Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 90 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 26, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3550-H3581]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2002

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 178 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. 2299.

{time} 1436

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. 2299) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and
for other purposes, with Mr. Camp 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 Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to present to the House the
Department of Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2002. This is an excellent bill that reflects not only
the priorities of the budget submitted by the President earlier this
year but also the important contributions of all the Members of our
subcommittee and full committee and we hope now the full House.
I want to especially thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo)
for his tireless and insightful support of transportation programs
during the many hours of our hearings, deliberations, and the markup of
this bill this year. I also want to thank both the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the full committee chairman; and the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full committee,
for their support of this subcommittee and the programs we oversee. I
am also thankful to all the members of our subcommittee who had a part
in the drafting of this bill and the full Committee on Appropriations,
which had the chance to amend and correct as we went through that
process. And, of course, we would not be here without our wonderful
staff, both on the majority and the minority side upon whom we all so
much depend.
Mr. Chairman, the bill I present today provides an increase of 6
percent in the programs and activities of the Department of
Transportation. At first blush, this appears to be a healthy increase
over current levels, but in fact it is barely enough to cover the 4.6
percent pay raise that will go to all Federal employees next year as
well as the general cost of inflation for programs in our jurisdiction.
So this is a lean bill, especially when compared with the explosive
growth in needs caused by highway and air travel in this country. We
are doing a lot in this bill to respond to that demand but not nearly
as much as we would like. The Department of Transportation will have to
economize, it will have to be more efficient, and it will have to live
within the constraints of the spending limits set by the budget just
like every other agency.
The bill is within our 302(b) allocation, in both budget authority
and outlays. It fully funds the highway and aviation spending increases
established by TEA-21 and AIR-21, and it will help relieve the
congestion that is frustrating citizens on our interstates, in the
skies, and in our bus and train terminals.
Our bill fully funds the Coast Guard's operating budget and provides
$600 million, which is a huge increase, in their capital account.
Within the capital appropriation, we have provided $300 million to kick
off the Deepwater program, which will provide a vitally needed upgrade
and replacement of the Coast Guard's ships and aircraft. Members should
know that this is the largest acquisition program, that is the
Deepwater program in the Coast Guard, ever attempted by the Department
of Transportation or the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard estimates that
the acquisition costs alone for the Deepwater program will cost $18
billion, and this bill allows the agency to award the first major
contracts next year. This is a major step forward for the Deepwater
program, and we are optimistic it will succeed. It will only succeed
with careful oversight by the Coast Guard, the administration, and the
Congress.
The bill also includes, Mr. Chairman, funds to address serious
staffing, training, and equipment problems at our small-boat stations
of the Coast Guard which were highlighted in our hearings with the
Inspector General and the Coast Guard this year. I am proud that we
could find a small amount of money to raise the staffing levels and the
training at these stations which provide the backbone of our Nation's
search and rescue capability. With an average workweek, Mr. Chairman,
of 80 hours-plus, Coast Guardsmen at these stations are in desperate
need of some help. We provide it in this bill.
Consistent with the provisions of AIR-21, this bill fully funds the
airport grants program at $3.3 billion and fully funds FAA's capital
appropriation at $2.9 billion. It also provides nearly 100 percent of
the FAA's operating budget. In addition, this bill includes several
initiatives that will hopefully lead to reductions in the number and
severity of airline delays. Our gridlocked aviation system has been a
major focus of this subcommittee, and it will continue to receive the
scrutiny of our panel until we untangle it for the good of consumers
and the economy. We will continue to press the aviation industry to
cooperate, to come up with solutions, and to put those solutions to the
test. In this bill we are doing everything possible to make sure the
money is there for work and technologies that address the problem.

[[Page H3551]]

If we find programs and initiatives that work, we will fund them. If
we find programs that fail, we will cut them off. It is that simple. We
are determined to make improvements. Things will change. This bill is a
start. But we will keep pressing for real action and real results in an
area critical to all of us.
The bill restores proposed cuts to the essential air service program.
Under the administration's proposal, 18 cities would have lost their
air service next year. This bill maintains the eligibility of each of
these cities in the program and provides the additional $13 million
needed to maintain the program at current service levels. That will be
good news to 18 cities across the country where EAS provides a
necessary lifeline. In addition, the bill provides $10 million to kick
off the new small community air service development pilot program
authorized last year in AIR-21. This program will provide grants to
small and rural communities around the country to foster air service
where it does not exist and foster competition in those communities
where there is monopoly service. I can personally attest to the
declining air service in many smaller cities around the country. It is
a tremendously needed program, and I am pleased the bill provides
initial funding for it.

{time} 1445

The bill includes $32.6 billion for our Nation's highways, an
increase of $1.2 billion, 4 percent, consistent with the authorizations
in TEA-21. This will provide for high-priority construction needs in
every State of the Nation.
The bill provides $298 million for the Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, an increase of 11 percent over the current year.
Included in the bill is the additional $88.2 million requested by the
President to maintain a high level of trucking safety on the border
with Mexico as we fully open up the border next year pursuant to NAFTA.
This is a very important initiative to ensure the safety of all
Americans as Mexican trucks begin to drive beyond commercial zones near
the border into the interior of the U.S.
I believe this funding, combined with the administration's regulatory
and program activities, will ensure that we receive the benefits of
greater trade with Mexico while at the same time protecting our people
as we learn to share the road with our neighbors to the south.
The bill includes $419 million for the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, a 4 percent increase above current year,
essentially the same as the administration requested, and it provides
the level of funding called for in TEA-21.
Amtrak, we are recommending the requested level of $521 million for
Amtrak's capital needs, and we waive a limitation on funding carried
for several years so that Amtrak can access those fund on the first day
of the fiscal year. We have all read about and studied Amtrak's
difficult cash situation. This bill will help them as much as we can
next year. Ultimately, though, Congress will have to decide what to do
next year if Amtrak does not meet its 5-year glide path to operational
self-sufficiency mandated by Congress, soon to be 5 years ago. This
bill for now meets the Federal commitment to help get Amtrak to that
point. Now the debate will begin about whether or not Amtrak deserves
the subsidies that will be required to keep it operating.
In transit, the bill provides $6.7 billion for transit programs, an
increase of almost $500 million over the current year. For the New
Starts program, where funding is very tight, the committee chose to
provide a higher share of the requested amount to those transit
projects which show a greater financial commitment by the local and
State governments and where the Federal share is limited to 60 percent
or less. This will allow the Congress to stretch the very limited
amount of Federal money so as many worthy projects as possible can be
conducted.
I hope all Members will appreciate that the explosive demand for
transit services is far greater than we can possibly fund. By rewarding
those projects with a higher local commitment, we are being good
stewards of the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the fiscal year 2002 appropriation
bill. This bill is one that historically has been developed in a
bipartisan manner, and I am happy to say that this year is no
different.
This is the first year that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers)
has chaired the subcommittee, and I congratulate him on a job well
done. He has been thorough, he has been fair, and we have a bill before
us that deserves the support of all Members of this House.
I would also like to thank our staff, Bev Pheto and Marjorie Duske
from my staff, and the subcommittee staff of Rich Efford, Stephanie
Gupta, Cheryle Tucker, Linda Muir and Theresa Kohler. They all have
worked exceptionally well together and have produced an outstanding
product. So this is a good bill that deserves passage by a substantial
margin, and I would hope unanimous support.
The subcommittee held a number of hearings this year on aviation
delays. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) should be commended
for bringing the FAA, airports, airlines and other stakeholders
together for frank discussions on the problems facing aviation
customers. Solutions are not easy to come by, but we need a balanced
approach to increase aviation system capacity with updated air traffic
control technology, new runways and responsible flight scheduling.
One important factor that must not be overlooked is the fact that
many communities have a legitimate concern about airport noise that
results in delays or even prevent airport expansion. We currently spend
tens of millions of dollars every year to mitigate noise impacts by
insulating or relocating homes. To help alleviate the noise problem at
its source, the bill provides an additional $20 million to increase
aircraft engine noise research so that quieter airplanes can be
developed sooner.
Overall, this is a great bill. We should pass it.
Let me also, however, note some concerns of our colleagues that the
committee did not extend several transit, bus and New Start earmarks
and would allow them to be reprogrammed in 2002. I am sure that we can
work out these issues as we move forward in the appropriations process.
In closing, I believe that the merits of this bill outweigh any
problems that must be addressed, and I urge support of the bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, to finish my opening statement, this bill is fair, it
is balanced, it is bipartisan. It satisfies our national transportation
needs to the best of our ability. It emphasizes strong program
oversight and financial accountability, and it represents the handiwork
of every Member of this subcommittee.
I want to thank all of our Members for their suggestions, their hard
work, and, again, special thanks to the ranking member, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for his assistance throughout the process. I
urge approval of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Young), the very able chairman of the full committee who has been so
helpful to us in the production of this bill and all of the others.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in enthusiastic support of
this bill, and I want to compliment the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) for having done an outstanding job in working with the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member, and the staff
of the subcommittee, because they have taken a bill that has the
potential for real controversy and made it a very good bipartisan bill.
That is not to say that there are not some differences, because there
are some differences. That is always the case when we bring a bill to
the floor. But these men have done a really good job.
I also want to compliment the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers),
the chairman of the Subcommittee, for the tremendous relationship that
he has established with the authorizing committee, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, chaired by our friend and colleague,
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). They

[[Page H3552]]

had some problems that had to be worked out, and they were able to do
that, mostly to the satisfaction of both of them. I believe this is a
good example of how legislation can be drafted to get to a good bill
that can be accepted by most everybody in this Chamber.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bill, to thank the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and
to thank the chairman of the authorizing committee, the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) for the good work he has done in helping us to
resolve some of these differences.
It is a good bill. Let us vote for it.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), a distinguished member of our subcommittee.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for his outstanding leadership as
we brought a perfect bill to this floor.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a pleasure to work with the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) on this first time on appropriations and in the
subcommittee. This is a good bill. I strongly urge its adoption and
that we move forward in the process.
Mr. Chairman, the chairman of our entire subcommittee spent many
hours working with the airline industry because we know that
cancellations, as well as late flights, are a problem for all
Americans.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) on his tenacity in making the airline industry come to the
table and to address that problem. We have a safe industry here in
America, and we are proud of that, but there is much work yet to be
done as it relates to cancellations and timely departures and arrivals.
With the leadership of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and our
chairman, I am sure we will get to the bottom of that as well.
The bill is a good one, as has been mentioned; not a perfect bill,
but seldom do we have a perfect bill.
I want to mention a little bit about the motor carrier safety that we
are seeing in America. Trucks are responsible for many accidents that
we have in our country. We have to make sure that we have an adequately
staffed motor carrier division, and this bill begins to address that.
In our NAFTA provisions that were passed a few years back, beginning
January 1, as has been mentioned, many trucks coming from Canada,
coming from Mexico must be inspected. Everything has to be safe and
within the rules of America's transportation system. As the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) mentioned earlier, with NAFTA many trucks now
will be coming into America further than the 30 miles, coming across
into our country, and sometimes they may not meet the requirements that
our country has set for our own trucks. I hope we will revisit the Sabo
amendment and that we make those trucks coming in from Mexico meet the
very same standards that our trucks have.
Many trucks coming from Mexico do not have regular hours of service.
Sometimes their inspection records are not up-to-date like ours must
be. I hope we take the time in this bill to revisit that issue, to make
sure that all American citizens are secure and safe as trucks move
around our country.
I strongly support this bill. I ask that my colleagues support it and
that we move it to the Senate as soon as possible.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the new and very able and strong
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the
authorizing committee, with whom I have a very close working
relationship, and I appreciate his work very much and his cooperation.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R.
2299, the Department of Transportation and Related Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2002.
I first want to again to congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky
(Chairman Rogers) for his excellent work on this legislation. He has
done an outstanding job in making difficult choices with very little
money and finding the funds to ensure the Nation's transportation
infrastructure needs are met.
While I may not agree with every choice made in the legislation, I do
recognize his leadership and hard work, and it has resulted in an
excellent bill. I want to congratulate him for the work well done in
his first term as chairman of the subcommittee.
At the beginning of this Congress, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) and I began a process of improving communications between our
two committees, and I am hopeful that we can continue to work together
to improve our communications and cooperation.
I also would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for reporting a bill that
generally honors the funding guarantees contained in both the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, and the
Aviation Investment and Reform Act of the 21st Century, AIR-21.
However, I still have several concerns about the legislation. First,
I have made it clear from the beginning of my term as chairman of
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that I am going to
ensure that the guaranteed funding provided by TEA-21 and AIR-21 are
respected. These funds are essential to maintaining and improving our
ground and aviation transportation systems.
The formula adopted by Congress under TEA-21 and AIR-21 guarantees
that our promises are kept to the taxpayers who pay the taxes on fuels
for the purpose of improving and maintaining our highways and airports.
A major guarantee of TEA-21 is that as the revenue from taxes
increases, those revenues would automatically be distributed to the
States through a process called Revenue Aligned Budget Authority, or
RABA. Unfortunately, section 310 and section 323 both redistribute RABA
funds for NAFTA-related spending in violation of the guarantee provided
in TEA-21.
While I do support the object of the funding, strict safety
inspections of Mexican trucks, I am concerned that opening up RABA to
other purposes is not the appropriate manner in which to solve this
problem. For that reason, I will object to this change in the law
contained in bill.
The bill was reported with actually 50 legislative provisions that
fall within this jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. I am not objecting to the majority of these provisions,
either because the appropriate consultation with my committee has taken
place or because we are able to reach an agreement on the merits of
certain actions. However, there will be a number, as I mentioned
before, of other provisions that I will object to and raise a point of
order that the committee has legislated in an area that is under the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

{time} 1500

Finally, I want to express my strong support for the amendment to be
offered by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo). His
amendment is needed to address the significant shortfall in the
appropriation to the Coast Guard. It was my understanding that the
Committee on the Budget had provided a sufficient Function 400 to cover
all the needs of the Coast Guard. Unfortunately, that allocation was
not passed along in the Subcommittee on Transportation, which now makes
this amendment necessary.
Again, I want to thank the Subcommittee on Transportation of the
Committee on Appropriations for its consideration and cooperation. I
want to commend the excellent staff of the gentleman from Kentucky
(Chairman Rogers) and the staff of the Subcommittee on Transportation
for their hard work and willingness to work with my staff.
I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman through this
appropriation process to produce the best transportation appropriation
bill possible.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Rothman), a member of the full committee.

[[Page H3553]]

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with our distinguished
chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), on the subject of
Stewart Airport.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for joining in a colloquy with me and the
distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo),
to discuss an important issue regarding air traffic in the New York-New
Jersey metropolitan region.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for your efforts and those of our
distinguished ranking member and for the work of the committee to
research how to reduce the terrible problem of aircraft noise, which
affects tens of thousands of my constituents in northern New Jersey.
I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member for addressing
the critical problem of airline delays and for their work on the
redesign of the New Jersey-New York metropolitan area's regional air
space.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey
for requesting this colloquy. I am proud to inform him of the work the
committee has done in our oversight hearings and in this bill to
address the serious issue of airline delays. I am also pleased to
report that the bill includes $8.5 million, which the Federal Aviation
Administration is to use only for the redesign of the New Jersey-New
York metropolitan region's air space.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, the committee has also increased funding for
the Federal Aviation Administration's environment and energy budget to
research aircraft noise mitigation to $27.6 million, an increase of
$24.1 million over fiscal year 2001, in order to speed the introduction
of lower-noise aircraft technologies.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlemen.
As the Federal Aviation Administration looks at ways of reducing the
stress on our overburdened regional air space, particularly the air
space over northern New Jersey, I would also ask the committee to work
with the FAA on examining the important role that Stewart International
Airport could play in accommodating general aviation aircraft that now
use Teterboro Airport, located in my district in New Jersey. Such a
shift from Teterboro to Stewart would reduce the aircraft noise and air
traffic that affects hundreds of thousands of my constituents every
day.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I
want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman) and the
others for highlighting these additional ways that the FAA can reduce
aircraft noise and ease air traffic congestion in the region. We will
work with the gentleman on these important issues as the committee
moves forward.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROTHMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I represent the area around the Stewart
Airport, and I want the gentleman to know just today we have been
meeting with the FAA to emphasize the need for using regional airports,
such as Stewart, to alleviate the congestion of LaGuardia Airport. I
want to commend the gentleman for focusing attention on this important
issue.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank my
distinguished colleague.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the distinguished ranking member of the full
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say while we will certainly be
debating a number of issues about which there is some disagreement
today, including the Sabo amendment, overall, this is a very reasonable
bill and it deserves to be supported. I expect to support it, and I
expect a large number of Members will do the same.
I congratulate the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman from
Minnesota for the job they have done. I appreciate their good work, as
I know the House does, and we look forward to disposing of this bill in
fairly short order today.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), one of the hardest working
members of our subcommittee.
Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2299, and
want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member, for the
fabulous job they have done in putting this bill together, as well as
the staffs, who have worked tremendously.
I believe very strongly this bill goes a long way towards meeting our
Nation's transportation priorities. I come from a rural district; and,
as cochair of the Rural Caucus, there is probably nothing more critical
to helping rural America than improving our infrastructure. It is
probably the most important thing that we needed to address in this
issue, from my perspective, and, for the first time, our legislation
does fund the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program,
which will stimulate new and expanded air service at under-utilized
airports in small and rural communities.
The legislation also includes important language which strongly urges
the Department of Transportation to issue rural consultation provisions
which were included back when we did TEA-21 3 years ago. These
important rules will ensure that our rural local elected officials have
a seat at the table when our State departments of transportation are
making Statewide transportation planning decisions.
So, again, I would like to thank the chairman for his tremendous hard
work; and I look forward to working with him and the ranking member as
we continue on with the process.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of
our subcommittee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).
(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to congratulate
our chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and ranking
member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for the fine work they
have done in bringing this bill before us. It is a reasonable bill, it
is a fair bill, and I congratulate them and also thank them.
I would like to thank the subcommittee for the work that they did on
the issue of the borders in this bill. We have monies dedicated to
building facilities that will inspect the trucks, as we have the
international flow of trucks, and also we have additional personnel on
the borders. This bill contains additional money for personnel on the
borders that will inspect the trucks.
I would also like to congratulate the subcommittee for the work they
have done in dealing with airport congestion. As the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Rothman) talked about hubs, this subcommittee has taken on
the responsibility of dealing with the congestion that we have, and I
look forward to working with them to resolve that.
I would like to thank the staff for the fine work they have done.
This is a good bill, and we support it.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), another one of the very
hardworking members of our subcommittee.
(Mr. SWEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I basically wanted to stand and commend and
congratulate our chairman of the subcommittee, who faced a number of
challenges, as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo).
This is a comprehensive bill that moves forward the transportation
needs of this Nation in a very positive way, connecting road, rail and
air. They faced a great many challenges.

[[Page H3554]]

I come from a State that has huge transportation infrastructure
needs. For example, in the New Start program, they faced the challenge
that the Federal Transit Administration account has been drawn down to
dangerously low levels in the New Start program, and there are a number
of programs that need funding.
We were able to secure some funding for the New York City area, which
has huge and substantial needs. In addition to that, as my colleague,
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), pointed out, this bill
moves forward in a very positive way. I think it is the first tangible
way that any level of government began to look at the use of Stewart
Airport as one of the four major airports in the New York metropolitan
area. And this is not a Northeast regional issue or problem, it is a
national problem, because 30 percent of all delays in air travel come
out of that region. If we are able, through the commission of a study
in this bill, to find a way to ease that problem, it will have an
effect nationally.
There are a number of other provisions in this bill that work to
serve the Northeast and my constituents, an I-87 corridor study and
many other efforts in the high speed rail area, to connect our region.
But I want to especially commend the chairman, the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and his staff for their paying attention to
these problems, for taking the issues that are at hand here today and
working hard with them.
In addition, I understand we are going to add some new money into the
FAA's General Counsel's office to handle airport-airline complaints.
All of those efforts are consumer friendly and are important to moving
the agenda forward, and I want to commend the chairman for that.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage my chairman, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, New York City is the Nation's biggest user
of mass transportation. The city's transit needs are constantly growing
and transit improvements and expansion are of critical importance to
the city's mobility and general well-being.
One project that is vital to the transit network of the future is the
Second Avenue Subway. I requested funding for this project, as did
other Members of the New York delegation. However, as a member of the
subcommittee, I am keenly aware of the funding limits that the
gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), faced in putting their bill
together and of the tough decisions that they were forced to make.
One of these decisions was to limit New Starts funding to projects
already in preliminary engineering. This made funding the numerous
projects that are still in the alternatives analysis stage of the
planning process impossible.
I would ask the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) if there
were any exceptions to this policy and if the decision was made without
prejudice to any of the projects, especially to my great city?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman from New York is correct. There
were no exceptions to the policy and it was made without prejudice;
and, I would add, the gentleman from New York has been very, very
persuasive with us.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman
for those comments. I would like to close by saying this continues to
be a major concern to my city and to certainly the surrounding area,
the people who come in to visit. I would hope that in the near future
we could move to find a way to fund this project.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in strong support of this measure,
the Fiscal Year 2002 Transportation Appropriations Act. I commend the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the subcommittee's distinguished
chairman, for his diligence and hard work in crafting this legislation,
which appropriates over $59 billion in budgetary resources to meet our
Nation's transportation needs, including almost $20 million for New
York State and my Congressional district.
I am gratified to note that over $6 million has been earmarked for
improving Stewart International Airport, which we have been discussing,
providing funding for the construction of a new, long-needed air
traffic control tower.
In addition, funds are going to be allocated to the Stewart Airport
Connector Study, which will improve surface access to the airport.
Moreover, I welcome Chairman Rogers' support for Stewart by his
recognition of its potential as a priority alternative regional airport
for the New York metropolitan region.
Earlier today, I was pleased to host a meeting with Chuck Seliga,
Managing Director of Stewart International, and with officials from the
Federal Aviation Administration to review the future of Stewart Airport
and how our efforts to alleviate congestion at LaGuardia should include
Stewart Airport.

{time} 1515

Stewart International has the infrastructure location and capability
to be a viable alternative for the New York metropolitan region, and I
fully support efforts to promote this underutilized airport. I commend
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the
subcommittee, for his efforts in crafting this vital legislation.
Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to fully support this important
appropriations bill.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the subcommittee chairman, in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that a study be conducted on
pier safety in navigable waters.
Currently, no Federal regulations exist requiring safety standards
for piers. This deeply concerns me because there have been a great
number of fatal pier accidents that could have been prevented if
Federal safety standards were in place.
One such fatal accident took place on May 18, 2000, when a 140-foot
portion of Pier 34 on the Delaware River in Philadelphia collapsed,
killing three constituents of mine. This accident could have been
avoided if Federal pier safety standards had existed.
I believe that Congress can take an active role in preventing these
tragic accidents from occurring by creating safety standards for piers
in navigable waters. Therefore, I respectfully ask for the chairman to
support my efforts by urging the conferees to include language in the
final transportation appropriations bill that calls for a study to be
conducted on pier safety.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, while I have not examined this
particular issue in detail, I can assure the gentleman that we will
seriously consider his request.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman and the
staff.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the very able immediate past
chairman of this subcommittee and now the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Commerce, Justice and State and Judiciary.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill.
I do want to just say, though, for the membership of the body and for
the administration, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) is right.
We have to

[[Page H3555]]

be careful on this truck issue. Five thousand people a year die in the
United States from trucks. If you go out on a truck inspection of
American trucks, you will be fearful when you go out on the road
sometimes.
Mexico has no hours of service. None. Mexico has no drug testing.
None. Mexico has no alcohol testing. None. Mexico has no commercial
driver's license. None. Mexico has no truck inspection. None. Mexico
uses leaded gasoline and not unleaded gasoline.
Frankly, the administration has not thought this thing through, and
we do not even have an Office of Motor Carrier Administration yet on
the job.
Now, I know the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) said we will
watch this carefully and I appreciate that. But this is an important
issue. I tell the administration, you better be careful and you better
handle this right, because if this is not handled right, people will
die. So this is an important issue, and I appreciate the chairman's
commitment to making sure that those regulations are good. I think the
Congress ought to be very careful and the administration especially so,
to listen to what the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) was trying to
say.
The truck safety issue is one that I advocated as the chairman of the
House transportation appropriations subcommittee over the past six
years. I sat in hearings and heard testimony about the widespread
safety problems involving trucks from Mexico, including testimony from
the inspector general at the U.S. Department of Transportation. That
office issued a December 1998 audit report which ``concluded that
neither the Office of Motor Carriers nor the border states, with the
exception of California, are taking sufficient actions to ensure that
trucks entering the United States from Mexico meet U.S. safety
standards.''
I understand the requirements under NAFTA permitting cross-border
trucking services. Nevertheless, the U.S. needs to ensure that trucks
coming across our borders and traveling on our highways will meet U.S.
safety standards. The Department of Transportation must establish a
consistent enforcement program that provides reasonable assurance of
the safety of trucks from Mexico entering the United States.
The United States and Mexico must establish, test and implement a
comprehensive truck safety program at our borders. It is unacceptable
to have unsafe trucks from anywhere on U.S. highways. These trucks
could be traveling on I-81 through the Shenandoah Valley in the heart
of my congressional district, or on I-5 in California, or on the
streets of the nation's capital. We have an obligation to protest our
families, our friends and our neighbors who use the nation's highway
system every hour of every day.
I urge the Bush Administration to take every precaution necessary to
ensure that no lives are lost because of unsafe trucks on our highways.
I have spent considerable time on this issue over the past six years
and believe it deserves your close attention.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, February 7, 2001.
Hon. Norman Mineta,
Secretary, Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Mineta: I am very troubled by the news
reports today that the U.S. government may be poised to allow
trucks from Mexico to cross U.S. borders under the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). I am writing to urge
that you tread very carefully on this issue because lives are
at stake.
The truck safety issue is one that I advocated as the
chairman of the House transportation appropriations
subcommittee over the past six years. I sat in hearing and
heard testimony about the widespread safety problems
involving trucks from Mexico, including testimony from the
inspector general at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
That office issued a December 1998 audit report (TR-1999-034)
which ``concluded that neither the Office of Motor Carriers
nor the border states, with the exception of California, are
taking sufficient actions to ensure that trucks entering the
United States from Mexico meet U.S. safety standards.'' A
copy of the report is enclosed.
I understand the requirements under NAFTA permitting cross-
border trucking services. Nevertheless, the U.S. needs to
ensure that trucks coming across our borders and traveling on
our highways will meet U.S. safety standards. Already more
than 5,000 people die every year on our roads in accidents
involving heavy trucks. That number could skyrocket if unsafe
trucks from Mexico are allowed on our highways. According to
the December 1998 IG report, barely 1 percent of the 3.7
million trucks from Mexico crossing the border were
inspected. Of those, nearly half were placed our of service
because of safety violations. The Department of
Transportation must establish a consistent enforcement
program that provides reasonable assurance of the safety of
trucks from Mexico entering the United States.
In addition, I am concerned that no drug and alcohol
testing program exists for truck drivers from Mexico. Mexico
also has no hours of service regulations. This means that a
truck driver from Mexico could have been driving for 24 hours
straight before even entering the United States. Furthermore,
no database exists between Mexico and the United States to
exchange information on past violations of drivers from
Mexico.
The United States and Mexico must establish, test and
implement a comprehensive truck safety program at our
borders. It is unacceptable to have unsafe trucks from
anywhere on U.S. highways. These trucks could be traveling on
I-81 through the Shenandoah Valley in the heart of my
congressional district, or on I-5 in California, or on the
streets of the nation's capital. We have an obligation to
protect our families, our friends and our neighbors who use
the nation's highway system every hour of every day.
I urge the Bush Administration to take every precaution
necessary to ensure that no lives are lost because of unsafe
trucks on our highways. I have spent considerable time on
this issue over the past six years and believe it deserves
your close attention.
I would be happy to talk with you about this critical
matter. Lives are at stake. Please do not hesitate to call.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
Frank R. Wolf,
Member of Congress.

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee,
for putting together a very excellent bill to help us deal with the
transportation needs of our country over the course of the upcoming
fiscal year.
In particular, I want to thank him for his attention to our air
traffic needs and particularly to the subject of air traffic safety and
the need to relieve air traffic congestion in many places around the
country.
The airport at the LaGuardia field in New York City is principal
among them. The chairman has recognized that it is possible to relieve
air traffic congestion at LaGuardia and other metropolitan airports by
providing an alternative venue at Stewart International Airport, which
is located just 60 miles north of Manhattan.
The chairman has expressed that by working with us to obtain an
appropriation of $5.7 million for a new air traffic control tower and
air traffic control system at Stewart. If we are going to be successful
in attracting new carriers into Stewart, new commercial carriers, this
air traffic control system, which is funded in this appropriations
bill, will be absolutely essential. I thank the chairman for that.
I also want to express my appreciation to the chairman for his
recognition and allowing of report language in the bill which instructs
the Federal Aviation Administration to pay attention to Stewart Airport
as it addresses the need to relieve congestion at LaGuardia and other
airports in the metropolitan region. We have placed language, report
language, in the bill which stipulates that this should occur and that
the FAA and the Federal Department of Transportation in addressing
these needs also pay attention to the need to provide surface
transportation between Newburgh where Stewart Airport is located and
the metropolitan area of New York City. That is essential if this
airport is going to be used in that way, and I thank the gentleman very
much for his assistance in achieving these objectives.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for the purpose of a colloquy.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The current bill contains a provision in which the result is a
reallocation of certain funds that were appropriated for what is called
Corridor One in central Pennsylvania, a very vital item in the
revitalization of mass transit transportation and economic development.
We want to try to reconstitute this reallocation and allow the stream
of funding to continue, and we would urge the chairman, and I will
yield to him for a colloquy on this. I would ask him to work with us,
staff-to-staff and Member to Member, so that we can try to refashion
the appropriation and restore what has been reallocated.

[[Page H3556]]

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the concerns of
the gentleman. We would be pleased to work with him as the
transportation bill moves along this year, and I assure the gentleman
of that.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I would ask if he, on behalf of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo) and the distinguished chairman, as well as the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Rothman), would join in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking Democrat on the committee, as well as
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), for addressing the needs
of New Jersey this year. We have received generous consideration with
regard to important projects such as the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, and
I deeply appreciate that consideration.
There is, however, one particular project that would greatly benefit
my district and the region which did not receive funding. I am
referring to the ferry terminal and pier project located in the heart
of Jersey City's growing Colgate redevelopment zone. This $10 million
project was recently submitted for funding, but was not included in the
subcommittee's mark; and I was wondering if the gentleman could comment
on that.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the subcommittee's
decision was without prejudice to the merits of the Jersey City
project.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I too wish to express my gratitude to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee,
and to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) on behalf of the ranking
member, the gentleman fro Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for the cooperation and
generosity of the committee for its help on a wide range of
transportation priorities in New Jersey that are included in this bill.
I understand the funding constraints under which the committee is
working. I would also, however, like to point out that this new ferry
hub project would provide an important transportation solution for the
tri-state area, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, as well as in
particular for Jersey City. It would connect the New York and New
Jersey financial districts with a 5-minute ferry ride, transport up to
30,000 passengers daily, and provide relief to the now congested PATH
and Holland Tunnel interstate traffic.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank all of my colleagues
for bringing the Jersey City project to our attention. I will be glad
to work with my colleagues and other project sponsors as we move the
transportation bill through the process this year.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his
consideration.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) and the committee for taking action to fight the growing
gridlock that plagues northern Illinois.
For the first time in 70 years, our country is building a new
commuter rail line, Metra's North Central line; and once complete, this
line will pull thousands of cars off of our crowded highways and will
help us meet our obligations under the Clean Air Act.
The bill also contains funding for a traffic control center in
Libertyville, Illinois, the Pace Suburban Bus System that relieves the
pressure for the reverse commuters and for runway construction at
Palwaukee Airport that will rebuild a crumbling runway that is crucial
to relieving congestion at nearby O'Hare.
I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for their commitment to the
quality of life and environment of northern Illinois.
Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support for this bill.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), one of our colleagues on the Committee on
Appropriations and an old friend.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud the efforts of the chairman and the ranking
member on this bill.
I rise to speak on behalf of a provision which will help the
Anacostia waterfront become a vibrant community of residents and
commerce, a project that will make Poplar Point a recreation
destination, and to make South Capitol Street the center of a vital
community and an appropriate gateway entrance into this capital city.
Last year, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton)
shepherded through the Congress a bill to allow private development of
the Southeast Federal center. Her bill was key in bringing commercial
and residential growth into this community. Over the past several
months, I have been working with the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton), Mayor Williams, and a host of Federal and local
agencies and all of my colleagues from the Washington metropolitan area
to identify what the Federal Government's next step can be. The next
step must be addressing the terrible state of the South Capitol Street
entrance to the Nation's capitol.
I therefore rise in strong support of the initiative in this bill for
the Transportation Department to examine how to rework South Capitol
Street. The transportation study will examine ways to create better
infrastructure that links the waterfront community to the existing
Capitol Hill community.
Once completed, this study is certain, certain to help community
residents, Federal and District officials, and entrepreneurs to combine
their skills and energy to realize the Anacostia's full potential.
We in Congress, Mr. Chairman, have a duty, a duty to this great city.
By supporting the South Capitol Street traffic pattern study, we will
be giving our Nation's capital a critical planning tool to make a
smart, balanced development decision in the next few years. We will
also be sending a powerful signal to District residents and
entrepreneurs that we care about Washington, D.C.'s future.
I am very pleased to support this bill and the initiative. I think it
is an initiative that all of us will look back on a decade, 2 decades
from now and say, this was a substantial step, not just for the capital
city, but for America as well.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) for the purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers) for giving me the opportunity to discuss an issue that is vital
not just to New York, but indeed the entire country.

{time} 1530

As the gentleman knows, the dynamics of the Regional Airspace
Redesign recently brought this issue to our attention. The FAA is
currently undertaking the New York-New Jersey-Philadelphia Airspace
Redesign project, which is expected to take 5 years to complete.

[[Page H3557]]

According to the FAA, the purpose of the New York-New Jersey Airspace
Redesign project is to ``increase the efficiency of air traffic flows
into and out of the metropolitan area, including Philadelphia, while
maintaining or improving the level of safety and air traffic services
that are currently in place.''
In accordance with the Federal law, the FAA must conduct an
environmental review before implementing any new flight plans. A
concern that I have is the environmental impacts of departure delays.
Anybody on the runway of any of the major airports knows what I mean,
particularly, for example, in Newark airport, where it is not uncommon
to sit on the runway for 45 minutes or hour, an hour, 15 minutes in the
morning.
It is something that I feel deserves more consideration while
conducting the redesign. By increasing efficiency, not only will delays
be reduced, but the environments of surrounding communities will see a
significant reduction in air pollution. Airports are significant
sources of ground-level volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides.
In our Nation's largest and busiest airports, these idling planes can
create as much, if not more, ground-level pollution as many of their
large industrial neighbors.
According to a July 2000 report by Department of Transportation
Office of Inspector General, at the 28 largest U.S. airports, the
number of flights with taxi-out times of 1 hour or more increased 130
percent over the past 5 years, with nearly 85 percent of all delay
times occurring on the ground. In addition, it was reported that the
departure delays were significantly underreported, so the full
environmental effects of idling planes is not known.
The area included in the redesign contains four of the Nation's 10
most delayed airports.
By encouraging the FAA to take the environmental impacts of departure
delays into consideration while evaluating new departure paths, this
could lead to not only more efficient airports with less delays and
happier consumers, but also a cleaner environment; therefore, I
respectfully ask that the gentleman include language in the committee
report directing the FAA to consider these impacts while conducting its
environmental review.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Sabo) for their great work on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, $65 million for the Mission Valley East Light Rail
Extension is included in this bill, and that is part of the San Diego
Trolley, an area that we have been trying to improve for a number of
years. Also it includes $2 million for phase 1 of the Mid Coast
Corridor Extension.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young)
and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their long-standing
commitment to mass transit.
I also want to recognize and thank my colleagues in the San Diego
congressional delegation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter),
the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the gentleman from
California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
We have worked together on this Mission Valley East Extension, and this
bipartisan cooperation will make a big difference for all of our
constituents in San Diego.
What does that mean? It means that we are going to be increasing the
trolley ridership by 2.5 million new annual transit riders. It means
that students at San Diego State University will now be connected to
our light rail system. It means that patients at Alvarado Medical
Center will be connected to the light rail system as well. It also
means that we are going to close the gap between our blue and our
orange lines, and we will take a first step towards linking the
University of California at San Diego to our light rail system.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for
the opportunity to acknowledge these needed transit improvements that
will be coming to the San Diego region and the big difference it will
be making for all of us.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky.
Mr. Chairman, I submit the following for the Record.

[[Page H3558]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN01.001

[[Page H3559]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN01.002

[[Page H3560]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN01.003

[[Page H3561]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN01.004

[[Page H3562]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN01.005

[[Page H3563]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN01.006

[[Page H3564]]

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I support the Sabo amendment, which would
ensure that Mexican trucking companies undergo safety reviews before
their trucks gain access to American highways.
Trucks are a major factor in highway fatalities. Even with safety
regulations in place in the U.S., crashes involving large trucks killed
5,282 people in 1999. Of these fatalities, 363 occurred in my home
state of California. Mexico's regulations are much weaker than ours.
Drivers do not log their hours on the road, restrictions on hours
behind the wheel are not enforced, drivers can be under 21, trucks that
violate safety standards are not taken off the road, and trucks can
weigh significantly more than in the U.S.
Of the nearly 4 million trucks that enter the U.S. commercial zones
from Mexico annually, the U.S. inspects only 1%. Of that 1%, more than
a third are removed from service because they are unsafe. This is a
dismal record. We must ensure that trucks from Mexico are safe before
they are allowed on every highway in the United States. I urge my
colleagues to vote for the Sabo amendment.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, this Member rises in support of H.R.
2299, the Transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002.
This Member would like to commend the distinguished gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the Chairman of the Transportation
Appropriations Subcommittee, and the distinguished gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee for their
hard work in bringing this bill to the Floor.
Mr. Chairman, this Member certainly recognizes the severe budget
constraints under which the full Appropriations Committee and the
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee operated. In light of these
constraints, this Member is grateful and pleased that this legislation
includes funding for several important projects of interest to the
State of Nebraska.
This Member is particularly pleased that this appropriations bill
includes $1,517,000 for preliminary work leading to the construction of
bridges in Plattsmouth and Sarpy County to replace two obsolete and
deteriorating bridges. The request for these funds was made by this
Member as well as the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry)
and the distinguished gentlemen from Iowa (Mr. Ganske and Mr. Boswell).
The agreement leading to the funding was the result of intensive
discussions and represents the consensus of city, county and state
officials as well as the affected Members of Congress. The construction
of these replacement bridges (a Plattsmouth U.S. 34 bridge and State
Highway 370 bridge in Bellevue) will result in increased safety and
improved economic development in the area. Clearly, the bridge projects
would benefit both counties and the surrounding region.
This Member is also pleased that the bill includes $325,000 requested
by this Member for the construction of a 1.7-mile bicycle and
pedestrian trail on State Spur 26E right-of-way, which connects Ponca
State Park and the Missouri National Recreational River Corridor to the
City of Ponca. This trail will play an important role as the area
prepares for the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery
expedition and the significant increase in tourism which it will help
generate. The approaching bicentennial represents a significant
national opportunity and it is crucial that communities such as Ponca
have the resources necessary to prepare for this significant
commemoration.
The trail will provide the infrastructure necessary to improve the
quality of life by providing pedestrian and bicycle access between
Ponca and the Ponca State Park and increases the potential for economic
benefits in the surrounding region. The trail addresses serious safety
issues by providing a separate off-road facility for bicyclists and
pedestrians.
This member would also like to mention that this bill provides more
than $2.6 million in Section 5307 urban area formula funding for mass
transit in Lincoln, Nebraska. This represents an increase of $230,753
over the FY2001 level.
Finally, this bill includes $1,976,000 for Nebraska's Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS). This funding, which was requested by this
Member and the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), is
to be used to facilitate travel efficiencies and increased safety
within the state.
The Nebraska Department of Roads has identified numerous
opportunities where ITS could be used to assist urban and rural
transportation. For instance, the proposed Statewide Joint Operations
Center would provide a unifying element allowing ITS components to
share information and function as an intermodal transportation system.
Among its many functions, the Joint Operations Center will facilitate
rural and statewide maintenance vehicle fleet management, roadway
management and roadway maintenance conditions. Overall, the practical
effect will be to save lives, time and money.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, this member supports H.R. 2299 and urges
his colleagues to approve it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this bill to
provide appropriations for the Department of Transportation for Fiscal
Year 2002.
First, I would like to thank Chairman Young, Ranking Member Obey,
Subcommittee Chairman Rogers, and Ranking Member Sabo, for including
funds for the Cross Harbor Rail Freight Tunnel Environmental Impact
Study in this bill. This project was first authorized in TEA-21, and
received funds for a Major Investment Study, which was just completed
last year. After examining numerous alternatives, the MIS recommended
construction of a rail tunnel under New York Harbor to facilitate
cross-harbor freight movement. The MIS confirmed that a tunnel would be
beneficial in several respects. The economic return to the region would
be about $420 million a year. The benefit to cost ratio is 2.3 to 1.
The environmental impact would be profoundly felt, as the tunnel would
remove one million trucks from our roads per year, not to mention the
economic benefit produced by reduced congestion and the lower cost of
consumer goods.
I would like to thank the Committee leadership for understanding the
importance of this project, and including funds for the EIS phase so
that we can continue the progress of the last few years and correct the
freight infrastructure imbalance that exists in the region East of the
Hudson of New York and Connecticut.
I do have a few concerns, however, regarding transit funding. As many
of you know, New York relies heavily on public transportation, and as
such, we have a number of projects which are essential to the economic
stability, as well as to the environmental quality, of the city. I
would like to thank the Committee for including funds for one of these
projects, The East Side Access Project, to connect the Long Island
Railroad to Grand Central Station in Manhattan. Unfortunately, no funds
were included for the Second Avenue Subway. Both of these projects are
important, and will require a greater federal investment if they are to
be completed in the sufficient time frame. That being said, I hope this
problem can be resolved, and I urge the Appropriations Committee to
include funding for the Second Avenue Subway when this bill goes to
Conference with the Senate.
I have a number of other concerns with this bill. For instance, funds
should be included for the inspection of Mexican trucks operating in
the United States. We must not sacrifice safety in an attempt to comply
with NAFTA. Overall, however, this is a good bill, which fully funds
the highway and aviation trust funds. I would like to comment Chairman
Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for all their hard work in crafting this
important legislation, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in firm support of the
transportation appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002.
I would like to commend Chairman Rogers and Mr. Sabo for crafting a
bill that addresses the unique transportation needs in this country.
Though this bill takes into account the demands and constraints of
the current transportation network throughout the country, I would like
to make special mention of certain aspects of this bill that have a
tremendous impact on my constituents in the 7th Congressional district
of New York.
I want to thank Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Hinchey, and Mr. Sweeney
for their assistance in securing the inclusion of $250,000 for the Long
Island City Links Project.
The LIC Links research funded in this bill will lead to a
comprehensive network of pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections
between Long Island City residential and business areas and new parks,
retail stores, and cultural institutions.
These innovative improvements will help reduce automobile traffic and
improve our neighborhood air quality.
Furthermore, this project will improve the overall social and
economic conditions in Queens County.
I would also like to thank the Committee for the inclusion of $10
million for the East Side Access Project.
The East Side Access connection will involve constructing a 5,500-
foot tunnel from the LIRR Main Line in Sunnyside, Queens to the
existing tunnel under the East River at 63rd Street.
A new Passenger Station in Sunnyside Yard, Queens will also be
constructed to provide access to the growing Long Island Business
District.
The elements of this bill beneficial to my constituency is not
limited to ground transportation.
As representative of LaGuardia Airport in Congress, the issue of
congestion in the air and on the ground is a problem that plagues
residents in and around the airport on a daily basis.

[[Page H3565]]

I am pleased that this bill has included two million dollars for the
procurement of air traffic control equipment at LaGuardia Airport. It
is my hope that these funds will help alleviate the traffic problems
that plague one of the most congested airports in the country.
In that same vein, I would like to commend my colleagues in the New
York and New Jersey delegation for their work with regard to airspace
redesign and the diversion of traffic to Stewart Airport.
The idea of burden sharing of airports in the tri-state is essential
to the future of LaGuardia Airport.
Given that LaGuardia is completely saturated, the report initiated by
Mr. Hinchey to increase service at Stewart Airport will be a welcome
relief for travelers and residents of Queens alike.
This is a reasonable and comprehensive bill that truly addresses the
needs of Americans in the 21st century.
Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
bill.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this
bill. While there are areas that I hope we can improve via amendments
that will be offered, it is a good bill that will continue meeting the
transportation needs of our constituents.
I would particularly like to praise the Committee for including
funding for the Greater Harris County 9-1-1 Emergency Network from the
Department of Transportation's Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
program. Harris County, which includes Houston, Texas, is pioneering
the practical application of critical data provided by Automatic
Collision Notification boxes that are beginning to be installed on
late-model automobiles.
By deploying these boxes to 9-1-1 centers and trauma hospitals in
Harris and Fort Bend Counties, these locations will be able to receive
up-to-date information on automobile accident victims.
This information will enable 9-1-1 operators to direct appropriate
levels of resources to accident locations, and will also allow doctors
and nurses at hospitals the time and information that they need to
prepare for incoming accident victims.
The goal of this technology is saving lives, through better
distribution of emergency response personnel and a higher level of
preparedness for incoming patients by emergency room personnel.
The transmitted data will include the speed of the vehicle at impact;
number of times that vehicle may have rolled; the number of occupants
in the vehicle; heat generation, which may indicate whether or not the
vehicle is on fire; and other valuable information.
The lessons we learn in the implementation and testing of this system
will serve as a model for other jurisdictions across the United States
as they develop and deploy their own lifesaving networks.
Again, I support this bill, and I support the funding for this
innovative program that will save lives.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of H.R.
2299, the fiscal year 2002 Transportation Appropriations bill and I
urge my colleagues to do the same.
First, I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for
all their hard work in crafting this bill, and for their assistance in
addressing New Jersey's transportation priorities. A special thanks to
Rich Efford and the Transportation Subcommittee staff for their help.
Mr. Chairman, as we debate this important bill, thousands of my
constituents back in New Jersey are struggling right now to battle
traffic delays on Interstate 80, in Denville, in the heart of my
Congressional District. The westbound lanes were closed last week after
a fiery tractor trailer collision last week damaged the roadway beyond
immediate repair.
This is a major commuter route into and out of New York City, and
commuters snarled in rush hour traffic this morning learned that
extensive repairs to the highway may not be completed until this
October. My constituents--these commuters stuck in traffic--know only
too well that New Jersey's mass transportation projects deserve our
full commitment.
Because New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation,
innovative commuter light rail projects such as the Hudson-Bergen Light
Rail and Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link are vital to relieving traffic
congestion in some of the most densely populated areas of our state.
I am pleased to report that these two commuter rail projects, New
Jersey's top transportation priorities, have received major support and
funding, within the confines of the overall budget allocation, which
keeps our commitment to the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997. I also
am pleased to note that President Bush recognized the need for these
projects and fully funded them in his budget request in April. I thank
the President for his leadership on these top New Jersey priorities.
The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail system will result in a 21-mile, 30
station corridor connecting commuters along the Palisades and Hudson
River waterfront with vital transportation arteries in and out of New
York City.
The Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link will be an 8.8 mile light rail system
connecting the Newark City Subway with revitalized downtown Newark and
Elizabeth. It will provide an important connection between the Newark
Broad Street rail station and Newark Penn Station, a major commuter hub
along Amtrak's Northeast rail corridor while providing commuters who
travel on NJ Transit's Morris/Essex and Boonton Lines with a connection
from Newark's Broad Street Station to one of our nation's busiest
airports, Newark International.
Our investment in the Hudson-Bergen and Newark-Elizabeth light rail
projects will also help our state meet environmental standards as
outlined in the Federal Clean Air Act and keep New Jersey on the right
track so that we can ensure tomorrow's economic prosperity and
environmental protection.
I am also pleased that this bill will provide a minimum of $8.5
million specifically for the ongoing Federal Aviation Administration's
New Jersey/New York Metropolitan Airspace Redesign. For too long,
constituents in my district have been suffering from the daily burden
of aircraft noise. We have been repeatedly told by the FAA that the
only way to alleviate aircraft noise in New Jersey will be through the
comprehensive redesign of our airspace. That is why continued,
dedicated funding for this redesign effort is vitally important, and I
thank the subcommittee for its continued commitment to this vital
effort.
Again, I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for
all their hard work, and urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
2299, Making Appropriations for the Department of Transportation for
Fiscal Year 2002. H.R. 2299 is an important bill for Illinois,
providing much needed funding for Metra Commuter Rail Service New Start
Projects and the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railroad Bridge
reconstruction. The legislation also directs the Federal Aviation
Administration to make a priority of processing the Environmental
Impact Statement for the proposed South Suburban Chicago Third Airport
and to help Lewis University Airport with much needed expansion.
I would like to focus on the unique needs of Lewis University Airport
today. Lewis University Airport is the busiest ``single-runway''
airport in Illinois with 104,000 annual aircraft landings and takeoffs.
Located in Will County, Illinois, it serves as the only corporate
airport in Illinois' fastest growing county. The airport is home to 295
based aircraft and over 35 regular visiting customers. Jet fuel sales--
an indicator of corporate aircraft use--have increased from 1,469
gallons sold in 1991 to 200,000 gallons sold in 2000. In less than a
decade, jet sales have increased to 136 times the first year's sales.
The existing 12,000 square yard apron has space for only 10 aircraft.
The small size of the apron limits its use to only visiting aircraft
arriving at the Airport's new terminal building. The apron is regularly
over-filled with visiting corporate jets. There are no spaces available
for based aircraft.
To meet federal airport safety and design standards, the Airport must
soon relocate 150 aircraft storage positions that are too close to the
runway. The proposed terminal apron expansion will provide space for
the relocation of these Airport residents.
The proposed apron is part of a multi-phased development program of
the Airport. The Runway 1-19 construction program is using innovative
construction and land use techniques to save over $9,600,000 in federal
airport development dollars. The project received recognition by the
FAA with the award of one of the first projects funded under the FAA's
Innovative Development Funding Program.
In addition, Lewis University Airport is by far the closest and most
convenient airport to the new ChicagoLand Motor Speedway, opening July
2001. This NASCAR Winston Cup race is expected to bring 200 to 300
aircraft to the Joliet/Will County area, providing a serious need to
increase the apron capacity of the airport.
Mr. Chairman, the House Transportation Appropriations Bill recognizes
the importance of Lewis University Airport and encourages the Federal
Aviation Administration to make its expansion a priority. This is good
legislation for Illinois and the Nation's transportation
infrastructure. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill
and vote yes on the rule and final passage.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. 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.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has
printed

[[Page H3566]]

in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments
will be considered read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2299

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, 2002, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary,
$67,726,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other
provision of law, there may be credited to this appropriation
up to $2,500,000 in funds received in user fees: Provided
further, That not to exceed $60,000 shall be for allocation
within the Department for official reception and
representation expenses as the Secretary may determine.

Office of Civil Rights

For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$8,500,000.

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, $5,193,000.

Transportation Administrative Service Center

Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays
of the Transportation Administrative Service Center, not to
exceed $125,323,000, 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, $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 $18,367,000. 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, to remain available until
September 30, 2003: Provided, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C.
332, these funds may be used for business opportunities
related to any mode of transportation.

Payments to Air Carriers

(airport and airway trust fund)

In addition to funds made available from any other source
to carry out the essential air service program under 49
U.S.C. 41731 through 41742, to be derived from the Airport
and Airway Trust Fund, $13,000,000, to remain available until
expended.

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, $3,382,588,000, of which $340,000,000 shall be
available for defense-related activities; and of which
$24,945,000 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 of
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.

Amendments Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer en bloc amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendments offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
Page 4, line 25, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $250,000,000)''.
Page 5, line 16, after the first dollar amount insert
``(increased by $59,323,000)''.
Page 5, line 18, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $16,000,000)''.
Page 5, line 20, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $1,500,000)''.
Page 5, line 23 after the dollar amount insert ``(increased
by $16,198,000)''.
Page 5, line 25, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $19,056,000)''.
Page 6, line 2, after the dollar amount insert ``(increased
by $569,000)''.
Page 6, line 5, after the dollar amount insert ``(increased
by $38,000,000)''.

Mr. LoBIONDO (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendments en bloc be considered as read and printed
in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the amendment.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides increased funds for
Coast Guard operations and acquisitions in accordance with the levels
allocated in the fiscal year 2002 budget resolutions passed by the
House and the Senate.
Earlier this year our committee worked with the Committee on the
Budget to ensure that the function 400 allocation in the fiscal year
2002 budget resolution not only accommodated the TEA-21 and the AIR-21
funding guarantees, but also provided approximately $5.3 billion for
the Coast Guard's appropriated programs. This represents an increase of
$250 million over the President's budget. Unfortunately, the 302(b)
allocations approved by the Committee on Appropriations failed to
include funds that would address critical Coast Guard needs.
H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001, passed the
House on June 7 by a vote of 411-3. H.R. 1699 conformed to the Coast
Guard funding levels in the budget resolution.
The amounts authorized by H.R. 1699 would allow the Coast Guard to
correct immediate budget shortfalls. Many of the Coast Guard's most
urgent needs are similar to those experienced by the Department of
Defense, including spare parts shortages and personnel training
deficits. The funding increase contained in the budget resolution and
H.R. 1699 addresses those needs, and also increases the amounts
available for Coast Guard drug interdiction.
H.R. 1699 also provides for $338 million for the Coast Guard's vital
Deepwater asset modernization program. I strongly believe that the
Integrated Deepwater system is the most economical and effective way
for the Coast Guard to provide future generations of Americans with
lifesaving services.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to commend the men and
women of the Coast Guard for their exceptional services that they
provide to our Nation. All Americans benefit from a strong Coast Guard
that is equipped to stop drug smugglers, support the country's defense
and respond to national emergencies.
During the fiscal year 2000 and 2001, the Coast Guard has been forced
to reduce, let me repeat that, they have been forced to reduce illegal
drug interdiction and other law enforcement operations by up to 30
percent. Yes, that is up to 30 percent, due to insufficient funds.
Without additional operational funding for the fiscal year 2002, the
Coast Guard will be forced to cut drug interdiction by 20 percent,
including eliminating 5 cutters, 19 aircraft and 520 positions.
Mr. Chairman, without the funding increase provided in my amendment,
the Coast Guard's operating budget during the next fiscal year will
again be inadequate to respond to critical missions. The law
enforcement emergency concerning migrant interdiction or a surge in
drug smuggling would severely degrade other Coast Guard law enforcement
activities. None of us want drug smugglers to be given open access to
the United States, but that is exactly what could happen if we are not
careful with these funding levels.
Should my amendment not be accepted today, I would urge the House and
the Senate conferees on H.R. 2299 to fund the Coast Guard at a level
consistent with the budget resolution and the Coast Guard Authorization
Act of 2001. I would respectfully request that the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr.

[[Page H3567]]

Rogers), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) work toward that end.
I understand the Senate Appropriation Committee's Transportation
302(b) allocation is about $690 million above the House allocation. I
strongly believe that the U.S. Coast Guard is the best place to
allocate a portion of this funding.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to support my amendment and allow the
Coast Guard to be funded at the levels necessary to respond to the
operational emergencies.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky wish to be heard on
his point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his recognized point of order.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, sure we would have liked to
have found more money for the Coast Guard, but as it is, we are 6
percent above current spending levels. We are 99 percent of the Coast
Guard's request.
The supplemental that just passed the House and is headed towards the
Senate would include another $92 million, and that is available
throughout fiscal year 2002. This amendment would throw the bill way
above the budget allocations provided to us pursuant to the budget
resolution. It simply is beyond our capability.
I appreciate what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) is
trying to do. The gentleman is a great chairman. He is a great
spokesman on behalf of the Coast Guard and the other matters that he
represents, but this amendment is simply unaffordable. It violates the
Budget Act, and we have very little choice.
For that reason, I do make a point of order against the amendment,
because it is in violation of section 302(f) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974. The Committee on Appropriations filed a
suballocation of budget totals for fiscal year 2002 on June 13, 2001.
This amendment would provide new budget authority in excess of the
subcommittee suballocation made under section 302(b), and it is not
permitted under section 302(f) of the act.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ruling.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from New Jersey wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. LoBIONDO. No, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Rogers), but the reality is, is that we all claim we want the
Coast Guard to stop the flow of illegal drugs into this country, and to
save our depleted fisheries, and to protect the coastal environment
from oil spills, to intercept illegal immigrants, to secure
international ports from terrorists, to conduct ice-breaking operations
so critical supplies of home heating oil can reach our constituents,
and to maintain aids to navigation for commercial and recreational
boaters, and, of course, to save lives.
If we want those things, we have to ante up. I understand the
difficulties as articulated by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers), but we have to find a way.
The facts are with inexcusably inadequate resources, the Coast Guard
does a heroic job of balancing their multiple responsibilities with
heroic professionalism. At the same time budget constraints have been
so severe and so chronic that the Coast Guard can barely keep its fleet
in the water and its airplanes in the air.
The authorization bill recently passed and championed by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) responded to those challenges
by boosting the Coast Guard's operating budget for the next year by 250
million, and thus far in the appropriations process, that promise
stands unfulfilled.
We have to do better. We have to find a way, otherwise we face the
predictable consequences of a crippled Coast Guard, lost property, lost
commerce and, of course, lost lives, both the lives of the men and
women in the Coast Guard who serve us every day, as well as those who
use the seas either for enjoyment or to secure a livelihood.

{time} 1545

Let me just finally remind my colleagues that just recently came
reports that the Coast Guard recalled port security forces that were
sent overseas to protect U.S. naval units after the destroyer Cole was
attacked. Why? Because it can no longer foot the bill. That, Mr.
Chairman, is simply disgraceful, and it is unacceptable.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard on the
point of order?
The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
The Chair is authoritatively guided under section 312 of the Budget
Act by an estimate of the Committee on the Budget that an amendment
providing any net increase in new discretionary budget authority would
cause a breach of the pertinent allocation of such authority.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey would increase
the level of new discretionary budget authority in the bill. As such,
the amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The point of order is sustained. The amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

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, $600,000,000, of which $19,956,000 shall be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; of which
$90,990,000 shall be available to acquire, repair, renovate
or improve vessels, small boats and related equipment, to
remain available until September 30, 2006; $26,000,000 shall
be available to acquire new aircraft and increase aviation
capability, to remain available until September 30, 2004;
$74,173,000 shall be available for other equipment, to remain
available until September 30, 2004; $44,206,000 shall be
available for shore facilities and aids to navigation
facilities, to remain available until September 30, 2004;
$64,631,000 shall be available for personnel compensation and
benefits and related costs, to remain available until
September 30, 2003; and $300,000,000 for the integrated
deepwater systems program, to remain available until
September 30, 2004: 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, 2004: Provided further, That
upon initial submission to the Congress of the fiscal year
2003 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
2003 through 2007, 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 none of the funds provided
under this heading may be obligated or expended for the
Integrated Deepwater Systems (IDS) system integration
contract until the Secretary of Transportation, or his
designee within the Office of the Secretary, and the
Director, Office of Management and Budget jointly certify to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that IDS
program funding for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 is fully
funded in the Coast Guard Capital Investment Plan and within
the Office of Management and Budget's budgetary projections
for the Coast Guard for those years.

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, $16,927,000, to
remain available until expended.

Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), chairman of the Subcommittee
on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation.
Our U.S. Coast Guard performs to the same high standards and faces
many of the same dangers as our Armed Forces, but does not get funded
in the larger Department of Defense budget. Each year they compete for
funding with major agencies in the transportation budget, and for the
last several years has been forced to either decrease operations or
transfer money from maintenance to operations.
Just 2 weeks ago we passed a Coast Guard authorization by 411 to 3
that added $300 million more than this bill provides. Without this
additional funding, the Coast Guard will be forced to

[[Page H3568]]

reduce operations by 20 percent including deactivating two medium
cutters, two TAGOS ships, and 13 Falcon jets. This is not how we should
be treating the men and women who risk their lives stopping drug
smugglers and illegal immigrants, protecting our ports, and performing
search-and-rescue missions.
I urge our colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and support a
budget for the United States Coast Guard that meets our Nation's
priorities.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Alteration of Bridges

For necessary expenses for alteration or removal of
obstructive bridges, $15,466,000, 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, and for
payments for medical care of retired personnel and their
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C.
ch. 55), $876,346,000.

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, $83,194,000: Provided,
That no more than $25,800,000 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,
$21,722,000, to remain available until expended, of which
$3,492,000 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, lease or purchase of passenger motor
vehicles for replacement only, in addition to amounts made
available by Public Law 104-264, $6,870,000,000, of which
$5,773,519,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $5,494,883,000 shall be
available for air traffic services program activities; not to
exceed $727,870,000 shall be available for aviation
regulation and certification program activities; not to
exceed $135,949,000 shall be available for civil aviation
security program activities; not to exceed $195,258,000 shall
be available for research and acquisition program activities;
not to exceed $12,254,000 shall be available for commercial
space transportation program activities; not to exceed
$50,480,000 shall be available for financial services program
activities; not to exceed $67,635,000 shall be available for
human resources program activities; not to exceed $84,613,000
shall be available for regional coordination program
activities; and not to exceed $108,776,000 shall be available
for staff offices: Provided, That none of the funds in this
Act shall be available for the Federal Aviation
Administration to plan, finalize, or implement any regulation
that would promulgate new aviation user fees not specifically
authorized by law after the date of the enactment of this
Act: Provided further, 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, not less than $6,000,000
shall be for the contract tower cost-sharing program:
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 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; 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 heading; to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund, $2,914,000,000, of which not to exceed $2,536,900,000
shall remain available until September 30, 2004, and of which
not to exceed $377,100,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2002: 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 2003 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
2003 through 2007, 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.

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,
$191,481,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2004:
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)

(limitation on obligations)

(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 and of
programs under section 40117; for procurement, installation,
and commissioning of runway incursion prevention devices and
systems at airports of such title; for implementation of
section 203 of Public Law 106-181; 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,
$1,800,000,000, 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 $3,300,000,000 in fiscal year 2002,
notwithstanding section 47117(h) of title 49, United States
Code: Provided further, That of the funds limited under this
heading for small airports due to returned entitlements,
$10,000,000 shall be utilized only for the small community
air service development pilot program authorized in section
203 of Public Law 106-181: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, not more than
$56,300,000 of funds limited under this heading shall be
obligated for administration.

Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the language found at page 13, beginning on line 24 which begins ``for
administration of such programs'' and continuing to line 25 and ending
with the words ``section 40117.''
The language would fund the cost of administering the Airport
Improvement Program from contract authority

[[Page H3569]]

that, under chapter 471 and section 48103 of Title 49 U.S.C., is
authorized only for grants, not administrative expenses. This is an
unauthorized earmark of funds.
This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations
bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I also make a point of order against the language found
on page 14, beginning on line 12 with the word ``Provided'' and
continuing to end the end of line 20.
The language on lines 12 through 17 before the words ``Provided
further'' would fund the cost of the Small Community Air Service
Development Pilot Program from contract authority that is authorized
only for AIP grants under chapter 471 and section 48103 of Title 49
U.S.C. Although I support this program, I must object to funding it
with AIP grants as this would constitute an unauthorized earmark of
funds.
This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations
bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, the language found at page 14, beginning on line 17
with the words ``That notwithstanding'' and continuing through the end
of line 20 would fund the cost of administering the Airport Improvement
Program from contract authority under chapter 471 and section 48103 of
Title 49 U.S.C., that is authorized only for grants, not administrative
expenses. This supersedes existing law and clearly constitutes
legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule
XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) wish to
be heard on the point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Yes, I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is recognized.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I will concede the point of
order in just a minute, but it is unfortunate that the point of order
is made. It would defer the beginning of an important and authorized
program. These funds would help promote development of smaller airports
and promote competition where there is none.
As I indicated, the program is authorized, just not from this
particular funding source. But we believe it is appropriate to use
funds otherwise available to small airports for this new program, which
only benefits small airports.
But, Mr. Chairman, I concede, technically, the point.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) concedes the
point of order. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The
provisions are stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

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, $301,000,000 are rescinded.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. De Fazio

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

Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Page 2, line 8, after ``$67,726,000'' insert ``(increased
by $720,000)''.
Page 9, line 14, after ``$6,870,000,000'' insert ``(reduced
by $720,000)''.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which is coauthored by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and myself, would enable
American consumers to have a centralized place to go to file complaints
on a toll-free number with the Department of Transportation.
An office already exists, but in lengthy hearings last year over the
delays at the Detroit airport involving Northwest Airlines, one
aggrieved consumer stood up and said, you know, I spent over $100 on
toll bills before I found out there was anybody at the Department of
Transportation in a subcategory of the General Counsel's Office who
would listen to my complaint.
This office generally has labored in obscurity merely to compile
statistics with a phone recording, people leave their complaints, and
sometimes to advocate on the behalf of those with disabilities.
This amendment would increase the rescission of funds on line 25 by
$720,000, and it would allocate those funds in the Secretary's office
to the Office of General Counsel, to the people who handle it in the
Aviation Consumer Protection Division. It would be funds that could
establish a 1-800 number and would also provide for some funding for
staff for that number.
I have consulted with the former general counsel a number of times
over this over the years and have contacted the Department. They feel
that, although this is a relatively modest amount of money, that given
the existing number of complaints and the complaints they feel would
warrant further action by the Department of Transportation and by that
office, they believe it would be adequate funds to begin to better
serve aviation consumers.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, do I understand the gentleman's
amendment is intended to provide funds which the Secretary of the
Department of Transportation would be able to use to establish a
hotline for consumers to complain of airline delays, cancellations,
problems and so forth associated with air travel?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky, the able
chairman, is absolutely correct.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, in that instance, I have no
objection to the amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Sabo).
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, do I understand also that the gentleman from
Oregon has offset the cost of his amendment with a rescission that
equals the cost of his amendment?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has a good amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify. I am sorry, I had a different
number on mine. I want to make sure we all agreed on the same
amendment. With that, I thank the chairman, and I thank the ranking
member.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would note the wrong amendment was
designated.
The Clerk will report the correct amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Page 14, strike lines 24 and 25 and insert the following:
Of the unobligated balances authorized under 49 U.S.C.
48103, as amended, $301,720,000 are rescinded.
The amount otherwise provided in this Act for ``OFFICE OF
THE SECRETARY--Salaries and Expenses'' is hereby increased by
$720,000.

Mr. DeFAZIO (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
Oregon?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska:
Page 14, after line 25, insert the following:

Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program

For necessary expenses to carry our section 41743 of title
49, United States Code, $10,000,000, to remain available
until expended.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (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
Alaska?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the amendment.

[[Page H3570]]

The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, my amendment restores funding for
the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program that was
stricken by my point of order.
This program will help small communities that do not have adequate,
affordable commercial air service attract new service. Without reliable
air service, small communities cannot sustain its economic growth.
The Small Community Air Service Development Pilot program authorized
by section 203 of the Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st
Century, AIR-21, will assist underserved airports obtain jet air
service. It will also allow communities to market that service to
increase passenger service.
The money provided by this program could also assist a small or
midsized community by making money available to subsidize air carriers'
operations for up to 3 years if the Secretary of Transportation
determines that the community is not receiving sufficient air carrier
service.
Mr. Chairman, this program is important to many small communities
through our Nation, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I also suggest, although I struck the money, I do
support the program. This is an attempt to put the money back in
without having tapped the sources that it originated.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Yes, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I supported this program as a pilot
program in AIR-21 last year. In fact, Chairman Shuster and I worked
together to fashion the language. I have long supported service to
small communities and to initiatives of this kind.
We all know that deregulation has saved billions of dollars for air
travelers, but we also know that, in the process, deregulation has cost
communities air service.
What we have now is a phenomenon of the community in my district and
elsewhere around the country where people are traveling by car as much
as 100 miles to get adequate air service.
With the kind of initiative that we anticipated in this provision,
this pilot program, we can both prevent communities from becoming
essentially air service towns, where the Federal Government is coming
in to support air service with direct dollar payments, and help them to
advertise, undertake initiatives locally to encourage air travel from
lesser-served communities and boost their air service. Such initiatives
have worked in communities in my district to more than double air
travel in those towns, saving their air service.
I think that this pilot program in the manner in which the chairman
has proposed to fund it ought to be approved and will help increase
demand in such markets to create adequate service without direct
Federal assistance.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Minnesota for his comments. I hope to work with the ranking member and
of course the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the
subcommittee, to see if we cannot get these monies somehow into this
program. It is a good program.
Again, though, I think it should be coming from the general fund and
not necessarily from the funds that were set aside for the improvements
of these airports.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky have a point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is recognized
on his point of order.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we are in an unfortunate
situation here. We had monies in the bill, as has been noted, for the
small airports, which was stricken on a point of order. Now the
amendment would seek to add monies back in, but we have no monies to
add back in. The budget authority that we were given does not permit
it.
No one is a bigger advocate for smaller airports than I am because
that is all I have in my district.

{time} 1600

But I am forced to make a point of order against the amendment
because it is in violation of 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974. The Committee on Appropriations fields a suballocation of budget
totals for fiscal year 2002 on June 13, 2001. This amendment would
provide new budget authority in excess of the subcommittee's
suballocation made under section 302(b) and is not permitted under
section 302(f) of the Act. I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) wish to be
heard on the point of order?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I do. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman
that one of the most unfortunate things that occurred to the
Subcommittee on Transportation is the fact they do not have the money.
I do think the budgeteers did a bad thing. Four percent is not enough.
I said this all along. So I will continue to try to seek funding of
this program as we progress with this bill and other bills to see if we
cannot accomplish what we are all seeking.
I have more small airports than any place in the United States and
most of my people do not have highways, so I am very supportive of this
program, but we also have to make sure it is funded adequately and
appropriately and I concede the point of order at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alaska concedes the point of order.
The point of order is conceded and sustained. The provision is stricken
from the bill.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take all of the 5 minutes, but I wanted to
bring a point of concern to the attention of my colleagues now that we
have both the Chair of our appropriations subcommittee and the Chair of
our substantive committee.
Every day, in some of the busiest airports in America, hundreds of
aircraft, charter planes, private jets, commercial flights, and even
helicopters ferrying oil platform workers, disappear from the radar
screens of our air traffic controllers. These flights are not victims
of any air disaster, but rather the fact that, for a wide area of
airspace over the Gulf of Mexico, we have no effective radar coverage.
In this area, the air traffic controllers at Houston; Miami; and at
Merida, Mexico; who share responsibilities for coverage in the Gulf,
can neither see these flights nor communicate directly with the pilots
who are flying them. For 3 years, the Federal Aviation Administration,
the FAA, has worked with airline representatives, pilots, controllers,
and other Federal entities, like the Department of Defense, to complete
a Gulf of Mexico strategic plan. This plan sets out a detailed
recommendation on how to resolve the Gulf of Mexico airspace issues.
I urge the FAA Administrator Jane Garvey to act quickly and approve
the solutions laid out by this working group. These solutions are
inexpensive and easy to implement and would have a very real impact on
the traffic jam in our skies in the Gulf of Mexico.
It will increase safety in our skies and access to Houston's Bush
Intercontinental Airport, an important travel hub, especially for the
growing markets in Central and South America.
Where previously controllers have had to employ oceanic nonradar
separation standards, this enhanced coverage will allow better
utilization of empty airspace and more effective management of air
traffic. This would reduce delays and save airlines and passengers time
and money. I would hope the FAA would move forward with this much-
needed project.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

limitation on administrative expenses

Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the
Federal Highway Administration not to exceed $311,837,000
shall be paid in accordance with law from appropriations made
available by this Act to the Federal Highway Administration
together with advances and reimbursements received by the
Federal Highway Administration: Provided, That of the funds
available under section 104(a)(1)(A) of title 23, United
States Code, $9,911,000 shall be available for Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) motor carrier safety
enforcement at the United States/Mexico border, and
$4,000,000 shall be available for FMCSA U.S./Mexico border
safety audits.

[[Page H3571]]

Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the language found at page 15, beginning on line 9 and continuing to
line 14 which begins ``That of the funds available under section
104(a)(1)(A) of title 23, United States Code'' and ending on line 14
with the words ``border safety audits.''
The language is unauthorized earmark of $13.911 million of Federal
Highway Administration administrative funds for Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration in violation of clause 2 rule XXI of the rules of
the House of Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. ROGERS. No, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman concede the point of order?
Mr. ROGERS. We would concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky concedes the point of
order. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The provision is
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Limitation on Transportation Research

Necessary expenses for transportation research of the
Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $447,500,000
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 received under section 110 of title 23, U.S. Code;
Provided further, That this limitation shall not apply to any
authority previously made available for obligation.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, on this amendment I reserve a point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 15, line 24, before the period insert the following:
``: Provided further, That the Secretary shall make available
$5,000,000 of the amount made available in this paragraph for
the operation of the control center that monitors traffic in
Houston, Texas, known as `Houston TransStar' ''.

The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved on the amendment.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for
5 minutes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I hope that my colleagues
will see the necessity and importance of waiving the point of order.
This amendment in particular deals with current events that are
happening in Houston, Texas. It is an amendment to earmark $5 million
in FHWA traffic research funding for the operation of Houston TranStar,
a high-tech transportation traffic control and monitoring center
operated by local Houston authorities and the State of Texas. The
amendment is intended to enhance the ability of the facility to deal
with disaster relief efforts being conducted in the wake of flooding
caused by Tropical Storm Allison.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that it is unusual for a focus to be placed
on a high-tech center that deals with transportation in the context of
a tropical storm or a disaster. The impact of not funding the expansion
of the transportation emergency center, also known as Houston TranStar,
would be undermining Houston's transportation system. Mr. Chairman, we
cannot afford to eliminate additional multimodal transportation
management functions requested by the residents of Houston and to limit
the transportation emergency management functions to those now existing
at the center in inadequate space.
This is not an old unit, the Houston TranStar center, but it has
proven itself to be old in wiseness and usefulness. It was very
effective in moderating the congestion in Houston, all over the
community, but more importantly, in these last couple of weeks, Houston
TranStar, that center, became the anchor, the heart of the strategy to
help us recover from Tropical Storm Allison. The governor met there,
the FEMA director met there, the mayor met there, the judge of Harris
County met there, Members of Congress, all support staff, fire
department, police department, the health department, all of those
individuals were able to gather and design a strategy to help us begin
to pull ourselves up.
The establishment and implementation of a temporary command post was
a real element of TranStar's viability. It directed people where not to
go because of the flooding in different highways and freeways. The
initial action to get pumping gear at the Texas Medical Center,
Southwestern Bell's main switching station, and the Civic Center garage
all were part of Houston TranStar.
The coordination of shelter identification, operation of the
Salvation Army and the American Red Cross occurred there. The
coordination of rescue efforts in unincorporated portions of Harris
County, with the Harris County Sheriff's liaison and the Harris County
Fire Marshall's liaison. The relocation operation of the 911 system in
unincorporated portions of Harris County, and the direction, operation
and control functions of the Harris County government were pretty much
housed at Houston TranStar. The transfer and operation of the Harris
County Sheriff's department and the coordination of the Harris County
air search and recovery unit.
Two times I lifted off in a helicopter, one a Black Hawk, to be able
to survey the area; and it was from the Houston TranStar. Houston
TranStar represents a major element of transportation in Houston and
the surrounding areas. This is a request for $5 million for a center
that has proven not only to assist Houston but also the major
surrounding counties as well.
These monies come from the pool of monies that are available for this
particular usage, and I would ask that my colleagues consider waiving
the point of order for this funding source that is basically very
necessary to continue the work that we are already doing in expanding
and expediting the recovery that is going on now in Houston, Texas.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that would provide $5
million in funding for the Houston TranStar program, which has been so
instrumental in the response to Tropical Storm Allison.
The impact of not funding the expansion of the transportation and
emergency center--also known as Houston TranStar--would be destructive
to Houston's transportation system. Mr. Chairman we cannot afford to
eliminate additional multi-modal transportation management functions
requested by the residents of Houston and to limit the transportation
and emergency management functions to those now existing at the center
in inadequate space.
As we all know, Tropical Storm Allison has already been dropped an
unprecedented record amount of rainfall in Houston causing homes and
businesses near bayous, freeways and even the world renowned Texas
Medical Center to flood. Citizens from all walks of life: rich, poor,
African-American, White, Hispanic, Asian, Baptist, Catholic, Muslim,
and especially the vulnerable were all impacted by the Tropical Storm
Allison.
Houston TranStar was one of success stories in helping the relief
effort to recover from Tropical Storm Allison. Houston TranStar began
operating in 1996 as the only such center of its kind in the nation. It
has functioned quietly in the background for many years providing safe
and efficient transportation management around the clock in the Houston
community. However, during the recent tragedy inflicted by the recent
flood, Houston TranStar, the Transportation and Emergency Management
center for the greater Houston region, played a major role in
identifying heavy flooded areas, marshelling resources, communicating
with the citizens and assisting other local, state and national
agencies addressing the devastation that was Tropical Storm Allison.
Much of the success Houston TranStar has and is enjoying can be
attributed to in large part to its unique partnership compromised of
the City of Houston, Harris County, the State of Texas and METRO.
Together, these agencies have combined their agencies and expertise to
provide a greater level of immediate services to the residents in
entire Houston area.
The fact that Houston TranStar is a valuable resource has never been
more evident to me than in the past few weeks. To see this unique
center in action is truly a pleasure. It makes you feel positive that
people can and are trying to make a difference in people's lives in a
tangible way. For instance, during Tropical Storm Allison and all other
weather-related events, Houston TranStar serves as a one-stop shop for
all agencies charged with addressing the demands of the region while
ensuring a minimal loss of life and or harm to property.

[[Page H3572]]

Some of the recent efforts to aid and assist Houston have included
the establishment and implementation of temporary command posts by the
Houston Fire Department to direct rescue efforts and dispatch
evacuation and rescue boats that moved more than 10,000 people, the
initiation action to get pumping gear to the Texas Medical,
Southwestern's Main Switching Station and the Civic Center Garage, and
the coordination of shelter identification and operations with
Salvation Army and the American Red Cross.
In addition, Houston TranStar assisted with the coordination of
rescue efforts in unincorporated portions of Harris County with the
Harris County Sheriff's Liaison and the Harris County Fire Marshall's
Liaison, the direction and control functions of Harris County
Government were housed at Houston TranStar, the logistical support of
representatives from FEMA, the Army Corp of Engineers and all agency
partner personnel working extended hours, among other valued efforts.
Despite the valiant efforts by TranStar, Tropical Storm Allison cost
the Houston community 23 lives and damage to the residential and
commercial structures has been assessed at more than $4.8 billion. The
mere fact that Houston TranStar was able to communicate with its
citizens, marshal local, state, and national resources and minimize the
impact on the region, is a true testament to how effective this unique
partnership is for the greater Houston region.
Let us find a way to include the $5 million funding allocation in the
bill to maintain these essential funds for the entire Houston. Mr.
Chairman, we cannot squander this opportunity to preserve the TranStar
program. I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized
program, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states in
pertinent part, ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment
for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''
Mr. Chairman, the authorization for this program has not been signed
into law. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI. I
ask for a ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I certainly would.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman very much and the ranking member.
As I noted, this comes from a large pool of funding of the Federal
Highway Administration, some $447 million. My point is that because of
the emergency nature of this request, I am asking that the point of
order be waived so that this particular unit can carry forth its
emergency efforts in helping Houston recover and remain as an emergency
center coordinating all forms of government effectively and helping to
continue the recovery process in finding resources dealing with heavy
equipment, in hosting the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Chairman, we researched the question to determine authorization.
It is unclear whether such has been authorized. But in any event, I
would ask the chairman of the subcommittee to consider the fact of the
ongoing work of Houston TranStar, its importance and vitality in
bringing the city back to its feet, and also its key involvement to the
transportation modules in our community and coordinating transportation
in a large metropolitan area.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order.
The amendment proposes to earmark certain funds in the bill. Under
clause 2(a) of rule XXI, such an earmarking must be specifically
authorized by law. The burden of establishing the authorization in law
rests with the proponent of the amendment.
Finding that this burden has not been carried, the point of order is
sustained. The amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

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 $31,716,797,000 for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal
year 2002.

Federal-Aid Highways

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(highway trust fund)

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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,
$30,000,000,000 or so much thereof as may be available in and
derived from the Highway Trust Fund, to remain available
until expended.

Amendments Offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I offer several amendments, and
I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendments offered by Mr. Rogers:
On page 16, line 12 of the bill, strike ``Notwithstanding
any other provision of law,'';
On page 19, line 16 of the bill, strike ``Notwithstanding
any other provision of law,'';
On page 25, line 4 of the bill, strike ``Notwithstanding
any other provision of law,'';
On page 55, line 14 of the bill, strike ``Beginning in
fiscal year 2002 and thereafter,'';
On page 55, line 18 and all that follows through page 56,
line 2.

Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendments will be considered en
bloc.
There was no objection.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I shall not take the full 5
minutes time.
This is a manager's amendment and accommodates the concerns expressed
by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by removing in
five cases authorizing language. It has been cleared with the minority
as well as the authorizing committee. I believe it is noncontroversial,
and I would ask for its adoption.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky.
The amendments were agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

State Infrastructure Banks

(Rescission)

Of the funds made available for State Infrastructure Banks
in Public Law 104-205, $6,000,000 are rescinded.

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)(1)(B) of title 23, United States Code, not
to exceed $92,307,000 shall be paid in accordance with law
from appropriations made available by this Act and from any
available take-down balances 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)

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out 49
U.S.C. 31102, 31106, and 31309, $205,896,000, 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 $205,896,000 for
``Motor Carrier Safety Grants'', and ``Information Systems''.

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, $122,420,000, of
which $90,430,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2004: 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.

[[Page H3573]]

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 2002, 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, $223,000,000, 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 2002, are in excess of
$223,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402,
405, 410, and 411, of which $160,000,000 shall be for
``Highway Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 402, $15,000,000
shall be for ``Occupant Protection Incentive Grants'' under
23 U.S.C. 405, $38,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Countermeasures Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 410, and
$10,000,000 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 $8,000,000 of the funds
made available for section 402, not to exceed $750,000 of the
funds made available for section 405, not to exceed
$1,900,000 of the funds made available for section 410, and
not to exceed $500,000 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, $110,461,000, of
which $6,159,000 shall remain available until expended.

Railroad Research and Development

For necessary expenses for railroad research and
development, $27,375,000, 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 2002.

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,
$25,100,000, 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.

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, $13,400,000: Provided, That no
more than $67,000,000 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, $2,000,000
shall be reimbursed to the Department of Transportation's
Office of Inspector General for costs associated with audits
and investigations of transit-related issues, including
reviews of new fixed guideway systems: Provided further, That
not to exceed $2,600,000 for the National transit database
shall remain available until expended.

Formula Grants

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5308,
5310, 5311, 5327, and section 3038 of Public Law 105-178,
$718,400,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $3,592,000,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes: Provided further, That of the
funds provided under this heading, $5,000,000 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 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: Provided further, That notwithstanding
section 3008 of Public Law 105-178, the $50,000,000 to carry
out 49 U.S.C. 5308 shall be transferred to and merged with
funding provided for the replacement, rehabilitation, and
purchase of buses and related equipment and the construction
of bus-related facilities under ``Federal Transit
Administration, Capital investment grants''.

{time} 1615

Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the language found at page 23, beginning on line 20 and continuing to
page 24, line 2, which begins ``Providing further, that notwithstanding
section 3008 of Public Law 105-78'' and ending on page 25, line 2, with
``capital investment grants.''
This language violates the guarantees of TEA-21 to provide funds for
the Clean Fuels Bus formula grant program to the other discretionary
grant program. This language supersedes existing law and clearly
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the point of order is conceded.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky concedes the point of
order. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The provision is
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

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,
$23,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $116,000,000 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)),
$55,422,400 is available for metropolitan planning (49 U.S.C.
5303, 5304, and 5305), $11,577,600 is available for State
planning (49 U.S.C. 5313(b)); and $31,500,000 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, $5,397,800,000, to remain
available until expended, and to be derived from the Mass
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That
$2,873,600,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's formula grants account: Provided further,
That $93,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's transit planning and research account:
Provided further, That $53,600,000 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
$100,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's job access and reverse commute grants
program: Provided further, That $2,272,800,000 shall be paid
to the Federal Transit Administration's capital investment
grants account.

Capital Investment Grants

(including transfer of funds)

For necessary expenses to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308, 5309,
5318, and 5327, $568,200,000, to

[[Page H3574]]

remain available until expended: Provided, That no more than
$2,841,000,000 of budget authority shall be available for
these purposes: Provided further, That none of the funds
provided under this heading shall be available for section
3015(b) of Public Law 105-178; Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, there shall be
available for fixed guideway modernization, $1,136,400,000;
there shall be available for the replacement, rehabilitation,
and purchase of buses and related equipment and the
construction of bus-related facilities, $568,200,000 together
with $50,000,000 transferred from ``Federal Transit
Administration, Formula grants''; and there shall be
available for new fixed guideway systems $1,136,400,000,
together with $8,128,338 of the funds made available under
``Federal Transit Administration, Discretionary grants'' in
Public law 105-66, and $22,023,391 of the funds made
available under ``Federal Transit Administration, Capital
investment grants'' in Public Law 105-277; to be available as
follows:
$10,296,000 for Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects;
$25,000,000 for the Atlanta, Georgia, North line extension
project;
$10,867,000 for the Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail
transit double track project;
$11,203,169 for the Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston
Piers transitway project;
$5,000,000 for the Charlotte, North Carolina, south
corridor transitway project;
$35,000,000 for the Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch
reconstruction project;
$23,000,000 for the Chicago, Illinois, Metra North central
corridor commuter rail project;
$19,118,735 for the Chicago, Illinois, Metra South West
corridor commuter rail project;
$20,000,000 for the Chicago, Illinois, Metra Union Pacific
West line extension project;
$2,000,000 for the Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood
reconstruction project;
$5,000,000 for the Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor
transportation project;
$70,000,000 for the Dallas, Texas, North central light rail
transit extension project;
$60,000,000 for the Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor
light rail transit project;
$192,492 for the Denver, Colorado, Southwest light rail
transit project;
$25,000,000 for the Dulles corridor, Virginia, bus rapid
transit project;
$30,000,000 for the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail
commuter rail upgrades project;
$3,000,000 for the Johnson County, Kansas-Kansas City,
Missouri, I-35 commuter rail project;
$60,000,000 for the Largo, Maryland, metrorail extension
project;
$1,800,000 for the Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail
project;
$10,000,000 for the Long Island Rail Road, New York, East
Side access project;
$49,686,469 for the Los Angeles North Hollywood,
California, extension project;
$5,500,000 for the Los Angeles, California, East Side
corridor light rail transit project;
$3,000,000 for the Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New
Hampshire commuter rail extension project;
$12,000,000 for the Maryland (MARC) commuter rail
improvements project;
$19,170,000 for the Memphis, Tennessee, Medical center rail
extension project;
$5,000,000 for the Miami, Florida, South Miami-Dade busway
extension project;
$10,000,000 for the Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar
corridor commuter rail project;
$50,000,000 for the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota,
Hiawatha corridor project;
$4,000,000 for the Nashville, Tennessee, East corridor
commuter rail project;
$20,000,000 for the Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link
project;
$4,000,000 for the New Britain-Hartford, Connecticut,
busway project;
$141,000,000 for the New Jersey Hudson Bergen light rail
transit project;
$13,800,000 for the New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street
car line project;
$3,100,000 for the New Orleans, Louisiana, Desire corridor
streetcar project;
$13,000,000 for the Oceanside-Escondido, California, light
rail extension project;
$16,000,000 for the Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/East
valley corridor project;
$6,000,000 for the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore
connector light rail transit project;
$20,000,000 for the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II
light rail, transit reconstruction project;
$70,000,000 for the Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light
rail transit extension project;
$5,600,000 for the Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sounder
commuter rail project;
$14,000,000 for the Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle
transit project;
$328,810 for the Sacramento, California, light rail transit
extension project;
$15,000,000 for the Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University
light rail transit project;
$718,006 for the Salt Lake City, Utah, South light rail
transit project;
$65,000,000 for the San Diego Mission Valley East,
California, light rail transit extension project;
$2,000,000 for the San Diego, California, Mid Coast
corridor project;
$80,605,331 for the San Francisco, California, BART
extension to the airport project;
$113,336 for the San Jose Tasman West, California, transit
light rail project;
$40,000,000 for the San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano
project;
$31,088,422 for the St. Louis, Missouri, MetroLink St.
Clair extension project;
$8,000,000 for the Stamford, Connecticut, urban transitway
project; and
$1,000,000 for the Washington County, Oregon, Wilsonville
to Beaverton commuter rail project.

Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the language found on page 26, beginning on line 9 and continuing to
line 10 which states ``That notwithstanding any other provision of
law'' and also against the language found on page 26, beginning on line
15 and continuing to line 16 which states ``together with $50 million
transferred from ``Federal Transit Administration, Formula grants'';
this clause ``notwithstanding any other provision of law'' explicitly
supersedes existing law and clearly constitutes legislation on
appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the rules
of the House of Representatives.
This language on lines 15 and 16 transferring $50 million provided by
TEA-21 for Clean Fuels Bus formula grants program to the transit bus
discretionary capitol investment grant program affects the total
transit program outlays for fiscal year 2002, which violates section
8101 of Public Law 105-178 and supersedes existing law.
This language clearly constitutes legislation on an appropriations
bill in violation of rule XXI of the rules of the House of
Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky concedes the point of
order. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The provisions are
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants

Notwithstanding section 3037(l)(3) of Public Law 105-178,
as amended, for necessary expenses to carry out section 3037
of the Federal Transit Act of 1998, $25,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That no more than
$125,000,000 of budget authority shall be available for these
purposes: Provided further, That up to $250,000 of the funds
provided under this heading may be used by the Federal
Transit Administration for technical assistance and support
and performance reviews of the job access and reverse commute
grants program.

Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the language found on page 31, beginning on line 9 and continuing to
line 10 which begins ``Notwithstanding section 3037(l)(3) of Public Law
105-178, as amended.''
This language waives the statutory distribution of funds specified in
TEA-21 for the Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants program and
explicitly supersedes existing law. This language clearly constitutes
legislation on an appropriations bill in violation of clause 2 of rule
XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky concedes the point of
order. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The provision is
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

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 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, $13,426,000, to be derived from the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund, pursuant to Public Law 99-662.

[[Page H3575]]

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

Research and Special Programs

For expenses necessary to discharge the functions of the
Research and Special Programs Administration, $36,487,000, of
which $645,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety
Fund, and of which $2,170,000 shall remain available until
September 30, 2004: 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, $48,475,000, of which $7,472,000
shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and
shall remain available until September 30, 2004; and of which
$41,003,000 shall be derived from the Pipeline Safety Fund,
of which $20,707,000 shall remain available until September
30, 2004.

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, 2004: Provided, That
not more than $14,300,000 shall be made available for
obligation in fiscal year 2002 from amounts made available by
49 U.S.C. 5116(i), 5127(c), and 5127(d): Provided further,
That none of the funds made available by 49 U.S.C. 5116(i),
5127(c), 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, $50,614,000: 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, $18,563,000:
Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law,
not to exceed $950,000 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
2002, to result in a final appropriation from the general
fund estimated at no more than $17,613,000.

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,
$5,046,000: 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)
$66,400,000, of which not to exceed $2,000 may be used for
official reception and representation expenses.

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
2002 pay raises for programs funded in this Act shall be
absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or
previous appropriations Acts.
Sec. 303. 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. 304. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for salaries and expenses of more than 105 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. 305. 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. 306. 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. 307. 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.
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. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
implement section 404 of title 23, United States Code.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 38, line
22, 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
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to that portion of the bill?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order on page
38, line 23.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 310. (a) For fiscal year 2002, the Secretary of
Transportation shall--
(1) not distribute from the obligation limitation for
Federal-aid Highways amounts authorized for administrative
expenses and programs funded from the administrative takedown
authorized by section 104(a)(1)(A) of title 23, United States
Code, for the highway use tax evasion program for amounts
provided under section 110 of title 23, United States Code,
and for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics;
(2) not distribute an amount from the obligation limitation
for Federal-aid Highways that is equal to the unobligated
balance of amounts made available from the Highway Trust Fund
(other than the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety programs for the previous fiscal
year the funds for which are allocated by the Secretary;
(3) determine the ratio that--
(A) the obligation limitation for Federal-aid Highways less
the aggregate of amounts not distributed under paragraphs (1)
and (2), bears to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
Federal-aid highways and highway safety construction programs
(other than sums authorized to be appropriated for sections
set forth in paragraphs (1) through (7) of subsection (b) and
sums authorized to be appropriated for section 105 of title
23, United States Code, equal to the amount referred to in
subsection (b)(8)) for such fiscal year less the aggregate of
the amounts not distributed under paragraph (1) of this
subsection;
(4) distribute the obligation limitation for Federal-aid
Highways less the aggregate amounts not distributed under
paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 117 of title 23, United
States Code (relating to high priority projects program),
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965, the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Authority Act of
1995, and $2,000,000,000 for such

[[Page H3576]]

fiscal year under section 105 of title 23, United States Code
(relating to minimum guarantee) so that the amount of
obligation authority available for each of such sections is
equal to the amount determined by multiplying the ratio
determined under paragraph (3) by the sums authorized to be
appropriated for such section (except in the case of section
105, $2,000,000,000) for such fiscal year;
(5) distribute the obligation limitation provided for
Federal-aid Highways less the aggregate amounts not
distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts
distributed under paragraph (4) for each of the programs that
are allocated by the Secretary under title 23, United States
Code (other than activities to which paragraph (1) applies
and programs to which paragraph (4) applies) by multiplying
the ratio determined under paragraph (3) by the sums
authorized to be appropriated for such program for such
fiscal year; and
(6) distribute the obligation limitation provided for
Federal-aid Highways less the aggregate amounts not
distributed under paragraphs (1) and (2) and amounts
distributed under paragraphs (4) and (5) for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs (other than
the minimum guarantee program, but only to the extent that
amounts apportioned for the minimum guarantee program for
such fiscal year exceed $2,639,000,000, and the Appalachian
development highway system program) that are apportioned by
the Secretary under title 23, United States Code, in the
ratio that--
(A) sums authorized to be appropriated for such programs
that are apportioned to each State for such fiscal year, bear
to
(B) the total of the sums authorized to be appropriated for
such programs that are apportioned to all States for such
fiscal year.
(b) Exceptions From Obligation Limitation.--The obligation
limitation for Federal-aid Highways shall not apply to
obligations: (1) under section 125 of title 23, United States
Code; (2) under section 147 of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1978; (3) under section 9 of the Federal-
Aid Highway Act of 1981; (4) under sections 131(b) and 131(
j) of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982; (5)
under sections 149(b) and 149(c) of the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987;
(6) under sections 1103 through 1108 of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; (7) under
section 157 of title 23, United States Code, as in effect on
the day before the date of the enactment of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century; and (8) under
section 105 of title 23, United States Code (but only in an
amount equal to $639,000,000 for such fiscal year).
(c) Redistribution of Unused Obligation Authority.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary shall after
August 1 for such fiscal year revise a distribution of the
obligation limitation made available under subsection (a) if
a State will not obligate the amount distributed during that
fiscal year and redistribute sufficient amounts to those
States able to obligate amounts in addition to those
previously distributed during that fiscal year giving
priority to those States having large unobligated balances of
funds apportioned under sections 104 and 144 of title 23,
United States Code, section 160 (as in effect on the day
before the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century) of title 23, United States Code, and under
section 1015 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 1943-1945).
(d) Applicability of Obligation Limitations to
Transportation Research Programs.--The obligation limitation
shall apply to transportation research programs carried out
under chapter 5 of title 23, United States Code, except that
obligation authority made available for such programs under
such limitation shall remain available for a period of 3
fiscal years.
(e) Redistribution of Certain Authorized Funds.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the distribution of obligation
limitation under subsection (a), the Secretary shall
distribute to the States any funds: (1) that are authorized
to be appropriated for such fiscal year for Federal-aid
highways programs (other than the program under section 160
of title 23, United States Code) and for carrying out
subchapter I of chapter 311 of title 49, United States Code,
and highway-related programs under chapter 4 of title 23,
United States Code; and (2) that the Secretary determines
will not be allocated to the States, and will not be
available for obligation, in such fiscal year due to the
imposition of any obligation limitation for such fiscal year.
Such distribution to the States shall be made in the same
ratio as the distribution of obligation authority under
subsection (a)(6). The funds so distributed shall be
available for any purposes described in section 133(b) of
title 23, United States Code.
(f) Special Rule.--Obligation limitation distributed for a
fiscal year under subsection (a)(4) of this section for a
section set forth in subsection (a)(4) shall remain available
until used and shall be in addition to the amount of any
limitation imposed on obligations for Federal-aid highways
and highway safety construction programs for future fiscal
years.
(g) Notwithstanding Public Law 105-178, as amended, of the
funds authorized under section 110 of title 23, United States
Code, (other than the funds authorized for the motor carrier
safety grant program) for fiscal year 2002, $56,300,000 shall
be to carry out a program for state and Federal border
infrastructure construction.

Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
all of section 310 beginning on page 38, line 23, and ending on page
44, line 2.
This language explicitly directs the Secretary of the Department of
Transportation to alter the TEA-21 distribution of funds contrary to
existing law. It directs the redistribution of $56.3 million of Federal
Highway Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) to carry out a program
for State and Federal border infrastructure construction. This is a
clear violation of clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The point of order is conceded.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky concedes the point of
order. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The provision is
stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 311. 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. 312. 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. 313. 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:
Provided, That, the Federal Aviation Administration shall
accept such equipment, which shall thereafter be operated and
maintained by FAA in accordance with agency criteria.
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, 2004, 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, 2001, 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 335 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
2002.
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. Funds made available for Alaska or Hawaii ferry
boats or ferry terminal facilities pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
5309(m)(2)(B) may be used to construct new vessels and
facilities, or to improve existing vessels and facilities,
including both the passenger and vehicle-related elements of
such vessels and facilities, and for repair facilities.
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

[[Page H3577]]

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 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 a 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.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 50, line
21, 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
Kentucky?
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I have an
amendment that comes in at page 52 and I wonder what effect that will
have on the gentleman's request. I do not intend to object other than
to preserve the right to offer my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands the request is to advance the
reading to page 50 line 21.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order beginning
on line 22.
The CHAIRMAN. Before the Clerk reads into that section, are there any
amendments to the portion of the bill now open?
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 323. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of
the $23,896,000 provided under 23 U.S.C. 110 for the motor
carrier safety grants program, the Secretary of
Transportation may reserve up to $18,000,000 for grants to
the States of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, to
hire State motor carrier safety inspectors at the United
States/Mexico border: Provided, That, such funding is only
available to the extent the States submit requests for such
funding to the Secretary and the Secretary evaluates such
requests based on established criteria: Provided further,
That, on March 31, 2002, the Secretary shall distribute to
the States any undistributed amounts in excess of \1/2\ of
the amount originally reserved, consistent with section 110
of title 23, U.S.C., for the motor carrier safety grants
program: Provided further, That on July 1, 2002, the
Secretary shall distribute to the States any remaining
undistributed amounts consistent with section 110 of title
23, U.S.C., for the motor carrier safety grants program.

Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
all of section 323 beginning on page 50, line 22, and ending on page
51, line 15.
This language authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to reserve
up to $18 million of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, RABA,
for four States, Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, for the
purpose of hiring State motor carrier safety inspectors at the U.S.-
Mexican border. This explicitly waives existing law in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Kentucky wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the point is conceded.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky concedes the point of
order. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The provision is
stricken from the bill. Section 323 is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
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, 2002.
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,
$785,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003:
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.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Andrews

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

Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Andrews:
In section 326 (relating to Amtrak Reform Council), after
the dollar amount, insert the following: ``(reduced by
$335,000)''.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is twofold.
It is to strongly support the continued operation of Amtrak as a
national passenger railroad system, and it is to save the taxpayers of
our country $335,000.
This amendment strikes the amount of $335,000 from the amount
appropriated for the operations of the so-called Amtrak Reform Council.
I believe there are two good arguments for this. The first is that the
remaining fund for the Amtrak Reform Council, which is $450,000, are
more than sufficient for the council to carry on its work. When the
council was first created in 1997, it was projected by the
Congressional Budget Office that its annual cost of operation would be
approximately $500,000. This amendment would bring the cost of
operating the council back to that general level.
The second reason for this is that the Amtrak Reform Council, in my
judgment, has been less about reform and more about criticism of
Amtrak. The place where Amtrak's future should be decided, with all due
respect, is in the authorizing committee and on the floor

[[Page H3578]]

of this House and we can have a good debate about the future of the
railroad. I do not believe that ceding our judgment to an unelected
body of people, many of whom have expressed strong prejudices against
the operation of Amtrak, is a wise course.
Mr. Chairman, in each of the last two Congresses, the House has
approved a similar amendment, by a roll call vote in 1999 and by voice
in the year 2000. I believe this is a reasonable balance. It permits
the work of the Amtrak Reform Council to go on, despite the fact that
many of us disagree with that work, while at the same time requiring
the council to rely on the good offices already existing in the
Department of Transportation, not expanding spending to outside
consultants and other expenditures, which I believe the taxpayers
should not be burdened with.
The amount of the cut is $335,000. I would point out that I believe
this is an amendment which supports Amtrak. In turn it is supported by
the transportation trades department of the AFL-CIO speaking for the
men and women who are Amtrak employees.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, we accept this amendment. It
would reduce funding for the Amtrak Reform Council by $335,000. This
action would be consistent with the levels of funding provided by the
House for the Amtrak Reform Council for the past 2 years.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Sec. 327. 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 Administration; 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. 328. Section 232 of H.R. 3425 of the 106th Congress,
as enacted by section 1000(a)(5) of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2000 is repealed.
Sec. 329. None of the funds in this Act shall be available
for planning, design, or construction of a light rail system
in Houston, Texas.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
Page 53, lines 15 through 17, strike section 329.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am an eternal optimist. I
believe that transportation is such a vital part of the quality of life
of Americans and Houstonians and Texans, that I offer this amendment
and hope my colleagues can work collaboratively with me to ultimately
strike the language that removes the opportunity for planning and
design and construction of light rail in Houston, Texas.
I say that because I was on the floor just previously talking about
Houston TranStar which is a collaboration between city and local
officials helping us move and moderate our traffic. Every major city,
Houston now being known as the third largest city in the Nation, has
traffic congestion. Polling in Houston suggests that not only the city
of Houston, but small cities surrounding Houston are favorable toward
this whole idea of light rail.
Mr. Chairman, I am hoping that I will be able to work with my
colleagues, including the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), in his
interest in the Houston TranStar, I hope we will be able to work
together on securing that authorization and funding for TranStar.

{time} 1630

At the same time, I am hoping that we can strike this language or
work collaboratively so that the City of Houston can fulfill the
commitment it has made to its citizens and the citizens can have the
commitment made to them by the City of Houston and the county judge and
the metropolitan transit authority to have light rail in our community.
Conventional wisdom also suggests that the light rail project would
be immensely useful to complement the Main Street connectivity which
continues to enrich the lives of countless Houstonians. Another traffic
center is the Texas Medical Center, one of the largest employers in our
region. We have also heard of the devastation facing the Texas Medical
Center. One of the contributing factors as they recover and also as
they continue to grow is the ability to move those medical
professionals, nurses, technicians, and doctors into one of the most
important medical centers in our country. They need light rail.
I believe that we can do this together. Working with the
administration of President George Bush; working with both Houses, the
Senate and the House; working with our appropriations committee; and
authorization committee. Never have we seen in the history of Houston
the convergence of so many supporters, business community, local and
regional communities, local cities that surround Houston, Houston and
Harris County, all the local officials in large part. I cannot imagine
why light rail is not in the destiny of Houston, Texas. Our sister city
has it. What we are asking for as we go and do focus groups is the
ability to be able to secure from our citizens the design of light
rail. All have been eager to participate. In fact, in my 18th
Congressional District they have said, ``When will it come into my
neighborhood?''
I believe that there are good will people and there are people who
will work with us, including members of my own delegation who will find
that light rail will be able to answer many questions prospectively,
today and in the future.
I would ask that my colleagues support this amendment. If we cannot
have this amendment moved to a vote, I would certainly like to strike a
collaborative chord with the members of the appropriations committee
and the authorization committee so that we can work together to have
light rail in the city of Houston.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that ensures that light
rail remains at least eligible from Federal funding for the City of
Houston. Unfortunately, an unnecessary and destructive rider has been
inserted within H.R. 2299, the transportation appropriation bill. We
must strike that language in the appropriations measure in the interest
of fundamental fairness, Mr. Chairman.
Last year, I joined my colleagues on the House floor to protest the
lack of funding for the critical light rail project that is so
important for Houston. I do not see why we should deprive the City of
Houston of the light rail system. This is something that the Mayor of
the City of Houston, the County Judge, the Metropolitan Transit
Authority in Houston, residents and countless other interested have
expressed a strong desire to see come to fruition. We need federal
funding for light rail in the 18th Congressional District of Texas as
we revitalize the transportation system for the 21st century.
Conventional wisdom also suggests that the light rail project would
be an immensely useful compliment to the Main Street Connectivity,
which continues to enrich the lives of countless Houstonians.
I have been supportive of light rail project for some years. From the
outset of the planning stages of the project, it became clear to me
that commuters in Houston needed to expand their options in making
their days more efficient and enjoyable. The light rail project offered
a formidable transportation solution that Houstonians had long awaited.
It is my firm belief that light rail will significantly touch all parts
of our community.
Earlier in March of this year, I was delighted to announce that a 7.5
mile METRORail line in Houston. Many individuals worked hard to make
that happen. We must face the fact that the light rail project is of
urgent need. Light rail will help alleviate Houston's traffic
congestion problem and, among other things, significantly reduce the
number of motorists that presently pollute the air with exhaust.
Like all Houstonians, I believe that nothing is more important than
mobility for the region's future. For these reasons, I am part of our
federal team dedicated to increasing funding for our infrastructure
needs in the Houston area. Mr. Chairman, we all have the common goal

[[Page H3579]]

of making transportation more easily accessible in the Houston area.
The goal of accessibility and faster modes of transportation will
inevitably lead to an improved environment and a better quality of life
for all Houstonians. We can do so much together when we make a
commitment to work together.
Lastly, let me say that I recognize that I will continue to work with
the Administration and Congress to bring Federal assistance to the
light rail project in Houston. I look forward to working with METRO and
city officials to match ingenuity being shown by other transportation
mechanisms utilized by other major metropolitan cities. With a
continued collective effort from local, regional, and Federal
resources, I believe the light rail system will help transform
Houston's transportation system into one of the premier systems in
America.
I know that Congress needs to move forward on this bill, and we
cannot debate local issues. But I hope the Congress realizes that this
is not a local issue. This is a question of equality and parity when
all of the other areas of the nation are able to get dollars for light
rail. I think, if a community wants light rail and meets the
requirement, then this Congress should give them consideration. The
18th Congressional District of Texas deserves fair treatment regarding
these matters.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to strike the language
prohibiting funding for the light rail program in Houston.
Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's
amendment.
This prohibition affects a rail project in the city of Houston, a
large portion of which is in the gentlewoman's district and the other
portion which runs into my district. It is one of the main traffic
arteries in the city of Houston. The gentlewoman mentioned the Texas
Medical Center, which is the largest medical center in the world, which
is located in my district, which has approximately 60 to 70,000 people
moving in and out of a very concentrated area every day of the week.
This is an important project.
The gentlewoman also mentioned that this project enjoys the support
of the locally elected political establishment of Houston and Harris
County. The Houston Metro board is a metropolitan organization made up
of appointees by the elected leadership. So it does have an indirect
connection to the voters in that the directly elected officials appoint
the members of this board and those members are approved by the elected
members of the county commissioners court and the elected members of
the Houston city council.
Finally, I would say there are some who have said that this should
not go forward because there has been no direct election by the people.
But the county attorney of Harris County and the attorney general of
the State of Texas have ruled that there is no statute in Texas law
that would grant the right for such an election. So that is sort of the
basis of this. And where we stand now is because of this specific
prohibition affecting the City of Houston, the City of Houston is the
only metropolitan area, the only municipal area in the United States of
which I am aware where the United States Congress has specifically
banned the use of Federal funds for rail.
It comes down not to a question of whether you support rail or not,
it comes down to a question of equity and whether or not we are going
to allow locally elected officials to make the decisions or whether we
are going to allow Washington to make the decisions. Unfortunately this
provision in the bill has Washington telling the locally elected
officials, both Republicans and Democrats and independents and
nonpartisan candidates, that they cannot make the decision.
I hope that the House will adopt the gentlewoman's amendment and
allow the elected officials, the locally elected officials of the City
of Houston, of Harris County, to decide what they want to do with their
share of the Federal funding just in the same way that locally elected
officials throughout the United States are allowed to do so under this
very bill without this prohibition that only affects one jurisdiction
in the United States.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment. As a
representative from the city of Houston and as a former member of the
Texas House of Representatives, I can say that Texas law already
provides for a mechanism for the voters to have their voice heard. If
the metropolitan transit authority in Houston chooses to issue debt,
there is a requirement that they have an election. Having just gone
through a very extensive election campaign in Houston, I can tell
Members firsthand the voters of Houston want an opportunity to speak on
this issue; and I know we would all welcome a chance to debate it in
the public arena in Houston.
The voters of Houston have the right to have their voices heard
particularly because of the extraordinary cost of any rail proposal.
The numbers that we have seen indicate that it could cost up to $300
million plus to build a rail system in Houston. I can tell Members that
the highest transportation priority in Harris County in the opinion of
the entire legislative delegation to Austin, I know with the support of
many of my colleagues here, is the expansion of the Katy Freeway. The
Katy Freeway still needs another $500 million to complete its
expansion. That $300 million minimum that is proposed to finish out the
cost to build a rail system in Houston would virtually finish the Katy
Freeway project. $300 million would build 50 miles of freeway.
We in the city of Houston have a very different type of geography.
The way the city has grown is different from other cities. Our city was
laid out on a salt grass prairie and those wide open spaces have
enabled us to grow very rapidly in many directions. Seventy-six percent
of the jobs in our city are outside Loop 610, and the city of Houston
is just simply not well situated for a rail plan.
All of these factors together, the fact that the rail plan would
absorb so many transportation dollars, move so few riders, have to be
subsidized so heavily, and the fact that State law already provides a
mechanism for a vote lead me to the conclusion that it is entirely
proper, in fact essential, that there be a vote in Houston before money
is spent on rail.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding. I appreciate his recounting the needs in the Houston and
surrounding areas. I support the gentleman in helping to improve the
Katy Freeway, I-10 West, which goes through a number of our districts,
including mine. I think it is important; and, as I note, there is money
in the bill for the Katy Freeway. I think it is only fair. It is
important to note that Metro has committed to an election. They are now
in the process of doing focus groups, if you will, and preparing that
when there is a design ready for the next extension thereof or putting
in the rail, that they would be more than happy to put that plan
forward. The gentleman may well know that the county attorney ruled
that they could not ask for a vote on this particular seven-mile run
because it was not funded by Metro.
Mr. CULBERSON. If I could reclaim my time and in response say that
the Metro has indicated they are willing to have an election, but we
have not seen the election occur yet. Metro moved forward very rapidly
to build this rail plan from downtown Houston out to the Astrodome
without asking for voter approval. They could have asked for voter
approval, a simple referendum had they chosen to but did not. There are
also other mechanisms to allow for a vote and they chose not to do so.
The cost of the rail plan coupled with the immense amount of subsidy
that is going to be required, when you compare the cost of rail systems
in other cities, the cost per rider to taxpayers is about $3,000 a
year, the subsidized cost per taxpayer in Los Angeles for each rider is
about 9,000 tax dollars a year and in Dallas about $4,000. The
geography, the growth patterns, the work patterns in the city of
Houston are such that I am not sure that we could support it. In fact
every town hall meeting I have held and where I have asked questions on
this issue to my constituents, the overwhelming response of my
constituents is that almost all of them need their cars in order to get
to work.
Because of the unique nature of our city, because of where the job
centers, the economic centers of Houston are spread out around the
metropolitan area, the bottom line is there must be

[[Page H3580]]

an election and I strongly support the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay)
in his call for an election before any transportation dollars are spent
on the construction of a rail system in Houston. I urge Members to vote
against the amendment so that there can be a vote in the city of
Houston.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because the Houston Metro
bureaucracy still has not resolved a primary shortcoming. They have not
assembled the facts and they have not placed those facts before our
community in Houston. Without the facts, how can Houstonians make an
informed decision about light rail? The answer is they cannot, and I am
not going to tolerate an end run around accountability.
Without a referendum on rail, Houstonians would be blindly committing
billions of dollars to a vast project with an unknown price tag,
unproven performance, and an undetermined impact on our most pressing
problem in the Houston-Galveston area, and that is mobility. The
decision to make a multi-billion-dollar transportation commitment
cannot be made without the consent of the whole community. That is why
I took action last year to suspend the diversion of Federal funds
approved for transportation improvements from being used to fund light
rail. And it is why I am asking my colleagues to continue supporting
this restriction.
My constituents expect me to safeguard their tax dollars, not flit
them away on an unproven concept. A light rail system is far from the
most effective way for Houston to reduce congestion. In fact, Houston
Metro has even admitted that the Main Street line does nothing to
reduce congestion and is not even a transportation project. They
themselves call it an economic development project.
The decision to build a light rail system would affect everyone in
Houston. Supporters must document the ability of a rail system to
reduce congestion and increase mobility. And they must take that case
to the citizens of Houston to earn their support for a citywide light
rail system. The people of Houston and the Houston metroplex deserve to
be heard on this question and a referendum gives them that voice. But
the community cannot make an informed choice without all the facts and
Houston Metro is not giving them the information that they need.
The method used to build the Main Street line gives every appearance
of an attempt to evade accountability. Metro is moving forward with a
piecemeal construction plan much like they did in Dallas, Texas, and
they are moving that piecemeal construction plan without explaining
light rail's broader mobility impact on the region.
I trust the people of Houston. They can make the right choice if they
have all the facts. Metro needs to prepare a comprehensive mobility
plan that takes all of our needs into account. It should document all
the challenges that contribute to congestion in the Houston region. It
should describe all the different options to reduce congestion. And it
should measure and compare the effectiveness of those options. Only
then will people be able to make an informed decision about light rail.
An additional problem with the Main Street line is that it simply is
not a mobility project. The Main Street line is an economic development
project. We have a mobility crisis in Houston. We must spend the
available transportation dollars on measures that actually target and
reduce congestion.

{time} 1645

In the last 2 years running, we have added over 500,000 new trips to
our transportation system; and yet we are only able to come up with
enough money, about $300 million, to add more capacity to our mobility
plan. And guess what this little 7-mile economic development plan
costs? $300 million. We could do a lot more for that $300 million in
improving the mobility of Houston.
So contrary to what some people may think, the pool of Federal
transportation dollars is not infinite. Spending billions on light rail
will severely restrict the funds for highway improvements and other
mobility improvements. Houston cannot afford to gamble on an unproven
light rail system. So I ask Members to oppose this amendment and demand
accountability in transportation spending.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, the amendment strikes a prohibition in this bill that
was also carried in last year's bill, which prohibits the planning,
design and construction of light rail in Houston. This prohibition is
necessary as proponents of light rail in Houston seek to alter an
existing full funding grant agreement for a bus program. Congress has
fully funded that $500 million grant agreement.
The last Federal payment was made this year. However, implementation
of the work is still going on. Some in Houston would like to forego
elements of the approved Houston regional bus plan, which are explicit
components of the existing full funding grant agreement and instead
replace these elements will light rail. The sponsors would defer the
planned bus elements into the future. The committee cannot support the
impact of this amendment. Under current law, funds provided for the
existing full funding grant agreement are only for those regional bus
plans outlined in the existing agreement. The Committee on
Appropriations, authorizing committees, and the Department of
Transportation all must approve an amendment of this nature.
As we have heard here today, there is dissension among the community
about this project. Members within the Houston delegation are on both
sides of the issue, some supporting light rail, others opposing it in
favor of buses. So until agreement can be reached, Mr. Chairman, at
least locally, and some semblance of consensus occurs locally, it is
premature to shift this funding, away from a completed full funding
grant agreement; it is too early for that to take place.
Houston has a state-of-the-art transit program, largely bus-driven.
The light rail project is just one component of this larger transit
program. Keeping this provision in place in our bill will not adversely
impact the overall transportation system in Houston, particularly as
the community has local funds that it could use to build this light
rail project.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member,
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the collegiate spirit on which we are
debating this issue on the floor. For me, however, this is an intense
issue that impacts an inner-city district.
It is interesting, as I look through the funding and I see Chicago,
Illinois, and Cleveland, Ohio; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; the
Dulles Corridor; Fort Lauderdale; Largo, Maryland; Little Rock,
Arkansas; Long Island Railroad, New York; Los Angeles; Maryland; New
Britain, Hartford, Connecticut; New Jersey; New Orleans; Phoenix,
Arizona; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; Puget Sound,
Washington; Raleigh, North Carolina, and others that are engaged in
securing transit dollars and in particular many of them light rail
projects.
Can I say, what is wrong with Houston, Texas?
I appreciate the opposition, but I am certainly disturbed that I can
rise to the floor of the House and support the expansion which is in
this bill, and time after time after time I cannot get colleagues that
would join us in recognizing the importance of light rail. I give
credit where credit is due, and I appreciate that we have been able to
work together in a bipartisan way. This is not personal, but it
certainly begs the question about some of the representations that have
been made.
First of all, Metro is seeking out the input of the community. They
have a number of mayors surrounding the area that want light rail and
have expressed it verbally and have expressed it openly and publicly.
This is the first time that we have a county judge, a Republican, and
the Mayor of the City of Houston joined together around light rail. We
are seeking to earn the support of Houstonians. We would not do to
overlook their input.

[[Page H3581]]

The only reason that we did not have an election is because the
county attorney, a Republican, said that we could not have an election
because we were not offering funding from Metro in the 7-mile
experimental light rail system that is in place now.
The reason why we are using other funds is because it was suggested
to us to use economic development funds. I can only say that I started
out by saying I am an eternal optimist, but the Texas Southern
University, University of Houston, downtown Houston and out into the
suburbs have all come together suggesting that light rail is a people-
mover and an effective transit vehicle.
Why are we standing here in the 21st century and having Houston
denied? This is a viable amendment. I believe the delegation can sit
down and have the issues resolved. Metro has been given the facts. They
are seeking input from others. They are planning a comprehensive plan,
and I do not know why an inner city has to be ignored and prevented
from having the light rail system when all of us can come together on
all kinds of large highways and byways and Members from the inner city
can support it; but yet an inner-city district, economically in need,
cannot have the light rail system that would then generate to all parts
of our community, including the suburbs. For the first time, we have
friends in the suburbs. We have friends in the inner city and
surrounding areas all saying that they want light rail.
I am distressed that we on the floor, this Congress, would deny
Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the Nation, along with this
long litany of other cities, the opportunity to design and construct
its plan with the input of the larger body of citizens in our area. We
have tried over and over again. I am going to come back here, if I am
reelected, every single year and beg this House for light rail because
I am appalled that Houston, Texas, would be isolated and segregated as
opposed to all the rest of the people that are getting light rail.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I rise to engage the chairman of the
committee in a colloquy regarding the Florida high speed rail project.
Mr. Chairman, last November 7, the voters of Florida passed a State
referendum requiring the construction of a statewide high speed rail
system, and that provision is now a part of our State constitution.
Unfortunately, the legislature did not pass the enabling legislation in
time for the subcommittee's funding deadline, which was April 6. In
fact, the Florida Senate passed the High Speed Rail Authority Act on
May 2 and the Florida house on May 3. Our Florida Governor signed this
measure into law just a few weeks ago, on June 1.
The State of Florida has now taken action to authorize and commit
$4.5 million in State funds for high speed rail, and we respectfully
ask the subcommittee's support and assistance and consideration in the
future.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers)
will be able to work with my colleagues in the Florida delegation and
help us identify and secure funding for this project, which also has
been authorized under one of the high speed rail corridors.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica) for offering his comment. We would be pleased to
work with the gentleman as this transportation bill moves through the
appropriations process, especially as the gentleman is the chairman of
a very important subcommittee over there on the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I prepared an amendment to earmark funds for
fiscal year 2002 funds for the Florida project, but I will not offer
that amendment today. I want to thank the chairman for his intention to
work with us on this project. It is most important to the people of
Florida.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Emerson) having assumed the chair, Mr. Camp, Chairman 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. 2299) making
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________