[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 63 (Friday, May 19, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H3417-H3455]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  2001

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reynolds). Pursuant to House Resolution 
505 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4475.

                              {time}  0921


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4475) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Barrett of Nebraska in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, today the Committee on Appropriations 
presents the second fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill to the House. 
H.R. 4475 provides appropriations for the fiscal year 2000 for the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies appropriations.
  The bill that the committee presents to the House is a good and 
balanced bill. The committee has increased funding for some agencies 
which have been hard hit over the past few years, like the Coast Guard, 
while cutting out areas of unnecessary spending.
  The bill meets fully the Congressional commitment to highway, transit 
and aviation spending in TEA-21 and AIR-21, and fully funds Amtrak's 
Congressionally-mandated glidepath to operational self-sufficiency.
  Briefly, the bill includes $30.7 billion for highways, an increase of 
nearly $2 billion; $12 billion for the FAA, an increase of 25 percent, 
including $3.2 billion for airport grants programs; $6.3 billion for 
transit programs, an increase of almost $500 million; $521 million for 
Amtrak; and $4.6 billion for the Coast Guard, an increase of almost 
$600 million over last year, including almost $560 million for drug 
interdiction.
  I might just say, this is an opportunity for the Coast Guard with 
this money to really deal with the issue of drug interdiction and open 
fire on the drug runners coming out of South America. When we see a 
fast boat coming, heading out, and we know it is containing drugs, the 
opportunity is for the Coast Guard to hover over and give a warning, 
and, if it does not stop, to fire on the boat and to sink the boat, 
because there is basically a war on drugs, if you want to call it that. 
Now the Coast Guard has the capability to do this, and next year we 
will see how successful they have been.
  This bill has been developed in consultation with the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the minority staff, and was passed in 
subcommittee and full committee unanimously with only a few amendments. 
The committee has worked carefully with all Members on both sides of 
the aisle to

[[Page H3418]]

address specific concerns, and I believe we have achieved strong 
bipartisan support.
  Let me just say a word with regard to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo). We could not have worked in a better way. I have great 
respect for the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and his knowledge 
of budgetary matters, having been chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget and then ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. I think 
it is an indication that the two parties can sit down and work 
together.
  So I just want to publicly thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo) for that effort, and look forward to working with him for many, 
many more years to come on these and other issues.
  Correspondence from the Department of Transportation and the Office 
of Management and Budget suggest this bill, as reported by the 
committee, is acceptable to the administration. The bill deserves the 
House's widespread support.
  I want to close by thanking the following staff for their help in 
preparing the bill. From the committee staff, John Blazey, who would 
make a great administrator of the Federal Transit Administration in the 
next administration; Rich Efford, who would make a great FAA deputy 
administrator; Stephanie Gupta, who would do a great job on the Safety 
Board; Linda Muir, who could run the whole agency down there; Chris 
Porter and Ken Marx have done a great job; Jeff Gleason from my staff; 
Cheryl Smith, who could run the whole process if she were given the 
opportunity; and Marjorie Duske of the staff of the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), who would, again, do a great job.
  The point I am trying to make is the staff, and I know sometimes this 
is a pro forma comment, has done a remarkable job over the past 6 
years, and this year, and I want to personally thank them. Everything I 
said about what they could be doing in the next year is true and valid, 
and I do not want anyone to strike it, because I want it to stand.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:

[[Page H3419]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY00.001



[[Page H3420]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY00.002



[[Page H3421]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY00.003



[[Page H3422]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY00.004



[[Page H3423]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY00.005



[[Page H3424]]

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill and it should be passed. 
Let me commend the Chair, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on his 
6 years of chairing this subcommittee. He has done an outstanding job 
in that role, and I have enjoyed working with him these last 4 years as 
ranking member. He has been fair. On the other hand, he has been 
thoughtful and tough when he needs to be, he asks appropriate tough 
questions, and it has been a privilege to work with the gentleman these 
last 4 years as ranking member, and as a member of the subcommittee for 
the 6 years he has chaired as subcommittee chair. This is the last bill 
he brings to the House floor, and it is another good, fair bill, and we 
should pass it.
  Let me join my friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in 
thanking all the staff that has worked on this bill. It is a 
complicated bill, many decisions to be made, and both majority and 
minority staff do an outstanding job. I thank them for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise along with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to engage the 
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, the transportation appropriations report includes 
language that I offered during the full committee markup. This language 
urges the FAA to expeditiously conclude negotiations with state 
aviation officials regarding forecasts for a proposed third airport in 
the Chicago metropolitan area and initiate promptly an environmental 
impact statement on the proposal.
  Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman will yield, that is correct.
  Mr. HYDE. If the gentleman from Illinois will yield, I would ask the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), is it his understanding that the 
intent of the language is to urge the FAA, which has delayed action for 
approximately 2 years, to begin promptly to process an environmental 
impact statement which will finally review Illinois' proposal to build 
a third airport on 23,845 acres in Peotone, Illinois, not in a 
piecemeal or partial fashion, but rather in a comprehensive and 
thorough manner?
  Mr. WOLF. That is correct.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) for his efforts and responsiveness on this very important issue 
to the residents of my district and throughout the State of Illinois.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
too for his support and his leadership on this issue. I look forward to 
working with the gentleman and our colleagues on the committee to 
ensure that the FAA fulfills its obligations to meet the national 
aviation needs of our country.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to congratulate and thank the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo), ranking member, for their very good work on this bill which 
I fully support, and I would be remiss if I did not also thank all of 
the staff involved for their professional work, consideration and hard 
work.
  Mr. Chairman, there is report language that accompanies the bill, and 
just previous to my statement there was a colloquy on the floor. 
Singular pronouns were used in terms of the word ``State,'' and the 
word ``Illinois'' as far as reference to a State was used, and I must 
indicate that I do take exception to the report language. There is no 
question that in the Chicago metropolitan area, in the Midwest portion 
of the United States of America, there is a problem as far as capacity. 
I would agree with all of my colleagues, and I think it is a regional 
concern, that that issue be studied on a regional basis and that the 
State of Indiana, as well as the State of Illinois, be consulted and 
considered.
  The second thing that I would point out to my colleagues in the 
House, if a commitment has been made by an agency of this government, 
in this case the Federal Aviation Administration, that particular 
commitment should be made but again in consultation with all interested 
parties. In this case, the State of Illinois that apparently asked for 
the study, the State of Indiana, the citizens in the community 
affected, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) referred to a site 
near the community of Peotone, but I would also suggest the City of 
Chicago and the City of Gary because where I disagree with my 
colleagues and where I disagree with the report language is the 
solution to the problem, which site, which combinations of actions, is 
best suited to solve the problem asked to be studied. So I did want to 
make sure that my perspective was heard.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Pastor), a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate both the chairman of 
the committee and the ranking member for bringing forth to this House a 
fair bill, a bipartisan bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it.
  I would like to take a few minutes to thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for the leadership he has taken and the advocacy he 
has taken in terms of safety. I know that he started with truck safety 
and he worked very hard to ensure that we had a reasonable and sensible 
solution in the manner in which we had oversight over truck safety, and 
I want to congratulate him and thank him for the leadership.
  Lately he has been concerned and been an advocate to increase the 
safety at our airports and, again, he has found a reasonable and 
sensible solution and I want to thank him. I know that this is the last 
bill that he will bring to the floor on transportation. I want to 
commend him for the fine work he has done.
  I also want to congratulate the ranking member for the work he has 
done on behalf of the minority.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. It 
is a good bill and I would like to commend the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for their work 
on this bill. I think it is very significant to note that this 
legislation honors the funding guarantees in TEA-21 and AIR-21 and 
still sufficiently funds other important transportation programs such 
as the Coast Guard and Amtrak.
  I have long believed that we could honor the principle of dedicated 
trust fund revenues for their intended purposes while maintaining 
sufficient funding for other important transportation programs, and 
this bill proves that point.
  I also want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for, 
with only a very few exceptions, reporting a bill with fewer 
authorizing provisions than in past years. While there are many 
technical violations of the rules, we have no problem with that at all; 
there are about 30 substantive violations of the rules. Had we been 
consulted on them, we perhaps might have been able to work out more of 
them but as it is we have only decided to reserve the right to object 
to nine of them and, indeed, I believe in colloquy with the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) on two of those rules it is my hope that while 
I will reserve the right to object that I may well withdraw that right.
  So I think this is a good piece of legislation. It shows that we can 
make the increased investments so crucial to transportation, and I 
commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and all of the members of the Committee on 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation for bringing this 
appropriation to the floor.

[[Page H3425]]

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), who is serving her first 
term on this subcommittee and doing a great job.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, to our chairman, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), I want to thank him for his leadership. What a joy 
it has been to work with him over this first term as a member of the 
Committee on Appropriations. I commend him for his leadership; and I 
want to also thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), who is also 
our ranking member and a fine gentleman, for the bipartisan way that 
this bill was put together.
  It is a wonderful bill. I urge my colleagues to support it. It has 
funding levels that meet the needs of the citizens of this country, 
both in highway, transit, airport, Coast Guard.
  It has really been a joy to work on this committee in the bipartisan 
fashion that the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) let the committee operate. I 
commend them. I have been on other committees in this House and this 
transportation bill is head and shoulders above those other processes I 
have been involved in.
  The funding levels, as I mentioned, will meet the needs of our 
country; the first of the 21st century this bill is. I just want to say 
as a new member in this appropriations process, if all the bills could 
be worked together in a bipartisan fashion as this transportation bill 
has been with the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) 
and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), this Congress and the 
country would be a better one.
  As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) leaves to his next 
assignment, may God be with him and take his leadership skills and 
abilities forward as we rebuild and shape America for all of its 
citizens.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, the Transportation Appropriations bill will 
make critical investments that are needed throughout our country to 
improve our transportation infrastructure, promote economic development 
and ensure safe travel. In particular, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
highlight two vital projects contained in the legislation for which I 
was able to obtain funding.
  The bill contains $250,000 to help the county of Santa Barbara to 
build a bicycle/pedestrian bridge in Goleta. CA. This will provide safe 
passage for pedestrians and bicyclists over a major county road, U.S. 
Highway 101 and a railroad, connecting a large residential community 
with a major shopping center, a 25-acre community park and coastal 
access.
  The bill also contains $240,000 to allow the Santa Maria Organization 
of Transportation Helpers, Inc. [SMOOTH] to purchase a second set of 
three new 21-passenger, wheelchair-lift-equipped minibuses. SMOOTH is a 
nonprofit organization that for 23 years has been providing 
transportation services for seniors, disabled, economically 
disadvantaged and geographically isolated persons. In response to my 
request last year for $480,000 for six new minibuses, Congress 
appropriated $240,000 in fiscal year 2000. These new funds would allow 
SMOOTH to complete their bus expansion and replacement program.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, today I support H.R. 4475, the Transportation 
Appropriations bill and commend Chairman Wolf and ranking member Sabo 
for their hard work on bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor so 
quickly. I am especially pleased today to support the bill because it 
includes a common sense project for Washington and Clackamas Counties 
in Oregon to assist Oregonians in their commute. The Wilsonville to 
Beaverton Commuter Rail line is an innovative project that utilizes 
existing infrastructure to create a commuter rail line. This line will 
run from Wilsonville, which is to the south of Portland to Beaverton, 
which is to the west of Portland.
  I had the opportunity to participate in a demonstration ride last 
spring. I look forward to riding the full length of the track when this 
project is complete and working with the committee to fulfill that 
goal.
  The million dollars that is included in this bill is important to 
complete preliminary engineering and builds upon the Federal commitment 
last year of $500,000 for alternative analysis. Computer rail is a 
regional priority and will make the Portland area, a long-time leader 
in smart transportation, even a better place to live.
  Mr. Chairman, I am looking forward to working with Senators Smith and 
Wyden in ensuring that this funding is included in the other body's 
bill. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Wolf and Mr. Sabo 
for their hard work and urge my colleagues to support this important 
and responsible bill.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4475, the 
fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill. This bill contains 
a rider which prevents the Department of Transportation from examining 
the need to increase CAFE standards. This CAFE Freeze rider allows 
sports utility vehicles and light trucks to meet lower fuel economy 
standards than cars. The result is vehicles that use more gasoline and 
produce more emissions harmful to our environment.
  This rider will prevent the CAFE standard of sports utility vehicles, 
currently set a 20.7 miles per gallon, from being raised to that of 
passenger cars. Current passenger cars standards are set at 27.5 miles 
per gallon. This difference results in millions of greenhouse gases 
being needlessly released into the atmosphere. By improving fuel 
efficiency standards we can reduce the threat of global warming while 
saving consumers money at the gas pump.
  By slipping this damaging provision into H.R. 4475, we are preventing 
one of the most effective laws Congress has ever passed from achieving 
further reductions in greenhouse gases. This will result in millions of 
inefficient vehicles on our roads that get lower gas mileage, thereby 
leading to increased pollution. CAFE standards reduce oil consumption, 
keeping 500,000 tons of hydrocarbon emissions each year from being 
released into our atmosphere. In addition, CAFE standards reduce the 
amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by 600 million 
tons.
  CAFE standards helps local and State governments to achieve Clean Air 
Act requirements for reducing hydrocarbon air pollution. These 
emissions, which can be reduced by increased CAFE standards, not only 
contribute to smog and global warming they are potentially 
carcinogenic. This rider places not only the future of our planet at 
risk, it places the health of all Americans at risk.
  With sports utility vehicles now commanding such a significant market 
share, we must reduce their disproportionate contribution to global 
warming. By including this harmful rider Congress has taken a step 
backward in protecting the long-term health of our planet. This rider 
is bad environmental policy and for that reason I urge my colleagues to 
join me in voting against H.R. 4475, the Transportation Appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of 
H.R. 4475, making appropriations for the Department of Transportation 
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, 
which is now under consideration by the House.
  First, Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my dear friend, Congressman 
Frank Wolf, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia who is the 
chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, for his 
truly outstanding leadership in crafting a transportation spending bill 
that deals effectively with critically needed infrastructure 
improvements for our Nation's highways and airports, as well as dealing 
with important transportation safety concerns.
  In particular, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and his 
colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for including in this bill 
the full administration request of $80 million for the BART San 
Francisco International Airport [SFO] extension in fiscal year 2001. 
This amount is commensurate with the full funding grant agreement 
reached between the Department of Transportation and BART. This 
critical funding will enable BART to meet its current substantial 
construction cash flow needs and minimize unplanned financing costs.
  The BART SFO Extension has been a top transit priority in the San 
Francisco Bay Area for more than a decade because people have long 
recognized the value of bringing reliable and convenient train service 
directly to the San Francisco International Airport, which is now the 
fifth busiest airport in the entire country. The extension will provide 
an additional 8.7 miles of track and four additional stations. The 
project will link the existing 95-mile, 39-station BART system, which 
serves four counties on both sides of San Francisco Bay, with the 
expanding San Francisco International Airport.
  At present, Mr. Chairman, the Bay area is beset with growing traffic 
congestion, which threatens the economic health of our area, which is 
one of the fastest growing and strongest regional economies in the 
United States. The BART SFO Extension is a major step toward 
alleviating this traffic congestion. Forecasts regarding usage of the 
future BART line support this finding. Ridership is projected to reach 
nearly 70,000 passenger trips per week day by the year 2010, and it is 
estimated that some 18,000 to 20,000 of these riders will be going to 
or from the airport. This will make this new line one of the most 
heavily used lines in the entire BART system.
  I am delighted to report, Mr. Chairman, that 60 percent of the 
construction of this project has already been completed along the main 
line of the extension, and construction is more

[[Page H3426]]

than 85 percent complete inside the airport. More than 4 miles of 
subway have already been completed and construction is moving ahead 
rapidly at each of the four stations on this line.
  Mr. Chairman, it is truly gratifying to see this important rail-
airport link take shape. Again, I sincerely thank Chairman Wolf for his 
continued support of this worthy project. Thanks to the timely and 
appropriate Federal funding for this project included in this bill, we 
can all look forward soon to celebrating the historic opening of the 
long-awaited BART SFO Extension.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4475, the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation addresses key transportation 
priorities including two projects critical to my district: Metra 
expansion and the EJ&E Railroad bridge. This legislation funds Metra at 
$35 million for fiscal year 2001, allowing Metra to continue work on 
the North Central Service Line, the Union Pacific West Line, and the 
South West Service to Manhattan. One of my top legislative priorities 
continues to be the expansion of the South West Service line which 
greatly benefits the residents of the 11th Congressional District. 
These funds ensure that the South West Service line will continue to be 
developed to meet the region's growing needs. I continue to support a 
further extension of the Metra system to the Midewin National Tallgrass 
Prairie and the planned Deer Run Industrial Park.
  Metra operates over 12 rail lines in the Chicago Metropolitan Area 
and serves more than 120 communities with 240 stations and a stop at 
O'Hare International Airport. The Metra system covers a territory the 
size of Connecticut with a population of 7.5 million, providing 4,000 
revenue trains and carrying 1.5 million riders. On-time performance 
continues to be well above 96 percent since every year of Metra's 
existence.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation also provides $3 million for completion 
of design and engineering work of the EJ&E Railroad bridge. The EJ&E 
Railroad bridge crosses over the Illinois River near my hometown of 
Morris, IL. Unfortunately, it is the most hit bridge throughout the 
inland river system, being hit over 200 times in 2 years. This project 
will ultimately widen the width between the piers of the bridge. 
Funding for this project will make the Illinois River safer for 
maritime traffic by reducing accidents while helping the flow of 
commerce. In addition, this is a cost-effective project; according to 
the Coast Guard, modifications made to this bridge will save $1.1 
million in damage each year.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Wolf and Chairman Young for their 
hard work on this good piece of legislation. I ask all of my colleagues 
to support its passage.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Subcommittee 
Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Sabo for including critical funding in 
this legislation for the Long Island Railroad's East Side access 
project.
  The LIRR's East Side access project is critical to the future of New 
York City and the surrounding region's economy and mobility, 
particularly for Manhattan, Queens, Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
  East Side access is one of the most important transportation ``new 
start'' projects in the country today. It will benefit 50,000 customers 
the very day it opens in 2010, saving each commuter who uses it nearly 
40 minutes a day roundtrip. That's 3 hours a week and about 18 days of 
productive work time a year.
  Ultimately, the project will serve about 179,000 commuters daily.
  Over the past 3 years the project has received some $46 million in 
Federal ``new start'' earmarks and over $150 million in local funding. 
This year's $10 million appropriation will help move the project 
forward toward initial construction elements late this fall.
  The project also includes a new station in Sunnyside Queens, in my 
district, which will allow my constituents to travel more quickly in to 
and out of Penn Station in Manhattan. It will also provide a link from 
other parts of Queens and Long Island to the growing Long Island City 
business district.
  In addition, East Side access will bring with it many thousands of 
direct construction jobs to the district over the life of the project 
as well as many thousands of additional supporting jobs throughout the 
borough's and the region's economy.
  I would also like to thank Senators Moynihan and Schumer and 
Representatives King, McCarthy and Meeks, as well as former Congressman 
Thomas Manton, for helping to navigate this critical project.
  Although we are a long way from our goal, this funding will help keep 
this important project on track for 2010. I look forward to working 
with the subcommittee on the future of this project.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the 
fiscal year 2001 House transportation budget. Among the myriad of 
budget priorities supported in the measure, one is especially 
beneficial to my constituents in Indian River County. This bill will 
provide much needed funding for a state-of-the-art air traffic control 
tower at the Vero Beach Airport.
  The need for a new air traffic control tower at the Vero Beach 
Municipal Airport has been recognized as a safety-related need since 
1988 by the FAA. A combination of factors, including traffic growth, 
line of sight problems, and tower structural and technical obsolescence 
problems, as well as a lack of radar at the airport, all point to an 
urgent need to replace the original tower, which was completed in 1973.
  I am pleased that the FAA is a partner in moving this project 
forward. It was first included in an FAA budget request in 1995, 
funding began in 1996, and construction was supposed to start in 1998 
with completion in early 2001. All tasks, including the engineering, 
design, site work and environmental review phase, have been completed. 
Since then, however, the agency has repeatedly delayed funding the $5.2 
million construction project. Most recently Vero Beach was informed 
that construction would not begin until 2002 with a completion date of 
2005.
  This is unacceptable for an airport that is the second busiest 
general aviation airport in Florida and ranked in about the top 15 
percent of towered airports in the country. Traffic has grown to nearly 
240,000 operations annually and we'll see in only a few years that 
number increase to 270,000. And, in addition to regular airport 
operations, Flight Safety International operates a fleet of more than 
90 aircraft and conducts about 90,000 hours of flight training 
annually.
  I have fought for the air traffic control tower at the Vero Beach 
Airport since my election to this office. I appreciate the dedication 
of former Vero Beach Mayor Arthur Neuberger, who has diligently worked 
and lobbied these very halls in search of the funds necessary for the 
upgrades at the facility.
  I would also like to thank the gentleman from Virginia Mr. Frank 
Wolf, and Chairman Young on there leadership on the transportation 
budget, and his understanding of the importance of this air traffic 
control tower to the people who fly in and out of Vero Beach Airport.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I rise to extend my most sincere thanks to 
Chairman Wolf and the Ranking Member, Mr. Sabo, and the members of the 
committee, for their willingness to provide funding for Sacramento's 
transportation priorities contained in the Department of Transportation 
and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.
  Funding in this legislation will allow Sacramento to make significant 
advancements on projects that are urgently needed to address the 
population growth and transportation inadequacies confronting the 
region. Specifically, I am grateful for $35.2 million for the 
Sacramento light rail extension project and the $2 million allocation 
for the Sacramento compressed natural gas bus and bus facilities 
program. Both projects are needed to assist efforts to ease traffic 
congestion and provide efficient, affordable, and environmentally sound 
modes of transportation to our region.
  I also thank the committee for the $2.75 million in funds for 
Sacramento Transportation Intelligent Transportation Systems allocated 
between the city and County of Sacramento. The Regional ITS Program 
will maximize efficiency of existing infrastructure and rolling stock 
through improved system information gathering capabilities, coordinated 
facilities operations, and facilities maintenance by employing new 
technologies. Local agencies have committed $4.3 million to this 
program. The Regional ITS Program is composed of the Smart Corridor 
projects on the Sunrise/Greenback and Watt Avenue Corridors, the 
Transit Management Center Project for Sacramento Regional Transit, and 
the North and West Lake Tahoe Traffic Management Project, assisting 
Placer County in implementing traveler information systems in North 
Tahoe/Truckee.
  Finally, I also thank the committee's willingness to provide a $1 
million earmark under the Access to Jobs Program to enhance regional 
funding for the Sacramento Regional Employment Access Transit Project. 
Several communities in the Sacramento region still suffer from double-
digit unemployment and low income, high unemployment areas are 
geographically distant from job centers, and traditional transit 
service hours often do not correspond with available jobs. Sacramento 
transit operators will use funding to successfully implement a program 
serving a significant portion of the region's high unemployment areas, 
giving job opportunities to the unemployed and providing a dedicated 
employment pool to area businesses. Additional Federal funding is 
needed this year to continue and enhance the Employment Access Transit 
Project and fill Sacramento's transportation gaps.
  Again, on behalf of the Sacramento community, I thank the committee 
for its recognition of these transportation priorities so vital to the 
stability and growth of our region.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of 
the Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001.

[[Page H3427]]

This legislation addresses many of the infrastructure needs and 
concerns confronting New York State.
  I thank Chairman Wolf and Congressman Sabo for crafting a bill that 
benefits thousands of commuters on Long Island, NY. Of particular 
importance is a provision allowing for the continued development of the 
East Side Access Project [ESA].
  The East Side Access Project, which will create approximately 72,000 
jobs, connects the Long Island Rail Road with Grand Central Terminal. 
This project will make the commute for 172,000 customers a day 
significantly faster and easier.
  It is estimated that 46,000 commuters will save approximately 36 
minutes a day--time otherwise spent with their families. In addition, 
the MTA predicts that they will add at least 30,000 customers a day as 
a result of this project.
  The MTA is poised to spend Federal appropriated funds, and quickly 
move to construction this year. Early construction will save money, and 
permit the project to benefit from the momentum of the nearly completed 
Connector Project at the 63rd Street Tunnel.
  I believe the East Side Access Project will be beneficial, not only 
to the commuters on the Long Island Railroad, but to transit riders and 
all other commuters throughout the New York City metropolitan region.
  By making use of the surplus capacity available at Grand Central 
Terminal, ESA will reduce congestion and train movement at and into 
Penn Station. Just as important, it will reduce overcrowding on all 
Long Island Railroads trains and crosstown subways in Manhattan.
  Finally, East Side Access will also reduce vehicular traffic and 
pollution in the NYC region.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I am truly displeased to have 
to rise in opposition to this bill.
  As the managers have stated, this legislation carries great 
importance for the transportation funding needs for the country going 
into the future.
  Nowhere is there a greater need for basic improvements in the 
transportation infrastructure than in the State of New York.
  The New York City region is operating with a transit network laid out 
in the 1930's, one that desperately needs to be modernized to serve the 
needs of a 21st century metropolis that is one of America's major 
assets in competing in the global economy.
  Unfortunately, this bill fails to provide adequate funding for two 
desperately needed projects in New York and rescinds funding for 
another important project. This continues a trend that the great 
Senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, has documented for many 
years in his Fisc Reports, of New York State losing out on its share of 
Federal money.
  Mr. Chairman, the entire country knows that the benefits of the new 
economy have spurred a revival of New York in the last decade. The 
country knows this because tourism in New York City and New York State 
is exceeding all expectations.
  In the city itself, a booming high-tech sector has developed, known 
as Silicon Alley, which complements the city's many other highly 
attractive employment sectors.
  The end result of all this tourism generated by my colleagues' 
constituents and the booming New York economy is that an already 
antiquated transportation system is bursting at the seams.
  The State of New York has recognized this problem and is devoted to 
two critical transportation projects--the building of a full length 2d 
Avenue subway in Manhattan and the construction of the East Side 
connector that will benefit commuters entering the city from the East 
to Grand Central Station.
  One of the primary reasons for the building of these projects is to 
relieve crowding brought on by my colleagues' constituents as they come 
into the city to visit the East Side and attractions like St. Patrick's 
Cathedral, Rockefeller Center, and the many museums, such as the Met, 
Guggenheim, and the Museum of Modern Art--all which will be directly 
served by these needed infrastructure projects.
  The Lexington Avenue subway line on the East Side of Manhattan is 
already dangerously overburdened.
  The line is well beyond capacity during rush hour, to a point where 
overcrowding delays have reduced the hourly throughput on the Lexington 
line from a possible 30 to an actual 23 trains per hour.
  Furthermore it is vital that the 2d Avenue subway and East Side 
Access be funded in tandem.
  Without a full length 2d Avenue subway, much of the benefit to Long 
Island of the East Side Access Project will be lost and conditions for 
hundreds of thousands of New York City riders and Westchester commuters 
will actually be made worse.
  Without a full length 2d Avenue subway, both urban and suburban users 
will continue to be subjected to stultifying levels of elbow-to-rib 
crowding, often miserable or non-existent connections between services, 
and unreliable and unnecessarily long commuting times that burden both 
employers, commuters, and tourists.
  Leaders in New York like Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver have 
recognized the importance of improving this basic infrastructure and 
have included over $1 billion in the State budget for the 2d Avenue 
subway.
  Unfortunately, this bill severely underfunds both, granting only $10 
million for the East Side Connector, which is not enough money to even 
build a fence around its construction site.
  Let me stress that these are smart mass transit projects. There is no 
more room for cars in the area. These projects will get people on 
trains and not add additional car pollution to the environment.
  As I said, this underfunding is the continuation of a trend that 
Senator Moynihan has well documented. In his most recent Fisc Report 
documenting 1998, he concluded that each citizen of New York pays $835 
more into the Federal Government than she receives back in benefits. 
Our total statewide deficit is $15 billion.
  This bill exacerbates this imbalance by actually rescinding $60 
million for the Farley Penn Station project in New York City. The 
Farley Station is critical to the development of Amtrak's high speed 
rail system, which is being perfected on the east coast. Eventually, 
this system is intended to benefit the entire country when fully 
deployed.
  Mr. Chairman I believe this bill does a disservice to New York State 
and New York City and I will oppose it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I support the fiscal year 2001 Transportation 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the transportation bill historically has been developed 
in a bipartisan manner, and this year is no different. This year is the 
last year that the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, will manage the 
Transportation appropriations bill. I want to congratulate him on a job 
well done on this bill, and previous 5 transportation bills. He has 
devoted considerable attention to transportation safety issues and 
asked the hard questions. I want to thank him for the job he has done 
and the fair manner in which he has managed the work for the 
Transportation Subcommittee.
  I also want to thank the subcommittee staff for the tremendous job 
that they have done--John Blazey, Rich Efford, Stephanie Gupta, Linda 
Muir, Chris Porter, and Geoff Gleason for helping to produce a bill 
that both sides of the aisle can support.
  The bill provides $14.9 billion in new budget authority and $55.2 
billion in total resources, including obligation limitations, for 
fiscal year 2001. This provides a respective 10 percent increase over 
last year.
  Mr. Chairman, this body should know that much of the new spending in 
the bill is for Transportation infrastructure programs and is spending 
mandated under TEA21 and AIR21. Funding for airport construction is up 
64 percent or $1.3 billion over last year. Funding for highways and 
transit is up $2.6 billion or 8 percent over last year. Nearly three-
fourths of the outlays in this bill are now guaranteed. As a result, 
the Appropriations Committee had no choice but to provide these funds.
  These TEA21 and AIR21 mandates have made it more difficult to 
allocate resources in a balanced fashion among competing aviation, 
Coast Guard, highway, rail and transit needs.
  This year, as a result of the AIR21 and TEA21 guarantees, the 
Transportation Subcommittee needed a generous 302(b) allocation in 
order to avoid squeezing the Coast Guard and to protect vital air 
traffic control and safety operations. We were able to address these 
operating needs, but only at the expense of other subcommittees whose 
302(b) allocations were not as generous.
  This bill also provides Amtrak with its full capital appropriation of 
$521 million--an amount that is $70 million below last year, but 
essential if Amtrak is to remain on a path toward operational self 
sufficiency by 2003.
  The bill does not include a number of legislative authorizations that 
were requested by the administration that proposed to divert excess gas 
tax revenue--or revenue aligned budget authority--to a variety of other 
purposes. Thus, the bill does not include the $468 million requested 
for new infrastructure investments in high speed rail corridors across 
the county.
  As many Members are aware, there is tremendous interest among the 
Governors in expanding Amtrak high speed rail service--Minnesota, 
Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and others have formed the Midwest 
Regional Rail Coalition, and there are other high speed rail corridors 
in California, New York, in the southeast, and in other parts of the 
county. To try to address the great interest in this area, the bill 
includes provisions to provide greater flexibility for governors, at 
their option, to use CMAQ and Surface Transportation Program funding to 
help finance these rail projects. We

[[Page H3428]]

believed this would be a small, but important step forward.
  This year, the committee received a tremendous number of requests 
from Members to help with grade crossing removal projects. To help 
address this need, the bill includes provisions eliminating the State 
and local matching requirements so that States can more quickly use the 
$142 million in outstanding Federal funds available, but unspent for 
this purpose. I would urge your support for these provisions.
  Finally, I want to mention my concerns about one aspect of the bill 
dealing with funding for the large transit projects we call ``new 
starts.'' This year, the committee received more than $2.7 billion in 
funding requests for discretionary section 5309 New Starts projects. 
Even though the program is funded at an historical high of $1.058 
billion, the amount available to fund new starts projects is a fraction 
of the current demand, and this problem will only grow worse in coming 
years.
  The new starts pipeline is huge and growing. The Federal Transit 
Administration has already committed the federal government to 
multiyear section 5309 funding of $2.9 billion over the remaining life 
of TEA21 for 16 transit systems, and the costs for another 47 projects 
in the pipeline will reach a staggering $25 billion. Still more 
projects are in the planning stage. The allowable Federal share of 
these projects under TEA-21 is 80 percent--clearly more than we can 
afford in the near future. In fact, the President's proposals for this 
fiscal year, if the committee had adopted them, would have completely 
exhausted all available discretionary Federal support for new transit 
systems through 2003.
  That is why I have advocated that we should move toward requiring 
communities to foot at least 50 percent of the bill for these projects, 
rather than the minimum 20 percent local share required under TEA21. I 
acknowledge that this is not a popular point of view, but I believe 
that it will become necessary to fairly provide Federal assistance to 
new start projects across the country. If we don't move in this 
direction, many communities with worthy transit projects simply will be 
left out in the cold.
  This bill does not include a 50 percent cost share requirement. But, 
far from serving as a disincentive to build transit as some have 
suggested, I believe that sending a clear message that more robust 
local and State financial participation is expected will help to 
address the new starts funding logjam--and more fairly distribute new 
starts assistance to communities in need.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take this opportunity to 
congratulate and thank the Appropriations Committee in general, and the 
chairman and members of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee 
in particular, for their efforts on the legislation that is before us 
today.
  As reported, H.R. 4475 is a well conceived piece of legislation. Not 
only does it keep faith with the principle that revenues raised for 
specific purposes, such as highway and airport improvements, should be 
devoted to those purposes, but it will be of immense benefit to the 
traveling public. By helping to ease the transportation bottlenecks 
that impede commerce and by mitigating the traffic congestion that 
plagues so many of our cities and suburbs, it will be of great benefit 
to millions of Americans who have to commute to work, drive their 
children to and from school, deliver shipments, shop for necessities 
and travel on business or in case of an emergency.
  How can I be so sure of that? Because I have the privilege of 
representing an area that is indicative of both the problems H.R. 4475 
seeks to address and remedies that it is intended to provide. As many 
of my colleagues know, the north and northwest suburbs of Chicago are 
very busy places. Not only can commuting to or from downtown Chicago by 
car be very time consuming at rush hour, but traveling from suburb to 
suburb is no easy or quick matter when traffic is heavy.
  To be sure, the Chicagoland is blessed with an excellent commuter 
rail system and a large number of light rail and bus routes. But, it 
also has a population that is expected to exceed nine million by the 
year 2020, which means that the pressures on the area's transportation 
systems will only get worse unless substantial steps are taken to 
relieve them. Which is where H.R. 4475 comes in.
  If enacted into law, this bill will facilitate the double tracking a 
portion of METRA's North Central line through northern Cook and central 
Lake counties, enabling 22 commuter trains a day to serve many of 
Chicago's northwest suburbs--plus Chicago's O'Hare Airport--instead of 
the current 10. In addition, the bill will lead to an expansion of 
METRA service to a number of communities west and southwest of Chicago 
as well. Also, H.R. 4475 will help reduce traffic congestion in the 
area serveral other ways. One is that it will help finance the 
development of intelligent transportation systems in both Lake County, 
north of Chicago, and DuPage County, west of the city. Another is that 
it will contribute to the rehabilitation of two important light rail 
lines--the Ravenswood Line and the Douglas line--in the city itself.
  Inasmuch as the aforementioned population growth is expected to occur 
within the City of Chicago as well as in its suburbs, I cannot 
emphasize enough how important these improvements are, not just to the 
people of my district, but to the entire Chicago metropolitan area. In 
addition to giving us more ways to get around, they will ease traffic 
congestion and make it easier for us to drive around. Moreover, they 
will lay the foundation for additional commuter rail service expansions 
and other transportation improvements in the future. In short, they 
promise real relief, not just to those who live in or near Chicago, but 
also to the millions of people who travel to the city while on vacation 
or to do business.
  For all those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank my colleagues on 
the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee and the full 
Appropriations Committee for including those items, the METRA projects 
and the ITS project in Lake County in particular, in the fiscal 2001 
Transportation appropriations bill. You have done my constituents and 
their Chicagoland neighbors a considerable service, one I am sure they 
will appreciate every bit as much as will the residents of many other 
cities and suburbs who likewise stand to benefit from its provisions. 
Which brings to mind one last thought, it being that the projects and 
benefits associated with H.R. 4475 stretch far beyond the city limits 
of Chicago and the State of Illinois. One way or another every State in 
the country will profit from enactment of H.R. 4475, as will many of 
their communities and residents. That being the case, I urge my 
colleagues to vote for the bill today so that we can begin to realize 
its potential before to many tomorrows come to pass.
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4475, the 
fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation appropriations bill. This 
legislation contains funding for a number of important programs, 
including several in my own district. These projects are designed to 
reduce reliance on single-passenger vehicles. By encouraging 
alternatives to the car, such as mass transit and other commuter 
opportunities, we reduce air emissions and conserve other important 
renewable resources. We enhance the quality of life in communities by 
reducing congestion and preserving air quality. Both are admirable 
objectives.
  The base bill also contains a provision that preserves the current 
corporate average fuel economy [CAFE] standards. An amendment to strip 
this provision out of the bill may be offered, and, if approved, will 
permit the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to impose 
stricter standards. While I strongly support the need to reduce air 
emissions and promote fuel efficiency, a restrictive approach mandated 
by the government, unresponsive to consumer demands and production 
realities, is not the wisest approach.
  CAFE is the result of the 1970's energy shortage. It was a proposal 
to diminish our reliance on foreign oil by mandating to auto 
manufacturers that their vehicles achieve at least minimum mileage 
standards. When oil prices again rose sharply in the early 1980's, 
smaller cars were selling well, and it was expected that manufacturers 
would have no difficulty complying with the standards. As oil prices 
began to decline during the latter part of the 1980's, small car sales 
began to taper. Consumers placed a lower value on fuel economy and gas 
prices as a factor in deciding which car to purchase. One consequence 
has been the rise in popularity of sport utility vehicles [SUVs]. 
Because SUVs rely on large cylinder engines requiring more fuel to 
power, they have been cited as the reason to revisit CAFE standards.
  Since CAFE standards were introduced, manufacturers have increased 
fuel economy for passenger vehicles by 113 percent and light trucks by 
almost 60 percent. With new technologies, such as fuel cells, hybrid 
vehicles, and boosting capabilities, vehicles that were once only able 
to achieve 18.7 miles per gallon are now able to achieve 70 miles per 
gallon. Boosting technologies allow a smaller, more fuel efficient 
engine to be used in a SUV without compromising performance. As 
important, it is technology that is relatively inexpensive to 
incorporate into vehicle design. In short, these types of technologies 
achieve the same end result as the CAFE objectives without increasing 
vehicle cost or constraining consumer choice.
  These technological improvements have resulted, not from the mandates 
of the CAFE standards, but from voluntary research and development 
efforts. Many of these technologies are adaptable right now. Others 
need additional time to fully develop and implement. In either 
scenario, the focus should be on encouraging technological innovation, 
development, and implementation. We can achieve this goal, not by 
commanding and controlling new technologies through the CAFE program, 
but by creating incentives to undertake expensive research projects. 
Incentives may include

[[Page H3429]]

tax breaks for new automotive or fuel technologies. It might include 
the creation of a demonstration project or providing funding for 
private/public research efforts such as the Partnership for a New 
Generation of Vehicles. In the end, it is because we do have 
alternative technologies and better ways to encourage innovation that 
makes the debate to increase the CAFE standards largely academic.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment and to support H.R. 
4475.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, permit me to take this opportunity to 
express my thanks to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from 
Virginia, Chairman Wolf, for his diligence and dedication in bringing 
this measure before the House today.
  This legislation fully meets the highways, transit, rail, and 
aviation needs of our Nation.
  Specifically, the measure allocates $30.7 billion for the Federal 
Highway Administration, a $1.6 billion increase; $12 billion for the 
Federal Aviation Administration, a $2 billion increase; $6.2 billion 
for the Federal Transit Administration, $485 million more than last 
year; $689 million for the Federal Railroad Administration, a $45 
million decrease from the fiscal year 2000 level; and $4.6 billion for 
the U.S. Coast Guard, a $594 million increase.
  Furthermore, I would express my gratitude to Chairman Wolf for his 
cooperation in providing assistance to the rural communities of 
Sullivan County, NY. The degradation of the Tappan Zee Bridge, our 
efforts to restore service to the west shoreline, our recent 
privatization of Stewart International Airport, the citizens of my 
district, from Tappan to Wurtsboro, are continuously facing the 
transportation challenges of increased growth and development. This 
funding will play a vital role in our commitment to provide a safe and 
reliable transportation infrastructure for our Nation.
  Once again, I thank Chairmen Young and Wolf for their continued 
support and commitment and look forward to working with them in the 
future on the challenges facing to our Nation's transportation system.
  Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill now before the 
House, H.R. 4475, the fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies. This bill contains 
$10,000,000 in Federal transit capital investment grant funding for the 
New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Long Island Rail 
Road East Side Access [ESA] project. While the ESA project could 
obligate much more Federal new start funding this year, with 
construction anticipated to begin this fall, I am very grateful for the 
committee's support. Federal taxpayers can rest assured that the ESA 
project will quickly put all Federal transit appropriations to good use 
for the public.
  I am pleased to mention that the NYS MTA's 2000-04 capital plan was 
just approved in the State legislature and provides the necessary local 
matching funds, $1,500,000,000, to enable ESA to move rapidly into 
heavy construction this year. Daily LIRR riders, 50,000 of whom will 
save nearly 3 hours a week now wasted backtracking from Penn Station on 
Manhattan's west side to jobs on the east side, are eager to see this 
project become a reality. Many of these harried commuters are hard-
working mothers and fathers who should have these hours to spend with 
their families. Transit riders throughout the MTA system will benefit 
from better distribution of passengers made possible by the ESA 
project. Planned new entranceways into the Grand Central Station 
complex will enhance the station's flow of LIRR, Metro North, and 
subway transit passengers. In Queens, passengers also will benefit from 
a new station to be built in Sunnyside.
  This project, which will provide major transportation benefits for 
the entire New York City Metropolitan region, has received Federal 
transit new start funding for the last three fiscal years. In addition, 
a major portion of its overall length was constructed throughout the 
1980's with nearly $900 million in Federal dollars (plus an equal 
amount of State/local dollars) as part of the MTA's 63d Street tunnel 
and connector project. The ESA project will complete the unfinished 
elements of these federally aided projects by allowing LIRR commuter 
trains to use the already constructed lower level of the tunnel and 
proceed into Grand Central Station. The busy upper level of the 63d 
Street tunnel now carries subway trains.
  In addition to maximizing passenger circulation throughout the 
transit system, ESA will enhance the environment by taking over 12,000 
cars per day off the East River bridges that bring commuters from 
Queens, Brooklyn, Nassau, and Suffolk to jobs in the Nation's largest 
central business district. It will also allow for reverse commuters to 
leave the west side of Manhattan from the same location that Metro 
North Railroad customers now enjoy.
  The ESA project, which I anticipate will be completed by 2011, is 
moving ahead steadily. The project is prepared for actual construction 
to begin during this calendar year, and to go into high gear in early 
fiscal year 2001.
  Local and State support for ESA are strong. It is Governor Pataki's 
No. 1 transit priority. The mayor and the county executives of Nassau 
and Suffolk, as well as the business community support the project.
  Nearly $192 million in State and Federal funds already have been 
invested in the ESA project, including $46 million in Federal new 
starts appropriations. With the MTA's suggested overmatch of 50 
percent, similar to what it had provided for its previous new start 
project, the 63d Street Connector, the ESA is a solid Federal 
investment that will maximize the use of facilities already built with 
Federal dollars and awaiting use by the taxpayers.
  A number of my colleagues including Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, 
Congressman Gregory Meeks, Congressman Joseph Crowley have worked 
together to support including fiscal year 2001 funds for the ESA 
project in the Appropriations Committee's reported-bill. It has been a 
tough effort because there are dozens of transit new starts projects 
competing for a limited amount of Federal funds. This has been a 
difficult process for Chairman Wolf, whom I thank for all his support 
and leadership, and I extend my gratitude to Ranking Member Sabo as 
well.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule. The amendments printed in House Report 106-626 
are adopted.
  During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chair may 
accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that 
he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered as read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4475

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes, namely:

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses

                   Immediate Office of the Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Immediate Office of the 
     Secretary, $1,756,000.

                Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary

       For necessary expenses of the Immediate Office of the 
     Deputy Secretary, $587,000.

                     Office of the General Counsel

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the General 
     Counsel, $9,760,000.

              Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Policy, $3,131,500.

   Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
                                Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, $7,182,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     there may be credited to this appropriation up to $1,250,000 
     in funds received in user fees.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Budget and Programs, $7,241,000, including not 
     to exceed $60,000 for allocation within the Department for 
     official reception and representation expenses as the 
     Secretary may determine.

       Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Governmental Affairs, $2,000,000.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Assistant 
     Secretary for Administration, $18,359,000.

                        Office of Public Affairs

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Public Affairs, 
     $1,454,000.

                         Executive Secretariat

       For necessary expenses of the Executive Secretariat, 
     $1,181,000.

                       Board of Contract Appeals

       For necessary expenses of the Board of Contract Appeals, 
     $496,000.

[[Page H3430]]

         Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Small and 
     Disadvantaged Business Utilization, $1,192,000.

                  Office of Intelligence and Security

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Intelligence and 
     Security, $1,490,000.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Chief 
     Information Officer, $6,279,000.

                         Office of Civil Rights

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights, 
     $8,140,000.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

       For necessary expenses for conducting transportation 
     planning, research, systems development, development 
     activities, and making grants, to remain available until 
     expended, $3,300,000.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

       Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays 
     of the Transportation Administrative Service Center, not to 
     exceed $119,387,000, shall be paid from appropriations made 
     available to the Department of Transportation: Provided, That 
     such services shall be provided on a competitive basis to 
     entities within the Department of Transportation: Provided 
     further, That the above limitation on operating expenses 
     shall not apply to non-DOT entities: Provided further, That 
     no funds appropriated in this Act to an agency of the 
     Department shall be transferred to the Transportation 
     Administrative Service Center without the approval of the 
     agency modal administrator: Provided further, That no 
     assessments may be levied against any program, budget 
     activity, subactivity or project funded by this Act unless 
     notice of such assessments and the basis therefor are 
     presented to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations and are approved by such Committees.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

       For the cost of guaranteed loans, $1,500,000, as authorized 
     by 49 U.S.C. 332: Provided, That such costs, including the 
     cost of modifying such loans, shall be as defined in section 
     502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided 
     further, That these funds are available to subsidize total 
     loan principal, any part of which is to be guaranteed, not to 
     exceed $13,775,000. In addition, for administrative expenses 
     to carry out the guaranteed loan program, $400,000.

                       Minority Business Outreach

       For necessary expenses of Minority Business Resource Center 
     outreach activities, $3,000,000, of which $2,635,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2002: Provided, That 
     notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 332, these funds may be used for 
     business opportunities related to any mode of transportation.

                              COAST GUARD

                           Operating Expenses

       For necessary expenses for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Coast Guard, not otherwise provided for; purchase of not 
     to exceed five passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; 
     payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as 
     amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and section 229(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 429(b)); and recreation and 
     welfare; $3,192,000,000, of which $341,000,000 shall be 
     available for defense-related activities; and of which 
     $25,000,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated in 
     this or any other Act shall be available for pay for 
     administrative expenses in connection with shipping 
     commissioners in the United States: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds provided in this Act shall be available for 
     expenses incurred for yacht documentation under 46 U.S.C. 
     12109, except to the extent fees are collected from yacht 
     owners and credited to this appropriation: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     Coast Guard to plan, finalize, or implement any regulation 
     that would promulgate new maritime user fees not specifically 
     authorized by law after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

       For necessary expenses of acquisition, construction, 
     renovation, and improvement of aids to navigation, shore 
     facilities, vessels, and aircraft, including equipment 
     related thereto, $515,000,000, of which $20,000,000 shall be 
     derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; of which 
     $252,640,000 shall be available to acquire, repair, renovate 
     or improve vessels, small boats and related equipment, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2005; $42,300,000 shall 
     be available for the Integrated Deepwater Systems program, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2003; $43,650,000 shall 
     be available to acquire new aircraft and increase aviation 
     capability, to remain available until September 30, 2003; 
     $60,113,000 shall be available for other equipment, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2003; $61,606,000 shall be 
     available for shore facilities and aids to navigation 
     facilities, to remain available until September 30, 2003; and 
     $54,691,000 shall be available for personnel compensation and 
     benefits and related costs, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2002: Provided, That the Commandant of the 
     Coast Guard is authorized to dispose of surplus real 
     property, by sale or lease, and the proceeds shall be 
     credited to this appropriation as offsetting collections and 
     made available only for the National Distress and Response 
     System Modernization program, to remain available for 
     obligation until September 30, 2003: Provided further, That 
     upon initial submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 
     2002 President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall transmit to the Congress a comprehensive capital 
     investment plan for the United States Coast Guard which 
     includes funding for each budget line item for fiscal years 
     2002 through 2006, with total funding for each year of the 
     plan constrained to the funding targets for those years as 
     estimated and approved by the Office of Management and 
     Budget: Provided further, That the amount herein appropriated 
     shall be reduced by $100,000 per day for each day after 
     initial submission of the President's budget that the plan 
     has not been submitted to the Congress.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the 
proviso on page 8, lines 17 through 20 on the ground that it is 
legislation on appropriations in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of 
the Rules of the House.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman make the point of order at this 
point?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I reserve it.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman should make the point of order since it 
comes against a provision in the bill before the Chair asks for 
amendments to that paragraph.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I will make the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Let me withdraw that. It is my intention to reserve a 
point of order and to hear the gentleman's argument, and it is my hope 
once I hear it I will withdraw my point of order.
  Mr. WOLF. Hope springs eternal.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may withdraw his point of order after the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has argued the point of order, but 
at this point he is making a point of order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. So if I understand the Chair, I can make my point of 
order and I still have the right to withdraw it after the gentleman 
makes his argument?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Then I will make my point of order.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2000 DOT Appropriation Act 
required the Secretary of Transportation to submit along with the 2001 
budget request the capital investment plan for the FAA and the Coast 
Guard. It might surprise many Members to know that although these 
agencies spend close to $3 billion, ``B'' billion, a year on the 
capital investments, they do not produce a comprehensive multiyear plan 
which shows how they plan to achieve their goals over time. They only 
submit an annual budget which simply does not give us enough 
information to make good decisions on these substantial investments. 
Any business this size or, frankly, a lot smaller would hammer out an 
investment plan as a matter of normal business practice, so we felt it 
was certainly reasonable for the FAA and the Coast Guard to do the 
same. So we required the development of these plans in last year's 
bill.
  The problem is, the Secretary has ignored the law. None of these 
plans has ever been submitted. The chairman of the committee, Mr. 
Chairman, does not ask for reports on a casual basis and it is rare for 
the committee to put reporting requirements in the bill, but we did in 
this case because they are important and we intend to ensure that one 
way or the other the committee's directives are not ignored, not by the 
FAA or the Coast Guard, and particularly by the Office of the 
Secretary, and not by the Office of Management and Budget.
  This should not be controversial. I do not believe that anyone would 
really have a substantive objection to compelling DOT to follow the law 
that the Congress has passed.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman insist upon his point of order?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, while I believe it is subject to a point 
of order, I agree with the substance of the arguments made by the 
gentleman and therefore withdraw my point of order.

[[Page H3431]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

       For necessary expenses to carry out the Coast Guard's 
     environmental compliance and restoration functions under 
     chapter 19 of title 14, United States Code, $16,700,000, to 
     remain available until expended.

                         Alteration of Bridges

       For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of 
     obstructive bridges, $14,740,000, to remain available until 
     expended.

                              Retired Pay

       For retired pay, including the payment of obligations 
     therefor otherwise chargeable to lapsed appropriations for 
     this purpose, and payments under the Retired Serviceman's 
     Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, payments for 
     15-year career status bonuses under the National Defense 
     Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000, and for payments for 
     medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under 
     the Dependents Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C. ch. 55), 
     $778,000,000.

                            Reserve Training

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For all necessary expenses of the Coast Guard Reserve, as 
     authorized by law; maintenance and operation of facilities; 
     and supplies, equipment, and services; $80,375,000: Provided, 
     That no more than $21,500,000 of funds made available under 
     this heading may be transferred to Coast Guard ``Operating 
     expenses'' or otherwise made available to reimburse the Coast 
     Guard for financial support of the Coast Guard Reserve: 
     Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act may be 
     used by the Coast Guard to assess direct charges on the Coast 
     Guard Reserves for items or activities which were not so 
     charged during fiscal year 1997.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     applied scientific research, development, test, and 
     evaluation; maintenance, rehabilitation, lease and operation 
     of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law, 
     $19,691,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $3,500,000 shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability 
     Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to and used 
     for the purposes of this appropriation funds received from 
     State and local governments, other public authorities, 
     private sources, and foreign countries, for expenses incurred 
     for research, development, testing, and evaluation.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                               Operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, including 
     operations and research activities related to commercial 
     space transportation, administrative expenses for research 
     and development, establishment of air navigation facilities, 
     the operation (including leasing) and maintenance of 
     aircraft, subsidizing the cost of aeronautical charts and 
     maps sold to the public, and lease or purchase of passenger 
     motor vehicles for replacement only, in addition to amounts 
     made available by Public Law 104-264, $6,544,235,000, 
     including $4,414,869,000 to be derived from the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund: Provided, That there may be credited to 
     this appropriation funds received from States, counties, 
     municipalities, foreign authorities, other public 
     authorities, and private sources, for expenses incurred in 
     the provision of agency services, including receipts for the 
     maintenance and operation of air navigation facilities, and 
     for issuance, renewal or modification of certificates, 
     including airman, aircraft, and repair station certificates, 
     or for tests related thereto, or for processing major repair 
     or alteration forms: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, $5,000,000 shall be for the 
     contract tower cost-sharing program and $750,000 shall be for 
     the Centennial of Flight Commission: Provided further, That 
     funds may be used to enter into a grant agreement with a 
     nonprofit standard-setting organization to assist in the 
     development of aviation safety standards: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for new 
     applicants for the second career training program: Provided 
     further, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for paying premium pay under 5 U.S.C. 5546(a) to 
     any Federal Aviation Administration employee unless such 
     employee actually performed work during the time 
     corresponding to such premium pay: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or expended to 
     operate a manned auxiliary flight service station in the 
     contiguous United States: Provided further, That none of the 
     funds in this Act may be used for the Federal Aviation 
     Administration to enter into a multiyear lease greater than 5 
     years in length or greater than $100,000,000 in value unless 
     such lease is specifically authorized by the Congress and 
     appropriations have been provided to fully cover the Federal 
     Government's contingent liabilities: Provided further, That 
     none of the funds in this Act for aeronautical charting and 
     cartography are available for activities conducted by, or 
     coordinated through, the Transportation Administrative 
     Service Center.

                        Facilities and Equipment

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     acquisition, establishment, and improvement by contract or 
     purchase, and hire of air navigation and experimental 
     facilities and equipment as authorized under part A of 
     subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, including 
     initial acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant; 
     engineering and service testing, including construction of 
     test facilities and acquisition of necessary sites by lease 
     or grant; and construction and furnishing of quarters and 
     related accommodations for officers and employees of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration stationed at remote 
     localities where such accommodations are not available; and 
     the purchase, lease, or transfer of aircraft from funds 
     available under this head; to be derived from the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund, $2,656,765,000 of which $2,334,112,400 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2003, and of which 
     $322,652,600 shall remain available until September 30, 2001: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 
     navigation facilities: Provided further, That upon initial 
     submission to the Congress of the fiscal year 2002 
     President's budget, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     transmit to the Congress a comprehensive capital investment 
     plan for the Federal Aviation Administration which includes 
     funding for each budget line item for fiscal years 2002 
     through 2006, with total funding for each year of the plan 
     constrained to the funding targets for those years as 
     estimated and approved by the Office of Management and 
     Budget: Provided further, That the amount herein appropriated 
     shall be reduced by $100,000 per day for each day after 
     initial submission of the President's budget that the plan 
     has not been submitted to the Congress: Provided further, 
     That none of the funds in this Act may be used for the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to enter into a capital lease 
     agreement unless appropriations have been provided to fully 
     cover the Federal Government's contingent liabilities at the 
     time the lease agreement is signed.

                 Research, Engineering, and Development

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for 
     research, engineering, and development, as authorized under 
     part A of subtitle VII of title 49, United States Code, 
     including construction of experimental facilities and 
     acquisition of necessary sites by lease or grant, 
     $184,366,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2003: 
     Provided, That there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received from States, counties, municipalities, other 
     public authorities, and private sources, for expenses 
     incurred for research, engineering, and development.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                    (airport and airway trust fund)

       For liquidation of obligations incurred for grants-in-aid 
     for airport planning and development, and noise compatibility 
     planning and programs as authorized under subchapter I of 
     chapter 471 and subchapter I of chapter 475 of title 49, 
     United States Code, and under other law authorizing such 
     obligations; for administration of such programs; for 
     administration of programs under section 40117; for 
     procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway 
     incursion prevention devices and systems at airports; and for 
     inspection activities and administration of airport safety 
     programs, including those related to airport operating 
     certificates under section 44706 of title 49, United States 
     Code, $3,200,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and 
     Airway Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That none of the funds under this heading shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of programs the 
     obligations for which are in excess of $3,200,000,000 in 
     fiscal year 2001, notwithstanding section 47117(h) of title 
     49, United States Code: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, not more than 
     $53,000,000 of funds limited under this heading shall be 
     obligated for administration.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                    (airport and airway trust fund)

                 (rescission of contract authorization)

       Of the unobligated balances authorized under 49 U.S.C. 
     48103, as amended, $579,000,000 are rescinded.

                   Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund

       The Secretary of Transportation is hereby authorized to 
     make such expenditures and investments, within the limits of 
     funds available pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 44307, and in 
     accordance with section 104 of the Government Corporation 
     Control Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 9104), as may be necessary 
     in carrying out the program for aviation insurance activities 
     under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

       Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the 
     Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $290,115,000 
     shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration 
     together with

[[Page H3432]]

     advances and reimbursements received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration.

                 Limitation on Transportation Research

       Necessary expenses for transportation research of the 
     Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $437,250,000 
     shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made 
     available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration: 
     Provided, That this limitation shall not apply to any 
     authority previously made available for obligation.

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                      (limitation on obligations)


                          (highway trust fund)

       None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs, the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $29,661,806,000 for Federal-aid 
     highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal 
     year 2001.

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                (liquidation of contract authorization)


                          (highway trust fund)

       For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States 
     Code, that are attributable to Federal-aid highways, 
     including the National Scenic and Recreational Highway as 
     authorized by 23 U.S.C. 148, not otherwise provided, 
     including reimbursement for sums expended pursuant to the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 308, $28,000,000,000 or so much 
     thereof as may be available in and derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

              FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                          Motor Carrier Safety


                 limitation on administrative expenses

       For necessary expenses for administration of motor carrier 
     safety programs and motor carrier safety research, pursuant 
     to section 104(a) of title 23, United States Code, not to 
     exceed $92,194,000 shall be paid in accordance with law from 
     appropriations made available by this Act to the Federal 
     Motor Carrier Safety Administration, together with advances 
     and reimbursements received by the Federal Motor Carrier 
     Safety Administration: Provided, That such amounts shall be 
     available to carry out the functions and operations of the 
     Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

                 National Motor Carrier Safety Program

                (liquidation of contract authorization)


                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49 
     U.S.C. 31102, $177,000,000, to be derived from the Highway 
     Trust Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the 
     implementation or execution of programs the obligations for 
     which are in excess of $177,000,000 for the National Motor 
     Carrier Safety Program.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                        Operations and Research

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary, with respect to traffic and highway safety under 
     chapter 301 of title 49, United States Code, and part C of 
     subtitle VI of title 49, United States Code, $107,876,000, of 
     which $77,671,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2003: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this 
     Act may be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or 
     implement any rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title 
     49 of the Code of Federal Regulations any requirement 
     pertaining to a grading standard that is different from the 
     three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature 
     resistance) already in effect.

                        Operations and Research

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the 
     provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, to remain available until 
     expended, $72,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of programs the total 
     obligations for which, in fiscal year 2001, are in excess of 
     $72,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 403.

                        National Driver Register

                          (highway trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Secretary with respect to the National Driver Register under 
     chapter 303 of title 49, United States Code, $2,000,000, to 
     be derived from the Highway Trust Fund, and to remain 
     available until expended.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)


                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     obligations incurred in carrying out the provisions of 23 
     U.S.C. 402, 405, 410, and 411, to remain available until 
     expended, $213,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust 
     Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be 
     available for the planning or execution of programs the total 
     obligations for which, in fiscal year 2001, are in excess of 
     $213,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402, 
     405, 410, and 411, of which $155,000,000 shall be for 
     ``Highway Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 402, $13,000,000 
     shall be for ``Occupant Protection Incentive Grants'' under 
     23 U.S.C. 405, $36,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired 
     Driving Countermeasures Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 410, and 
     $9,000,000 shall be for the ``State Highway Safety Data 
     Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 411: Provided further, That none of 
     these funds shall be used for construction, rehabilitation, 
     or remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures 
     for State, local, or private buildings or structures: 
     Provided further, That not to exceed $7,750,000 of the funds 
     made available for section 402, not to exceed $650,000 of the 
     funds made available for section 405, not to exceed 
     $1,800,000 of the funds made available for section 410, and 
     not to exceed $450,000 of the funds made available for 
     section 411 shall be available to NHTSA for administering 
     highway safety grants under chapter 4 of title 23, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That not to exceed $500,000 of 
     the funds made available for section 410 ``Alcohol-Impaired 
     Driving Countermeasures Grants'' shall be available for 
     technical assistance to the States.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                         Safety and Operations

       For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad 
     Administration, not otherwise provided for, $102,487,000, of 
     which $5,249,000 shall remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, as part of the Washington Union Station 
     transaction in which the Secretary assumed the first deed of 
     trust on the property and, where the Union Station 
     Redevelopment Corporation or any successor is obligated to 
     make payments on such deed of trust on the Secretary's 
     behalf, including payments on and after September 30, 1988, 
     the Secretary is authorized to receive such payments directly 
     from the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, credit them 
     to the appropriation charged for the first deed of trust, and 
     make payments on the first deed of trust with those funds: 
     Provided further, That such additional sums as may be 
     necessary for payment on the first deed of trust may be 
     advanced by the Administrator from unobligated balances 
     available to the Federal Railroad Administration, to be 
     reimbursed from payments received from the Union Station 
     Redevelopment Corporation.

                   Railroad Research and Development

       For necessary expenses for railroad research and 
     development, $26,300,000, to remain available until expended.

            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

       The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to issue to 
     the Secretary of the Treasury notes or other obligations 
     pursuant to section 512 of the Railroad Revitalization and 
     Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-210), as 
     amended, in such amounts and at such times as may be 
     necessary to pay any amounts required pursuant to the 
     guarantee of the principal amount of obligations under 
     sections 511 through 513 of such Act, such authority to exist 
     as long as any such guaranteed obligation is outstanding: 
     Provided, That pursuant to section 502 of such Act, as 
     amended, no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments 
     shall be made using Federal funds for the credit risk premium 
     during fiscal year 2001.

                     Rhode Island Rail Development

       For the costs associated with construction of a third track 
     on the Northeast Corridor between Davisville and Central 
     Falls, Rhode Island, with sufficient clearance to accommodate 
     double stack freight cars, $17,000,000 to be matched by the 
     State of Rhode Island or its designee on a dollar-for-dollar 
     basis and to remain available until expended.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

       For necessary expenses for the Next Generation High-Speed 
     Rail program as authorized under 49 U.S.C. 26101 and 26102, 
     $22,000,000, to remain available until expended.

     Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

       For necessary expenses of capital improvements of the 
     National Railroad Passenger Corporation as authorized by 49 
     U.S.C. 24104(a), $521,476,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That the Secretary shall not obligate 
     more than $208,590,000 prior to September 30, 2001.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                        Administrative Expenses

       For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal 
     Transit Administration's programs authorized by chapter 53 of 
     title 49, United States Code, $12,800,000: Provided, That no 
     more than $64,000,000 of budget authority shall be available 
     for these purposes: Provided further, That of the funds in 
     this Act available for the execution of contracts under 
     section 5327(c) of title 49, United States Code, $1,000,000 
     shall be transferred to the Department of Transportation's 
     Office of Inspector General for costs associated with the 
     audit and review of new fixed guideway systems.

                             Formula Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5308, 
     5310, 5311, 5327, and section 3038 of Public Law 105-178, 
     $669,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $3,345,000,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes: Provided further, That of the 
     funds provided under this head, $40,000,000 shall be 
     available for grants for the costs of planning, delivery, and 
     temporary use of transit vehicles for special transportation 
     needs and construction of temporary transportation facilities 
     for the XIX Winter Olympiad and the

[[Page H3433]]

     VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled, to be held in Salt Lake 
     City, Utah: Provided further, That in allocating the funds 
     designated in the preceding proviso, the Secretary shall make 
     grants only to the Utah Department of Transportation, and 
     such grants shall not be subject to any local share 
     requirement or limitation on operating assistance under this 
     Act or the Federal Transit Act, as amended.

                   University Transportation Research

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5505, 
     $1,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $6,000,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes.

                     Transit Planning and Research

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5303, 5304, 
     5305, 5311(b)(2), 5312, 5313(a), 5314, 5315, and 5322, 
     $22,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That no more than $110,000,000 of budget authority shall be 
     available for these purposes: Provided further, That 
     $5,250,000 is available to provide rural transportation 
     assistance (49 U.S.C. 5311(b)(2)); $4,000,000 is available to 
     carry out programs under the National Transit Institute (49 
     U.S.C. 5315); $8,250,000 is available to carry out transit 
     cooperative research programs (49 U.S.C. 5313(a)); 
     $52,113,600 is available for metropolitan planning (49 U.S.C. 
     5303, 5304, and 5305); $10,886,400 is available for State 
     planning (49 U.S.C. 5313(b)); and $29,500,000 is available 
     for the national planning and research program (49 U.S.C. 
     5314).

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of 
     obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 5303-5308, 
     5310-5315, 5317(b), 5322, 5327, 5334, 5505, and sections 3037 
     and 3038 of Public Law 105-178, $5,016,600,000, to remain 
     available until expended, and to be derived from the Mass 
     Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That 
     $2,676,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's formula grants account: Provided further, 
     That $87,800,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's transit planning and research account: 
     Provided further, That $51,200,000 shall be paid to the 
     Federal Transit Administration's administrative expenses 
     account: Provided further, That $4,800,000 shall be paid to 
     the Federal Transit Administration's university 
     transportation research account: Provided further, That 
     $80,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit 
     Administration's job access and reverse commute grants 
     program: Provided further, That $2,116,800,000 shall be paid 
     to the Federal Transit Administration's capital investment 
     grants account.

                       Capital Investment Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308, 5309, 
     5318, and 5327, $529,200,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That no more than $2,646,000,000 of 
     budget authority shall be available for these purposes: 
     Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, there shall be available for fixed guideway 
     modernization, $1,058,400,000; there shall be available for 
     the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and 
     related equipment and the construction of bus-related 
     facilities, $529,200,000, and there shall be available for 
     new fixed guideway systems $1,058,400,000, together with 
     $4,983,828 made available for the Pittsburgh airport busway 
     project under Public Law 105-66; together with $496,280 made 
     available for the Colorado-North Front Range corridor 
     feasibility study under Public Law 105-277, together with 
     $4,910,000 made available for the Orlando Lynx light rail 
     project (phase 1) under Public Law 106-69; to be available as 
     follows:
       $10,322,000 for Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects;
       $25,000,000 for the Atlanta, Georgia, North line extension 
     project;
       $3,000,000 for the Baltimore central LRT double track 
     project;
       $1,000,000 for the Boston Urban Ring project;
       $36,000,000 for the South Boston piers transitway;
       $6,000,000 for the Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail 
     project;
       $5,000,000 for the Charlotte, North Carolina, north-south 
     corridor transitway project;
       $35,000,000 for the Chicago METRA commuter rail projects;
       $15,000,000 for the Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood 
     and Douglas branch reconstruction projects;
       $3,000,000 for the Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement 
     project;
       $2,000,000 for the Colorado Roaring Fork Valley project;
       $70,000,000 for the Dallas north central light rail 
     extension project;
       $3,000,000 for the Denver Southeast corridor project;
       $20,200,000 for the Denver Southwest corridor project;
       $50,000,000 for the Dulles corridor project;
       $20,000,000 for the Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tri-County 
     commuter rail project;
       $500,000 for the Harrisburg-Lancaster capital area transit 
     corridor 1 commuter rail project;
       $1,000,000 for the Hollister/Gilroy branch line rail 
     extension project;
       $5,000,000 for the Houston advanced transit program;
       $10,750,000 for the Houston regional bus project;
       $2,000,000 for the Indianapolis, Indiana Northeast Downtown 
     corridor project;
       $1,000,000 for the Johnson County, Kansas, I-35 commuter 
     rail project;
       $2,000,000 for the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail extension 
     project;
       $2,000,000 for the Little Rock, Arkansas river rail 
     project;
       $10,000,000 for the Long Island Railroad East Side access 
     project;
       $4,000,000 for the Los Angeles Mid-City and East Side 
     corridors projects;
       $50,000,000 for the Los Angeles North Hollywood extension 
     project;
       $3,000,000 for the Los Angeles-San Diego LOSSAN corridor 
     project;
       $1,000,000 for the Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New 
     Hampshire commuter rail project;
       $1,000,000 for the Massachusetts North Shore corridor 
     project;
       $4,000,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee, Medical Center rail 
     extension project;
       $6,000,000 for the Nashville, Tennessee, regional commuter 
     rail project;
       $121,000,000 for the New Jersey Hudson Bergen project;
       $4,000,000 for the Newark-Elizabeth rail link project;
       $2,000,000 for the Northern Indiana south shore commuter 
     rail project;
       $10,000,000 for the Oceanside-Escondido, California light 
     rail system;
       $10,000,000 for temporary and permanent Olympic 
     transportation infrastructure investments: Provided, That 
     these funds shall be allocated by the Secretary based on the 
     approved transportation management plan for the Salt Lake 
     City 2002 Winter Olympic Games: Provided further, That none 
     of these funds shall be available for rail extensions;
       $3,000,000 for the Orange County, California, transitway 
     project;
       $5,000,000 for the Philadelphia-Reading SETPA Schuylkill 
     Valley and Cross County metro projects;
       $13,000,000 for the Phoenix metropolitan area transit 
     project;
       $5,000,000 for the Pittsburgh North Shore-central business 
     district corridor project;
       $5,000,000 for the Pittsburgh stage II light rail project;
       $5,000,000 for the Portland interstate MAX light rail 
     transit extension project;
       $8,500,000 for the Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail 
     project;
       $10,000,000 for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle 
     transit project;
       $35,200,000 for the Sacramento, California, south corridor 
     LRT project;
       $2,000,000 for the San Bernardino, California Metrolink 
     project;
       $45,000,000 for the San Diego Mission Valley East light 
     rail project;
       $80,000,000 for the San Francisco BART extension to the 
     airport project;
       $12,250,000 for the San Jose Tasman West light rail 
     project;
       $100,000,000 for the San Juan Tren Urbano project;
       $30,000,000 for the Seattle, Washington, central link light 
     rail transit project;
       $7,000,000 for the Spokane, Washington, South Valley 
     corridor light rail project;
       $2,000,000 for the St. Louis, Missouri, MetroLink cross 
     county connector project;
       $60,000,000 for the St. Louis-St. Clair MetroLink extension 
     project;
       $8,000,000 for the Stamford, Connecticut fixed guideway 
     corridor;
       $3,000,000 for the Stockton, California Altamont commuter 
     rail project;
       $5,000,000 for the Twin Cities Transitways projects;
       $55,000,000 for the Twin Cities Transitways--Hiawatha 
     corridor project;
       $3,000,000 for the Virginia Railway Express commuter rail 
     project;
       $2,000,000 for the Washington Metro-Blue Line extension-
     Addison Road (Largo) project;
       $4,000,000 for the West Trenton, New Jersey, rail project;
       $5,000,000 for the Whitehall ferry terminal project; and
       $1,000,000 for the Wilsonville to Washington County, Oregon 
     commuter rail project: Provided further, That funds made 
     available for the Miami-Dade Transit east-west multimodal 
     corridor project under Public Laws 105-277 and 106-69 and 
     funds made available for Miami Metro-Dade North 27th Avenue 
     corridor project under Public Law 105-277 shall be available 
     for the Miami-Dade busway project.

                          Discretionary Grants

                (liquidation of contract authorization)


                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

         Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment 
     of previous obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 
     5338(b), $350,000,000, to remain available until expended and 
     to be derived from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway 
     Trust Fund.

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants

       For necessary expenses to carry out section 3037 of the 
     Federal Transit Act of 1998, $20,000,000 to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That no more than $100,000,000 of 
     budget authority shall be available for these purposes.

             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

       The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds

[[Page H3434]]

     and borrowing authority available to the Corporation, and in 
     accord with law, and to make such contracts and commitments 
     without regard to fiscal year limitations as provided by 
     section 104 of the Government Corporation Control Act, as 
     amended, as may be necessary in carrying out the programs set 
     forth in the Corporation's budget for the current fiscal 
     year.

                       Operations and Maintenance

                    (harbor maintenance trust fund)

       For necessary expenses for operations and maintenance of 
     those portions of the Saint Lawrence Seaway operated and 
     maintained by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 
     Corporation, $13,004,000, to be derived from the Harbor 
     Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662.

              RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

                     Research and Special Programs

       For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the 
     Research and Special Programs Administration, $36,452,000, of 
     which $645,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety 
     Fund, and of which $4,707,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2003: Provided, That up to $1,200,000 in fees 
     collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) shall be deposited in the 
     general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts: Provided 
     further, That there may be credited to this appropriation, to 
     be available until expended, funds received from States, 
     counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and 
     private sources for expenses incurred for training, for 
     reports publication and dissemination, and for travel 
     expenses incurred in performance of hazardous materials 
     exemptions and approvals functions.

                            Pipeline Safety

                         (pipeline safety fund)

                    (oil spill liability trust fund)

       For expenses necessary to conduct the functions of the 
     pipeline safety program, for grants-in-aid to carry out a 
     pipeline safety program, as authorized by 49 U.S.C. 60107, 
     and to discharge the pipeline program responsibilities of the 
     Oil Pollution Act of 1990, $40,137,000, of which $4,263,000 
     shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2003; and 
     $35,874,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund, 
     of which $20,713,000 shall remain available until September 
     30, 2003; Provided, That in addition to amounts made 
     available for the Pipeline Safety Fund, $2,500,000 shall be 
     derived from amounts previously collected under 49 U.S.C. 
     60301: Provided further, That amounts previously collected 
     under 49 U.S.C. 60301 shall be available for damage 
     prevention grants.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants

                     (emergency preparedness fund)

       For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5127(c), 
     $200,000, to be derived from the Emergency Preparedness Fund, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2003: Provided, That 
     none of the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i) and 
     5127(d) shall be made available for obligation by individuals 
     other than the Secretary of Transportation, or his designee.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     to carry out the provisions of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978, as amended, $48,050,000: Provided, That the Inspector 
     General shall have all necessary authority, in carrying out 
     the duties specified in the Inspector General Act, as amended 
     (5 U.S.C. App. 3) to investigate allegations of fraud, 
     including false statements to the government (18 U.S.C. 
     1001), by any person or entity that is subject to regulation 
     by the Department: Provided further, That the funds made 
     available under this heading shall be used to investigate, 
     pursuant to section 41712 of title 49, United States Code: 
     (1) unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of 
     competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket 
     agents; and (2) the compliance of domestic and foreign air 
     carriers with respect to item (1) of this proviso.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Surface Transportation Board, 
     including services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $17,954,000: 
     Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     not to exceed $900,000 from fees established by the Chairman 
     of the Surface Transportation Board shall be credited to this 
     appropriation as offsetting collections and used for 
     necessary and authorized expenses under this heading: 
     Provided further, That the sum herein appropriated from the 
     general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as 
     such offsetting collections are received during fiscal year 
     2001, to result in a final appropriation from the general 
     fund estimated at no more than $17,054,000.

                                TITLE II

                            RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for the Architectural and 
     Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, as authorized by 
     section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 
     $4,795,000: Provided, That, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation 
     funds received for publications and training expenses.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the National Transportation 
     Safety Board, including hire of passenger motor vehicles and 
     aircraft; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at 
     rates for individuals not to exceed the per diem rate 
     equivalent to the rate for a GS-15; uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902) 
     $62,942,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for 
     official reception and representation expenses.

  Mr. WOLF (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the bill through page 39, line 13 be considered as read, printed 
in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  0945


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any points of order against this portion?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order against the 
proviso on page 13, line 24, through page 14, line 3, on the grounds 
that it is legislation on an appropriations bill and in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of 
order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, yes, we would ask that the point of order 
would not be granted.
  We would make the same argument on this one as we did the previous 
one.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania wish to be heard?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I believe clearly a point of order could 
be made against this, as with the first item we discussed a few moments 
ago.
  In substance, I agree with the gentleman from Virginia, and 
therefore, I withdraw my point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is withdrawn.
  Are there further points of order?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against the 
proviso on page 14, lines 3 through 8, on the grounds that it is 
legislation on an appropriation bill and in violation of clause 2 of 
rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to speak against the point of 
order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and is sustained.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against the 
phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 20, line 
18, on the grounds that it is legislation on an appropriations bill, in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to speak to the point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we would not want to put any legislation on, 
so we would concede that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against the 
phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 26, line 
15, on the ground that it is legislation on an appropriations bill and 
in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) concedes and the 
point of order is sustained.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against the 
phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 27, line 
15 through 16, on the ground that it is legislation on an 
appropriations bill and in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against the 
phrase ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' on page 33, line 
24, on the grounds that it is legislation on an appropriations bill and 
in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.

[[Page H3435]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  Mr. WOLF. We concede, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.


                             point of order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against the 
provisions on page 36, line 15 through 20, on the grounds that it is 
legislation on an appropriations bill, in violation of clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) wish to 
speak to the point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we concede.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of 
the bill through page 51 line 12 be considered as read, printed in the 
Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the bill from page 39, line 14, through 
page 51, line 12, is as follows:

                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

                     (including transfers of funds)

       Sec. 301. During the current fiscal year applicable 
     appropriations to the Department of Transportation shall be 
     available for maintenance and operation of aircraft; hire of 
     passenger motor vehicles and aircraft; purchase of liability 
     insurance for motor vehicles operating in foreign countries 
     on official department business; and uniforms, or allowances 
     therefor, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 5901-5902).
       Sec. 302. Such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 
     2001 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be 
     absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or 
     previous appropriations Acts.
       Sec. 303. Funds appropriated under this Act for 
     expenditures by the Federal Aviation Administration shall be 
     available: (1) except as otherwise authorized by title VIII 
     of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 
     U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), for expenses of primary and secondary 
     schooling for dependents of Federal Aviation Administration 
     personnel stationed outside the continental United States at 
     costs for any given area not in excess of those of the 
     Department of Defense for the same area, when it is 
     determined by the Secretary that the schools, if any, 
     available in the locality are unable to provide adequately 
     for the education of such dependents; and (2) for 
     transportation of said dependents between schools serving the 
     area that they attend and their places of residence when the 
     Secretary, under such regulations as may be prescribed, 
     determines that such schools are not accessible by public 
     means of transportation on a regular basis.
       Sec. 304. Appropriations contained in this Act for the 
     Department of Transportation shall be available for services 
     as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals 
     not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the rate for an 
     Executive Level IV.
       Sec. 305. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for salaries and expenses of more than 104 political and 
     Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation: 
     Provided, That none of the personnel covered by this 
     provision or political and Presidential appointees in an 
     independent agency funded in this Act may be assigned on 
     temporary detail outside the Department of Transportation or 
     such independent agency.
       Sec. 306. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for 
     the planning or execution of any program to pay the expenses 
     of, or otherwise compensate, non-Federal parties intervening 
     in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
       Sec. 307. None of the funds appropriated in this Act shall 
     remain available for obligation beyond the current fiscal 
     year, nor may any be transferred to other appropriations, 
     unless expressly so provided herein.
       Sec. 308. The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract 
     pursuant to section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, 
     shall be limited to those contracts where such expenditures 
     are a matter of public record and available for public 
     inspection, except where otherwise provided under existing 
     law, or under existing Executive order issued pursuant to 
     existing law.
       Sec. 309. The limitations on obligations for the programs 
     of the Federal Transit Administration shall not apply to any 
     authority under 49 U.S.C. 5338, previously made available for 
     obligation, or to any other authority previously made 
     available for obligation.
       Sec. 310. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.
       Sec. 311. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would 
     establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five 
     miles wide between the Santa Barbara Traffic Separation 
     Scheme and the San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme.
       Sec. 312. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     airports may transfer, without consideration, to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration (FAA) instrument landing systems 
     (along with associated approach lighting equipment and runway 
     visual range equipment) which conform to FAA design and 
     performance specifications, the purchase of which was 
     assisted by a Federal airport-aid program, airport 
     development aid program or airport improvement program grant. 
     The Federal Aviation Administration shall accept such 
     equipment, which shall thereafter be operated and maintained 
     by FAA in accordance with agency criteria.
       Sec. 313. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to award a multiyear contract for production end items that: 
     (1) includes economic order quantity or long lead time 
     material procurement in excess of $10,000,000 in any 1 year 
     of the contract; (2) includes a cancellation charge greater 
     than $10,000,000 which at the time of obligation has not been 
     appropriated to the limits of the Government's liability; or 
     (3) includes a requirement that permits performance under the 
     contract during the second and subsequent years of the 
     contract without conditioning such performance upon the 
     appropriation of funds: Provided, That this limitation does 
     not apply to a contract in which the Federal Government 
     incurs no financial liability from not buying additional 
     systems, subsystems, or components beyond the basic contract 
     requirements.
       Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and 
     except for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made 
     available by this Act under ``Federal Transit Administration, 
     Capital investment grants'' for projects specified in this 
     Act or identified in reports accompanying this Act not 
     obligated by September 30, 2003, and other recoveries, shall 
     be made available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
       Sec. 315. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
     funds appropriated before October 1, 2000, under any section 
     of chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain 
     available for expenditure may be transferred to and 
     administered under the most recent appropriation heading for 
     any such section.
       Sec. 316. None of the funds in this Act may be used to 
     compensate in excess of 320 technical staff-years under the 
     federally funded research and development center contract 
     between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center 
     for Advanced Aviation Systems Development during fiscal year 
     2001.
       Sec. 317. Funds received by the Federal Highway 
     Administration, Federal Transit Administration, and Federal 
     Railroad Administration from States, counties, 
     municipalities, other public authorities, and private sources 
     for expenses incurred for training may be credited 
     respectively to the Federal Highway Administration's 
     ``Federal-Aid Highways'' account, the Federal Transit 
     Administration's ``Transit Planning and Research'' account, 
     and to the Federal Railroad Administration's ``Safety and 
     Operations'' account, except for State rail safety inspectors 
     participating in training pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.
       Sec. 318. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulations pursuant 
     to title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings 
     Act (49 U.S.C. 32901 et seq.) prescribing corporate average 
     fuel economy standards for automobiles, as defined in such 
     title, in any model year that differs from standards 
     promulgated for such automobiles prior to the enactment of 
     this section.
       Sec. 319. Notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, funds received by 
     the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data 
     products, for necessary expenses incurred pursuant to 49 
     U.S.C. 111 may be credited to the Federal-aid highways 
     account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such 
     expenses: Provided, That such funds shall be subject to the 
     obligation limitation for Federal-aid highways and highway 
     safety construction.
       Sec. 320. None of the funds in this Act may be obligated or 
     expended for employee training which: (a) does not meet 
     identified needs for knowledge, skills and abilities bearing 
     directly upon the performance of official duties; (b) 
     contains elements likely to induce high levels of emotional 
     response or psychological stress in some participants; (c) 
     does not require prior employee notification of the content 
     and methods to be used in the training and written end of 
     course evaluations; (d) contains any methods or content 
     associated with religious or quasi-religious belief systems 
     or ``new age'' belief systems as defined in Equal Employment 
     Opportunity Commission Notice N-915.022, dated September 2, 
     1988; (e) is offensive to, or designed to change, 
     participants' personal values or lifestyle outside the 
     workplace; or (f ) includes content related to human 
     immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome 
     (HIV/AIDS) other than that necessary to make employees more 
     aware of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the 
     workplace rights of HIV-positive employees.
       Sec. 321. None of the funds in this Act shall, in the 
     absence of express authorization by Congress, be used 
     directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, 
     advertisement, telegraph, telephone, letter, printed or 
     written material, radio, television, video presentation, 
     electronic communications, or other device, intended or 
     designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress or 
     of a State legislature to favor or oppose by vote or 
     otherwise, any legislation or appropriation by Congress or a 
     State legislature after

[[Page H3436]]

     the introduction of any bill or resolution in Congress 
     proposing such legislation or appropriation, or after the 
     introduction of any bill or resolution in a State legislature 
     proposing such legislation or appropriation: Provided, That 
     this shall not prevent officers or employees of the 
     Department of Transportation or related agencies funded in 
     this Act from communicating to Members of Congress or to 
     Congress, on the request of any Member, or to members of 
     State legislature, or to a State legislature, through the 
     proper official channels, requests for legislation or 
     appropriations which they deem necessary for the efficient 
     conduct of business.
       Sec. 322. (a) In General.--None of the funds made available 
     in this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity 
     agrees that in expending the funds the entity will comply 
     with the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).
       (b) Sense of the Congress; Requirement Regarding Notice.--
       (1) Purchase of american-made equipment and products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or product that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided using 
     funds made available in this Act, it is the sense of the 
     Congress that entities receiving the assistance should, in 
     expending the assistance, purchase only American-made 
     equipment and products to the greatest extent practicable.
       (2) Notice to recipients of assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance using funds made available in this Act, 
     the head of each Federal agency shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the statement 
     made in paragraph (1) by the Congress.
       (c) Prohibition of Contracts With Persons Falsely Labeling 
     Products as Made in America.--If it has been finally 
     determined by a court or Federal agency that any person 
     intentionally affixed a label bearing a ``Made in America'' 
     inscription, or any inscription with the same meaning, to any 
     product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not 
     made in the United States, the person shall be ineligible to 
     receive any contract or subcontract made with funds made 
     available in this Act, pursuant to the debarment, suspension, 
     and ineligibility procedures described in sections 9.400 
     through 9.409 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations.
       Sec. 323. Funds provided in this Act for the Transportation 
     Administrative Service Center (TASC) shall be reduced by 
     $4,000,000, which limits fiscal year 2001 TASC obligational 
     authority for elements of the Department of Transportation 
     funded in this Act to no more than $115,387,000: Provided, 
     That such reductions from the budget request shall be 
     allocated by the Department of Transportation to each 
     appropriations account in proportion to the amount included 
     in each account for the Transportation Administrative Service 
     Center.
       Sec. 324. Rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees 
     and other funds received by the Department from travel 
     management centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of 
     building space, and miscellaneous sources are to be credited 
     to appropriations of the Department and allocated to elements 
     of the Department using fair and equitable criteria and such 
     funds shall be available until December 31, 2001.
       Sec. 325. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rule 
     or regulation, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized 
     to allow the issuer of any preferred stock heretofore sold to 
     the Department to redeem or repurchase such stock upon the 
     payment to the Department of an amount determined by the 
     Secretary.
       Sec. 326. For necessary expenses of the Amtrak Reform 
     Council authorized under section 203 of Public Law 105-134, 
     $980,000, to remain available until September 30, 2002: 
     Provided, That the duties of the Amtrak Reform Council 
     described in section 203(g)(1) of Public Law 105-134 shall 
     include the identification of Amtrak routes which are 
     candidates for closure or realignment, based on performance 
     rankings developed by Amtrak which incorporate information on 
     each route's fully allocated costs and ridership on core 
     intercity passenger service, and which assume, for purposes 
     of closure or realignment candidate identification, that 
     Federal subsidies for Amtrak will decline over the 4-year 
     period from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2002: Provided 
     further, That these closure or realignment recommendations 
     shall be included in the Amtrak Reform Council's annual 
     report to the Congress required by section 203(h) of Public 
     Law 105-134.
       Sec. 327. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to 
     transfer funds appropriated for any office of the Office of 
     the Secretary to any other office of the Office of the 
     Secretary: Provided, That no appropriation shall be increased 
     or decreased by more than 12 percent by all such transfers: 
     Provided further, That any such transfer shall be submitted 
     for approval to the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations.
       Sec. 328. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for activities under the Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee 
     Program during fiscal year 2001.
       Sec. 329. None of the funds in this Act may be used to make 
     a grant unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the 
     House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 
     three full business days before any discretionary grant 
     award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement 
     totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the department or 
     its modal administrations from: (1) any discretionary grant 
     program of the Federal Highway Administration other than the 
     emergency relief program; (2) the airport improvement program 
     of the Federal Aviation Administrtion; or (3) any program of 
     the Federal Transit Administration other than the formula 
     grants and fixed guideway modernization programs: Provided, 
     That no notification shall involve funds that are not 
     available for obligation.
       Sec. 330. Section 232 of the Miscellaneous Appropriations 
     Act, 2000, as enacted by section 1000(a)(5) of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, is repealed.
       Sec. 331. None of the funds in this Act shall be available 
     for planning, design, or construction of a light rail system 
     in Houston, Texas.
       Sec. 332. Section 3038(e) of Public Law 105-178 is amended 
     by striking ``50'' and inserting ``90''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order or amendments to that portion 
of the bill?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order against section 
333 beginning on line 13, p. 51.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk must first read that section. That Clerk will 
read.

  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 333. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     fiscal year 2001, funds apportioned under section 104(b)(3) 
     of title 23 which are applied to projects involving the 
     elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings, 
     including the separation or protection of grades at 
     crossings, the reconstruction of existing railroad grade 
     crossing structures, and the relocation of highways to 
     eliminate grade crossings, may have a federal share up to 100 
     percent of the cost of construction.

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) make 
a point of order against that section?


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order against section 
333 on page 51, lines 13 through 21, on the ground that it is 
legislation on an appropriations bill, in violation of clause 2 of rule 
XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) on the point of order.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I contest the point of order. Mr. Chairman, I 
am very disappointed that the chairman of the authorizing committee has 
raised a point of order against section 333 of this bill. This 
provision deletes the non-Federal match for the section 130 grade 
crossing programs.
  In 1999, the unobligated national balance, which was a disgrace, 
totaled $142 million. That means there was $142 million just lying out 
there for States to use for rail crossings to save lives.
  Many States have had difficulty expanding the section 130 funds, and 
as a result, some States have a few years of unobligated balances that 
should be used to eliminate grade crossing hazards.
  For example, Mr. Chairman, the State of Georgia has $9,630,879 in 
unobligated balances, and the State of North Carolina has $7,451,146 in 
unobligated balances.
  Deleting the non-Federal match would permit States to reduce those 
unobligated balances and eliminate a greater number of grade crossing 
hazards than previously planned, and improve safety for American 
families.
  In fact, it is in some of the rural areas, in the gentleman's area 
out in Nebraska, for $100,000 we could literally make the rural 
crossing safe. In some of the rural areas, the legislatures think in 
terms of the urban areas and forget some of these areas.
  The committee has received letters of support for this provision. The 
common theme contained in these letters is because State funds compete 
for a variety of highway uses, many of which have no local or State 
match requirement, highway planners fail to allocate funding to 
eliminate grade crossing hazards. This failure is occurring as a record 
amount of freight is being moved by rail and highway traffic is 
growing, creating an increasingly dangerous situation.
  Each year there are about 3,500 collisions at grade crossings with 
nearly 1,500 injuries and 500 deaths, sometimes school buses and 
different things like that, where a lot of people are traveling in the 
buses. The tragic accident earlier this year along the Tennessee-
Georgia border that killed a number of schoolchildren, and the accident 
last year in Illinois that killed 11 Amtrak riders certainly 
demonstrates that more needs to be done to upgrade safety at grade 
crossings.

[[Page H3437]]

  Mr. Chairman, I note that the chairman of the authorizing committee 
insists on a point of order. I would hope he would not do this. I think 
by allowing this thing to stay in the bill, and I am disappointed that 
the Committee on Rules did not actually protect this, we would actually 
save a lot of lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I would concede the point of order, but I would appeal 
to the gentleman, who I know has a strong interest in safety, and I 
want to commend him for the efforts last year on the Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration, that we could have a one-time flushing out 
whereby this money could be used for particularly poor areas, rural 
areas, for $100,000 a pop, where we could take care of the problem, 
where we would not have some of these accidents. We could save a lot of 
lives.
  Mr. Chairman, I would concede it. The gentleman has every right, but 
I appeal to the gentleman as a former resident of the State of 
Pennsylvania and a graduate of Penn State, that he would allow us to 
move ahead with this.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of 
order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Shuster).
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we are very sensitive to this issue. That 
is why we increased the Federal share in this program from 80 percent 
to 90 percent. But we do believe that there is a State interest here. 
The Federal government does not have all the responsibility, even 
though we have increased the responsibility from 80 percent to 90 
percent.
  Beyond that, in TEA-21, we increased the funds for safety by 44 
percent. It is the States which are making the decisions as to where 
they get the most bang for the buck in safety.
  Mr. Chairman, there are over 40,000 people killed on our highways 
every year. We think it is quite appropriate for the States to decide 
whether they want to put their money. In terms of the efficiency of 
saving lives, the bang for the buck in saving lives, it is very clear 
that lighting, straightening curves, guard rails, do provide more bang 
for the buck.
  Nevertheless, we recognize this problem as one of many problems, and 
that is why we have increased it from 80 percent to 90 percent. I 
insist upon my point of order.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if I may speak further on the point of order, 
what we were trying to do, I would tell the chairman, is just have a 1-
year period to flush it out. I commend the gentleman for all these 
safety things, but I think for 1 year, I would ask him for that.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I insist upon 
my point of order.
  The Chairman. The point of order is conceded and is sustained. The 
section is stricken.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 334. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
     fiscal year 2001, funds made available under section 110 of 
     title 23, United States Code--
       (1) for the congestion mitigation and air quality 
     improvement program, may be used for capital costs for 
     vehicles and facilities, whether publicly owned or privately 
     owned, in accordance with section 149(e), that are used to 
     provide intercity passenger service by rail (including 
     vehicles and facilities that are used to provide 
     transportation systems using magnetic levitation), if the 
     project or program will contribute to attainment or 
     maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard within 
     a nonattainment or maintenance areas, and
       (2) for the surface transportation program, may be used for 
     capital costs for vehicles and facilities, whether publicly 
     owned or privately owned, that are used to provide intercity 
     passenger service by rail (including vehicles and facilities 
     that are used to provide transportation systems using 
     magnetic levitation).


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against section 
334 on page 51, line 22, through page 52, line 18.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order against this section on the 
grounds that it is legislation on an appropriations bill and in 
violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is made. Does any Member wish to be 
heard on the point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I concede the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. SABO. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure where we are in the bill right 
now. We moved ahead by unanimous consent. I thought we were moving 
forward simply for points of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The committee has been moving forward for points of 
order and for amendments.
  Mr. SABO. In that case, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent 
that we revert for a potential amendment back to section 331.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Minnesota?
  Mr. WOLF. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would ask, 
what would this basically mean, that the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee) would have an opportunity to speak on the amendment?
  Mr. SABO. To offer her amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection. We 
will permit the gentlewoman to go back and offer her amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) may offer her amendment.
  There was no objection.


             Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 51, strike lines 8 through 10 (section 331). 
     Redesignate subsequent sections of the bill accordingly.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment offered 
by myself and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), and I believe 
that eventually and we hope that eventually this will see the beginning 
of a resolution that really deals with community-based efforts.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning to strike the language that limits 
the use of funding, of Federal transportation dollars for the planning, 
design, or construction of a light rail system in Houston, Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an effort to speak on this floor and to ask for 
collaborative support on community-based efforts dealing with the great 
needs of regional mobility in an area that is working to comply with 
clean air requirements.
  As a representative of the area that would see the benefits of this 
light rail project, and as a representative from Houston that would see 
the larger benefits, I want this floor to know that this is a 
collective and collaborative effort.
  Houston Metro simply wants to transfer $65 million in Federal funds 
earmarked for construction of a light rail project in my home city of 
Houston. The rest of the monies would come from other local sources. 
What better collaborative Federal-local government collaboration than 
to see the matching funds, the effort that the community is making.
  The light rail project, Mr. Chairman, has been vetted extensively in 
our community. It has been vetted by the Metro board, the city council, 
the mayor of Houston, who is, of course, a supporter.
  I have received support from the local surrounding congressional 
Members, the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Green, Mr. Lampson, Mr. Doggett, 
and Mr. Turner; the mayor of the city of Houston, the county judge of 
the city of Houston, the Houston Partnership, the Medical Center, the 
Astrodome area, of which this connector would connect.
  If we just envision a straight line going through a myriad of areas 
in a city, some high, some low, this light rail connector is in fact a 
dream effort to ensure a working laboratory to give further data and 
insight into the idea of regional mobility.

                              {time}  1000

  It connects the large Astrodome, where the Republican National 
Convention was held, along through some depressed areas, along through 
our museum area, the Rice University, Main

[[Page H3438]]

Street, as most of our towns have their Main Street, which have fallen 
upon hard times, then into our vibrant downtown area, and connecting 
the University of Houston Downtown that serves a high population of 
Hispanics and African Americans.
  This light rail is a win/win circumstance. It is a system that has 
been frugal in its analysis. No comment or criticism has come from the 
Department of Transportation that this is not a good system. No 
criticism has come that they are overrun with the new executive 
director and CEO of the Metro, Shirley Delibero, we brought in a very 
fine rail professional.
  We know for sure that this rail system will help to generate feeder 
lines if the community so desires in parts west, north, south and east, 
reaching to all parts of this Metroplex.
  Mr. Chairman, as we have seen the proposal of the light rail, we have 
seen a light come into the area. We have seen the beginning of a 27-
story high-rise office building. We have seen the work of Trammell Crow 
residential, which is evaluating from 250 unit multiservice or 
multifamily housing complex in midtown Houston. We have seen Camden 
Development complete a 337-unit apartment project in midtown, and 
McCord Development, which has two high-rise office redevelopment 
projects underway.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, what I am hoping that as we evidence to this 
body, both Democrats and Republicans alike, although this does not rise 
to the level of a point of order, it is a limitation. We ask that this 
body give respect and credence to a collective group of individuals who 
have sought only to see a return on their tax dollars and to match the 
work that has gone on in Washington, D.C. that has moved people from 
place to place; Seattle, Washington, our sister city; Dallas, Texas, 
and many other parts of this Nation that have had rail and have seen 
the pollution come down and people being moved efficiently.
  This city is seeking to have their Olympics in 2012, and I know by 
saying that I might rise the ire of some of the other competing cities, 
but we are working very hard to bring that Olympics to the United 
States, of course, and certainly to Texas and certainly to Houston. 
This is a real key component to doing that, an economic engine.
  And I do believe that those who may find fault with what has happened 
in the past in 1991 will come to the realization that they can find no 
fault in what is going on right now.
  There have been meetings and hearings, and there are stakeholders and 
people are concerned. I would ask my colleagues to consider this as we 
proceed. I would have liked to see this amendment come to the end. I 
intend, at the conclusion, of the debate to withdraw this amendment, 
because I am hoping that we can enter into an abbreviated colloquy to 
say that we will work together.
  I see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) on the floor of the House. 
I want to work with him, but I do want us, as a community, to be able 
to move into the 21st century. I look forward to my colleagues working 
with me and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) on this very 
important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleague Mr. Bentsen to offer an 
amendment to section 331 of this bill, H.R. 4475 that would only 
prevent funding for the planning, design, or construction of a 
community supported light rail system in Houston, Texas.
  As a representative for the 18th Congressional District in Houston, I 
fully support the transit funding that was appropriated for Houston and 
approved by the Department of Transportation for the light rail 
project.
  The Houston METRO was to transfer $65 million in federal funds 
earmarked for construction of a light rail project in my home city of 
Houston. The rest of the $235 million needed would come from local 
funds slated to build Park and Ride centers and other projects.
  Mr. Speaker, the light rail project is supported by the Houston 
METRO, the surrounding congressional districts of Congressmen Bentsen 
who is a cosponsor of this amendment, Gene Green, Lampson, Doggett and 
Turner, the business community, the Mayor of Houston, Lee P. Brown and 
the Harris County presiding elected official Judge Robert Eckels.
  This light rail project is a Win-Win situation for everyone in 
Houston as well as the millions of people who visit every year in that 
it would attract and focus new development and an economic boom around 
the station areas and to the economically depressed areas within the 
City of Houston and the 18th Congressional District which I represent.
  In fact, an independent overview written by the Greater Houston 
Partnership which includes the Houston Chamber of Commerce, Houston 
Economic Development organization and Houston World Trade stated that 
the economic impact of the Light Rail Project in Houston would have an 
estimated incremental development over the 2001-2020 period ranging 
from 0 percent to 40 percent.
  The light rail project would also reinvigorate retail sales in 
Downtown Houston as well as link the two principal employment centers 
of Houston which is made up of 200,000 employees.
  Some of the local businesses that began to plan for the economic boom 
that the light rail project would bring are Century Development, which 
started plans to build a 27-story high rise office building with a 
1,500 space parking garage and 50,000 square feet of retail space; 
Trammel Crow Residential, which is evaluating two 250-300 unit multi-
family housing complex in midtown Houston; Camden Development, which 
recently completed a 337 unit apartment project in midtown; and McCord 
Development, which has two (2) high-rise office redevelopment projects 
underway totaling over $50 million in renovation fees.
  These are only some of the redevelopment that is being implemented as 
a result of the light rail project in Houston which was to receive 
federal funding.
  Houston has also been hit with major concerns about air quality and 
requirements for improving its air quality through better mobility 
plans. Therefore, the light rail project for Houston is of urgent need 
to the community. The Main Street light project is welcomed by the 
residents of Houston. Light rail will help alleviate Houston's traffic 
congestion problem and significantly reduce the number of motorists 
that presently pollute the air with exhaust.
  The light rail project will play a pivotal role in regional 
transportation. Among other benefits, the light rail project will 
service all day transit demand, including peak hours.
  It will relieve bus congestion in the urban core as buses from 
throughout the region currently converge on downtown. This project will 
offer a transportation choice to many area residents who will choose to 
leave their vehicles at home.
  I will be absolutely opposed to any efforts in the appropriations 
committee that would hinder or prohibit the timely funding of this 
urgently needed project.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). And before I comment, 
let me just say two things: I want to commend the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay), the time had gone by and this amendment would have been 
ruled out of order, and the gentleman could have blocked it and he did 
not.
  Secondly, having been on the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure for these many, many years, no one has done more with 
regard to mass transit in the Houston area than the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay). In fact, years ago he asked me to go down to Houston 
and to look at it, and the rapid bus transit and the concept he has, 
has really been adopted by the FTA in many, many areas.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has been the advocate and the 
champion every time we have begun going through this with regard to 
protecting and gaining the necessary funding from the Federal Transit 
Administration and the Federal Government with regard to funding for 
the Houston system.
  The amendment strikes a prohibition in the bill that prohibits the 
planning, design and construction of light rail in Houston, Texas. This 
prohibition is necessary as proponents of light rail in Houston seek to 
alter an existing full funding grant agreement for a bus program.
  They would like to replace bus elements with the light rail program, 
and the whole country is actually moving more towards the bus than the 
light rail. The committee cannot support the amendment of full funding 
grant agreements which seeks to replace the bus program with rail 
elements, particularly when the light rail project is still very early 
in the planning phase.
  We cannot support the use of commitment authority for such projects 
so early in the design phase. This too has been the long-term policy of 
the Federal transmit administration. With that, we would strongly 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered

[[Page H3439]]

this morning by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and I am 
cosponsoring it.
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that I have the 
greatest respect for the majority whip, and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) is well within his rights as a Member of the Subcommittee 
on Transportation, but the gentleman is simply wrong in this amendment. 
And this issue has gone far beyond whether or not there will be a light 
rail project in Houston.
  There will be a light rail project in Houston; I now am convinced of 
that. The issue today is not whether it will happen, the issue is 
whether the taxpayers in my district that I am honored to represent and 
the district of the gentlewoman from (Ms. Jackson-Lee), where this 
project will run, will get to get any of their Federal money back to 
fund it, or whether they will have to fund it all out of local money.
  Now, that would be all right, except for the fact when we look at the 
bill before us today, and there are hundreds of millions of dollars 
going to light rail projects all over the country, and they are not 
just projects in New York, in Los Angeles, in Chicago, but they are all 
over the map. They are in cities much smaller than the city of Houston, 
which is the fourth largest city, Atlanta; Dallas is receiving $70 
million. Galveston has received money for a trolley line; Fort Worth is 
receiving money for a trolley line; Johnson County, Kansas, I am not 
even sure where that is; Little Rock, Arkansas; Lowell, Massachusetts; 
Pittsburgh Northshore Central Business District is receiving $10 
million in this bill to study whether or not to set up a light rail 
project to run from a new football stadium to a baseball stadium 
through a business artery. That is equivalent to what the Houston Metro 
folks are trying to do.
  It is more than just sports facilities. It is the main artery in the 
central part of downtown Houston that runs through the Texas Medical 
Center, which is the largest medical center in the world. There are 
160,000 cars that move through that medical center complex everyday. 
And there is a huge congestion problem that is occurring there. If we 
do not build this rail project, we do nothing for that, because we 
cannot continue to build parking lots, and there is not enough room to 
build enough roads. So it is not a question, and I know the question 
from Sugar Land is very concerned about this, it is not a question of 
taking monies that might be built on roads in other parts of the 
greater Houston area and helping fund part of this light rail project, 
because if that were the case, we are already doing that with money 
that we are putting in Fort Worth or Dallas or Lowell, Massachusetts or 
Johnson County, Kansas.
  This is a question of equity for the people of Houston. Now, my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has 
already spoke about the community support for this project. This 
project is fully supported by the Metro board. It is supported by the 
Republican county judge. It is supported by the mayor who is a well-
known Democrat. It is fully supported by the Greater Houston 
Partnership, which is the Chamber of Commerce for the City of Houston; 
certainly, not a left-leaning group in any sense of the word.
  It is a project that has broad support. And I know that my colleague, 
and we have talked about this, has concerns about where this project 
leads and whether or not the citizens have a right to vote on it, but I 
would argue that I doubt of the multitude of light rail projects that 
are funded in this bill that many elections were held. And the fact is, 
this is something where we have broad-based community support. And this 
is something now, in talking with the folks at Metro in Houston, is 
going to happen.
  And this is not, this is not what happened in Houston 10 years ago 
where there was division in the Metro board, there was division in the 
business community, there was division in the political community. This 
is where the City of Houston Metro area folks are unified in support of 
this project.
  This language is going to stay in this bill today. This debate will 
be had another day, but inequity which will occur to the citizens of 
the greater Houston area will be in this bill, because we will be 
paying our tax dollars to fund other rail projects in other parts of 
the country.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BENTSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman that is really unfair 
to say, though. Metro, your system in Houston, has received over $500 
million, any one of those localities would gladly trade places. Some of 
them are getting mere pittances. And I have been there. The gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has been the advocate for this from the very, 
very beginning with regard to the money. So when there is mention of a 
place in Kansas that is getting a sum, that is really not fair. Houston 
is getting $500 million.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Reclaiming my time, all we asked was for a 
reprogramming.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in kind of a unique 
position on this issue, one, because 10 years ago, I was at the same 
place my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is in; I was a 
State senator, and Metro in Houston was proposing a heavy rail system 
that would take so many dollars into such a small geographic and 
community area for the service. And it would have meant that the rest 
of our area, including the Congressional district that I have now, and 
my State Senate district at that time, would not have had revenue for 
either expansion of the bus or even heavy, light rail or anything at 
that time.
  And as the State senator, I introduced a bill opposing it, and along 
with some other colleagues from Houston of mine, who is currently still 
in the legislature, because we needed to get the attention of the local 
community, because they were not being responsive. And as my colleague, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) said, it was not so much support 
for it as it was at least along a corridor that wanted it at that time. 
But I have watched the Houston Metro over the last 10 years, and with 
the help of my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to where 
they have literally the state-of-the-art bus system, the park-and-rides 
in the country. And it would not have been done for this last 10 years 
without the support of this Congress.
  I also noticed over the last few years in watching these other 
cities, and granted, we cannot compare Houston to someone in Kansas or 
even Pittsburgh, because Houston is the 4th largest city in the 
country. And I say that all the time, because I think a lot of people 
think, well, wait a minute, why does Houston need this; the fourth 
largest city, New York, Chicago, LA, and then Houston.
  If we look at the top 10 cities in the country, every one of them are 
looking at, planning, or having in place some type of rail system. And, 
again, if this were a heavy rail, I would oppose it, because I do not 
think that is possible in Houston. I do not think we can do that, it 
costs too much. But I think a light rail, particularly this proposal 
that serves a central business district, the University of Houston 
downtown that has grown in the last 10 years, to be such an educational 
facility, to serve the south part of the City of Houston around the 
Astrodome complex which is also in the district of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Bentsen); this is not in my district.
  I represent still the north and east part of Houston. But I can see 
that this would be a benefit to the whole community; one, because we 
have clean air problems. We need to look at every alternative, more 
than just buses and rubber tires. We need to look at every alternative.
  I have seen the success of Enron Field this year, the state-of-the-
art baseball stadium, the number of people. I used to think Houstonians 
would not get out of their cars and take a bus, much less a train, 
because so many of us have so many cars. Some of them do not run, but 
we still have the cars.
  I watched as people will take the park and rides down to a baseball 
game in the evenings and the growth in the park-and-rides for the 
central business district. And that is why I think just

[[Page H3440]]

the reprogramming of this money is something important.
  Now, I cannot fault my colleague from Sugar Land for what he is 
doing, because, and he knows, having been in the legislature, I 
oftentimes tried to provide guidance to my local elected officials, 
because this was tax money that we have to vote on here on this floor, 
and so I do not fault that. In fact, even though, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), we probably only vote together about 20 percent of 
the time, believe me, the gentleman is a good friend for many years, a 
personal friend. I do not fault that.

                              {time}  1015

  I just hope that the seven members of the Harris County delegation, 
all of us who share Harris County in the metro area, could sit down and 
say, okay, what can we do to make it work? I do not want to give them a 
blank check because I do not want that and I would oppose it. But I 
think on a short scale, and watching what our neighbor in Dallas has 
done with the light rail and the success they have had that started out 
as a very small line that it is actually going to serve more people in 
the Dallas County area, I think we can learn from that.
  I have learned, in the last few years, Houstonians will get out of 
their cars and take a fixed guide rail to go somewhere. That is why, on 
a small scale, I think we can do this.
  I know we are not going to vote on this today. My colleague is going 
to withdraw the amendment. But, hopefully the seven of us in Harris 
County can sit down and work this out so we can make sure that our air 
quality benefits, that we literally go into the next century and look 
at what we are doing with the redevelopment of the central business 
district and, also, even with the growth and, hopefully, with Houston's 
bid for the Olympics in 2012.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to apologize to our colleagues that we are 
taking up the time of the House for something that should be settled in 
Houston, Texas. But I rise and feel the need to rise to explain what is 
going on here.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been involved in mobility around Houston for 20 
years. I have been involved in the regional mobility plan and in 
developing that plan in the 1980s that we are now finishing.
  I am very proud of the fact that the city of Houston, as my colleague 
says, the fourth largest city in the country, just does not do things 
like everybody else does. We are a major city and a great city in this 
country because we do not just do it the same way. We are the city that 
built the Astrodome. We are the city that has a port that is off the 
shores of Texas and the second largest port in the Nation.
  We are a city that does not say that they are not a great city unless 
they have rail. And the reason is, and I might point out to my 
colleagues, if they had been involved in all the rail systems as I 
have, and the chairman has for over 15 years, they would understand why 
L.A. is getting out of the rail business, because it is a boondoggle 
and a black hole for a city that is spread out like L.A.
  I might say that Houston has stepped outside of the box and developed 
a regional bus plan that is the model for major cities in America. This 
bill has over $20 million in it, finishing the last part of $500 
million in building one of the best bus systems in the world. Because 
we did not grab ahold of the notion that, in order to be a great city, 
they have to have a rail system.
  Every line that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) talked about, 
every one of those lines, loses huge amounts of money and takes money 
away from mobility systems for those cities. But they do get to take a 
picture of a nice train and put it in their brochures, and it makes 
everybody feel good.
  The problem here in this particular dispute is that the Houston 
Metro, following the design of many other cities, and the gentleman 
says no elections were held in those other cities, it is because the 
other cities did not pay attention to the voters in those cities and 
developed the same strategy that is going on here in Houston. They 
developed the strategy of starting a little starter line; and when it 
does not make money and becomes a huge hole for transit funds, they go 
to the people and say, we made this great investment, but it does not 
work only because we do not have this other line.
  And when that does not work they say, well, we are just going to 
build another line. And then they wake up and develop what Dallas now 
has. Dallas now has a rail line, but now has surpassed Houston in 
congestion because Dallas is more concentrated on rail than they are 
for the mobility in Dallas.
  I do not want to see that happen in Houston. It is my responsibility 
as a member of this committee to make sure that the full funding grant 
by the FTA, the $500 million, is finished.
  What Houston Metro wanted to do is take money from the regional bus 
plan, from our regional mobility plan, and move it to a rail line that 
makes no sense whatsoever, transportation-wise.
  My good colleague and friend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) says no criticism. There is all kinds of criticism, including 
Houston Metro's own study that says, this does not help mobility, this 
does not help transportation, and this does not help the environment.
  This is an economic development project to build a signature main 
street in Houston, Texas, a very worthwhile project. But this is not a 
transit system. This will not carry anybody. This will not get anybody 
off our freeways. This will not get Bubba, I say to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green) out of his pickup and put him on a rail system. This 
is an economic development project.
  My position is, if they are going to build a huge rail system in the 
Houston region, then the people of the Houston region ought to vote on 
it and decide whether they want a rail system or not, instead of doing 
the back doorway that was done in Dallas, that was done in Portland, 
that was done in Miami, that was done in many other cities that I 
described. There is no transit benefit here.
  Mr. Chairman, major transportation decisions like the proposal to 
build this system in Houston should be decided by the whole community. 
As things stand today, Houstonians cannot make an informed decision 
because Metro does not have a comprehensive light rail system to take 
to the voters. The people of Houston cannot make an informed decision 
about what the role of this project would play in reducing congestion.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The time of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, that is why I took the action to suspend the 
diversion of Federal funds previously approved for in other 
transportation improvements to fund this light rail project.
  As I said when I announced my opposition to this process, three 
things have to happen before the light rail goes anywhere. First, 
Houston must gather all the facts. They need to commission a regional 
congestion study that will identify the problems that are hampering 
mobility in the region today. Then Houston needs to develop a 
comprehensive regional mobility plan that provides solutions to our 
current problems. We are at the end of this full funding contract. It 
is time to redo a regional mobility plan.
  Before taxpayers pay $300 million to develop light rail along the 
Main Street corridor, should they not have a comprehensive plan that 
shows how the light rail proposal would fit into the regional 
transportation plan? The mobility plan must also anticipate further 
transportation needs.
  After all the facts are assembled, the taxpayers need to have a final 
say. Houston must be given a referendum on the decision to build the 
Main Street line.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. DeLay was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, decisions like this ought to be decided by 
the voters, not through bureaucratic end fighting. The excuses that 
supporters have given just do not hold water.
  In 1998, the city held a similar referendum under the same laws. What 
is

[[Page H3441]]

disturbing about this whole process, Mr. Chairman, is the full and open 
discussion of the transportation needs and costs associated with this 
project. The people of Houston need to know not only what exactly it is 
they are getting on Main Street, but also what they have to give up 
elsewhere to get it.
  Now, my fundamental reservation about this project remains. How would 
investing enormous amounts of their tax dollars in the light rail 
project for Main Street help my constituents, the constituents of the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), the constituents of the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Archer), the constituents of the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) and all other Houstonians?
  I believe Houstonians deserve all the information on this huge 
investment. Houstonian have a right to make the decision for 
themselves.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Members to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of what the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Young) are doing in providing transportation for all of us.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend an invitation to the members of 
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation to come and visit 
Houston again.
  I want to acknowledge and appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay) for his collegiality in allowing us to debate this. I agree with 
him. I would rather not have my colleagues engaged in this dialogue.
  I was not here in 1991. I was a member of the Houston City Council 
when we thought we had done everything that we could have as a local 
community to indicate that rail was something we thought would work 
very well.
  I cite Dallas. I do not know the procedural process which they use. 
But I do not think if we were to query the mayor of the city of Dallas 
and constituents of Dallas that they would not acknowledge that they 
like their DART, it is working, and they want more of it.
  Frankly, I am applauding this appropriations bill. I think they have 
done a great job. I do not want to take away from the cities like 
Atlanta, Boston and Baltimore. But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) 
does not realize that he has really helped Metro and they are using the 
procedure that he, even though he is not on the authorization 
committee, certainly conceded to in TEA-21, which language was put in 
to allow Metro to take one project out and substitute another. So we 
are not really violating either the letter of the law or the spirit of 
the law.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman obviously knows that that 
procedure includes the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, 
and that can approve or disapprove reprogramming; and Metro failed to 
tell the people of Houston that very fact.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
that.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that they were operating under the procedural 
point that it could be done. But I think that really the real point 
here is that I solicit my good friend, we have chatted, we have had 
meetings with local officials, that we sit in the room and get whatever 
documentation, whatever review process, whatever vetting the gentleman 
needs to have to be had.
  But I think it is important. And I take little different perspective. 
Yes, this light rail can be done. But I think that it is sinful for 
Houston, among other national and international cities, to be denied 
their rightful Federal dollars on transit.
  This is a transit line. Transit lines are connectors. They are people 
movers. This is a people mover. This moves a major center from one end 
to the next. The Medical Center has been crying for some sort of rail 
system so that their individual people do not have to drive their cars 
into that already overpopulated area. They can actually park at the 
Astrodome and take the connector in. This is a center where people come 
for all kinds of international medical services.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that I 
realize his distaste, if you will, for the rail system. I am only 
saying I, too, apologize to my colleagues that we are here on the floor 
of the House bringing a totally local-base issue to the floor of the 
House. I saw another one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) do it the other day. And he won. He had Republicans and 
Democratic support.
  My colleagues all need to understand that the people who are involved 
in this light rate connector are having the support of the entire 
community. We have had town hall meetings. We have had hearings on this 
issue. But if the gentleman wants more, I am willing to do so.
  I think the question has to be that we have to look at these inner 
city areas where those of us who represent inner city urban areas that 
can allow those populations that live in those inner city areas to, as 
well, be treated to a fair and adequate mobility system.
  Mr. Chairman, let me read this into the Record: ``For the most part, 
even the top executives interviewed did not have a clear understanding 
of what `enhanced bus' really meant. But even after a fairly thorough 
description was provided, they did not perceive any significant 
difference between an enhanced bus and conventional bus. A typical 
statement was `enhanced bus is still a bus.' They believe light rail 
would be far superior.''
  That is what people perceive, that light rail works. I only plea to 
this floor and I plea to others as this bill makes its way through, 
applauding the work of the ranking member and the chairman that this is 
a good bill. But I am saying to my colleagues that they are doing us a 
disservice.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Sabo was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Bentsen) rose to the floor, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) rose to the floor, I simply ask, accept my invitation to visit 
Houston so that they can see the work that we have done, realize that 
we are not trying to chastise the committee for any funds that they 
have given elsewhere. We appreciate the hard work.
  But how can they deny the fourth largest city in the Nation, a city 
that is wonderfully diverse, African-Americans, Hispanics. We speak 
some 98 languages. As I said, we have the west, the east, the north, 
and the south. But we have a collective, cohesive committee that is led 
by a mayor now who is in charge of the confined area in the city limits 
in which this light rail would find itself who is enthusiastically for 
it, but he has collaborated with the county judge, which is a much 
larger region; and I believe that my colleagues are well aware that our 
business community is supporting it, as well as our constituency.
  I will go home on Monday to hold a hearing on this subject, along 
with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) who is on the committee; 
and I believe that we will find everyone who will come and testify will 
come and testify to say that we want light rail. We hope this body 
listens to us.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment 
because I do believe that we can work with the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. DeLay) and I hope he will let us work with him and ensure that we 
come to the best results as we move forward in this process.

[[Page H3442]]

                              {time}  1030

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Without objection, the 
gentlewoman's amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Members are reminded to address the Chair 
and not to address other Members by their first names.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Sec. 335. Item number 273 in the table contained in section 
     1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
     (Public Law 105-178) is amended by striking ``Reconstruct I-
     235 and improve the interchange for access to the MLKing 
     Parkway.'' and inserting ``Construction of the north-south 
     segments of the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway in Des 
     Moines.''.
       Sec. 336. Item number 328 in the table contained in section 
     1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 
     (Public Law 105-178) is amended by inserting before ``of'' 
     the following: ``or construction''.
       Sec. 337. Section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for 
     the 21st Century (112 Stat. 256) is amended--
       (1) by striking item number 63, relating to Ohio; and
       (2) in item number 186, relating to Ohio, by striking 
     ``3.75'' and inserting ``7.5''.
       Sec. 338. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     pay the salaries or expenses of any departmental official to 
     authorize project approvals or advance construction authority 
     for the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project in Boston, 
     Massachusetts.
       Sec. 339. Section 3027(c)(3) of the Transportation Equity 
     Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 5307 note; 112 Stat. 
     2681-477), relating to services for elderly and persons with 
     disabilities, is amended by striking ``$1,000,000'' and 
     inserting ``$1,444,000''.
       Sec. 340. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     unobligated balances from section 149(a)(45) and section 
     149(a)(63) of Public Law 100-17 and the Ebensburg Bypass 
     Demonstration Project of Public Law 101-164 may be used for 
     improvements along Route 56 in Cambria County, Pennsylvania, 
     including the construction of a parking facility in the 
     vicinity.


                      Amendment Offered by Mr. Cox

  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cox:
       Page 54, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec. 341. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for 
     the planning, development, or construction of California 
     State Route 710 freeway extension project through South 
     Pasadena, California.

  Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer the Rogan amendment that 
will facilitate effective traffic mitigation at reasonable cost for the 
citizens of South Pasadena and the surrounding communities of Pasadena, 
Altadena, La Canada, and East Los Angeles. The reason that I am 
offering the Rogan amendment, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rogan) himself is not here to offer it, is that in addition to being a 
dedicated Member of this House, he is also a dedicated parent. He and 
his wife Christine at this moment are attending to the urgent medical 
needs of their daughters. He would very much himself have wanted to be 
here to offer this amendment, and I am happy to do it in his stead.
  This amendment is supported by the National Trust for Historic 
Preservation as well as environmental organizations, including Friends 
of the Earth and the Sierra Club. It is identical to a measure passed 
with bipartisan support in the last Congress. It will reduce the cost 
to taxpayers of freeway construction in southern California and free 
Federal funds for traffic mitigation and infrastructure support 
projects.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we accept the 
amendment and support the amendment. It is the same language as last 
year.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, in a sense I rise to oppose the amendment, 
but I will not. I do not like these kind of amendments coming on the 
floor where we really do not have background on what they are all 
about. However, we faced the same amendment a year ago, I opposed it, 
the House voted to adopt it by a significant margin as I recall, so it 
is not totally new and was in the bill this last year. While I do not 
think it is a good idea, I also understand that it is going to happen.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I join him. I think 
the reality is that the votes are there to support this amendment but I 
think it is misguided. This project, from my knowledge and my personal 
view of it, is it is a missing link to the interstate system in 
California. For 20 years, projects have been reviewed appropriately and 
met the environmental reviews necessary to advance the project.
  The Federal Highway Administration has supported the review and 
public involvement in the project. Federal funds have been made 
available for construction. The State supports the project and is 
willing to advance it. But I think the reality is that there are the 
votes marshaled already on the floor, as my colleague from Minnesota 
said, in the last session, the previous session of Congress, to support 
this amendment. It is unfortunate, and I agree that amendments of that 
kind should not be presented here. We will make the case but not make 
the vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Andrews

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Andrews:
       Page 54, after line 2, insert the following new section:
       Sec.  . The amount otherwise provided in section 326 for 
     the Amtrak Review Council is hereby reduced by $530,000.

  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, let me first begin by thanking the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Sabo) for the excellent piece of legislation they have produced, 
which I am happy to support. Let me also acknowledge that the chairman 
of the committee is acceding to the wishes of the administration in the 
present funding level. Therefore, our quarrel is not with him, it is 
with the administration that supported the funding level. I appreciate 
his fairness on this issue over the years.
  This issue is about micromanagement and second-guessing. I believe 
that the management of Amtrak has made excellent and positive strides 
in improving the fiscal health and performance of the rail line. I 
believe that they will continue to be moving in that direction. I also 
believe that they should move in that direction and that we as a 
Congress should evaluate from time to time their progress and the best 
next step. I do not believe that we need another body standing in 
between the will of this body and the management and directors of 
Amtrak. I think that the Amtrak Review Council is frankly an 
unnecessary appendage and I believe that more money simply invites more 
mischief. This House last year overwhelmingly sent a message that 
funding should be limited to the level of $450,000. That is what this 
amendment does this time.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio, the coauthor of this 
amendment.
  Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, also I want to praise the chairman of the 
committee for what I think is a fine bill. I do rise today to support 
the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment. During the debate on the 
last two transportation appropriation bills, I have worked closely with 
the gentleman from New Jersey to both reduce funding for the Amtrak 
Reform Council, ARC, and to ensure their funds were used properly. In 
both years we were successful in passing amendments to keep the ARC 
Council's budget in check. Unfortunately, after last year's successful 
effort to reduce the funding for what I think is an arguably misguided 
situation with the council, an increase in funding was restored in the 
final version of the bill. As a result, of course, as has been 
mentioned, we are again here to take our case to the House floor to 
again contain an ever increasing reform council budget.
  The gentleman from New Jersey's amendment, which reduces the budget 
from $980,000 to $450,000, is an attempt to place a necessary 
constraint on an organization that really I do not think does seek the 
reform of Amtrak. As was mentioned previously, also, the budget has 
doubled in the past 2 years and I know that we had an overwhelming vote 
on this. It had tremendous support. I urge my colleagues today to 
support the Andrews amendment as they have previously done and

[[Page H3443]]

to reject the increase and give the ARC a fair and certainly adequate 
budget.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, because of the compelling arguments and also 
because every time this issue has come up, the gentleman has won 
overwhelmingly, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. I would have supported striking funds altogether. From the 
very inception of this council it is clear that many of its members 
have already made up their mind that Amtrak will not meet its goal of 
self-sufficiency and are devising their own plans that in effect assure 
failure; for example, holding closed conferences where the statute 
requires open meetings; their empire building by hiring consultants and 
contractors. In their preliminary assessment of Amtrak they set out a 
plan calculating operating expenses that Congress never intended to 
include in the Amtrak reform.
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
  The Amtrak Reform Council was authorized by section 203 of the Reform 
and Accountability Act of 1997 for the purpose of evaluating Amtrak's 
performance and making recommendation for cost containment, 
productivity improvements, and financial reforms. The council is 
comprised of 11 members. The council is supposed to take into 
consideration the need to provide service to all regions of the nation. 
If the council concludes that Amtrak will not reach the goal of 
operating self-sufficiency by 2003, it is supposed to inform the 
Congress and submit plans for a complete restructuring of a national 
system of intercity rail passenger service and a plan for liquidating 
Amtrak.
  From its inception, it has been clear that many members of the 
council have already decided that Amtrak will never meet its goal of 
operating self-sufficiency and are already devising their own plans for 
what a restructured system would look like. The council's history has 
been replete with evidence that it is pursuing its own, anti-Amtrak, 
agenda. They have conducted closed conferences despite the fact that 
their statute requires open meetings. They have sought to ``empire 
build'' through hiring consultants and contractors.
  In January 2000, the council revealed its true colors with the 
issuance of its report, A Preliminary Assessment of Amtrak. In that 
report the ARC measured Amtrak's progress toward operating self-
sufficiency using a definition of operating expenses that the Congress 
never meant to be applied to Amtrak for the purposes of measuring 
Amtrak's progress. The council elected to include depreciation expenses 
and progressive overhaul expenses in calculating the total operating 
expenses that Amtrak would have to cover through operating revenues. 
This was clearly not what the Congress had intended. Indeed, if the 
Congress had intended that Amtrak cover these expenses it would have 
been clear at the outset that Congress intended for Amtrak to fail. It 
would have been setting an impossible standard. It has always been 
clear that Congress did not intend these costs to be included in the 
operating expense category.
  The council chose to ignore the congressional intent and measure 
Amtrak by its own standard. Interestingly, as soon as it was challenged 
at hearings before the Senate, the council's chairman immediately 
backed off from the position. While we agree that he should have backed 
off, this is not the first time that the chairman has acted on his own 
on behalf of the rest of the council.
  The council does not deserve an increase in its funding based on its 
dismal record in providing an unbiased, independent assessment of 
Amtrak.


            Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Andrews

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
pending be changed by taking out ``Review'' and inserting the word 
``Reform'' so that it is in compliance.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Andrews:
       On line 2, strike ``Review'' and insert ``Reform''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the modification is 
agreed to.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Linder

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Linder:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:
       Sec. 341. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Secretary of Transportation to require any 
     State or local government to alter a zoning or land use plan 
     for the purposes of a national ambient air quality conformity 
     determination.

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, this also is an amendment that deals with 
the Federal bureaucracy micromanaging, in this case how counties run 
their business. Mr. Chairman, in 1998 we passed the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st century, otherwise known as TEA-21. Under this 
bill almost every region in the Nation was able to benefit from the 
additional transportation dollars made available through the Highway 
Trust Fund, every region, that is, except my own.
  The Atlanta metro area has not been able to spend a dime of its 
Federal highway allotment for more than a year and a half. This is 
because Atlanta has not met Federal clean air standards since 1996 and 
the Clean Air Act prohibits further road and transit construction until 
a plan is presented that will bring the city back into conformity.
  For over a year, the Atlanta Regional Commission, which is tasked 
with drawing up the plan worked with local leaders and Federal 
officials to craft a plan that complied with the law and met the needs 
of Atlanta's residents. However, in a suspicious move on the day before 
the ARC was slated to approve the plan, two Federal agencies, the 
Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration 
stepped in the way. In a letter to then ARC Director Harry West, these 
agencies cited five serious concerns with the plan that ARC officials 
had resolved months before. Unless these requirements were met, the 
Federal Government said, Atlanta would not get its money.
  Aside from the obvious concerns that this raises about the tactics 
used by this administration to work with local governments, all of the 
three remaining requirements that must be addressed have never been 
demanded of another metro area in America. They are demanding that the 
counties comply with their new zoning ideas, their ideas on mass 
transit funds and environmental justice.
  We looked in the statutes for the definition of environmental 
justice. It appears in Executive Order 1289. It has to do with 
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority 
populations or low-income areas. It further goes on to say that we must 
not only not do that but we must prove we do not, prove a negative.
  No other metro area has been asked to do this yet. This is 
unacceptable, and I present this amendment and others today in an 
effort to demand equity and fairness for all Americans who are facing 
down out-of-control bureaucrats wielding environmental regulations. If 
we are to believe the Federal Government's demands before Atlanta will 
be able to get the gas tax money that TEA-21 grants it, county 
commissioners and State regulators will have to sign sworn documents 
saying that they will change the way they zone the land in their 
jurisdictions. In other words, they are accountable to Federal 
officials, not the voters when they zone the land my constituents live 
on.

                              {time}  1045

  Last week's supporters of CARA said it was outrageous for opponents 
to claim that the Federal Government wants to get in the land use 
business. It already is. The FHWA and FTA in Atlanta have already said 
they will require counties and cities to build more apartments, put 
houses closer together and build rail lines into downtown districts. If 
they do not, they will take away our highway funds again. In fact, they 
may even rely on another State agency appointed by the Governor, the 
Georgia Regional Transit Authority, to enforce their standards for 
them.
  For the record, there is no title, no section of the Clean Air Act 
that requires regions to sign over the zoning

[[Page H3444]]

authority to Federal agencies. This is a standard made up completely by 
the Clinton Administration, a standard that no other city in America 
has had to meet. However, we have heard on multiple occasions from 
Federal officials and environmentalists that Atlanta ``will be a model 
for the Nation.''
  If you like what you see in Atlanta, do not worry, it will be coming 
to a city near you.
  No local official should ever be bound by Federal officials to 
conduct the basic job they have been asked to perform. It is an affront 
to a constitutional republic itself when an elected official takes his 
marching orders from anyone other than the voters who elected him. That 
standard applies for government bureaucrats as much as it does interest 
groups.
  My amendment would prohibit the FHWA and FTA from requiring any local 
or State official to be legally bound to alter their zoning or land use 
plans to satisfy the Federal bureaucrats. I ask Members to support this 
amendment, protect local governments from this outrageous assumption 
that Washington knows your neighborhoods best.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we regret that we must oppose the amendment. The 
committee was not notified about these amendments until 9:00 this 
morning. The amendments may have significant implications for the Clean 
Air Act's policies and enforcement. The ramifications, quite frankly, 
are not even known by the committee, and we really have not had time. I 
understand what the gentleman is saying, but, regretfully, I must 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, our lateness will cause me to withdraw the 
amendment. Part of the problem came because it was just this past week 
in a meeting when the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority was 
talking about the need for smart growth and was asked during the 
meeting what is the definition of ``smart growth,'' and nobody on the 
commission knew what it was, so they appointed, in their way, a 
committee to determine what it is. These are late developing things in 
Atlanta. I will be dealing with you further.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Vitter

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Vitter:
       Page 54, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec. 341. None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for engineering work related to an additional runway 
     at New Orleans International Airport.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
and I offer this amendment to prohibit any funds under this act from 
being used for engineering work on an additional runway at New Orleans 
International Airport. We offer this because we want that airport to be 
properly developed into the powerful economic development engine it 
could be, and we know that this will never happen without fundamental 
reform in the areas of regional governance and professional management.
  The City of New Orleans runs New Orleans International Airport, but 
the facility lies well outside the city, surrounded by other 
communities, most of which the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
and I represent.
  For too long, the city has made unilateral decisions that have a 
major impact on these surrounding communities, creating real and 
growing tensions. Our citizens continue to be dramatically affected, 
and they have no real governance voice, no real seat at the table.
  Now the city wants to build a new runway, wholly within Saint Charles 
Parish, which the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) represents, and 
still not address the governance issue. They want to do this with about 
70 percent Federal and State money, almost $500 million. This is not 
only unfair, it just will not work. It is doomed to failure, 
particularly since the airport is without appropriation power.
  Regional governance is the key. Recently an independent study by the 
Bureau of Governmental Research recommended the transfer of airport 
control to a broader-based regional entity that would facilitate 
regional governance cooperation and expansion. Another outside study 
conducted by Mitchell & Titus recommended that ``The airport's future 
vitality depends on gaining cooperation from Kenner, Saint Charles and 
Jefferson Parish,'' all areas that my colleague, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), or I represent.
  Another need is professional management. New Orleans Airport 
continues to be poorly managed, spending virtually the same amount of 
money as Charlotte Airport annually, but offering service to half the 
number of cities, with one-third the takeoffs and landings.
  Mr. Chairman, we would also request that the committee pursue a 
Federal Inspector General study of the current management practices at 
New Orleans International Airport to underscore this need.
  Regional governance, professional management, let us address these 
needs on the front end, so that local concerns, very legitimate ones, 
do not hopelessly stall progress until it is too late to recover. This 
is essential to make our airport the powerful economic development 
engine it could be.
  This amendment should serve as a wake-up call to the city 
administration that we must address these needs. I look forward to 
continuing to address these needs through the conference committee on 
this bill.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my 
colleague from Louisiana. I believe the project should not move forward 
until there is regional consensus reached by all the affected parties.
  We had a similar situation in my region when we transferred National 
Airport and Dulles Airport from the Federal Government, one person 
operating it. We set up a regional authority, whereby there are now 
people from Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia that 
operate both National and Dulles Airports.
  My understanding is that the proposed runway will be completely 
located in the district of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). 
That, again, has been a major controversy in this region with regard to 
noise. The gentleman's cosponsorship of the amendment this morning 
indicates his consensus has not been achieved. I also believe the DOT 
Inspector General should examine current management practices at the 
airport.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and look forward to working 
with my colleagues on this crucial economic development issue for the 
citizens of Louisiana.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very disappointing development. The economy 
of the City of New Orleans and the entire region is built upon tourism 
and conventions. The city and the region have invested in this mightily 
over the years, and it has made New Orleans the second most important 
destination city in this country. It is vital to our economy that the 
airport continue forward with its plans to build and construct this 
runway. Otherwise, the city will not be in a competitive position.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), my colleague from the 
area, who is recently now sharing a part of the City of New Orleans 
representation with me, has taken the place of Bob Livingston who I 
shared this with for many years. Bob Livingston, every year, in and 
out, worked with me on all of these issues, in the quiet of our offices 
and in a very congenial way, and we supported jointly the airport's 
expansion and all the rest all these years. Why suddenly is it some 
sort of issue that needs to be dealt with because we are concerned 
about management of the airport, when these issues have not come up? 
This is not the place and this is not the time. This forum is 
inappropriate for us to deal with local issues of how local people get 
together about regional governance.

[[Page H3445]]

  I should say to you there is reasonable governance at the airport now 
already. There are members on the airport board who represent the City 
of Kenner, which is part of the district of the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), who represents Saint Charles Parish, and part 
of the district of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), already 
there.
  What configuration does the gentleman want? Does the gentleman want 
to dictate exactly the terms of the regional governance, or can the 
local people get together and work on these matters?
  What is important here is that we not interfere with the plan that is 
going on, which in the next 5 years is going to mean if we do not do 
this in the next 5 years, we are going to lose competitive position. So 
there are no management studies that say we need to do something here 
drastic in this Congress, or otherwise we will run the risk of ruining 
Federal money and not doing the right thing by the people of our 
country.
  There are no divides back home about this. Our local Chamber of 
Commerce supports the runway projects, our local tourism commission 
supports the runway project. I do not know of anyone who doesn't 
support it except the folks over here say, and really run by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), who says we need 
to have a regional governance structure in place acceptable to him 
before we move this forward.
  I think it is just wrong. I do not think we ought to place in 
jeopardy jobs in New Orleans, the economy of our city, because someone 
here wants to see a certain governance structure in New Orleans. The 
local people can work these problems out, as they have over all the 
years. New Orleans built its airport in Jefferson Parish when there 
were not any people there. That is why it was built there. Over time 
that area has grown up, there are residences there and there are 
businesses, all of which now must be taken into account. But it is a 
painful process that is best sorted out in a local forum, in a local 
environment. That is the only way this can be done.
  This is the equivalent of a shotgun wedding. I think somehow or the 
other somebody believes you can have regional cooperation by forcing 
people together. That is an absurdity. It is an oxymoron. It makes no 
sense. People have to get together and work on matters cooperatively. 
We cannot force it in this Congress.
  So I would ask this House not to agree with the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), because this airport is in my district, it 
belongs to my city. It must expand in other areas, but it is just wrong 
to slow this progress down, and I say it would ruin our airport's 
prospects and ruin our economy, have us lose jobs. It is simply to 
please the idea that we ought to have a different regional governing 
structure, which I submit to you this Congress ought not be involved 
in.
  So I would ask Members not to approve this amendment today, because 
it is just wrong for our city, it is wrong policy for the Congress, it 
is wrong-headed action altogether.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we need to put this issue in perspective. The 
New Orleans Airport is indeed owned by the City of New Orleans, but it 
is not located in the City of New Orleans. It is located principally in 
Jefferson Parish, principally in the area represented by the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). It is partially located in a Parish of 
Saint Charles. We do not have counties, we have parishes in Louisiana, 
so I apologize for some of the confusion. The County or Parish of Saint 
Charles, it is one of the counties or parishes in my district.
  Now, the proposal by the New Orleans Airport Authority is to extend 
the airport with a new runway into Saint Charles Parish, a significant 
change in the location of flight patterns and aircraft movements and a 
difference in literally noise and safety concerns for the people of 
Saint Charles Parish.
  Unfortunately, Saint Charles Parish is allowed one representative on 
the New Orleans International Airport Board, appointed by the mayor, 
not selected by the people of Saint Charles Parish, and that is all 
they have on this board. There is no real local input in the governance 
of the airport, no local input into the decisions that are made with 
regard to takeoffs and landings and all the issues that are important 
when communities are affected by airport extensions into their rural, 
and, in this case, suburban communities.
  So what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) is proposing is a 
very simple thing. It simply gets us into the conference committee, 
where hopefully we can begin the discussions with the City of New 
Orleans on how in fact to move towards some reasonable regional 
governance of this facility before it extends into another county, 
another parish, like Saint Charles Parish, another Congressional 
District even such as my own.
  I want to point out to my good friend, the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Jefferson) that indeed we have always talked and cooperated on 
these issues, and I think we will again on this issue, once we get past 
this point. But last year the New Orleans Airport Authority, without 
consulting my office, without talking to the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Vitter), tried to get language into the TEA-21 bill that would 
have, in fact, appropriated $30 million for property purchases in the 
Parish of Saint Charles to move this extension forward without ever 
talking to us. We found out about it almost by accident, that it was 
being added to the bill with the help of some lobbying group here in 
Washington, D.C. hired by the City of New Orleans. Now, that is not the 
way to cooperate either.
  I think we can reach a point of cooperation and agreement if we 
simply get to the place where I hope we can get in the conference 
committee where we can talk.
  I just want to make this one point. If we could amend this bill 
today, to say that the airport extension could go forward if, in fact, 
we move significantly to regional governance, that is the amendment we 
would have offered today. We cannot do that under the rules. All we can 
offer is some sort of prohibition on spending. So what we have chosen 
in this amendment to do is to prohibit engineering payments. We 
understand that not likely are there going to be any engineering 
studies done anyhow.
  This amendment simply gets us into the conference where we can talk 
with our two Senators, and the three of us, hopefully with the City of 
New Orleans, can perhaps work this out. That is why I hope we adopt 
this amendment today, and put us all in a position where everybody sort 
of has to talk, whether they like it or not.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. JEFFERSON. Is it not true that the airport authority has no 
appropriation authority and that it cannot go into St. Charles Parish 
and appropriate the property of St. Charles Parish? Is that not true?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, that is exactly true. That is the 
point the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) made, and let me answer 
it. It is true, and that is all the more reason why we need to talk. 
This extension will not occur until the community of St. Charles has an 
agreement with the City of New Orleans and the community of Jefferson 
Parish has an agreement with the City of New Orleans. It is not going 
to happen by sneaking changes or amendments into the law to provide for 
$30 million to go out and buy property in the district I represent.
  It is only going to happen when we have the conversations I think 
this amendment will lead us to.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman paints a pernicious 
picture of actions that have taken place in the heat of the night 
without the gentleman knowing about it. As a matter of fact, the runway 
project, as the gentleman knows, has been in progress here for many, 
many years. This is not something new that happened this year.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman indeed knew, this 
gentleman and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) knew, of New 
Orleans' interest in extending that runway.

[[Page H3446]]

We have been supportive of the airport doing so.
  We have always, however, reserved our support upon conditional 
conversations about regional governance, conversations leading to some 
real say-so from the parishes, the counties, affected. We have not 
gotten to that point. This amendment gets us there.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious here that this whole effort is 
being made to bludgeon the City of New Orleans' leadership into some 
sort of a forced meeting because the proponents are unhappy with the 
progress of these meetings. These are painful discussions that must 
take place on regional governance. These are not things that can happen 
overnight and it cannot be forced to happen; nor can the city force any 
runway into St. Charles Parish.
  So if money is appropriated here for a study to take place and for 
engineering to go forward, in the end there is going to have to be some 
meetings and agreements between the New Orleans people and St. Charles 
people. There is no need for this. This is simply overstepping, 
overreaching, as far as I am concerned.
  Now if we want to talk about Members doing things in the middle of 
the night without my knowing about it, there were amendments offered by 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) that I was not apprised of, 
and the airport is in my district. I did not know they were even 
offering them.
  This is a shameful fight that we ought not be involved in. We ought 
to be saying to each other, how can we go to the Federal authority and 
get as much money as we can to help to make New Orleans as competitive 
as it can be and make our airport as vital as it can be so we can stay 
in the hunt for convention and tourism business? And then go home and 
let the local people, with our help and guidance and support if we can 
give to them, to work out the hard details of how they govern the whole 
matter and how they work out the issues. If there are management 
issues, and I just heard this today, I have not heard this from anybody 
else who has any authority, who have done any management studies to 
find things that are sharply wrong with the airport, that we need to 
worry about holding up Federal money because of management issues. This 
is all made up. That does not exist.
  There are no management issues, I want to make it clear, because it 
besmirches the whole reputation of the board at the airport and of 
those who are involved in management. There is no mismanagement at the 
New Orleans airport.
  There are some folks who would like to see things go a different way, 
of course, as there always are, but there is no evidence of 
mismanagement. I think to bring it on to this House floor is absolutely 
dead wrong.
  So I would urge this House, in the strongest terms possible, to give 
us a chance back home to work our own matters out and let our city have 
the leadership it deserves on this issue, and to not hold up a vital 
project for the City of New Orleans airport. That cannot be justified 
on the basis of we need governance, a better governance structure or 
any other such thing as that because New Orleans cannot impose its will 
on the local and surrounding area. It cannot at all do that without the 
cooperation of those areas, and we cannot impose regional cooperation 
in the region unless the region itself gets together to work with it.
  So I would urge my colleagues to rethink their position on this, to 
let us continue as a delegation to work together on these important 
matters and not to create walls here that are going to prevent our 
cooperation in the future on matters very important to all of us.
  This is important to my region. It is vitally important to us and I 
would urge this body not to let the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) step in now in a 
matter which is unnecessary to protect the integrity of their districts 
or their peoples or any such thing as that. They have admitted it does 
not do that. They have admitted that New Orleans cannot reach over and 
take any property from Jefferson Parish. They even admit it does not do 
anything, according to them. They say, well, it does not do much. If it 
does not do much, it is not much worth our time to do anything here.
  So what I would urge is just to leave this matter alone, and I really 
wish my colleague would withdraw this whole effort and let us move on 
to something where we can find a way to help move our city forward, our 
airport, our region forward, together, as we have in the past.
  I have always worked with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
and I have always worked with the predecessor of the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). I am hopeful I will be able to work with the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) as well, but we cannot work 
together if we do not honor each other's commitments on these areas.
  I just think it is dead wrong what is happening here today, and I 
hope this House will reject it.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I would just say I find this amendment 
inappropriate. I do not know how Louisiana governs. I do not know how 
the city governs. In our area we call them counties. I guess the 
gentleman calls them parishes.
  Twenty-five, thirty years ago we went through the same type of 
situation in our State; center cities owning an airport, eventually a 
regional structure to govern, but that was created by the State 
legislature, not by local units of government. As a matter of history, 
at the point of time that it required local property taxes to start the 
airport, those were only levied in the center city. By the time we made 
it regional, all local property taxes had disappeared.
  Now I suspect the gentleman's situation is different. We are not the 
legislature of Louisiana, and so I think it is just totally 
inappropriate for us to start interjecting ourselves into this 
governing structure of the airport in New Orleans. I am sure it is a 
controversial issue. It, however, has to be worked out in whatever 
local fashion they are worked out in Louisiana, whether it is 
negotiation between the affected communities or by action in the State 
legislature, but we cannot be second-guessing that.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make four points quickly 
in response to some of the comments from my colleague, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). I believe he said he had no notice of 
this amendment. If he said that, I certainly want to make the record 
clear that I informed him of this amendment.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. I did not say that. I was referring to amendments the 
gentleman made in committee some time ago, not to the amendment the 
gentleman is making today.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Okay. I appreciate the clarification because, in fact, I 
gave him notice yesterday of this amendment within 5 minutes of 
deciding to move forward with it.
  Secondly, I want to underscore why the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) and I are doing this. It is because we want progress; we want 
to move forward and build toward a great airport which can be an 
economic development engine, and this will never happen without 
starting these discussions about regional governance and professional 
management.
  Thirdly, I want to address the comments of the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) about a local discussion. I would love a 
local discussion. We have been asking the mayor for a local discussion 
and the mayor has specifically refused to be a part of any meeting 
where the term ``regional governance'' is on the agenda.
  So the whole purpose of this exercise is to begin that absolutely 
essential local discussion which the mayor of

[[Page H3447]]

New Orleans has absolutely refused to participate in.
  Finally, with regard to the suggestion that this is not the place to 
bring up this issue, if this is not the place to talk about these needs 
then presumably this is not the place to look for half a billion 
dollars for this runway work because my constituents pay into that fund 
and the constituents of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) pay 
into that fund and they deserve to be heard on these important related 
issues. So if this is not the place, then fine. Perhaps the airport and 
the city should go back to the drawing board and look for a half a 
billion dollars somewhere else.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out again what 
occurred last year was an amendment to the FAA authorization bill that 
provided $30 million, instructing the FAA to give priority 
consideration to land acquisition in St. Charles Parish, and we had 
received no notice of this. We discovered the amendment after it had, 
in fact, entered into the bill.
  It is for that reason that we need this amendment. We are not asking 
that the regional governance issues be settled. All we are saying is 
give us this amendment and that will compel the parties indeed to talk 
about regional governance.
  We met with our Governor in Louisiana and the Governor is prepared to 
help us achieve this result. We simply do not think this extension 
ought to go forward. Until we have had those discussions, that is what 
this amendment will help us do.
  I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Jefferson), we have worked together many, many years in the State 
legislature and here in Washington, D.C. He knows of my close 
friendship and my effort over all of these years to work with him. I 
can give him my assurance that if we get this thing into conference we 
will have those discussions; we will get back to a position where the 
mayor and the Governor and we and our two Senators can begin to reach 
for common solutions.
  I simply have to make sure that the folks in St. Charles Parish I 
represent, just as the gentleman has to make sure that the folks in New 
Orleans that he represents, are properly represented in these 
discussions. They are currently not. They want to make sure, as their 
representative, and I am sure the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) 
has the same situation in Jefferson Parish, that those discussions 
actually happen.
  There is no promise of discussions. There is no refusal to meet, but 
they actually have to happen before we go forward. Why? Because we all 
want to go forward. We all want to see the airport completed. We want 
to see new runways created. We want to see regional governance and 
regional cooperation around that airport, and I give the gentleman my 
word I am going to work with him to that end.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to 
me. I have no problem with the assurances of the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) on any matter. I have worked with him for many, 
many years. I simply beg to differ, to say that that is not the issue 
that we are dealing with here.
  I have had many years of cooperation with him and I would hope we 
would have a day of cooperation on this matter because it is very, very 
important to us. It is important to us that we do not slow down this 
project, that we do not jeopardize our economy and jeopardize jobs and 
jeopardize where we are going down there, and jeopardize the future of 
our airport over the question of whether if we get a matter in 
conference we can somehow force a meeting with the mayor. That is an 
absurdity.
  What are we going to accomplish in conference, a governance structure 
or something that is going to fix the whole issue? No. It is going to 
take many months of painful discussion by local people, no matter what 
we do here.
  The suggestion by my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter), that if this is not the right place, this is not the right 
place to seek for money, is an absurdity because the FAA and the 
Federal Government are deeply involved in building airports all over 
the country and local governance structure is being imposed by State 
and local governments all over the place as well. So these things are 
going in parity and they ought to go here in parity.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The time of the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Wolf was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to the remarks of the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). We do not want to slow 
anything down. That is specifically why the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) and I chose a spending item that is virtually certain not 
to occur under the normal timeline this next fiscal year anyway.
  So we specifically chose that spending item with that in mind, and I 
certainly want to pledge my active cooperation to work on this issue. 
Again, all we are trying to do is begin the discussions which, quite 
frankly, the mayor of the City of New Orleans, going back to our 
efforts last year, has refused to initiate. He will not attend a 
meeting with regional governance on the agenda, and that is the heart 
of the problem.
  Certainly I pledge my cooperation to work with the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), and we look forward to doing that in a timely way so we do not 
slow anything down and, of course, we fashioned our amendment with that 
in mind.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, coming from the State of Michigan, we have our problems 
and we know exactly how hard it is to regionally come to this Congress 
with a solution and we are working very hard on that, not without 
obstacles and not without many of them, but we continue to work locally 
to see that we bring to the Congress, during its precious times of 
negotiations, not only the proper match that the projects will require 
but that the region will agree on what we come to the Congress with.
  This is very much a local issue and I believe that it ought to be 
settled locally before it comes to this Congress, Mr. Chairman. With 
that, I would like to yield to my good friend from New Orleans, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), in whose district the airport 
lies.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KILPATRICK. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Ms. Kilpatrick) for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, may I say in response to what has been said by my 
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), he has on two 
occasions said the mayor has been unwilling to meet. That is 
inaccurate.
  We had a New Orleans delegation meeting up here and invited the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). He came to the meeting and we 
talked at that point about the issues. He has met with local people 
about this matter over many, many months. It is just a hard process. 
There is no slam dunk answer to this. It is going to take time. People 
have to work it out.
  When I say this is not the place to do it, it is not the place to do 
it, as the gentlewoman has pointed out. The place to do this is in the 
halls of local government, where people can decide these issues after 
negotiation.

                              {time}  1115

  To come up here and try in some sort of a prophylactic way to kind of 
prevent any kind of differences from occurring back home about these 
issues, we cannot do it. They are going to have to take place. People 
are going to have to have discussions. There is nothing that can be 
merited by this, except setting a precedent for getting this Committee 
and this Congress involved in dictating local government structures.

[[Page H3448]]

  That should not be what we should be doing here. We should be working 
on larger issues of how the FAA relates to our local communities, how 
they support our local airports or not, but not the issues of local 
government. That is too hard for us or anybody else to do.
  To use this forum to kind of beat the city of New Orleans, the Mayor 
and other folks, into a meeting with us is a misuse of it, a misuse and 
an abuse of the process, I suggest.
  In the name of cooperation between us, the best way to do that is to 
work on these issues collegially here today, and not to have it said 
that somewhere down the road one of these days, after we get this 
passed, we are going to work cooperatively. We cannot. This is going to 
make it more difficult for us to work cooperatively and for the local 
folks to work cooperatively, rather than the other way around. It is 
not going to do anything but make matters more difficult to resolve 
back home.
  I have talked to the gentlemen from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter and Mr. 
Tauzin, about this ad nauseam. They are hellbent on this course, for 
reasons that are hard for me to understand, except that they have the 
power to do it. I believe that is the wrong reason. It ought to be done 
because it is the right thing to do, not because they think they can do 
it.
  I hope that out of all this that we will find a way down the road one 
day to think better of each other and be more tolerant of each other, 
and respect the city of New Orleans more in its desire and plans to get 
things done.
  I think we have a very competent mayor, a very competent council, a 
very competent board at the airport. I would like to see their work 
upheld and given a chance to succeed, and not have these Members of 
Congress getting in the way of having that done.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend the Chair and express my 
appreciation to the Chair for his earlier admonition that Members 
address the Chair and not refer to each other by name; to observe the 
rules of the House, a practice that is becoming observed more in the 
breach than in the respect.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate is a good example, an object lesson, for 
the reason the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, both Democratic and Republican leadership, 
has always resisted individual designations of airports or runways in 
the authorization bill. Those are not issues for this body to resolve.
  I take no position on the merits of the issue being debated this 
morning, but I do take a position on the initiative offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) to have this body interfere as a 
matter of national law in what is essentially a local decision-making 
process.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, appropriately 
referred to the process that Congress established for the resolution of 
the management of airport capacity at both national and Dulles.
  The reason Congress acted is that those are the only two airports the 
national government owns in the United States, of 17,000 airports. In 
the national plan of integrated airport system, only two airports are 
owned by the Federal government. They were turned over in fact, in a 
management sense, although the Federal government continues to retain 
the ownership of those airports, to a regional council.
  Whether the airport in New Orleans should be expanded or retracted, 
whether it should be managed in this or that manner, is a matter not 
for this body to resolve but for the people of New Orleans and the 
surrounding communities, be they parishes or cities. All should be done 
in accordance with the national plan of integrated airports established 
by the FAA which establishes a national system.
  If we improve a highway in Duluth, if improvements are made to 
Interstate 35 in Duluth, that has virtually zero effect on I-35 in 
Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas. But if the airport in Duluth is improved, it 
does have an impact on the national airport system. If the airport 
in Louisiana is improved, it has a beneficial, or if it is not 
improved, it has a negative effect on the National Airport system. 
Airports are vastly different from highways.

  For the Congress to take the initiative proposed by the amendment of 
the gentleman from Louisiana is to insert ourselves into essentially a 
local decision-making process which is going to be reviewed at an 
appropriate time in its developmental stage by the FAA. We should let 
that process run its course.
  The debate we have heard unfold this morning is a replica on the 
national scene of a debate in the city council of New Orleans. We are 
not at city council. We are not the governing council for parishes. The 
gentlemen from Louisiana, the respective gentlemen from Louisiana, are 
having a fine debate that they ought to have back home, not on this 
floor. This floor ought not to resolve this matter. This amendment 
ought to be defeated.
  In accepting such an amendment, we set the stage for innumerable 
debates. The discussion about New Orleans airport, MSY, will be 
picayune compared to the debate that will unfold on this floor if we 
get into a third airport for Chicago, of which we saw only a minuscule 
discussion earlier today.
  I say to my colleagues, the gentlemen from Louisiana, please take 
their issue back home and get the local governments to resolve it. 
Bring the FAA in to help. I am sure the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) would be willing to 
help in that process. I would be willing to help. But this floor ought 
not to resolve this issue. We ought to defeat the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 505, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Vitter) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
       At the end of the bill insert the following new section:
       Sec. 342. None of the funds in this Act may be used for the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to install a Terminal Doppler 
     Weather Radar at the site of the former United States Coast 
     Guard Air Station Brooklyn at Floyd Bennett Field within 
     Gateway National Recreation Area in King's County, New York.

  Mr. WEINER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank my colleagues, the 
chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and my coach, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Sabo), for their great leadership on this issue. No two people work 
harder on aviation concerns than they do.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to address what is a policy that 
is included in the FAA that is contrary not only to common sense, but 
is contrary to congressional mandate, it is contrary to environmental 
policies, and it is contrary to sane and safe aviation policy.
  Right now the Federal Aviation Administration is attempting to erect 
a 130-foot Doppler radar tower that would help to detect wind shear at 
Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports, something that I support. They are 
proposing to do it in the heart of a national park, of Gateway National 
Recreation Area in my district in Brooklyn that borders on Queens.
  This is a policy that is contrary, first, to congressional mandate. 
In 1976 when this park became the possession of the National Park 
Service and it was turned over, Congress wanted to make sure that this 
type of installation was

[[Page H3449]]

not put there, so language was put in the bill that said, ``Nothing in 
this section shall authorize the expansion of air facilities at Floyd 
Bennett Field,'' exactly where this radar tower is going.
  It is also contrary to congressional mandate in terms of our national 
parks. That is where it also runs afoul of our environmental policies.
  I would ask my colleagues to think about any other National Park 
facility that has an FAA radar tower on it. Members can think as long 
as they want, because there is not a single one. We would shudder to 
think of putting a radar tower in Grand Tetons Park or in Grand Canyon 
Park or in Redwood Forest. We would never think to do it.
  But because this National Park is one that is a little different, it, 
we do not see it on flyers for the National Park, though it is 
someplace where hundreds of thousands of visitors from an urban area 
that covers frankly a very big footprint in three States come to visit. 
It is not the most beautiful, the most sensational, but it is a 
National Park that people come to commune with nature. It is contrary 
to environmental policies, according to the Department of the Interior, 
to put such facilities in a National Park.
  Finally, and this is the point that I think will be most salient to 
members of the committee considering this bill, it is contrary to 
aviation safety. Members do not have to ask me, they do not have to 
trust me. We have to read the EIS produced by the FAA when they were 
pushing this plan. They say that it has big blind spots that prevent 
this radar from seeing Kennedy and LaGuardia Airports.
  Why? It is at the very southern tip, far from where they had 
suggested this thing be placed. It says there are blind spots because 
of the topography and geography of Queens, so they cannot see the 
busiest part of the busiest airport in LaGuardia.
  It also says in the same EIS that they are not crazy about this site, 
but Congress said they could not do their first choice. In fact, it is 
not even as good as the suggestion that the Members from New York have 
suggested, which is to put it on an island, a Potters Field off the 
water of the airport that would have a clear vision. It is not even as 
good as that site. ``We want to do this site, well, because we are in a 
hurry. We want to hurry up and move along with it.''
  Frankly, we hear testimony all the time in the Committee on Science 
and in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that shortly 
this technology that they are going to be erecting is going to be 
outdated and obsolete.
  Do Members know how many more of these radar towers there are on 
God's Earth? None. Why? They are not being built. The technology has 
passed it by. There will shortly be technology available to put right 
in the nose of planes that will obviate the need for this.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, this has been a debate that has been clouded 
by a certain amount of hyperbole. The supporters of this initiative in 
the FAA said, if we do not hurry up, God forbid, there will be a crash, 
a disaster, and planes are going to fall from the sky.
  So we have put aside all of the evidence to the contrary. We have put 
aside a more thoughtful process. We have allowed ourselves to be scared 
into installing a Doppler radar tower that is contrary to congressional 
mandate, contrary to environmental policy, and contrary to aviation 
safety.
  There are places to put this radar tower that I support and the 
community supports. This is not it. This is against the law to do this. 
I believe the courts will rule that way if this Congress does not. It 
simply is contrary to common sense.
  I thank my colleagues for giving me the opportunity to bring this 
issue, but let me remind them, this is not the only National Park. This 
is not the only time the FAA is going to want to encroach on our 
National Parks, but this should be an opportunity for us to say, let us 
stop it here. It is bad policy, and my amendment would make sure that 
no FAA funds go to supporting that policy.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would be a killer amendment. Talk about 
killer amendments, this would be a real killer amendment.
  This issue has been going on for so long. We have put language in the 
bill over and over and over, and to say that it is hyperbole when we 
have the Charlotte Airport, and if they had been able to locate a 
terminal Doppler down in Charlotte, that accident may not have 
happened. We had the Little Rock situation.
  This has been going on. This was a Coast Guard helicopter station and 
not some serene National Park. For people, anybody who flies into 
LaGuardia or Kennedy, this is a major, a major safety issue. If this 
amendment would be adopted, Congress would just be flying in the face 
of all the aircraft safety.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly, if this were to come to a vote, urge 
Members to just vote against it, or put a big sign up outside of 
LaGuardia and Kennedy saying, we could have done something to make 
these airports safer, but because Congress did not act, they are no 
longer that safe.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York, if he wishes to 
withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let 
me just say I have a great deal of respect for the chairman, but if 
this becomes law, I will tell my colleagues what would happen, they 
would build it at a place that was smarter, they would build it at a 
place that is consistent with environmental policy, and they would 
build it much quicker, because the lawsuit that is going on is not 
going to stop simply because we like it to. This is contrary to 
government policy.
  However, in the interest of the opposition of the chairman of whom I 
respect, I move to withdraw the amendment at this time with every 
intention to pursue this in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment was withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Manzullo

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Manzullo:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
       Sec. 341. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, 
     no funds may be made available to the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration under this Act before the 
     Administrator--
       (1) reclassifies the pay classification of each air traffic 
     controller who, after August 31, 1997, left employment at an 
     interim incentive pay facility for other employment as an air 
     traffic controller and who returned after October 1, 1998, to 
     employment as a reentrant at such a facility, such that the 
     controller's pay classification is equal to the pay 
     classification the controller would have if the controller 
     had never left such facility; and
       (2) pays to each such controller the amount of any 
     difference between the salary that the controller earned 
     after leaving the interim incentive pay facility and the 
     salary the controller would have earned if the controller had 
     never left such facility.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I intend to ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment, but I would like to speak on it for just a 
couple of minutes.
  We have all had casework matter that hits a dead-end, and most of the 
time we can help our constituents. However, there are times when you 
know something is wrong with the system and you have to take the 
extraordinary step to get some action.
  Today I am offering an amendment that I intend to withdraw for 
procedural purposes, for the purpose of giving support to those air 
traffic controllers across the country who have been hurt financially 
by the resulting agreement between the Federal Aviation Administration 
and the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.

[[Page H3450]]

  In accordance with two laws passed in the 104th Congress, the FAA was 
directed to consult with a bargaining unit, in this case, the NATCA, to 
develop a pay plan to set compensation for air traffic controllers. The 
resulting agreement was a Memorandum of Understanding With Respect to 
Reclassification and Association Payrolls Between the National Air 
Traffic Controllers Association and the FAA dated 8 January 1998, and 
has since been amended with subsequent Memorandums of Understanding.
  The resulting agreement and subsequent MOUs provided certain dates 
whereby pay reclassification was set depending on where an individual 
was based one day, October 1 of 1998. The Manzullo amendment seeks to 
correct this pay discrepancy for those air traffic controllers who did 
not receive commensurate pay increases upon their reentrance to one of 
the Interim Incentive Pay facilities, that is the high volume control 
facilities, such as Chicago.
  The FAA, by its own admission, urged employees to take certain career 
moves in order to advance an individual through the supervisory ranks. 
In a particular case with my constituents, Carlos Contreras, the FAA 
claims he was promoted. Because of the timing of the so-called 
promotion in relation to the agreement between the FAA and the NATCA, 
this air traffic controller realized he would lose quite a bit of money 
per year.
  Upon his realization, he requested to go back to the Interim 
Incentive Pay facility where he had been for 15 years. Again, because 
of timing and bureaucratic delays, he could not make the change soon 
enough. He apparently is not alone.
  I have attempted to get a meeting with Jane Garvey, the head of the 
FAA, and though I have not been denied an opportunity to meet with her, 
there have been enough delays to make me want to proceed today. My 
office has been in touch with the FAA several times about the matter. 
We know that there are about 12 individuals nationwide impacted by this 
agreement.
  The FAA says that it does not have the authority to be fair to Mr. 
Contreras and to the 11 or so others so situated. My amendment simply 
seeks to provide the FAA with that authority. It prohibits the FAA from 
spending any money until such time as they have treated these air 
traffic controllers who are responsible for safety in the sky with 
justification and judicial reasoning.
  The resulting move to Mr. Contreras hurt him financially. He was 
requested by his boss to go to another area. He was promoted but he got 
caught in a web that resulted in a substantial decrease in his pay.
  We have reason to believe there are only a dozen or so individuals. 
This amendment is for justice for these hard-working air traffic 
controllers. My understanding is that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf) is willing to work with me in setting a quick meeting with Ms. 
Garvey to see if there is a way that we can compensate these air 
traffic controllers.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MANZULLO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman, yes, that is correct. 
We will be glad to work with the gentleman in setting up a meeting with 
Ms. Garvey.
  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Inslee

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Inslee:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:
       Sec. 341. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to 
     fund the Office of Research and Special Programs of the 
     Department of Transportation until the operator of the 16-
     inch oil pipeline running from Allen, Washington, to Renton, 
     Washington, has completed hydrostatic testing of the entire 
     pipeline at 125 percent maximum operational pressure and has 
     submitted the results of the tests to the Secretary of 
     Transportation.

  Mr. INSLEE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A point of order is reserved.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, colleagues last June in Bellingham, 
Washington, an oil and gas pipeline exploded and the ensuing fireball 
killed three young men; that pipeline company now seeks to reopen that 
pipeline. It is a 16-inch pipeline that runs right through the heart of 
East King County in my district without properly testing this line. 
They seek to reopen this line which suffered not only this failure that 
killed three people, but suffered a subsequent failure disclosed under 
water pressure testing.
  This company seeks to reopen this line without doing that same water 
pressure testing and exposing my constituents to that risk; that is 
wrong. This amendment would simply require that company to do what it 
ought to do as a good neighbor and hydrostatically test this line, a 
common sense, well-recognized test that will prevent a recurrence of 
the type of tragedy that we experienced.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of work to do nationally on our oil and 
gas pipeline safety, and I am very hopeful that the appropriate 
committees will have hearings on this subject. I have a bill. The 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf) has a bill. We have worked 
together; we hope that we can nationally revise our oil and gas line 
pipeline safety standards.
  I have to tell my colleagues that those standards are the consistency 
of Swiss cheese right now, and we need to do it nationally, but a start 
is to do it in my district. This amendment would take care of that 
issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. T4Smith) 
who has been joining me in this effort.
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, 
the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for bringing this issue 
forward. The issue of pipeline safety is one that touches the entire 
country. Those of us in the State of Washington experienced it in the 
worst way possible a year ago, but it is by no means isolated to our 
State.
  Pipelines run throughout this country and have been very loosely 
regulated for a number of years. The system of regulating pipelines 
quite simply does not work. As the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee) mentioned, there are a variety of different ideas for how to 
change that. But I rise today to make it clear to my colleagues how 
important it is that those changes are made, first of all; and, second 
of all, how important the issue of hydrostatic testing is doing that, 
the idea of testing the pipes to see if they can withstand the pressure 
that they have to withstand in order to protect our communities. It is 
of critical importance.
  I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 
to bring this issue up in the transportation bill and any other place 
that we can do it. This is a threat to our entire country. As I said, 
in the State of Washington, several children tragically died as a 
result of this.
  It is also an environmental hazard that has struck many different 
parts of our country. We need to do something to improve pipeline 
safety in this country. This amendment is a great first step, and I 
look forward to working with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 
and the rest of the body to hopefully give us a sound pipeline safety 
policy in this country that will protect all of our citizens.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Smith) for that comment. Just so the Members will 
understand why this type of testing is so important, after this 
pipeline blew up, the City of Bellingham required this pipeline company 
to do this hydrostatic test, and when they did this test, the pipeline 
blew up again, but, fortunately, because the pipeline had water in it 
instead of gasoline, it leaked water rather than gasoline.
  I have a constituent who has a real common sense approach. If we do 
not

[[Page H3451]]

trust these pipelines to hold water, we ought not to put gasoline in 
them, and that is why we have to have hydrostatic testing and will.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) will join 
us in hoping to have hearings on this subject this year. The other 
Chamber has had a hearing on this. We are ready to have hearings on 
this and go. I really hope that the gentleman can accommodate us in 
this regard. I understand this will be subject to a point of order, but 
we do want to get this issue front of center.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Virginia insist on 
his point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitute 
legislation on the appropriations bill; therefore, it violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
the point of order?
  The Chair is prepared to rule. Although drafted in the form of a 
limitation, the amendment does not merely place a negative restriction 
on funds in the bill, rather it prescribes a contingency concerning the 
conduct and reporting of certain tests. Thus, the amendment proposes to 
change existing law. The point of order is sustained.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Bilbray

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Bilbray:
       Page 54, after line 2, insert the following:
       Sec. 341. None of the funds in this Act shall be used for 
     acquisition of diesel buses except those buses, powered by 
     engines which have emission levels comparable to, or lower 
     than, emission levels from buses powered by low-polluting 
     fuels, including methanol, ethanol, propane, and natural gas.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, we reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a 
point of order.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, as an individual who had the pleasure of 
working on mass transit, but also on clean air strategy, it has always 
been a frustration for many of us in the environmental community to see 
while the Federal Government and government as a whole demands that the 
private sector leave dirty polluting technology behind and move towards 
cleaner technologies, the Federal Government itself continues to allows 
its money both directly and indirectly to be used in purchase of the 
polluting technologies that ruin our environment, are totally counter 
to our Federal clean air strategies.
  Now, let me say at this time, Mr. Chairman, that I greatly appreciate 
the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) in moving this 
issue forward and moving away from the old concept that pollution is 
okay if it is a government agency, and towards the new concept that 
government needs to participate in cleaning up our environment.
  The gentleman has been a strong, strong supporter in the concept that 
we need to move this issue along, and I appreciate his long support on 
the issue.
  In the last Congress, Mr. Chairman, I offered a similar amendment in 
TEA-21, in 1998, but because there were some concerns in Congress that 
the technology had not caught up with this amendment, we basically 
withdrew it, and, instead, implemented a GAO study to see if the 
technology was available to replace dirty technology.
  That study was released in 1999 and shows that while diesel 
technology has gotten better, the alternative technologies are already 
available and have been used by local governments for over a decade. 
Since TEA-21 became law, there has been a lot that has happened with 
science of technology and clean environmental approaches.
  Now, while we have got these new technologies, we have also gotten 
information about diesel, that diesel engines contain cancer-causing 
substances, such as arsenic, benzene, formaldehyde and nickel, these 
are emissions coming out of vehicles being purchased with American tax 
dollars. Diesel contains over 40 substances listed by the EPA as 
hazardous, and the Air Resources Board has identified those 40 
substances as toxic air contaminants.
  In November of 1999, I introduced a bill to say it is time we stop 
this hypocrisy, the Federal Government, and government as a whole, 
should be cleaning up our act, not continuing to pollute, while the 
private sector is being mandated to clean up.
  Mr. Chairman, I have learned many things while working with my 
colleagues on this issue in focusing on trying to get our technology in 
line with our strategies, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bono), 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn), many others have been working on this issue.
  I intend not to call for recorded vote, and I am going to ask for 
consent to withdraw this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), 
who has raised this issue before.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California. He has 
made a real contribution to focusing on this issue, and I have great 
respect for the chairman of the subcommittee. And I just like some of 
urban America to be as green as his beautiful country and district that 
he represents. And we should not be funding diesel equipment in any of 
these bills anywhere, be it the Nation or the State or the county, and 
what we need to concentrate on are the natural gas technology and 
particularly the battery technology.
  Since the appropriations subcommittee here puts in $190 million for 
the aviation situation, I would hope that we could, in the future, get 
millions more to really bring this clean technology into all of the 
areas of the United States. The CAFE situation now, the Corporation 
Average Fuel Economy, my heavens, we saved 3 million barrels a day by 
having that kind of economy.

                              {time}  1145

  So I thank the gentleman and I hope that we will get an investment in 
batteries and, if there can be, clean diesel, which I am dubious about. 
I just do not like the smoke that gets in my eyes in Washington, D.C., 
where it is Federal money; at Dulles, where it is Federal money, and we 
ought to stop that.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I want to support the gentleman's effort 
in this area, and all of our colleagues' efforts, including the 
chairman of the committee, to work vigorously to avail ourselves of 
these new technologies, not only for the private sector but for the 
public sector.
  Cleaner fuel and better gas mileage is good for the economy. It 
lessens our dependence on foreign oil, it improves the balance of 
trade, saves consumers dollars, it is good for the environment, 
increases energy security, new technology, and creates jobs. This is an 
overall good effort, and I am sure in the next Congress we will find a 
way to make this happen.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am just asking that 
as we ask the private sector to invest in cleaner, more environmentally 
friendly technology that we finally stand up and say that the United 
States Government will not set aside just a portion of its 
transportation money for clean air and good environment, we are going 
to now say that all of our transportation funds should be aimed at 
clean technology and good environment and clean air; that the Clean Air 
Act is just as important and that the public health is just as 
important, and that is going to be implemented here.
  Mr. Chairman, I have always been frustrated by the spending of 
federal dollars on polluting technologies, which runs absolutely 
counter to our other federal clean air strategies.
  Let me say, however, that I greatly appreciate the work which has 
been done over the years by Chairman Wolf, to move away from this old 
concept and to encourage the use of cleaner technologies. He should be 
commended for his work, and I appreciate his long-time support on this 
important issue.
  In the last Congress, I offered a similar proposal as part TEA-21, 
which became law in June of 1998. Due to concern over the proposal, 
this became a GAO study of the availability of alternative 
technologies.

[[Page H3452]]

  That study was released in December of 1999, and shows that while 
diesel technology has in fact gotten cleaner, alternative technologies 
are readily available for fleet use, and are being used in many 
locations (for many years in my own county of San Diego, for example).
  Since TEA-21 became law, we have seen a great deal of new science on 
diesel emissions, and increased public concern over their health 
effects, especially on children.
  While the technology has gotten cleaner, we know that emissions from 
diesel engines contain potential cancer-causing substances such as: 
arsenic; benzene; formaldehyde; nickel, and polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons.
  Diesel also contains over 40 substances listed by the EPA as 
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) and by the California Air Resources 
Board as toxic air contaminants (TACs).
  In California, the ARB has been working to reduce the risks from all 
sources of diesel.
  In November of 1999, I introduced legislation which would achieve the 
goals being discussed here today--H.R. 3376, the Cleaner Technologies 
in Transit Act. I hope to be able to work with many of my colleagues 
together on this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I've learned many things from my colleagues since I 
started focusing on this process here in Congress. I know that there 
are a number of cleaner, alternative technologies which are not only 
available, but in use in many of my colleagues' districts.
  Mary Bono, Zach Wamp, Steve Horn, and many others have told me about 
the work they've done to encourage alternative fleets in their 
districts, and I greatly appreciate their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to call for a recorded vote, and will 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  Before I do this, however, I want to thank my colleagues for their 
interest in this important issue, and for taking the time to work with 
me and inform me of their experience.
  It is my hope that this discussion today will help move us closer to 
the goals of my amendment, and my bill, to benefit the public health 
and the air quality of all our constituents.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I provide for the Record an article from 
the Los Angeles Times relating to the topic of my amendment.

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Nov. 18, 1999]

              Study Critical of Exhaust From School Buses

                            (By Marla Cone)

       California's children are breathing unhealthful exhaust 
     spewed by diesel school buses that are among the oldest and 
     highest-polluting in the nation, according to a report to be 
     released today by a Los Angeles environmental group.
       The report, by the Coalition for Clean Air, urges Gov. Gray 
     Davis' administration to set tough emission standards for 
     school buses and to provide tens of millions of dollars to 
     help school districts replace their fleets with new buses 
     powered by cleaner-burning alternative fuels.
       About 17,000 diesel buses deliver children to school, 
     including some 20-year-old models that spew dark clouds of 
     noxious smoke. Diesel exhaust, a mix of soot and toxic gases, 
     has been linked in health studies to lung cancer, asthma 
     attacks, allergies and other respiratory illnesses.
       Officials of the state Air Resources board and the state's 
     largest school district agreed Wednesday that the current 
     school bus fleet poses an environmental threat to children 
     but have yet to decide on a strategy to deal with the 
     problem. Diesel manufacturers said they are improving their 
     engines and see no need for schools to switch to alternative 
     technologies.
       No one knows how much of a danger bus exhaust poses to 
     schoolchildren--the amounts they breathe have not been 
     measured and no studies have calculated their disease rates. 
     In fact, for Californians on average, heavy-duty trucks pose 
     a far greater health risk, with buses blamed for less than 1% 
     of total diesel emissions, according to the California Air 
     Resources Board.
       Nevertheless, Air Resources Board Chairman Alan Lloyd, 
     appointed this year by Davis, said the emissions, while 
     relatively small, could be posing a serious health danger 
     because tens of thousands of children come into direct 
     contact with the bus exhaust every school day.
       ``We would agree with the coalition that the risk from 
     diesel, particularly from school buses, should be reduced,'' 
     Lloyd said. ``We're trying to crack down on all sources of 
     diesel.''
       The report comes as the air board is preparing to unveil a 
     controversial proposal in December that would set new state 
     pollution standards for transit buses next year. That 
     proposal, however, will exempt school buses because of the 
     financial burden it would put on California's already 
     struggling school districts. Instead, Lloyd said the board's 
     staff in January will outline a separate strategy for getting 
     cleaner buses at schools.
       Buses powered by alternative technologies, predominantly 
     compressed natural gas, are already available and are 
     substantially cleaner than diesel buses. The price tag, 
     however, for converting all of California's school fleet to 
     natural gas would exceed $1 billion, according to the 
     environmental group's calculations.
       Antonio Rodriquez, transportation director at the Los 
     Angeles Unified School District, said the district has been 
     trying to clean up its fleet--it has gotten rid of its oldest 
     buses and the rest meet current emission standards. Also, the 
     district operates a small number powered by cleaner natural 
     gas and hopes to buy more, but Rodriquez said money is the 
     main obstacle because each one costs about 35% more than a 
     diesel bus.
       ``We're always interested in making sure our buses are as 
     clean as possible,'' he said. ``We all breath the same air in 
     this basin, and whatever we can do to clear the air helps our 
     kids.''
       Last year, the state air board declared diesel soot a 
     cancer-causing air pollutant that could be causing 14,000 
     Californians alive today to contract cancer.
       Medical experts say that children are especially vulnerable 
     to the effects of diesel exhaust because they inhale large 
     volumes of pollutants for with their body weight and because 
     their immune systems are still developing. Also, half million 
     asthmatic children live in California, and some medical 
     experts say diesel exhaust can trigger attacks.
       The environmental group reports that California ranks among 
     the worst states--47th out of 50--in terms of the percentage 
     of buses built before 1977. Pre-1977 diesel buses emit four 
     times more particle soot and three times more smog-forming 
     fumes than new natural gas buses, according to the air board.
       About 69% of the state's 24,372 buses are fueled by diesel 
     and nearly 1,000, or 4%, predate 1977, according to data in 
     the report compiled from three state agencies.
       ``Everyday, our children step aboard and ride a school bus 
     that may intensify their exposure to diesel exhaust, a known 
     human carcinogen,'' the Coalition for Clean Air report says. 
     ``This exposure does not end with the bus ride, however. 
     Exposure also occurs in and around the school grounds when 
     school buses park and idle nearby or load and unload 
     students.''
       While other vehicles on California's roads are the cleanest 
     in the nation, school buses lag far behind.
       Last year, the state air board resolved to promote 
     alternative technologies for school buses and eliminate pre-
     1977 models. But little has been done to accomplish those 
     goals. One of every five urban transit buses run on natural 
     gas, compared with only 3% of school buses.
       In its report, the Coalition for Clean Air urges the state 
     to apply a new bus emission standard to schools. It also 
     wants Davis and the Legislature to provide funds 
     ``exclusively earmarked'' for nondiesel school buses. School 
     districts, the group says, should adopt policies that phase 
     out diesel buses, and parents should lobby for action.
       The future of diesel--long considered the workhorse of 
     America because it powers heavy-duty vehicles from trucks to 
     trains-- has been a recent focus of intense debate, 
     especially in California.
       Engine manufacturers, who oppose any efforts favoring 
     alternative fuels over diesel, have spent millions of dollars 
     researching ways to reduce emissions from diesel engines. 
     They also question the reliability of health studies that 
     find an increased cancer rate among workers exposed to high 
     amounts of exhaust, and say there is no evidence that school 
     children are breathing inordinate amounts.
       ``We're very concerned about the health and safety of the 
     people who use our products and of the environment, but 
     there's significant controversy at every level about the 
     health effects,'' said William Bunn, medical director of 
     Navistar International, the largest manufacturer of bus 
     engines in North America. ``As we continue to determine what, 
     if any, health effects there are, we are committed to the 
     `green' diesel approach.''

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  (Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  The gentleman's amendment is well intentioned but mal-aimed. It 
should be an initiative on this floor to fully fund the Clean Fuels 
Formula Grant Program that was established in 1998 under our TEA-21 
bill. If that were fully funded, California would benefit enormously by 
vastly cleaner air.
  Mr. Chairman, by offering this amendment, the gentleman makes a good 
point. I include the following article as further explanation.

          How Congress Is Keeping LA From Cleaning Up Its Air

                      (By Rep. James L. Oberstar)

       Los Angeles and other urban areas around the country are 
     being robbed, and Congressional appropriators are holding the 
     gun.
       The City of Angels is famous for its smog. Every day, the 
     exhaust gases emitted by cars, trucks, buses and industry 
     hang over the city like a dirty brown blanket. But LA is not 
     alone. Denver, Detroit, Chicago, Atlanta, even Duluth in my 
     home district in Minnesota and many other cities large and

[[Page H3453]]

     small across this country are fighting the smog each and 
     every day. Federal and state programs have been put in place 
     to help Los Angeles and these other cities address their air 
     quality problems. One such federal program would help reduce 
     pollution through the purchase of transit buses that burn 
     cleaner fuels, but not all the money allocated for that 
     purpose is reaching those cities in greatest need.
       Buses make ideal candidates for alternative fuels and 
     technology programs. They are operated predominantly by 
     government agencies and use centralized fueling stations. 
     Transit agencies spend about $1 billion annually to purchase 
     buses, and this provides a tremendous opportunity to purchase 
     alternative fuel buses and facilities. Furthermore, the U.S. 
     Department of Energy is considering a regulation to require 
     transit systems to switch to vehicles that burn alternative 
     fuels.
       California has already moved in this direction. In January, 
     the California Air Resources Board (CARB) issued regulations 
     requiring transit operators to switch to alternatives to 
     conventional diesel-fueled buses. The regulation affects 
     about 8,500 buses at 75 transit agencies in California, 
     including an estimated 3,300 buses in the South Coast Air 
     Basin. The regulation moves forward in several steps over the 
     next 10 years, and allows transit agencies to choose a clean 
     diesel or alternative fuels path to lower air emissions.
       On an average day, transit buses throughout the state emit 
     some 24 tons of nitrogen oxide and 1,000 pounds of 
     particulate matter, according to CARB estimates. In contrast, 
     natural gas engines have significantly lower emissions of 
     these pollutants than comparable diesel engines. (Some of 
     these engines also emit slightly higher levels of carbon 
     monoxide and carbon dioxide, but the increase is small 
     compared to the reduction of nitrous oxide and particulate 
     matter.)
       On federal initiative, the Clean Fuels Formula Grant 
     Program (CFFGP), commonly called the Clean Fuels Bus Program, 
     can play an important role in cleaning the air. The program 
     was established in 1998 under the Transportation Equity Act 
     for the 21st Century (TEA 21). It authorizes $200 million per 
     year over five years to help transit agencies purchase low 
     emission buses and related equipment and construct 
     alternative fuel fueling facilities. Eligible technologies 
     include compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, 
     biodiesel fuel, battery, alcohol-based fuel, hybrid electric, 
     fuel cell, clean diesel, and other low or zero emissions 
     technologies.
       Under this program, transit authorities would buy clean 
     fuel buses for areas that are working to address their air 
     quality problems (nonattainment areas under the Clean Air 
     Act). Funds would be distributed each year to local transit 
     systems who apply, using a formula based on the area's air 
     quality non-attainment rating, number of buses operated, and 
     bus passenger-miles of service. The formula directs funds to 
     areas of greatest need for clean fuels technology and 
     provides an opportunity to improve air quality in areas such 
     as the South Coast Air Basin, where air quality problems are 
     the most severe.
       This worthwhile program has never been implemented. The 
     appropriators in Congress continue to ignore the law 
     establishing the Clean Fuels Bus Program. In crafting the 
     annual spending bills, the Appropriations Committees in the 
     House and Senate have been earmarking all of the Clean Fuels 
     Bus Program funds for pet projects, instead of distributing 
     funds in accordance with the formula. Money is being 
     appropriated for conventional diesel fuel projects without 
     regard to the program's focus of improving air quality. This 
     practice has eviscerated the clean fuels grant program, 
     slowed the pace of urban air quality improvements, and robbed 
     cities of federal funds to which they are entitled.
       Los Angeles, for example, will lose $20 to $25 million in 
     Clean Fuels Bus Program funding in Fiscal Year 2001 alone, an 
     amount that could have easily covered the federal cost of 100 
     new clean fuel buses. Los Angeles will probably continue 
     losing $20 to $25 million a year as long as the program 
     continues to be implemented this way.
       The solution is to put an end to the egregious earmarking 
     practice by the appropriations committees and let the program 
     operate as the law provides.
       The case for full-scale implementation of the Clean Fuels 
     Bus Program is clear. The program will reduce harmful 
     emissions in cities that have the greatest air quality 
     problems, marginally reduce the demand for conventional 
     diesel fuel, and help reduce the price of conventional diesel 
     fuel for industries such as interstate trucking. The program 
     will go a long way toward helping Los Angeles make the switch 
     to alternative fuel transit buses.
       The time is ripe to invigorate the Clean Fuels Formula 
     Grant Program.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Does the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) still insist on his point of order?
  Mr. WOLF. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment at this time, and I just ask that we not just look at 
throwing money at this problem but make sure what we spend for transit 
is consistent with our federal laws.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier there was an interesting discussion on the 
floor and an amendment that was offered but subsequently withdrawn by 
the gentleman from Georgia. I listened carefully to his comments, and I 
respect his concerns, but I feel that he is absolutely taking the wrong 
approach, and his region of Atlanta is a good reason why.
  The region of Atlanta has been characterized by some as the urban 
area whose growth has been the most rapid in the history of human 
settlement. A more than 25 percent increase in population has occurred 
since 1990. The city's region in that time frame has grown north to 
south from 65 miles to 110 miles. And, frankly, the results have been 
devastating.
  The average Atlanta commuter drives 36.5 miles a day, the longest 
work-trip commute in the world. And this has had serious problems in 
terms of air pollution, to the point that the Federal transportation 
authorities have withheld resources from the Atlanta metropolitan area 
due to its inability or unwillingness to meet air quality standards.
  This has had business implications. The Hewlett-Packard Company 
decided not to expand its Atlanta facilities. The city lost its 1997 
top rank as the city's best real estate market and is now number 15 
among 18 cities that are monitored.
  It has health implications. The Centers for Disease Control has found 
that there is an alarming increase in obesity, and some experts have 
linked this to the potential of the bad air that discourages exercise, 
and poor urban design that makes it hard for people to walk, bike and 
otherwise exercise. Asthma is the number one reason for childhood 
hospitalization in Atlanta.
  The clean air policy conformity provisions were designed to ensure 
that areas with air quality problems take into account the pollution 
impacts of proposed transportation projects. The Clean Air Act states 
that no transportation activity can be funded unless that activity 
conforms to the State's clean air plan. The State of Georgia, the 
Regional Atlanta Commission, and the U.S. DOT were finally sued by a 
coalition of environment and civic groups because of the inability to 
comply with the law.
  Last March, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA 
regulations violated the Clean Air Act and the EPA and the U.S. DOT 
were forced to revise their guidelines surrounding grandfathering. Now 
we have had the Federal Government and the environmental groups agree 
that the current policy is in fact appropriate, but because the State 
was able to turn things around so quickly, not a single dollar of 
Federal funding was lost in the process.
  During the conformity lapse, money was redirected from polluting 
projects to projects already in the plan that either had no negative 
impact, like bridge reconstruction and safety improvements, or showed 
air quality benefits, such as transit and high occupant vehicle lanes. 
The proposed amendment that was discussed would have undermined the 
conformity provisions and make it easier for regions to ignore air 
quality in their transportation plans, speeding the march towards 
gridlock and away from clean air.
  But Georgia has been making progress under the current program. The 
coalition of citizens, business, homebuyers, and environmental groups 
have formed a coalition to address the air quality and traffic 
congestion concerns. Governor Barnes, with the support of the business 
community, created the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority to 
coordinate and oversee for the first time metropolitan Atlanta's fight 
against pollution, traffic and unplanned growth.
  There is an exciting 130-acre redevelopment in the old Atlanta Steel 
site that is combining residential, retail office and entertainment 
space in a transit-oriented development on a brownfield site in midtown 
Atlanta.
  Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of legislation introduced by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), The

[[Page H3454]]

 Road Back to Clean Air Act, which would put into law the EPA and DOT 
conformity and transportation planning guidelines that were key to 
addressing the air quality problems in Atlanta, Georgia. The bill would 
increase the flexibility so other areas of the country could continue 
to receive Federal funds for transit, safety improvements, road 
rehabilitation, and other projects, even during a lapse in the 
conformity of their transportation plans.
  It is decidedly misdirected for us to retreat from our commitment to 
clean air and to try and use this legislation to do so. We would be far 
better served to try and make the system work, and in Atlanta it is 
working and is a model for the country.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Vitter

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Vitter) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 187, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 209]

                               AYES--218

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--187

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Ackerman
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Capps
     Fattah
     Gephardt
     Holden
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     McIntosh
     Miller, George
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Owens
     Quinn
     Rogan
     Salmon
     Shadegg
     Stupak
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Vento
     Weldon (PA)
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1213

  Messrs. DOOLEY of California, MARTINEZ, JEFFERSON and BISHOP changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I was attending my daughter's high school 
graduation and was unable to vote on rollcall No. 209. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). Are there further amendments?
  Pursuant to House Resolution 505, the following amendment is 
considered adopted:

       Page 54, after line 2, insert the following:
       This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Transportation 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001.''

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Upton). If there are no further 
amendments, under the rule the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Thornberry) having assumed the chair, Mr. Upton, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4475) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 505, he reported the bill 
back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of 
the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 395, 
nays 13, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 210]

                               YEAS--395

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray

[[Page H3455]]


     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--13

     Bentsen
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Doggett
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Maloney (NY)
     Paul
     Royce
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Stark
     Stearns

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Ackerman
     Barton
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Dicks
     Fattah
     Jones (OH)
     Klink
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     McIntosh
     Miller, George
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Norwood
     Owens
     Quinn
     Rogan
     Salmon
     Shadegg
     Stupak
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Vento
     Woolsey

                              {time}  1232

  Mr. MOAKLEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I was attending my daughter's high school 
graduation and was unable to vote on rollcall No. 210. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________