions of Americans losing their overtime.
In light of the fact that the House has passed that and the Senate has also passed it, not in the same bill, can we expect, does the gentleman think, that the conference report will reflect the views of both Houses? We are very hopeful, of course, that that will be honored by the conference committee.
I would be glad to yield further.
Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's observation. Our concerns, of course, as the gentleman can well imagine, are based upon the fact that, for instance, in the air traffic controller situation, both Houses of the Congress overwhelmingly, almost unanimously, directed that they not be outsourced or privatized. Notwithstanding that, that was dropped from the conference report.
So we would just, on behalf of the minority, strongly request that the majority vote, bipartisan vote, in the House, be supported by our conferees. That is not a motion to instruct. It was a very strong vote, almost 40 of the majority, of the Republicans, and an overwhelming majority of Democrats. I hope that would be honored.
I yield further to the gentleman from California.
Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.
Next week, the gentleman indicated, and we knew this was going to be on the schedule, the Transportation-Treasury appropriations bill will be on the floor. That is the 12th of 13 appropriations bills to be considered by the House, leaving only the VA-HUD bill to be the last to be brought to the floor.
The first question, and this may be unfair because this does not fall within your expertise, but perhaps you can be advised. When do you expect the VA-HUD bill, if there is an indication of when that might be on the floor?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that observation. I will tell the gentleman that the joint leadership, the Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and myself were at the White House earlier this week, as the gentleman probably knows, and met with the President. But the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the other body observed that we may hold over 11 of the appropriation bills until next year. Now, that is a process that we have followed in the last 2 years because we have obviously passed the majority of appropriations bills in the year after the fiscal year began, in January and February, as the gentleman recalls.
I am wondering, can the gentleman tell me, if we have some 3 weeks left, are we contemplating the passage of the 13 appropriations bills prior to adjournment, or are we planning on a continuing resolution or an omnibus appropriation bill of some type?
Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is correct, we will want to work closely with you to accomplish that goal.
Let me ask you an additional question raised by your response. Would there be in the realm of contemplation on the majority side a lame duck session? When you refer to this calendar year, as I said, we have 3 weeks, maybe 4, I am not sure how long the majority intends to go prior to recessing or adjourning for the election, but does the majority, if the gentleman knows, contemplate the possibility of a lame duck session?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, I would simply request that, realizing the vagaries of the legislative process make it difficult to determine, but just as obviously Members will be making up schedules for the post-election period, either to take time off after the election or for other family-related matters or district matters that they might have. The sooner we might give them notice of that, obviously the more helpful on both sides of the aisle that would be.
I thank the gentleman for that response.
This week, after a long August recess, bipartisan bills were introduced to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission with regard to reorganizing the intelligence operations of our country in order to better protect our people and our country. Earlier this week we met, as I said to the gentleman, with the President, who asked us to send him legislation quickly.
The reason for my question is, the Democratic leader, after requesting participation by your side of the aisle and a determination was made not to participate, introduced legislation drafted to incorporate the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. In addition to that, Mr. McCain and Mr. Lieberman have introduced legislation in the Senate. Mirror legislation has been introduced by a Member on your side and a Member on our side as well.
The President, as you know, changed his position on the budget authority for the National Intelligence Director and apparently now supports that, so there may well be good bipartisan White House- congressional agreement.
Clearly the American public are very concerned about this, we are very concerned about it, and I know the gentleman is very concerned about it. We want to put our intelligence community in the best possible posture, as the 9/11 Commission recommended, to respond to the terrorist threat to this country.
My question is, therefore, sir, can we expect, do you think, to perhaps take the bipartisan bills that have been introduced in both the Senate and the House, mirror images of one another, and work on those bills and pass them prior to the time that we either recess or adjourn prior to the election?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for those comments. We are hopeful that we can in fact work together in a bipartisan fashion, as seems to be started by the Senate and in this House as well, to accomplish the objective of the early passage of a reorganization to make us better to respond to the terrorist threat to this country. We hope that that will happen.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1787) to remove civil liability barriers that discourage the donation of fire equipment to volunteer fire companies, as amended. Mr.…
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1787) to remove civil liability barriers that discourage the donation of fire equipment to volunteer fire companies, as amended.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1787, the bill now under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1787, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004. I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), for bringing attention to an important issue.
This straightforward, narrowly tailored legislation deserves our support, as do the volunteer firefighters who stand to benefit from its passage. The purpose of the bill is simple and clear: To encourage increased donation of surplus firefighting equipment to volunteer firefighting units by removing civil liability barriers that currently cause some corporation, individuals, and professional firefighting entities that destroy or mothball surplus or used equipment rather than to donate it.
The Committee on the Judiciary had a hearing on H.R. 1787 on July 20, 2004, at which Chief Philip Stittleburg of the National Volunteer Fire Council testified in favor of the bill. According to the testimony received by the committee, volunteer fire departments account for 75 percent of all the Nation's firefighters and represent a cost savings estimated to be as much as $37 billion annually, which taxpayers would otherwise have to spend if those services that volunteers provide had to be replaced with full-time paid professional firefighters.
Many of these volunteer departments are in rural areas, with fewer resources, and face a constant struggle to provide their members with adequate equipment to protect local communities. Volunteer fire departments have traditionally benefited from the donation of surplus or used equipment when professional fire departments or firefighting units of private enterprises upgrade or replace their own equipment. Surplus equipment may include hoses, oxygen masks, protective clothing or even fire trucks. However, today, some of this needed, usable, and safe equipment is being destroyed or put in storage by the better- equipped fire units instead of being donated to the volunteer departments.
Many times donations never occur because of the fear of legal liability exposure if such equipment were ever to fail, even through no fault of the donor. The legislation before us would remove both the fear and reality of such liability for potential donors of fire safety or fire rescue equipment to volunteer departments.
The bill before us is a good, common-sense idea, but not an entirely original one. Ten States have already passed versions of this legislation at the State level. Texas, most notably, passed a law 7 years ago granting liability relief to donors of firefighting equipment that have resulted in approximately $13 million worth of donations to over a thousand volunteer departments since 1997. However, volunteer firefighter advocates do not have the resources to wage legislative campaigns in the remaining 40 States.
At a time when the Federal Government is more involved than ever in funding local first responders, Congress
has the responsibility to do whatever it can to help volunteer firefighters get better equipment at zero taxpayer cost. What the bill does is simply provide that a person or entity who donates fire control or rescue equipment to a volunteer department will not be liable for civil damages for damage or loss proximately caused by the equipment after donation.
Despite some allegations by trial lawyers and other opponents, what the bill does not do is to protect the manufacturer of such equipment. It does not protect any donor whose actual mission constitutes gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Furthermore, the bill does not endanger the safety of firefighters. As Chief Stittleburg testified at the committee's hearing, fire chiefs are responsible for inspecting donated and purchased equipment alike, and no chief would allow their firefighters to answer an alarm using equipment that was not properly inspected and deemed fit for use.
Given a choice between no equipment and donated equipment that they inspect before using, volunteer fire departments are clearly in favor of the latter. And given a choice between believing trial lawyers versus volunteer firefighters about the need for use and safety of donated equipment, I will choose the latter.
Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to provide some limited, commonsense relief to Good Samaritan donors of needed equipment to Members' own local fire departments and to the communities that rely upon volunteer firefighters. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 1787.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the author of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think the choice in this bill is either pass the bill and allow for the donation of the equipment, or do not pass the bill and no equipment is going to be donated at all because the donor does not want to be on the hook for a civil liability lawsuit merely as a result of the donation.
This bill does not immunize the manufacturer of the equipment so if the equipment was defectively manufactured, a lawsuit would still lie against
that manufacturer for either product liability or negligence.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) also says, well, the way to deal with this is to defeat the bill and have every volunteer fire company sign a waiver when they receive donated equipment. Well, that means that there is going to have to be a lawyer sitting in the firehouse drafting these waiver documents. Most of the volunteer fire companies that I am familiar with in my State, and I do not think they are any different from volunteer fire companies in other States, are staffed entirely by volunteers. These are people who donate their time to deal with emergency situations. Many of the volunteer fire companies in Wisconsin also run the first responder and emergency medical technician teams, and they ought to be spending their time and efforts doing training and raising money to purchase equipment that could not be donated, rather than paying for lawyers' fees to draft up waiver of liability agreements.
I think this is a very sound bill. It is a commonsense bill. It should be passed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, let me say the House has completed its work for today and the week and will convene on Monday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, let me say the House has completed its work for today and the week and will convene on Monday at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of this week. Any votes called on those measures will be rolled until 6:30 p.m.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, we expect to consider additional legislation under suspension of the rules. We also plan to consider two bills under a rule: H.R. 5025, the fiscal year 2005 Transportation, Treasury, and independent agencies appropriations bill; and H.R. 4571, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we will consider several other litigation reform bills: H.R. 3369, the Nonprofit Athletic
Organization Protection Act; H.R. 1787, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act; and H.R. 1084, the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act.
Finally, I would like to remind Members that the Jewish High Holiday of Rosh Hashanah occurs at the end of next week. We will not have votes on either Thursday or Friday. We expect to finish voting on Wednesday in the early afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I am happy to respond to any questions he might have.
If the gentleman will yield further, obviously there is a great desire to ensure that Members who will be marking the holiday have the opportunity to do that, so we will do everything that we can to see that Members are able to get the earliest flights possible.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me say it is obviously impossible to determine exactly what a joint House- Senate conference will do on any issue, but it is clear that the votes cast in both Houses will be taken into the mix as the conference would proceed with its work.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding further. Let me say obviously that vote did not go unnoticed, and the gentleman's request clearly will be taken into the mix. But, again, it is impossible to determine exactly what a conference would do. This House will have an opportunity to vote on that conference report, if that is in fact what we do end up with.
We right now are in the process of outlining the plan for next week, and, as I know my friend just observed, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) just filed the VA-HUD bill; and we will obviously be considering it just as quickly as we possibly can.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, let me say obviously we are going to do everything that we possibly can to work in a bipartisan way to ensure that we complete this very important appropriations work just as quickly as possible. It is too early to make a determination as to whether or not we would possibly have an omnibus bill or a continuing resolution, but we feel very strongly about the need to get the work done this calendar year, within the operations of the 108th Congress, and not proceed into next year with this work. So we are going to strive to meet that, and I think that the gentleman will want to work closely with us as we pursue that goal.
Let me say that we obviously have heard a great deal of speculation about that from a wide range of sources; and while it is a possibility, I think that everyone would like to have the work of the 108th Congress completed before we adjourn for the election. But at this juncture, we have to see what will take place in the next few weeks to make that final decision as to whether or not we would come back in a lame duck session.
I thank my friend for yielding.
If the gentleman would yield on that, I would simply say that it is the intention for the organization for the 109th Congress to take place beginning the week of November 15th. That would be a time when Members would be here in Washington as we begin our preparation for the next Congress.
I am not going to say anything further on that, other than to throw out that is the date for the organization for the Democratic Caucus and the Republican Conference.
Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, let me say we were all very impressed in a bipartisan way when the report of the 9/11 Commission came forward. We know that President Bush has already, through executive order, implemented many aspects of the 9/11 Commission report.
The gentleman also is aware of the fact that immediately upon release of that report, the Speaker of the House called on the chairmen and ranking minority members of numerous committees here in the House, over a half dozen committees, called on them to hold hearings. There were 25 hearings held in the House of Representatives during the August district work period, and I believe that some very important information came forward.
One of the goals that the Speaker has set forth is to ensure that we do proceed with legislation. He very much wants to, before we adjourn in October, see the passage of legislation. Exactly what shape that will take is, of course, up to the legislative process that we have here. We are very well aware of the fact that we have seen the introduction of the 9/11 Commission report, and we know that a lot of people are thinking about that.
I will say that I am particularly honored, as I know the gentleman is, that a Member of this body, the former chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and vice chairman of the House Committee on Rules, has been nominated to be the director of Central Intelligence. He has obviously spent a great deal of time on this, and many of our colleagues have expertise on this.
So we will in the coming weeks I hope be able to fashion legislation so that the goal that the Speaker has set forth of passage of legislation before we adjourn in October will come to fruition.
I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the inability of promising, talented young athletes from other countries to play for sports teams in the United States, such as the…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to address the inability of promising, talented young athletes from other countries to play for sports teams in the United States, such as the MAINEiacs, a junior league hockey team in Lewiston, ME. This year's shortage of H-2B nonimmigrant visas for temporary or seasonal nonagricultural foreign workers is a matter of great concern to me and to many in my home State of Maine. In early March, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that the congressionally mandated cap of 66,000 H-2B visas would soon be met. It immediately stopped accepting applications for these visas. This meant that thousands of employers in Maine and across the United States who rely on the H-2B program have been in a very difficult position this summer.
For example, Maine's tourism and hospitality industry, as well as its forest products industry, have been particularly hard-pressed to find enough American workers to keep their businesses running at normal levels during what is their busiest time of year. What many people do not know, however, is that the H-2B visa shortage has also meant that hundreds of promising athletes have been unable to come to the United States to play for minor league and amateur sports teams across the Nation.
Those affected by the H-2B problem are not confined to just one industry or one State. That is why I cosponsored two pieces of legislation that would immediately address this problem: S. 2252, the Save the Summer Act, introduced by Senator Kennedy, and S. 2258, the Summer Operations and Services (SOS) Relief and Reform Act, introduced by Senators Hatch and Chambliss. The former would increase the H-2B visa cap by 40,000 this fiscal year, while the
latter would exclude from the cap returning foreign workers who were counted against the cap within the past 2 years. It has become clear, however, that until this legislation comes before the full Senate for a vote, we must continue to actively seek alternative solutions to this problem.
One issue we must address is the problem facing the many minor league professional teams, as well as junior league hockey teams, that rely on H-2B visas. Without these visas, sports teams in Maine and across the Nation have been unable to bring some of their most talented prospects to the United States. Major League sports have also lost a traditional source of talent for their teams.
In my home State of Maine, for example, the Lewiston MAINEiacs, a Canadian junior hockey league team, has been unable to obtain the H-2b visas necessary for the majority of its players to remain in the United States to play in the team's first home games this September. Although these players range in age from 16 to 20, the majority of them are between 16 and 18 years old and are required during the hockey season to balance the demands of athletics and academics. These scholar- athletes are among Canada's most talented junior players, but due to the shortage of H-2B visas, they are in danger of missing out on a tremendous opportunity to improve their skills and, possibly, graduate to a career in professional hockey. In addition, for each home game that the team must cancel or reschedule, the economic impact on the city of Lewiston, and nearby Auburn, in terms of lost hotel and restaurant revenue will be considerable.
The Portland Sea Dogs, a Double-A level baseball team affiliated with the Boston Red Sox, also relies on H-2B visas to bring several of its most skilled players to the United States. Thousands of fans come out each year to see this team, and others like it across the country, play what is arguably one of America's favorite sports. This year, however, approximately 300 talented young, foreign baseball players have been prevented from coming to the U.S. to play for minor league teams, a proving ground for athletes hoping to make it to the Major Leagues.
The P-1 nonimmigrant visa is used by athletes who are deemed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as performing at an ``internationally recognized level of performance.'' Unfortunately, USCIS has interpreted this visa category to exclude these talented minor and amateur league athletes. This visa is typically reserved for only those athletes who have already been promoted to Major League sports. However, none of these promising athletes is likely to earn a Major League contract if the players are not first permitted to hone their skills, and to prove themselves, in the minor leagues. This problem can easily be solved by expanding the P-1 visa category to include minor league athletes, as well as those amateur-level athletes, like the Lewiston MAINEiacs, who have demonstrated a significant likelihood of graduating to the major leagues.
I have received a letter from officials from Major League Baseball, which strongly supports the expansion of the P-1 visa category to include professional minor league baseball players. I ask unanimous consent to print this letter in the Record. As the League points out, by making P-1 visas available to this group of athletes, teams would be able to make player development decisions based on the talent of its players, without being constrained by visa quotas. The P-1 category, the League argues, is appropriate for minor league players because these are the players that the Major League Clubs have selected as some of the best baseball prospects in the world.
There is no question that Americans are passionate about sports. We have high expectations for our teams, and demand only the best from our athletes. By expanding the P-1 visa category, we will make it possible for athletes to be selected based on talent and skill, rather than nationality. I ask that we act quickly to amend the law to make this possible.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the legislation which I introduced, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act, and I find it stunning that anyone…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the legislation which I introduced, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act, and I find it stunning that anyone would oppose this legislation. It just never occurred to me that could happen.
The legislation removes a barrier which currently prevents some organizations from donating surplus firefighting equipment to fire departments in need. Under current law, the threat of civil liability has caused some organizations to destroy fire equipment rather than donating it to volunteer rural and other financially strapped departments.
We know that every day across the United States, firefighters respond to calls for help. We are grateful that these brave men and women work to save our lives and protect our homes and businesses. We may presume that firefighters work in departments with the latest and best firefighting and protective equipment when in reality there are an estimated 30,000 firefighters who risk their lives daily due to a lack of basic personal protective equipment.
In both rural and urban fire departments, limited budgets make it difficult to purchase more than fuel and minimum maintenance. There is rarely enough money to buy new equipment. At the same time, certain industries are constantly improving and updating their fire protection equipment to take advantage of new state-of-the-art innovation. Sometimes the surplus equipment has never been used to put out a single fire. Sadly, the threat of civil liability causes many organizations to destroy, rather than donate, millions of dollars of quality fire equipment.
Not only do volunteer fire departments provide an indispensable service, some estimates indicate that the nearly 800,000 volunteer firefighters nationwide save State and local governments $36.8 billion a year. Of the 26,000 fire departments in the United States, more than 19,000 are all volunteers and another 3,800 are mostly volunteer. While volunteering to fight fires, these same selfless individuals are asked to raise funds to pay for new equipment. Bake sales, potluck dinners, and raffles consume valuable time that could be better spent training to respond to emergencies. All this, while surplus equipment is being destroyed.
In States that have removed liability barriers, such as Texas, fire companies have received millions of dollars in quality firefighting equipment. In the 7 years of the Texas program, more than $12 million worth of firefighter equipment has been donated and given to needy departments. This includes nearly 70 emergency vehicles and more than 1,500 pieces of communications equipment. In total more than 33,000 items have been donated.
The generosity and goodwill of private entities donating surplus fire equipment to volunteer fire companies are well received by the firefighters and the communities. The donated fire equipment will undergo a safety inspection by the fire company to make sure firefighters and the public are safe.
We can help solve this problem. Congress can respond to the needs of fire companies by removing civil liability barriers. This bill accomplishes this by raising the current liability standard.
Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation to better equip our Nation's firefighters.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.
I really find it amazing that anyone would come to the floor and vote against this legislation. There are nine States which have this in place at this time, and they are large States. I mentioned Texas, but there are also other large States such as Florida and California.
This is clearly something which has worked in these States. They have received contributions of communications and firefighting equipment. In most instances, it is far better equipment than what they have already. In every single case, the fire companies inspect the equipment to make sure it is safe, contrary to what the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has stated regarding the safety aspects. In the research I have done, it has proven to be extremely safe.
But a lot of companies, frankly, in other States, corporations, absolutely refuse to make donations because they are worried about liability. We are simply trying to clear the way to do that. What is in the best public interest, to worry that somebody does not inspect the equipment properly, that is just not very likely to happen, or saving people's lives in firefighting, which is really what this legislation is all about.
There is no doubt the scale on this one is overwhelming in terms of doing something such as this. This protects the donor only, not the manufacturer. No one is donating dangerous equipment in this particular circumstance. There is no reason whatsoever not to support this legislation, not to support the volunteer firefighters, not to support the public who will benefit from this, not to support the use of the equipment rather than destroying the equipment because of concern about litigation and concerns such as those.
Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I hope when the time comes there is only one vote against this, and that is the gentleman from Virginia, and all other Members are aware of the benefits and what this legislation does.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of and as a proud cosponsor of this amendment. I want to thank my colleagues for all their support, especially the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.…
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of and as a proud cosponsor of this amendment. I want to thank my colleagues for all their support, especially the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for offering this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have been working on the matricula consular I.D. card issue for quite some time with a number of different groups and individuals. I want to express my particular appreciation for all the assistance that the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and their staff have provided during that time.
On February 13, 2003, I introduced H.R. 773, entitled the 21st Century Access to Banking Act. My legislation would authorize U.S. financial institutions to accept the matricula consular I.D. card as valid forms of identification for the purpose of opening an account, thus bringing unbanked individuals into the U.S. banking system and resulting in a more efficient regulation of currency in the United States.
My legislation would result in an increased infusing of cash into our banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions and, ultimately, our economy on the whole.
This legislation would allow hardworking families to enter the mainstream U.S. financial system. It would enable them to open checking and savings accounts, establish a credit history and possibly even eventually purchase a car or home. It would help improve our sagging economy by enabling these struggling families to avoid being preyed upon by sometimes unscrupulous check cashers and payday lenders.
The chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), was kind enough to hold the first hearing on the importance of the matricula consular card to the U.S. economy and to the economies of our trading partners, And I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Bachus for holding this hearing at my request and for supporting the card.
I was also pleased when Treasury promulgated its rule on section 326 of the USA PATRIOT Act, allowing financial institutions to accept the matricula card as a form of identification. However, I was deeply disappointed when the House Committee on Appropriations adopted an amendment to this legislation that would ban certain Hispanics from using their matricula consular I.D. card to open an account at a financial institution in the United States.
When it is adopted, this amendment we offer today will right that wrong. Because the United States is a party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, we do not have the authority to prevent Mexican consulates from issuing the matricula consular I.D. card to Mexican nationals residing in this country. Similarly, foreign countries do not have the right to prevent United States consulates from issuing similar cards to its citizens overseas.
I want to stress this latter point. Our United States does issue cards similar to the matricula card to its own citizens in foreign countries. It seems to me that the question then becomes whether or not we should allow financial institutions in the United States to accept the card as a valid form of I.D. to open an account. The answer to that question is a very simple yes.
Should my colleagues vote to overturn the misguided anti-matricula card language currently in this bill? The answer is yes. The card is a safe, reliable form of identification. The card has over a dozen security features, including a hologram and infrared band. As the Washington Times reported in 2002, the matricula card is ``A high-tech I.D. that is more fraud proof than many State driver's licenses.''
Approximately 163 counties, 1,180 police departments, 377 cities, 33 States and 178 financial institutions accept the matricula card as a valid form of identification.
The police departments support the use of the card because it helps undermine the market for illegal identification and fraudulent documents. It helps them to quickly identify witnesses, victims, and suspects.
Immigrants with consular identification are more likely to report crimes and cooperate in police investigations. These police departments do not believe that the acceptance of the card by financial institutions will increase immigration.
Despite what its detractors and opponents might claim, the card does not legalize the status of any immigrant.
It cannot be used to obtain any immigration or citizenship benefits such as work authorization or to obtain public benefits. It cannot be used to cross the U.S./Mexico border, and it is only available to foreign nationals already in the United States. Moreover, Mexican consulates clearly explain the nature of the document to assure their Nationals know that the card does not regularize their immigration status.
If we allow financial institutions to continue to use the card, with consultations between the U.S. and Mexican governments, the result will not only be an improvement in the U.S. economy. It will also lead to increased transparency and strength in our line of defense against terrorists gaining access to our financial institutions.
For these reasons and more, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support and vote ``yes'' on the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe-Pastor-Hinojosa amendment.
Show 11 more
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004.'' On September 11, 2001, the Nation witnessed the tragic loss of hundreds of heroic…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004.'' On September 11, 2001, the Nation witnessed the tragic loss of hundreds of heroic firefighters. Amazingly, every year quality firefighting equipment worth millions of dollars is wasted. In order to avoid civil liability lawsuits, heavy industry and wealthier fire departments destroy surplus equipment, including hoses, fire trucks, protective gear and breathing apparatus, instead of donating it to volunteer fire departments.
The basic purpose of this legislation is to induce donations of surplus firefighting equipment by reducing the threat of civil liability for organizations, most commonly heavy industry, and individuals who wish to make these donations. The bill eliminates civil liability barriers to donations of surplus firefighting equipment by raising the liability standard for donors from ``negligence'' to ``gross negligence.''
The ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2004'' is modeled after a bill passed by the Texas State legislature in 1997 and signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush which has resulted in more than $6 million in additional equipment donations from companies and other fire departments for volunteer departments which may not be as well equipped. Now companies in Texas can donate surplus equipment to the Texas Forest Service, which then certifies the equipment and passes it on to volunteer fire departments that are in need. The donated equipment must meet all original specifications before it can be sent to volunteer departments. Arizona, Missouri, Indiana, and South Carolina have passed similar legislation at the state level.
The legislation saves taxpayer dollars by encouraging donations, thereby reducing the taxpayers' burden of purchasing expensive equipment for volunteer fire departments. in the 107th Congress, Representative Castle introduced the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act which had 104 bipartisan cosponsors in the House of Representatives. It is also supported by the National Volunteer Fire Council, the Firemen's Association of the State of New York, and a former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), James Lee Witt. The bill has been reintroduced as H.R. 1787 in the 108th Congress.
This bill does not cost taxpayer dollars nor does it create additional bureaucracies to inspect equipment. The bill eliminates unnecessary inspection bureaucracies. This is for three reasons. First, bureaucracies are not necessary for inspections because the fire chiefs make the inspections themselves. Second, some of the State bureaucracies control who gets the equipment. These donations are private property transactions, not a good that is donated to the State, allowing the State to pick who will get the equipment. Third, there is no desire to create the temptation for waste, fraud, and abuse in a State bureaucracy in charge of picking winners and losers.
The bill reflects the purpose of the Texas State law. Federally, precedent for similar measures includes the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Act (Public Law 104-210), named for the late Representative Bill Emerson, which encourages restaurants, hotels and businesses to donate millions of dollars worth of food. The Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-101) also immunizes individuals who do volunteer work for non-profit organizations or governmental entities from liability for ordinary negligence in the course of their volunteer work. I have also previously introduced three Good Samaritan measures in the 106th Congress, S. 843, S. 844 and S. 845. These provisions were also included in a broader charitable package in S. 997, the Charity Empowerment Act, to provide additional incentives for corporate in-kind charitable contributions for motor vehicle, aircraft, and facility use. The same provision passed the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress as part of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act, in July of 2001, but was not signed into law.
Volunteers comprise approximately 73 percent of firefighters in the United States. Of the total estimated 1,078,300 firefighters across the country, 784,700 are volunteer. Of the more than 30,000 fire departments in the country, approximately 22,600 are all volunteer; 4,800 are mostly volunteer; 1,600 are mostly career; and 2,000 are all career. In 2000, 58 of the 103 firefighters who died in the line of duty were volunteers.
This legislation provides a commonsense incentive for additional contributions to volunteer fire departments around the country and would make it more attractive for corporations to give equipment to fire departments in other states. All of America has witnessed the heroic acts of selflessness and sacrifice of firefighters in New York City and in the Washington, D.C. area. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this incentive for the provision of additional safety equipment for volunteer firefighters who put their lives on the line every day throughout this great nation.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to page 66 of this bill. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, my unanimous…
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to return to page 66 of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, my unanimous consent request has been turned down. However, that unanimous consent request was for an amendment to be considered as the Kelly - Oxley - Frank - Gutierrez - Royce - Maloney - Lowey amendment.
Today I have a solidly bipartisan amendment to offer to this bill on page 66 to increase funding for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network within the Treasury Department also known as FinCEN. FinCEN is probably not one of the more well known agencies within our government, but it is an increasingly important one as we continue to sharpen our government's abilities to fight terror finance.
I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) because I know that he recognizes the important role of FinCEN which he did by meeting the level of the administration at the start of this year. I offer this amendment, however, because I believe that a relatively modest increase for FinCEN above the current House level would significantly improve our government's efforts to combat terrorist financing and other financial crimes.
Mr. Chairman, I have held 3 years of hearings on following terrorist crimes and terrorist financing. As many Members know, FinCEN is the Treasury bureau responsible for administering our anti-money laundering system. They are also the bureau responsible for collecting, analyzing and when necessary sharing information with law enforcement and intelligence agencies regarding illicit financial activity.
The importance of these responsibilities to our national security is very clear. As Secretary Snow pointed out earlier this year, our ability to combat terrorist financing is linked with our ability to combat money laundering. And as many of my fellow members of the Committee on Financial Services will remember, 9/11 Commissioner Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton recently testified before our committee about the critical importance of enforcing our anti-money laundering law. I am quoting his statement.
``Vigilance in this area assists in preventing notorious and open fund-raising. It forces terrorists and their sympathizers to raise and move money clandestinely, therefore raising the costs and risks involved.''
Unfortunately, it has become clear that we are not doing as well in this fundamental aspect of our fight against terror finance. In spite of this important role in our fight against terrorism, FinCEN still lacks important resources it sorely needs to be an effective center point in combating terror financing and money laundering.
It must be understood by Members that FinCEN while responsible for our anti-money laundering law has few tools of its own. It is reliant on eight different regulatory bodies, most of which do not fall within the Treasury Department's jurisdiction, and as we have found through the Inspector General reports and highly publicized regulatory failures such as Riggs Bank, this fragmented system has had a serious interaction problem which has prevented the synchronized effective regime that circumstances clearly want.
This amendment would bring forth more effective and streamlined focus to our efforts to trace money laundering and combat terrorist financing. Progress can only be made through a strong, substantive commitment to equipping FinCEN with new assets, which is what this amendment would do.
I would like to point out that the President's request of FinCEN was made prior to several high profile regulatory failures. This legislation before us was considered in committee prior to the 9/11 Commission's report and the Commission's subsequent testimony to the Committee on Financial Services on terrorist financing. Since then, there has been significant evidence that our government has made many improvements to combat money laundering. However, we must enhance the tools that we have to combat terrorist financing and FinCEN is one of those.
The authorities have all indicated it requires new and different tools. That is why there is such strong bipartisan support for my amendment. Increasing funding for FinCEN by a small amount will have a significant impact on our government's ability to fight the war against terrorism in a more negative way than it would if my amendment were accepted. In fact, it is estimated that the agency needs $25.5 million to expand and improve its capabilities. This additional funding will help FinCEN secure the appropriate application of state of the art technology that would dramatically improve its ability to track terrorist financing. It will also enable the agency to hire much needed full-time employees to support more effective and extensive examination.
That being said, having heard my plea, I would again ask unanimous consent to return to page 66.
Mr. Chairman, I think if the Members back in their offices were listening to this debate, they would be sufficiently confused. I think the reason they would be confused is because something said by…
Mr. Chairman, I think if the Members back in their offices were listening to this debate, they would be sufficiently confused. I think the reason they would be confused is because something said by both the opponents and the proponents of this amendment is true. I think there is a great deal of frustration over the use of these cards, and I think that is the reason that the gentleman from Texas and others are supporting this amendment.
Unfortunately, the amendment does not accomplish what they want to accomplish, and that is to make our Nation more secure. I do not question the sincerity of the gentleman and the frustration of he and the supporters of this amendment, but I simply ask us all to take a deep breath and to actually look at what this amendment does.
Now, the underlying section is section 326, and it has been called the cornerstone of our money laundering efforts. We have letters from the Department of Justice and from the Treasury Department saying it is absolutely essential for an effective anti-money laundering program. Section 326, it is there.
Now, because of frustration with these cards, the gentleman from Texas has offered an amendment which stops the Treasury Department and FinCEN from issuing regulations or carrying out regulations or enforcing the provisions of 326.
Now, just 2 weeks ago, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission came to this Congress and testified before our committee and commended our committee for the passage of 326. Unfortunately, what we are all caught in here tonight is that section 326 is not self-executing. It requires regulations to be issued.
So the gentleman from Texas has offered, and successfully in the subcommittee, an amendment which really prevents Treasury from administering or enforcing regulations pursuant to section 326. Now that is what the gentleman's amendment does. I hope we can all agree to that. It basically shuts down 326. For that reason, I have to oppose it.
Several of the things the gentleman said tonight, I think, are true. I think there are problems with this card. I think some of the things that the proponents have said are also true about the policy of excluding a certain nationality. That is also very troublesome.
In conclusion, I cite a letter from the Department of Justice which also says, ``including the FBI''; this letter is signed by the deputy attorney general. And I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) was probably caught off guard because when he first rose in this body, he said Treasury was on one side, and law enforcement and Justice was on the other side. That is really not true.
I think, had the gentleman gotten an effective remedy, that is true, but the Department of Justice, including the FBI, asked that we defeat this and says, if we do not, there will be many dangers associated.
If the gentleman from Ohio will continue to yield, that is right, they are in favor of the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment, and I include for the Record this letter to that effect.
Department of Justice, Office of
the Deputy Attorney General,
Washington, DC, September 14, 2004.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Justice fully supports
the Administration's current policy under the USA PATRIOT Act
that requires banks and other financial institutions to
establish reasonable procedures for the identification and
verification of new account holders, which is set forth in
regulations of the Department of the Treasury. Therefore the
Department supports the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment to H.R.
5025 that preserves these regulations.
One concern addressed by the regulations is the danger
associated with driving sectors of the population into
unregulated, underground financial service providers, such as
unregulated hawalas, where persons may be more exposed to
elements involved in money laundering and terrorist
financing. In order to counter this concern, the Justice
Department supports the Administration's determination to
permit--but not encourage--the acceptance of Matricula
Consular cards by financial institutions, under circumstances
where financial institutions reasonably believe they can
properly identify the new customer. Of course, the
Administration will continue to evaluate the security and
reliability of identification documents, including Matricula
Consular cards, that potentially are subject to misuse.
The Department of Justice, including the FBI, continue to
work closely with the Treasury Department on this and other
issues related to halting all financing of terrorists. If we
can be of further assistance regarding this or any other
matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
James B. Comey,
Deputy Attorney General.
Mr. President, today Senator Durbin and I are introducing legislation strengthening current law concerning certification marks, collective marks, and service marks. While some of our colleagues may…
Mr. President, today Senator Durbin and I are introducing legislation strengthening current law concerning certification marks, collective marks, and service marks.
While some of our colleagues may not recognize these terms, I doubt there is any Senator who has not come into contact with one of these marks. For example, if you bought the best baking potatoes in the world, you are familiar with the ``Grown in Idaho '' or ``Idaho Potatoes '' certification mark. Perhaps you know the certification mark ``UL,'' which stands for Underwriters Laboratory and signifies that an electrical product meets certain safety standards. If you watch network television and have seen the CBS ``eye,'' you have seen a service mark. The union labels on many products are collective marks.
To explain the differences among these marks: service marks are words, names, symbols, or characters that distinguish the mark holder's services, while trademarks distinguish the mark holder's goods. Collective marks are trademarks that are used by organization or association to identify goods or services produced by members of a group. The certification mark is a trade or service mark used to certify characteristics about a product or service; it may indicate that the product or service originates in a specific geographic region, or meets certain standards of quality or mode of manufacture, or the work that went into it was performed by members of an organization.
While they are somewhat different, these marks all serve the same purpose--that is, they enable the public to distinguish among products and services and prevent consumers from being deceived by similar brands. Congress
determined that marks would serve the public interest by enhancing product quality and safety, and provided legal protection to these marks under the Lanham Act. The federal law protects all four kinds of marks equally; specifically, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 and 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1504 provide that service marks, collective marks, and certification marks ``shall be entitled to the protection provided'' to trademarks, except where Congress provides otherwise by statute.
The principle of equal treatment also applies to ``no challenge'' provisions in license agreements for the use of a trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark. It is common for such agreements to include provisions under which licensees acknowledge the validity of and agree not to challenge the marks. By protecting the validity of the marks, these provisions reduce potential litigation costs for mark owners and protect the investment made by licensees. A long line of cases has upheld ``no challenge'' provisions in trademark licenses and dismissed validity challenges.
Unfortunately, the clarity of the Lanham Act on these points has been confused by a recent decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Idaho Potato Commission v. M&M Produce Farm and Sales. That decision interpreted the Lanham Act as requiring that certification marks should be treated differently from trademarks with respect to ``no challenge'' provisions. The court mistakenly likened the public policy considerations surrounding certification marks to those surrounding patents.
This decision has raised great consternation among the holders of certification marks and their licenses throughout the United States-- more than two dozen of whom joined in an amicus brief challenging the court's reasoning. Congress should be equally concerned, because this decision has the potential to undermine the Lanham Act and the certification mark system itself.
The legislation we are introducing today would not change current law, but would only underscore the policy that Congress clearly intended in the first place. We propose to add the words ``rights an privileges'' to the two sections of the law that I quoted above, which would clarify that registered service marks, collective marks, and certification marks are ``entitled to the protections, rights, and privileges'' provided to trademarks. While I have learned never to call legislation ``simple,'' I would stress that at least our intention is simple: to reinstate the original intent of Congress and indicate our support of the view that these marks are to be given equal legal treatment.
I invite all my colleagues to review this legislation and consider the important public policy interests it would protect. It is not only the mark holders and licensees in your State, but all consumers across the nation who have a stake in this bill, and I hope the Senate will act swiftly to approve it.
I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from New York and others be allowed to submit statements on this subject of this amendment that has been objected to. Mr. Chairman,…
Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from New York and others be allowed to submit statements on this subject of this amendment that has been objected to.
Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Are we at the point of the bill dealing with section 216?
Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I just want to point out there is a difference between ending in 1 hour and 1 hour of debate; namely, whether or not the clock stops.
I would agree if we are talking about 1 full hour of debate, but if we are talking about 1 hour on the clock I would object.
Mr. Chairman, equally divided, I assume?
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that the last I looked, no bank was sitting in the White House. We are talking about a policy issued under the authority of the President of the United States and supported by the Justice Department. So this very transitory populism on the part of some of my Republican colleagues, denouncing the bank, may sound right; but this is not any bank's policy we are talking about.
These are regulations issued by George Bush's Department of Treasury, supported by George Bush; and the George Bush administration supports this particular amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds to
say that I agree we have a forgery problem, but it is greater than Members may think. It is not of the matricula consular. Apparently someone has forged a letter from the United States Department of Justice. Because I have a letter today, I know my chairman has it, signed by a man who purports to be James B. Comey, the Deputy Attorney General, and it is on the letterhead of the U.S. Department of Justice and it supports this amendment. And it says, ``The Department of Justice fully supports the administration's current policy under the USA PATRIOT Act that requires banks and financial institutions to establish reasonable procedures. Therefore, the Department supports the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment that preserves these regulations.''
So it is not just the matricula consular that is being forged. Apparently there is somebody forging letters from the Department of Justice. So maybe we should suspend the proceedings and send out the Sergeant of Arms. Contempt of Congress.
Now, I think, frankly, that forgery has been somewhat exaggerated in this debate, but the biggest exaggeration is this: So, yes, a couple of years ago people said various things, but there has been an evolution and we now have the policy of President Bush, supported by the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury, and that is what is being assailed here today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa).
(Mr. HINOJOSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to make one point.
The notion that people will stop coming here illegally if they do not have a matricula consular is totally at variance with logic and experience. People who want to stop illegal immigration have a very good point, but the notion that people will come to the border and say, Oh, my God, I forgot my matricula consular, I am staying home, has no basis in reality.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, the FBI and Justice want us to pass this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to make what I think is a central point. Whether or not the card exists, whether or not it is honored by banks will have zero effect on immigration. No one gets to the border deciding to come here without legal authorization and says, Whoops, I can't cross that river without my matricula consular.
Illegal immigration is a problem, but it is a wholly irrelevant one to this.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, H.R. 1787, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2003, but will express the reservations that I had during the Judiciary…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, H.R. 1787, the Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2003, but will express the reservations that I had during the Judiciary Committee oversight and markup hearings. The purpose of this legislation--purportedly, is to ensure that an individual or entity that donates fire control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire company is not held liable for State or Federal civil damages for personal injuries, property damage or loss, or death caused by the equipment after the donation.
On its face, this legislation has beneficial purpose, that is, to encourage large companies that own new or virtually new equipment to donate it to rural area fire companies or those that lack resources. This purpose is definitely consistent with America's need to support its first responders as terror threats continue to loom and cause continual rise in threat level.
However, records--or the lack of record shows that there is currently no need for this legislation. There have been no reported cases of volunteer firefighting companies bringing suit to recover from damages caused by defective equipment. Moreover, we have no record of numbers of companies that have refused to donate their used or new fire equipment to volunteer fire companies.
This legislation preempts State law in terms of shielding donors of equipment from liability. We in Congress have a duty to uphold the Constitution, and given the lack of immediate need, it seems ``frivolous'' to contravene the 10th amendment and erode the rights of the individual States to handle matters relating to their local firevcompanies.
In Texas, this issue is already legislatively addressed in 1997, as it is in the States of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and South Carolina. Therefore, if we refrain from taking this unnecessary congressional action, other States will follow suit and pass similar measures to achieve positive results.
Therefore, I would have offered two amendments. I would have offered an amendment that would limit this legislation to situations where the donee has not executed a waiver of liability.
The text of the first amendment read ``if the volunteer fire company waives all liability claims against the donor with respect to that equipment.''
This amendment would have appropriately narrowed the scope of this legislation by specifying that a donor of fire equipment will be exempt from liability only if the donee fire company has executed a waiver of liability. Moreover, by adding this provision, ``frivolous lawsuits'' would be prevented with minimal congressional action and with minimal effects on the 10th amendment to the Constitution.
Additionally, this amendment would have protected both the donor and the donee by requiring a legal showing that there was acceptance as to the quality of the equipment donated in any given circumstance.
I also planned to offer an amendment that called for the State-by- State review of the amount of equipment donated to volunteer firefighter companies for 5 years after enactment of H.R. 1787. This provision would have shown the public the results of this legislation in order to reveal its effectiveness or the lack thereof. The second part of this amendment would have required the Attorney General to submit a report to Congress of the results of the State-by-State review.
The Jackson-Lee ``State review'' amendment would have allowed Congress to clearly analyze how our first responders benefit from this legislation against the effects it will have on the execution of State law. If the legislation fails to serve its purported purpose, the study would have clearly revealed it to Congress so that corrective measures may be taken.
The two amendments above would have helped to narrow the scope of this vague legislation as well as to even the scale for the donee firefighting corporation as well as the donor. It is critical that we protect and preserve the rights of the individual States as well, consistent with the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Nevertheless, I ask that my colleagues support this legislation recognizing the points that I have made above.
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition, and I thought what I might do is simply quote some of the testimony before this Congress, starting with Steve McCraw of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the…
Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition, and I thought what I might do is simply quote some of the testimony before this Congress, starting with Steve McCraw of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of Intelligence, and he says of these cards: ``It is the terrorist threat presented by matricula consular that is most worrisome. The ability of foreign nationals to use the matricula consular to create a well-documented but fictitious identity in the United States provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely within the United States without triggering name-based watch lists that are disseminated to local police officers.'' Now, that is problem number one.
Problem two, as the FBI says, ``It also allows them to board planes without revealing their true identity.'' Mr. McCraw goes on to say that ``Federal officials have discovered individuals from many different countries in possession of matricula consular cards, and that is because the documents are easy to forge.'' He testified that ``An individual of Middle Eastern descent has also been arrested and was in possession of a matricula consular card.''
What we are doing here, if we pass this amendment, is legalizing a method that would make it easy for terrorists to gain access to our financial system, thereby enabling the next group of terrorists to freely move money around the United States and finance their operations. This flies in the face of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations to strengthen I.D.'s.
I do not know how many of my colleagues sat through the hearings and heard the chairman and cochairman say that instead of permitting the use of new forms of I.D.'s from other countries that are not secure and not verifiable, we should be strengthening our own I.D. and visa systems. We heard the testimony like that from Lee Hamilton, former chairman of our Committee on International Relations, that we should adopt biometric identification systems for everyone who comes into the country. And, frankly, this flies in exactly the opposite direction.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I would just like to further quote from the FBI document. ``A September 2002 bust of a document production operation in Washington State illustrated the size of this trade. A huge cache of fake Mexican birth certificates was discovered. It is our belief that the primary reason a market for these birth certificates exists is the demand for fraudulently obtained matricula consular cards. In some locations, when an individual seeking a card is unable to produce any document whatsoever, he will still be issued a card by the Mexican Consular official if the official feels that he filled out the questionnaire and satisfies the official that he is who he purports to be.''
That is another problem. In addition to being vulnerable to fraud, the matricula consular is also vulnerable to forgery. As this FBI agent says, ``There have been several generations of the card and even the newest version can be easily replicated despite its security features. It is our estimate that more than 90 percent of these cards now in circulation are the earlier versions of the cards, which are little more than simple laminated cards without any security features.''
As a result of these problems, as the FBI says, ``There are two major criminal threats posed by the cards and one potential terrorist threat. The first criminal threat stems from the fact that the cards can be a perfect breeder document for establishing a false identity. Such false identities are particularly useful to facilitate the crime of money laundering, as the criminal is able to establish one or more bank accounts under completely fictitious names. Accounts based upon such fraudulent premises greatly hamper money laundering investigations once the criminal activity is discovered.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member. No matter how we…
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member.
No matter how we spin it, the fact of the matter is this amendment is not about banking, it is about making it easier for illegal immigrants to remain in the United States.
U.S. immigration authorities have said the matricula consular is virtually worthless as an identity document. In fact, if Members do not believe them, all one has to do is look at the reputation of these cards in Mexico. Mexican banks themselves do not recognize the matricula consular card as a valid identity document. In fact, no bank in Mexico accepts this card to open a bank account.
Despite the fact that its own banks do not accept this card, for 3 years, the Mexican government has aggressively lobbied U.S. banks to accept the document. Mexico's actions to advance acceptance by U.S. banks is a blatant attempt to make illegal immigrants in Mexico as inconspicuous as possible, while facilitating uninterrupted transmission remittances back to Mexico.
According to the FBI, matricula consular cards are almost exclusively used by illegal immigrants. Anyone here legally has valid identity documents they can present to open a bank account, such as a driver's license, Social Security number or passport.
As a representative from part of the country that bears much of the burden of illegal immigration, it is $5 billion a year in California, I feel compelled to tell Members who do not represent areas impacted by illegal immigration about the impact this amendment will have on those who are forced to live with the problem on a daily basis.
Illegal immigration places a strain on our society, and I want every Member in this body to understand, California bears the brunt of the burden of the failed immigration policies of the Federal Government. California has the highest number of illegal immigrants residing within its borders. The estimated number of illegal residents in California is 2.2 million people, or 32 percent of the total number of illegal immigrants in the United States.
The cost of illegal immigration in terms of governmental expenditures for education, criminal justice and emergency medical care are significant. For emergency health care, California spends the most of any State treating illegal immigrants in our hospitals. The cost of health care costs for illegal immigrants for California are nearly $650 million per year. For education in California, $2.2 billion each year is spent on educating the children of illegal immigrants.
While incarceration of illegal immigrants while securing our Nation's borders falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government, it is State and local government who must bear the cost when illegal immigrants are incarcerated, and California incurs greater cost than any other State. In fact, 15 percent of California's inmates are illegal immigrants, costing the State over $500 million a year.
It is always easy to come to Washington and speak about compassion for those less fortunate, but when it comes to illegal immigration, the price California pays for Congress's so-called compassion is steep, and it is unacceptable. The fact that States must bear the cost of the government's failed immigration policies make illegal immigration an unfunded mandate.
If Congress wants to continue to pass policies to encourage illegal immigration, then we must be willing to reimburse the States for the high costs they incur as they are forced to live with the impact of Congress's unfunded mandate. This amendment should be accompanied by a $5 billion check each year to California for problems of illegal immigration. I oppose this amendment.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Higher Education Affordability, Access and Opportunity Act of 2004 with my colleagues Senators Baucus, Alexander, Dole and Lieberman. We are introducing…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Higher Education Affordability, Access and Opportunity Act of 2004 with my colleagues Senators Baucus, Alexander, Dole and Lieberman.
We are introducing this bipartisan legislation because we are aware that the American workforce is in the midst
of its most significant changes since the 1940s. In the past year, this economy has created nearly 1.7 million new jobs, yet the complaint from employers continues to be that they cannot find skilled workers to fill the jobs that are being created. Our educational systems must recognize this changing reality and be ready to provide the support for a new group of students that represents a workforce revolution.
This skills gap promises to get worse unless Congress acts now to provide the assistance necessary to train a generation of workers that will fill the jobs of tomorrow. The Department of Labor has estimated that as many as 80 percent of the jobs being created over the next 10 years will require some postsecondary education. This will include many adult learners who will return to college for additional training. This also includes new students attending college for the first time later in life to obtain new skills or to improve their current skills.
Congress needs to ensure that we have a comprehensive system of workforce education and training established, one that includes the Workforce Investment Act, the Higher Education Act, and career and technical education, as well as elementary and secondary education. The needs of the new workforce will require a lifelong commitment to learning, where workers are able to return to school and re-enter the workforce seamlessly.
Many workers in my home State are leaving to find better jobs elsewhere. To create the kind of good jobs with good futures that will keep people in Wyoming, we need workers with the skills that the new, global economy demands. Whether a company decides to open a plant in Casper or China, they depend on a qualified local workforce.
This legislation would help meet the needs of businesses today and into the future. It would help postsecondary institutions develop and implement curriculum related to high skilled or high-wage occupations. It would also provide support for institutions to increase their capacity to serve adult learners and students pursuing high-growth occupations.
This legislation would provide additional assistance for first-time college students who are attending school to receive advanced skill training or are looking to improve their skill set to enter high-wage or high-skilled occupations.
This legislation also provides support for small business owners, operators, and their employees to receive skill training at institutions of higher education so our small businesses can continue to lead the economic growth of our Nation.
This legislation also provides support for rural communities to recruit and retrain elementary and secondary education, so these areas can prepare their students for college and entry into the workforce with the skills they need to succeed, not only in postsecondary education, but in life.
This legislation also helps students better understand the cost of attending college by making the information collected by the Department of Education more accessible. Helping prospective students understand how to obtain aid and help pay for college is just as important as making sure students have access to the financial aid to support them through college.
I look forward to working with Chairman Gregg to advance these ideas to ensure that the American workforce is prepared with the skills necessary to successfully compete in the global economy.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' on page 16, line 4. This phrase violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and,…
Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against the phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law,'' on page 16, line 4.
This phrase violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill, in violation of House rules.
Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against page 16, line 13, through line 20. This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of the House rules.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes, but just very briefly in response, I did start out the consideration of this bill with the point that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has certain prerogatives, and that is what we wanted to exercise tonight.
This House of Representatives works under a set of rules, and that rule is our charter of jurisdiction; and if we go outside of the rules or outside of the committee's jurisdiction and get into other areas, we can create chaos.
Each of the points of order that have been, in fact, raised, that I have raised, tonight deal with the charter that is set forth of responsibilities for conduct of legislative business of this House, and each of those have been ruled on by the Chair in a favorable manner.
I chose to propose a narrow scope in some of the limitations and some of the points of order that have I raised because we want programs to continue; and quite frankly, they are going to continue. I did not choose to expand them to wipe out these programs. So I think some of the accusations that have just been made are not accurate.
We are concerned about essential air service. We are concerned about airlines that may be going out of business, although I do not support the government underwriting losing-business propositions. I do support health care for everyone and am concerned about those who may lose their benefits if businesses go out of business, but that is not the intent of this.
We have a set of rules by which we operate, by which the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure can operate. I cannot get up here and appropriate money. I would love to have that power. These are some of the most powerful people in the United States of America. The chairman of the full committee I respect from Florida; the gentleman who controls a lot of the transportation agenda and appropriations, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). All are honorable individuals and doing their job.
I am trying to do my job on behalf of the 70-plus members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and do it in a responsible fashion.
Mr. Chairman, I stand and graciously and humbly raise a point of order against section 123 on page 22, line 20, through page 23, line 2.
This provision clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It does, in fact, change existing law; and, therefore, it constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill, which is in clear violation of House rules.
Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 125 on page 23, line 14, through line 22.
This provision violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law and, therefore, constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill, in clear violation of House rules.
Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 127.
Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 127 on page 24, line 5 through line 12. This provision clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI. It changes existing law by addressing funds in other acts and therefore constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill in violation of House rules.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment. This language that is included in the Transportation-Treasury bill…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment. This language that is included in the Transportation-Treasury bill regarding the matricula consular card is a classic case of confusion about an issue.
Let me take my time for a moment here to tell my colleagues what this is not about. This is not about giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens. This is not about giving social services to any illegal aliens. This is not about allowing any other illegal aliens to enter this country. It is not about an I.D. card that may be used to obtain any government service. In fact, what the language does, in effect, is limit the ability of the Federal Government, the language that is in the bill now, that was adopted in committee, limits the ability of the Federal Government to track the money of people who are in this country. We do not even know who they are. At least we ought to know something about where their money is going.
Now, if this legislation were adopted with this language in it, the Treasury Department would be prohibited from issuing any regulations about identification to the banks, because the language specifically does not speak about any particular document and, therefore, the matricula consular card could be included in it and, therefore, they could not issue any kind of documentation about it.
The administration is not confused about this. There has been a lot of talk today about this. I have been hearing this going around here, that, oh, really and truly the FBI and the Justice Department supports this. Well, they do not support this. They have sent a letter which makes it very clear that the
Justice Department does not support the language that is in the bill. They support the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment.
Secretary Snow made that very clear when we debated this in the Committee on Appropriations. They do not support adding such language that prohibits the use of the matricula consular card, because it is one form of identification that we do not have.
This is not a Department of Homeland Security issue. This is a Department of Treasury issue that has to do with private banks identifying people so that they can open bank accounts. And DHS, Department of Homeland Security, has not said anything about whether these cards should be used for banking purposes or not.
Treasury does not use a list of particular documents. They set the standard for what the verification ought to be. The standard accommodates local conditions as well as innovations of verification techniques. And the government ought not to be in the business of saying yes to this document, no to that document, because any document can be forged or counterfeited. What we need to do is set standards for verification of those documents, and banks need to have some kind of standard for that.
They look to this as one more piece of documentation they can use. Police departments like it very much because it is one more piece of documentation they can use when they pick up somebody and the person does not have a driver's license, for example. It is an added piece of identification that can help to identify an individual.
This decision ought to be left to the Committee on Financial Services, if we are going to get into the business at all of trying to micromanage the regulation being written by the Treasury Department.
The real argument is over whether we are going to have a secure form of ID. Should we be in the position of saying no to private institutions? If banks are to be secure, I urge us to vote in favor of the Oxley-Frank amendment.
Bill Text
4 versions available
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1787 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]
2d Session
H. R. 1787
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 15, 2004
Received
September 28, 2004
Read the first time
September 29, 2004
Read the second time and placed on the calendar
_______________________________________________________________________
AN ACT
To remove civil liability barriers that discourage the donation of fire
equipment to volunteer fire companies.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter
Assistance Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF CIVIL LIABILITY BARRIERS THAT DISCOURAGE THE
DONATION OF FIRE EQUIPMENT TO VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANIES.
(a) Liability Protection.--A person who donates fire control or
fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire company shall not be liable
for civil damages under any State or Federal law for personal injuries,
property damage or loss, or death proximately caused by the equipment
after the donation.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a person if--
(1) the person's act or omission proximately causing the
injury, damage, loss, or death constitutes gross negligence or
intentional misconduct; or
(2) the person is the manufacturer of the fire control or
fire rescue equipment.
(c) Preemption.--This Act preempts the laws of any State to the
extent that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except that
notwithstanding subsection (b) this Act shall not preempt any State law
that provides additional protection from liability for a person who
donates fire control or fire rescue equipment to a volunteer fire
company.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Person.--The term ``person'' includes any governmental
or other entity.
(2) Fire control or rescue equipment.--The term ``fire
control or fire rescue equipment'' includes any fire vehicle,
fire fighting tool, communications equipment, protective gear,
fire hose, or breathing apparatus.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' includes the several States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, any other territory or possession of
the United States, and any political subdivision of any such
State, territory, or possession.
(4) Volunteer fire company.--The term ``volunteer fire
company'' means an association of individuals who provide fire
protection and other emergency services, where at least 30
percent of the individuals receive little or no compensation
compared with an entry level full-time paid individual in that
association or in the nearest such association with an entry
level full-time paid individual.
(e) Effective Date.--This Act applies only to liability for injury,
damage, loss, or death caused by equipment that, for purposes of
subsection (a), is donated on or after the date that is 30 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. STATE-BY-STATE REVIEW OF DONATION OF FIREFIGHTER EQUIPMENT.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General of the United States shall
conduct a State-by-State review of the donation of firefighter
equipment to volunteer firefighter companies during the 5-year period
ending on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General of the United States shall
publish and submit to the Congress a report on the results of the
review conducted under subsection (a). The report shall include, for
each State, the most effective way to fund firefighter companies,
whether first responder funding is sufficient to respond to the
Nation's needs, and the best method to ensure that the equipment
donated to volunteer firefighter companies is in usable condition.
Passed the House of Representatives September 14, 2004.
Attest:
JEFF TRANDAHL,
Clerk.
Calendar No. 748
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 1787
_______________________________________________________________________
AN ACT
To remove civil liability barriers that discourage the donation of fire
equipment to volunteer fire companies.
_______________________________________________________________________
September 29, 2004
Read the second time and placed on the calendar