[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.

                          ____________________