Congressional Record, Volume 146 Issue 63 (Friday, May 19, 2000)

[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.''

____________________