John Sweeney

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to day in opposition of the Berkley amendment. This amendment would outlaw all gambling online throughout the United States. This is unnecessary and would hurt the domestic horseracing industry. The domestic horseracing industry is already regulated. This amendment would put unnecessary burdens on an industry that operates above board. A provision allowing for legal horse gambling domestically and opening the door to allow horse gambling over the Internet is included in this bill. Regulated by States though the Interstate Horseracing Act, IHA, this provision was agreed to by the Justice Department and the domestic horseracing industry. The primary focus of H.R. 4411 is to curb illegal--primarily offshore--wagering, not regulate further the domestic horse industry. We need to allow the States to continue regulating horseracing via State racing commissions or legislatures. Currently, ongoing discussions are occurring between Justice Department and the horseracing industry concerning horse race gambling over the Internet. The Berkley amendment would prevent this review from continuing. The horseracing industry is a massive economic engine in our Nation, providing $26 billion in economic activity and maintaining over 1 million jobs. In my district alone, which is home to the Saratoga Racetrack, the oldest thoroughbred track in the country, the horseracing industry brings in over $70 million into the local economy. If this amendment passes, hard-working individuals would certainly lose their jobs. The industry sustains more than 40,000 people across my home State of New York, over 10,000 in my district. The industry supports a large sector of small businesses and is the reason for the existence of more than 400 New York State breeding farms. During the 2005 season alone, the Saratoga Racetrack attracted 1 million people, who wagered approximately $145 million. That equates to 1 million people in Saratoga spending $70 million at local restaurants, stores and various other attractions. These people make Saratoga the jewel of upstate New York that it is. We ought not to punish a legitimate industry that is already regulated. This is a responsible industry that provides jobs, pumps money into our economy and is already regulated. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Let me point out that I think Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan have done a spectacular job in very tight circumstances with this bill. Having been on the committee in the past, I am very proud of this work product. As my friend from Georgia pointed out, this bill has a multiple of purposes, and one of them is to help fund the efforts of the State Department to establish diplomatic relations throughout the world. Twenty years ago in West Berlin the La Belle Discotheque was bombed by the Libyan Government. Eighteen years ago, over Lockerbie, Scotland, Pan Am Flight 103 was shot down by the Libyan Government. Madam Speaker, that was at the beginning of, the early part of, the war on terror and terrorism. Lockerbie had an incredible toll, 270 murdered victims, with 189 Americans part of that. La Belle had two GIs murdered in that bombing and 50 permanently injured American citizens. In 2002, Libya agreed to pay compensation to the families of Lockerbie in order to avoid a criminal trial, avoid a criminal trial. In 2004, they agreed to pay $35 million to the victims of the La Belle Discotheque. During the full Appropriations Committee markup, I passed an amendment, Madam Speaker, that prohibits the State Department from fully establishing diplomatic ties with Libya and accepting a Libyan ambassador until the Libyan Government makes full compensation payments to the victims of these two horrendous terrorist acts. You may ask why I did that and why that was appropriated in this bill. Well, it is about timing. On May 15, the State Department proposed the removal of Libya from the list of state-sponsored terrorist nations. Congress has 45 days under the law to review that removal. That 45 days will be up this Thursday. I fear very much so, and that is why we incorporated it into this bill, that this is the last opportunity that this government has to do the right thing for the people, for American citizens who have been victimized by terrorist attacks. Without the language that was put into the full appropriations markup and protected by the Rules Committee, this Congress, this government, might not be there to stand and do the right thing, which, unfortunately, over the last 20 years it has shown it has not been all that willing to do for the victims of these vicious attacks. So I want to thank Chairman Dreier and the Rules Committee and I want to thank Chairman Hyde and Ranking Member Lantos of the International Relations Committee for agreeing that it is important that we go forward and ensure that the full compensation, the reparations, if you will, to these families, is maintained. Madam Speaker, in 2002, Libya agreed to pay compensation to the families, in order to avoid a criminal trial. While 80 percent of that agreement has been met, the remaining 20 percent was held back by Libya as long as they remained on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism. Libya has now been removed from that list, and must now follow through on its agreements. The State Department removed Libya from the list on May 15th. Congress has 45 days to review the removal of Libya. That 45-day window is up on Thursday. We need to send a strong signal to Libya that they must live up to their deal. Some of my constituents experienced this act of terror very personally. Glendon and Margaret Rafferty, of Ticonderoga in my Congressional District, lost four family members-- their daughter Bonnie Leigh Williams, son-in-law Eric, and granddaughters Stephanie and Brittany. Joan and Tom Dater, of Pittstown in my Congressional District, lost their daughter, Gretchen. Despite Libya's pending removal from the state sponsors of terror list, Libya publicly stated yesterday they are no longer obliged to pay the final installment of these reparations to the families. This is unacceptable. I will point out to my colleagues, if they don't think it is serious, the Libyan Government indicated yesterday that they don't intend to meet the full obligations under this agreement, just as they have for 20 years stonewalled efforts by those families to reach some reward; and I don't know if we can call it a just reward, because it really isn't. Money is not going to replace their loved ones or their children murdered here, but at least some branch of this government is going to step up and say that it is wrong that that happened, that we not going to let it happen, and you don't just get a free pass back in once you have committed those kinds of horrendous, awful terrorist acts. I want to thank Members on both sides of the aisle for joining with me on this. I want to let the families of these attacks know that we are with them.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership on this bill. I am proud to serve as the Vice-Chairman of this Subcommittee. I want to echo the words of my friend, Mr. Rehberg, because Amtrak is an essential service in my Congressional District and home state of New York. We have had this debate every year, and we go through this process in each of those years. Last year in particular, we fought possibly the toughest battle in years for passenger rail. We were threatened with vetoes, unless some Amtrak reforms were enacted. So what did we do? We enacted reform. One year later, we have seen evidence these reforms are working. Yet, here we are today with a proposal to fund Amtrak at $900 million. This allocation is a shutdown number for Amtrak, and it would come at the worst possible time to shut down Amtrak. This is because we have seen evidence these reforms are working. We required Amtrak put in place a new business plan. We required Amtrak to institute new service contracts and plans. For instance, they had to adopt more efficient accounting procedures. We also demanded they restructure their dining services, which was a big money loser. The Department of Transportation Inspector General just issued a report on Amtrak business practices. According to this April 6th report, Amtrak has saved $19 million from October 2005 through February 2006, thanks to these reforms. This is better than expected. Amtrak is saving money because of the institution of these new reform plans that we demanded of them. To now shut them down would go back on our word. They lived up to their end of the deal, now we must live up to ours. Finally, in these times of record high gasoline prices, allow me to mention that Amtrak promotes fuel conservation. At this time, when we are all sensitive about that, it is something that we ought to seriously consider. A recent study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows Amtrak consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger than automobiles and 18 percent less than planes. A vote to fund Amtrak is a vote to promote energy independence. I am not naive enough to think that this will solve all of our energy problems. Our energy policy should be a multi-faceted approach involving increasing our supply of traditional energy, investing in forms of alternative energy and promoting conservation. Increasing our domestic supply and investing in alternative fuels takes time--years in many cases. Here is an amendment that is part of this larger solution. Furthermore, this is an amendment that will make an immediate difference. This will not save gasoline 1 year, 5 years, 10 years from now. This will save gasoline tomorrow. I urge support of the LaTourette Amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership on this bill. I am proud to serve as the Vice-Chairman of this Subcommittee. I want to echo the words of my friend, Mr. Rehberg, because Amtrak is an essential service in my Congressional District and home state of New York. We have had this debate every year, and we go through this process in each of those years. Last year in particular, we fought possibly the toughest battle in years for passenger rail. We were threatened with vetoes, unless some Amtrak reforms were enacted. So what did we do? We enacted reform. One year later, we have seen evidence these reforms are working. Yet, here we are today with a proposal to fund Amtrak at $900 million. This allocation is a shutdown number for Amtrak, and it would come at the worst possible time to shut down Amtrak. This is because we have seen evidence these reforms are working. We required Amtrak put in place a new business plan. We required Amtrak to institute new service contracts and plans. For instance, they had to adopt more efficient accounting procedures. We also demanded they restructure their dining services, which was a big money loser. The Department of Transportation Inspector General just issued a report on Amtrak business practices. According to this April 6th report, Amtrak has saved $19 million from October 2005 through February 2006, thanks to these reforms. This is better than expected. Amtrak is saving money because of the institution of these new reform plans that we demanded of them. To now shut them down would go back on our word. They lived up to their end of the deal, now we must live up to ours.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my disappointment over the exclusion of section 206 as well as this amendment from the FY07 TTHUD bill. Rep. Tiahrt's amendment--of which neither provision has any negative impact on or shuts down any current IRS program or service--would prevent the IRS from using taxpayer dollars to develop programs such as return-free tax filing systems, interactive tax filing systems and web portals. These systems would overextend the IRS, expanding it beyond and diluting its core mission of tax collection and regulation. The costs of developing, implementing and maintaining them would total billions of dollars. All this is even more strikingly troublesome given a recent Wall Street Journal poll that found that 70% of Americans don't want the IRS preparing their taxes anyway. I share the sentiments of the American people. As far as I'm concerned, having the IRS prepare your taxes is a little like sending your dog to the butcher to pick up your order--it doesn't serve your best interest. Despite the assurances of Secretary Snow and Commissioner Everson, there is currently nothing in statute that stops the IRS from developing and implementing a return-free tax filing system. Yet we already have a program in place that serves the purpose of these costly systems. It is called the Free File Alliance--of which my home state of New York is a member and it assists people who otherwise cannot afford tax preparation or e-filing. The Free File Alliance is a private sector program, and provides free preparation services to poor and low-income families, and since its inception in 2002 it has provided 15.3 million free Federal tax returns. Now, the Free File Alliance is not a perfect system yet, and it is still in need of additional oversight and reform. However, its existence means that the infrastructure for such systems is already in place, making the costly development of virtually identical IRS programs unnecessary.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, after 9/11, our nation united against terrorism and those who want to kill innocent civilians and destroy our American way of life. New York was impacted deeply by these tragic events and we understand first-hand the kind of unthinkable damage that can be inflicted by hate-filled violent extremists. I voted to support the use of force in Iraq for many reasons. Decades of deception and violation of United Nations resolutions; invading neighboring countries; and a litany of ruthless atrocities by Saddam Hussein involving murdering his own people. I believe that the best way to safeguard freedom in our nation increasingly depends on supporting a democratic global strategy in areas beyond our borders. That is why supporting the creation of a self-governing Iraq is so critical to the future of both our countries. Having said that, I am deeply disappointed in this resolution because I believe we owe Americans more than a simple declaration of our resolve in Iraq. We owe them an account of our progress in the Global War on Terror; an assessment of the situation, the stakes, and the strategy for victory in the battle for Iraq; and an affirmation we will defend our country, defeat the enemy, and win this unsought struggle for survival. There are several points in this resolution that I am concerned about. It also strikes me as merely a reiteration of the resolution we passed last December. First, I am disappointed in the choice of the word adversary in this resolution. History and reality illustrate that within Iraq and the broader Global War on Terror we do not face an adversary--we face a very real and dangerous enemy. We should not be afraid to clearly state what we as a nation are up against. Secondly, philosophically, any state-sponsor of terror is a threat to the United States, because terrorism is an attack upon the self- evident, inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This point should be clearly expressed in a resolution of this nature. Additionally, the second clause states ``. . . for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States.'' This clause is too sanitized. The hard truth is the enemy has not tried to intimidate us. The enemy has tried to kill us and often succeeded. The enemy does so because our very existence as sovereign citizens of a free Republic constitutes a beacon of hope for all who are--and all who yearn to be--free; thus, we are our enemy's paramount obstacle to world dominion. I know first hand the difficulties we face in Iraq. I have heard it directly from the men and women that are fighting so hard in Afghanistan and Iraq. I do hope that despite my concerns that this debate provides a clearer understanding of the threats we really face and the opportunity to develop a strategy that protects our troops and enables our military to develop a comprehensive strategy to win this war, transfer the power to the Iraqi people and bring them home. It should also demonstrate that the ``cut and run'' agenda of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is the wrong approach to this problem and encourages the terrorists to wait us out and undo all that our soldiers have worked through blood, sweat, tears and their lives to establish--a victory for our nation and a stable and secure democracy in the Middle East. Lastly, and most importantly, I will continue to stand by and support U.S. troops. I must take this opportunity to pay a personal tribute to the brave lives that have been claimed from my district: Nathan Brown, Stephen Madison, Kevin Kimberly, Isaac Nieves, and Joseph Robsky. Their sacrifice, and the sacrifice of their families and loved ones embody the spirit of our great nation and principles of democracy we hold dear.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the Strand Performing Arts Center, not because it is in my congressional district, because it is not; but because I recognize it as an important part of economic development in the north country, a part of the State of New York that I partially represent. Let me suggest that I play a little off of my colleague, Mr. McHugh's comments and the notion that what I would suggest the gentleman from Arizona do is direct his angst and his efforts toward the authorizing processes, the processes that created the criteria that many of these projects have had to compete within for many of these years. Maybe that is where the reforms and the oversight would be best directed, because by playing by the rules, the people of the north country have an expectation here that they are going to improve their economic climate, a place that is incredibly distressed, that is in the national interest, I believe, to help assist, and that will be able to improve the quality of life. Things like being able to recruit good doctors to come to work at the Champlain Valley Physician's Hospital, a place that endeavors to develop a cardiological unit that will provide the opportunity for the people of the north country to not have to drive or relocate their families hundreds of miles away. This adds to the quality of life and the recruitment potential. I also want to make a brief comment about the comments by Mr. Walsh and associate myself with them. New York State is a donor State. We send tens of billions of dollars every year in Federal tax dollars. New York State taxpayers send to the Federal Government more than they receive in return. A $250,000 earmark for the Strand Theater Arts Center which will help with the economic development in a depressed area is a concern for all of the people of New York, and, I believe, all the people of this Nation. I think this is an appropriate use of Federal dollars. I think if the gentleman is sincere about his efforts to provide the proper oversight, he ought to direct them towards where they ought to be properly directed, and that is where the rules are made up for it.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue, and we would be happy to accept his amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman is withdrawing his amendment, and I know this is an important project in the gentleman's district in Minnesota and that the State and the FTA are working to finalize the details on this commuter rail line. Let me say for the record, we will watch the progress as this bill moves to conference and as the Northstar line moves to full funding status. I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as we are seeing, we have got a lot of business at hand here today and a number of amendments yet to come and the desire to try to move forward and finish our work here. But this is an important bill that really establishes the Federal priorities in transportation, really does that at a time when we are faced with great fiscal constraints and the need to move forward. So I would ask my colleagues, as they come forward to the floor, to really understand the constraints of time that we have and the constraints of floor action because, as we know, tomorrow we will be debating at length the involvements in Iraq and their importance to the Nation, something that the American people will ask us to provide great clarity for them. So as we move forward, we have discussed a number of issues, including the issues by my friend from Arizona, Mr. Flake, on the earmarking process and its appropriateness and whether the process for oversight is appropriate. I want to point out that the process has been appropriate, but earmarks make up a very small percentage, six-tenths of 1 percent of all of Federal expenditures and that this process here, the American people can rest assured that this Congress is doing its job with great diligence. Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. As I was saying earlier, Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of very important legislation to come and Members are encouraged to participate, but at the same time we need to continue to move forward. A number of difficult issues face us. Some of them will affect our local districts more than they will affect others. And at the same time, we would urge Members to look at the entirety of what the process is and the entirety of the constraints that we have facing us as we move forward in debate on this important Transportation-Treasury bill. The committee has worked for hours and months. I need to acknowledge the staff for all of their tremendous work at vetting each of these projects and making sure that the projects meet the budget requirements we are under. As Chairman Lewis pointed out earlier in the day, the Appropriations Committee has done marvelous work in the 2 years under his leadership, done work in which we have been able to bring appropriation bills in under budget, and in incredibly stealth and quick time we were able to pass these pieces of legislation last year and we will do the same this year before the July 4 recess, thus giving us time to move with our colleagues in the Senate in conference to settle the differences that may exist in each of these spending bills. And as we move forward, Members need to understand that there is a great deal of work left ahead of us.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would be honored to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. And reclaiming my time, I would point out, as we did earlier, that some of the disagreements that exist between those who are concerned with the earmarking process may be better rectified or more rectified in looking at the rules and the standards and the criteria established under the authorizing process for the allocation of all of these funds. In that instance, we might be able to bring about the kinds of reform that those who advocate against the earmarking process. I think it is important that the American people understand that as local representatives, we are the closest representatives that they get to their expenditure of Federal tax dollars. Therefore, every 2 years they have the opportunity to voice their pleasure or displeasure with us as Members of Congress in terms of whether we are handling the public purse strings appropriately or not. I think it is all healthy for the body. We look forward to future debates on it. But as we move forward, I think that people need to stay focused on the priorities that are being established, the process which is meant to vet that priority and protect the American people. They can rest assured that that process is being fully exercised through the appropriations process. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. It is necessary.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order, and I will reserve the time in opposition.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I do so in opposition to this amendment which I understand takes part of the program and makes it available into the first quarter of fiscal year 2010. The problem with that is that this adds an unneeded complication to the administration and accounting of the HOME program and is unnecessary since under existing rules, if the funds are obligated on time, they will be available to homeowners during the last quarter of the year. Mr. Chairman, this causes a great deal of problems in the administration of this program, so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SWEENEY. I do, Mr. Chairman. Point of Order

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment is not merely perfecting and adds additional legislation. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SWEENEY

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, in the brief time I have, I want to just say that I want to echo the words of my friend, Mr. Rehberg, that Amtrak is an essential service in my part of the country. But we have had this debate every year, and we go through this process in each of those years. Last year, in particular, we had a very strong and vigorous debate in which we were threatened with a veto at one point and demanded reforms. This $900 million allocation is a shutdown number for Amtrak, and it would come at the worst possible time to shut down Amtrak. This is because it is part of those reforms. Amtrak was required to institute new acting procedures. It was required to institute new service contracts and plans. It was required to put in place a new business plan. The Department of Transportation Inspector General just issued a report from September 2005 to March 2006. Amtrak has saved in excess of $19 million with the institution of these new reform plans that we demanded of them. To now shut them down would go back on our word. Let me also say that Amtrak promotes fuel conservation. At this time, when we are all sensitive about that, it is something that we ought to consider. A recent study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows Amtrak consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger than automobiles and 18 percent less than planes. Amtrak is an essential service. Support this amendment.