Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 120 (Thursday, September 4, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 120 (Thursday, September 4, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H7851-H7899]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2004

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 351 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. 2989.
The Chair designates the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) as
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) to assume the chair temporarily.

{time} 1202

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. 2989) making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation
and Treasury, and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with Mr. Goodlatte
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is
considered as having been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present the Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and independent agencies appropriations bill
for fiscal year 2004. Because of the reorganization of the Committee on
Appropriations, this is an entirely new arrangement for the form in
which these agencies are presented to the House. In this bill, many of
the historical programs that were part of the Transportation Department
and the Treasury Department were merged with the new Department of
Homeland Security, and then the remaining programs have now been
combined in this legislative package with the appropriations for
agencies such as the General Services Administration, the Office of
Personnel Management, the White House, the Executive Office of the
President, the Office of Management and Budget and other critical
agencies which are, at times, dissimilar in their functions, however.
As a result, in putting together this bill we have made budget trade-
offs that previously were not made by this particular subcommittee. We
have merged Members of Congress and committee staff from two former
subcommittees, and accomplishing the production of a $90 billion bill
only a few months into that task has been a Herculean task.
Fortunately, we have been blessed with good people, good Members, such
as the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver),
Mr. Etheridge and other staff that I will recognize later for their
role in this bill.
But I believe we have produced a good product for the House. We have
had a lot of learning, many hearings, and the members of the
subcommittee have shown enormous dedication to produce this bill. I
believe this is a very good and solid bill. In most respects, it
matches the budget request and the priorities of the President, and
makes some significant improvements along the way.
In particular, I am pleased that by exercising great discipline in a
number of areas, we are able to do more than the President anticipated
for investing in the Nation's highways. The budget, unfortunately, due
to downward movement in the Highway Trust Fund revenue, proposed an 8
percent reduction in funding for Federal aid to highways. Thanks to the
discipline we have exercised in other areas, this bill instead provides
a 7 percent increase. So it is $4.5 billion more than the President's
request expected we would be able to

[[Page H7852]]

do, and some $2.2 billion more than Federal aid to highways during the
current fiscal year.
That money is excellent and significant news for America's economy,
because each $1 billion of highway investment creates some 40,000 jobs.
So compared to the current year's funding, this bill will add another
88,000 jobs across the country in highway construction alone. Compared
to what we expected we would be able to produce this year, this bill
will add some 200,000 jobs across the country.
That is good news also for the millions of motorists that are stuck
in traffic congestion. According to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, America has unprecedented and worsening levels of
highway congestion. In urban areas, the largest urban areas that have 3
million people or more, 40 percent of the travel every day is under
congested conditions. It costs the economy billions of dollars with
lost productivity because of workers that are stuck in traffic. The
backlog of highway and bridge deficiencies continues to rise. There is
now over $325 billion, according to the Federal Highway Administration,
and some $400 billion, according to other Department of Transportation
sources, in unaddressed highway construction needs in the United States
of America.
We have to get America to work and move goods to market, and this
bill seeks to do that. No other form of transportation offers the
flexibility and the ability to move large numbers that our road network
offers. Well over 90 percent of the vehicle miles traveled in the
United States today take place on the highway. That is the way we move,
that is the way that goods get to market, it is the way emergency
vehicles and public safety vehicles are able to move.
We have to address the critical problem of highway infrastructure to
get America moving again. This bill seeks to do that in a very
significant way, but without any increases in taxes or in revenue.
While the needs go up, Mr. Chairman, our ability to respond to them
has been threatened by the tightness of the budget. There has been a
dramatic decline in highway gasoline tax revenues. Gas tax receipts put
into the highway account of the trust funds went down almost $6 billion
between 1999 and 2002. We do not expect them to return to the 1999
level until the year 2008. That is why the tough decisions that we have
made and the priorities we have set in this bill are so important to
work on that backlog in a time of limited resources.
At the same time, there are increasing pressures on the general fund
due to Homeland Security and national defense priorities. We are trying
to be fiscally responsible and use this money more wisely and set tough
priorities among many competing demands. We will hear many Members talk
about things that they wish we had the money to do. It would be nice,
but we do not have the luxury of doing things that we could in times of
rising revenues.
While increasing funds for highway investment, we had to hold down
other increases. For the Department of the Treasury, the FAA, the
Federal Aviation Administration, the Office of Personnel Management,
we, by necessity, have provided cost-of-living increases and other
mandatory expenses that are about 4 to 5 percent increases for those
agencies, but the Executive Office of the President and others have
only a 1 percent increase. We are exercising the fiscal restraint which
is necessary.
I do want to express special appreciation, of course, to everyone
that has made it possible in making these tough decisions. The
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) I have singled out previously.
He has been tough, but fair, in presenting his priorities. His input
and advice have been invaluable, and our work is the better for his
contribution.
I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Young), for his fair and generous allotment to our
subcommittee.
Let me make sure that I also address a couple of areas that I know
will be part of the debate on this bill. Let us look at Amtrak.
The bill includes $900 million for Amtrak. Some will say that is not
enough. Well, that is because Amtrak says they wanted twice as much.
But, keep in mind, Amtrak is not a Federal agency. They are in a
special status, a special private situation. They can ask for whatever
they want, but their requests have not gone through the same budget and
vetting process as has been the case with the other agencies that have
requested money.
Amtrak's request did not go through the Office of Management and
Budget. It was not balanced against other transportation priorities. It
was a request of what they said they want. Their desires are
transmitted directly to the Congress. But the administration does not
support the large request that came from Amtrak, and neither do I.
As the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Mineta, stated in a letter
that he wrote to me recently, and I quote the Secretary, ``The problems
at Amtrak simply will not go away with a more liberal application of
dollars.''
We are at a defining moment in the Amtrak history, where we can go
down the road of binding them to reform and making tough decisions on
where it makes sense for Amtrak to operate and where it does not, or we
can just throw money at the problem, money that we do not have and that
will move millions more people if that money is applied elsewhere.
We should understand that of all the rail passengers in the country,
only 5 percent or less are moved by Amtrak. Most of them are moved by
commuter rail systems, not by Amtrak. Amtrak is not synonymous with the
railroads of America. Amtrak is not synonymous with rail passenger
service.
Reform legislation is pending before the Congress with Amtrak, but it
has not been acted on by the authorizing committees. Until that
happens, I believe it would be folly to provide huge increases for this
railroad that has not kept up its commitments, that has not been honest
with the American people.
We should not be swayed by their claims that they would go out of
business unless they receive another $1.8 billion. They have tried to
make that case by adopting poison-pill policies saying, oh, we have all
these hundreds of millions of dollars in severance pay that we have
agreed to to make it a poison pill, to keep people from making the
serious decisions that need to be made for Amtrak.
Even they admit that most of their request is not needed for next
year's operating bills. They want taxpayer money for their long-term
capital investments because they have handled their system so poorly
they find it difficult to attract private dollars. We should not accept
their ``sky is falling, Chicken Little'' arguments. This bill is more
than fair to Amtrak and would be sufficient, more than sufficient, to
meet the really important parts of their operating needs.
Let me also address what will be another part of the debate on this
bill, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Highway Transportation Enhancements
Program. Several Members expressed concern about the program and,
because of that, the approach that was taken by the full Committee on
Appropriations is to say that transportation enhancements are a program
that States are permitted to spend money on with their allocation of
Federal highway dollars, but we will no longer force them to spend
money on bike paths or pedestrian paths if they have higher priorities
for their bridges that are unsafe, as thousands of bridges are, or
their roads that are unsafe, as thousands of miles of roads are, or
their congestion problems.

{time} 1215

This is a decision affecting some $600 million a year, Mr. Chairman.
I trust the States to make their decision. Is it of greater importance
to the people in their State and in their community to move a small
number of people, to make a pedestrian path available or to move a
large number of people and enhance their workforce and economic
development and productivity by relieving congestion where they find
it? I trust States to make that decision.
The bill permits them to offer an amendment I know will be offered to
try to say no, they must spend 10 percent of their surface
transportation dollars which comes from highway users, which comes from
gasoline taxes; but they must spend it on things that do not help move
the traffic and

[[Page H7853]]

do not help do the work and the business of America. The Transportation
Enhancement Program funds transportation museums, for example, at the
expense of the thousands of unsafe bridges that each of us have a
portion of in our district.
So I look forward to what I hope will be a fair and honest and
elucidating debate on that particular topic. And it will be of
interest, Mr. Chairman, to know how many Members who tell me sometimes,
oh, I need money for a highway project in my district, but if they vote
today to say no it is more important to me to take money out of my
highways and put into things that do not relieve the congestion and
meet the transportation needs of the countries, then I will understand
what their true priorities are. We need to make those important
decisions.
There is one final area of the bill that I want to make clear because
I have talked mostly about transportation. The Department of Treasury
is in this bill. It provides critical contributions to the war on
terrorism. It is more than just the agency that houses the Internal
Revenue Service. For example, the bill provides several million dollars
above the President's request for stronger involvement on the Treasury
Department and international affairs, including technical advisors for
rebuilding the currency bank and financial systems in Iraq. The
Treasury Department has a crucial role, which we fund under this bill,
to stop the money trafficking that is funding terrorist activity around
the globe. It includes $2.3 million more for the new office of
terrorist financing and financial crimes, another $5.3 million for the
IRS for counterterrorism activities, and 21, almost 22, million dollars
for the Office of Foreign Assets Control, which is responsible for
freezing the assets of terrorist organizations, and some $57 million
for the financial crimes enforcement network.
All of these are important elements of the war on terrorism. We fund
each of them at or above the administration's request in our bill.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill is fair and it is
balanced. It provides for the major needs for the Departments of
Transportation and Treasury and the other independent agencies, such as
the GSA, all within the tight constraints of our budget. We have
developed the bill in consultation with the minority and with each of
the staffs involved. I support the bill wholeheartedly, and I ask for
the support of each Member.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Preferential Motion Offered By Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Does the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) yield for that purpose?
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I do.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the motion to rise
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 100,
noes 298, not voting 36, as follows:

[Roll No. 466]

AYES--100

Ackerman
Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
DeLauro
Deutsch
Doggett
Evans
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Grijalva
Hall
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Majette
Maloney
Markey
McGovern
McIntyre
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Ross
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Wynn

NOES--298

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Bachus
Baker
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu

NOT VOTING--36

Brown, Corrine
Cannon
Deal (GA)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLay
DeMint
Dooley (CA)
Engel
Fattah
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Graves
Hyde
Janklow
John
Jones (OH)
Kucinich
LaTourette
McHugh
Mica
Ortiz
Payne
Pickering
Rangel
Regula
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Sanders
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

{time} 1240

Messrs. FLAKE, GALLEGLY, THOMPSON of California and GINGREY changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HOYER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman
Istook) for working so hard to get this bill to the floor. I think it
has been a more difficult task than many of us believe, but I also want
to take a moment to thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for
their hard work on this bill.

[[Page H7854]]

On the majority side, I want to recognize our clerk, Rich Efford, and
Cheryle Tucker, Leigha Shaw, Kurt Dodd, Walter Hearne and Bill
Nicholson.
On the minority side, I particularly want to thank Mike Malone and
Beverly Pheto from the committee staff and Bob Letteney and Rob
Gatehouse from my personal staff.
I want to pay a special recognition and thanks to my legislative
director, Bob Letteney, who has been a member of my staff since 1997.
He has handled transportation appropriations issues on my personal
staff for the last several years, but Bob is one of a handful of
Federal employees selected this year as a Mike Mansfield fellow, and
that unique program named for the former Senate majority leader and
Ambassador to Japan places Federal workers in targeted Japanese
Government agencies where an exchange of knowledge would be beneficial
to both countries. It is an honor to be chosen for a Mansfield
fellowship, and the program directors could not have selected a better
candidate than Bob Letteney. So I thank Bob for his years of hard work
in my office, and I wish him the best of luck in Japan and beyond.
Mr. Chairman, as I said, this has been a long road to get this bill
to the floor, and I appreciate the chairman working with us to make
substantial changes to the original subcommittee mark. Among other
things, during full committee, money was added back for rural
communities that rely on essential air service programs.
In full committee we also increased funding for new starts transit
projects and added some money, though not nearly enough, to the Amtrak
program.
The bill also obligates over $33 billion, of course this is a major
nut of funding in this appropriations bill, for the Nation's highway
program, and that is the largest, obviously, piece in this whole
legislation. Each billion will create some 45,000 new jobs. Yet we
still have a long way to go to get what I would consider a balanced
Transportation Treasury bill.
The bill cripples the enhancement program by eliminating the minimum
authorized guarantee for enhancements that has been in effect for the
12 years of the ISTEA and TEA-21 authorizations that were established
by overwhelming votes of this Congress.

{time} 1245

Enhancements include bike trails, pedestrian walkways, and money for
historic preservation. They are vital components of the transportation
system and enhance the fabric of our local communities. The chairman of
the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit and Pipelines of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Petri), along with me and a large bipartisan group of Members, will
have an amendment to preserve that enhancement program.
The bill only provides $900 million for Amtrak, pushing them to the
brink of a shutdown, despite the fact that 220 Members of this body
sent a letter to the Committee on Appropriations supporting Amtrak's
request for $1.8 billion. I also will offer an amendment to restore
funding for Amtrak.
Transit programs are still woefully underfunded. The New Starts
transit account is still $300 million below the President's request for
the New Starts program.
Job access and reverse commute grants are cut by $64 million from
last year's enacted bill. These funds help low-income families in rural
and urban areas get rides to work, school and health care appointments.
For the FAA, funds are not provided as requested by the President to
begin hiring additional air traffic controllers in advance of an
imminent wave of retirements.
And on the Treasury side of the bill, $100 million is included to
implement an earned income tax credit precertification program that
would subject four million working poor to additional burdens each year
and drive many of them away from the program which former President
Ronald Reagan called our most effective program to reduce poverty.
This bill also contains no funding for Federal courthouse
construction at a time when we already face a significant backlog of
construction and renovation needs, and this will certainly make the
situation worse.
On the floor today and in conference, I hope we will be able to
rectify some of these problems and have strong bipartisan support for
the end product of those deliberations.
I want to pay special recognition and thanks to my Legislative
Director, Bob Letteney, who has been a member of my Washington staff
since 1997.
Bob started with me as a Staff Assistant and worked his way all the
way up to Legislative Director. He has handled transportation
appropriations issues on my personal staff for the last several years.
Bob is one of a handful of federal employees selected this year as a
Mike Mansfield fellow.
This unique program, named for the former Senate Majority Leader and
Ambassador to Japan, places federal workers in targeted Japanese
government agencies where an exchange of knowledge would be beneficial
to both countries. The federal workers selected as fellows study
Japanese language and cultural intensively for the first year of a two-
year program, and after that are placed in a Tokyo agency appropriate
for their background and professional interests.
It's an honor to be chosen for a Mansfield fellowship, and the
program directors couldn't have selected a better candidate than Bob
Letteney. I understand Bob wants to be placed in a rail transportation
agency, and this is clearly a critical area for the U.S. over the next
decade.
So it will be with mixed emotions that I say ``goodbye'' to Bob on
his last day in my office next week. A Pittsfield, Massachusetts native
and a proud graduate of Pittsfield High School and then the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst, Bob has been real home-grown success story
and an invaluable staffer in my organization. The opportunity presented
by the Mansfield fellowship, however, is a great one, and I know Bob
will represent our Nation in outstanding fashion.
Bob, thank you for your years of hard work in my office, and I wish
you the best of luck in Japan and beyond.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with
Chairman Istook regarding the Transportation/Treasury appropriation
bill about the importance of funding the Richmond Federal courthouse.
This courthouse project is very important to my constituents and will
be critical to the economic revitalization of downtown Richmond.
The Richmond courthouse project has received a very high ranking from
the Administrative Office of the Courts and is number two on its list
of courthouse construction projects.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
opportunity to share my thoughts on the matter with the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor). I am very much aware of the need to fund the
Richmond Federal courthouse. I am concerned, of course, about the
funding needs for all of the Nation's courthouses.
As the gentleman is aware, due to budget limitations, we have not
provided funding for any new courthouse construction in this bill, but
I would like to be helpful to him and to his constituents, and I am
looking for the necessary funds to finance courthouse construction
projects, including the Richmond Federal courthouse. I understand the
importance of it to the Federal Judiciary and that it is a critical
element of the revitalization of downtown Richmond.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
want to thank him for his continued commitment to addressing the
funding of the Federal courthouse in Richmond. The Federal courthouse
will revitalize downtown Richmond and provide a critical link between
the convention center area and Capital Square.
I have heard from many leaders in the City of Richmond about the
necessity for funding this project, and I agree construction of the
Federal courthouse is long overdue.
Again, I want to thank the chairman for his leadership and look
forward to working with him on this program.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

[[Page H7855]]

Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
yielding to me, and I want to say that I agree with the gentleman's
comments with respect to the Richmond courthouse.
I might add, however, and I think the chairman hopefully shares this
view, that the Los Angeles courthouse and others are on the priority
list. As the gentleman knows, this committee has followed not a
political agenda with respect to the funding of courthouses, but the
court's determination of the most-needed facilities, of which Richmond,
as the gentleman pointed out, comes very high.
I would hope the gentleman would join in urging the administration
and urging the Congress to again start funding courthouses. If we do
not, we are going to see the administration of justice put at risk in
many of the highest demand areas in the country. So I appreciate the
gentleman's comments about Richmond, but it applies as well to many
other jurisdictions.
Mr. ISTOOK. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
for his comments.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) yield
to the gentleman from Wisconsin for that purpose?
Mr. OLVER. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that the Committee do now rise.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 89,
noes 302, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 42, as follows:

[Roll No. 467]

AYES--89

Ackerman
Alexander
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Brown (OH)
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Clyburn
Cooper
Crowley
Davis (TN)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Doggett
Emanuel
Evans
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hinojosa
Holt
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rothman
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson

NOES--302

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballance
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Owens
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

DeFazio

NOT VOTING--42

Andrews
Boucher
Brown, Corrine
Camp
Carson (OK)
Clay
Conyers
DeGette
DeMint
Dingell
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Engel
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Graves
Gutierrez
Honda
Hunter
Hyde
Janklow
John
Johnson, Sam
Kucinich
LaTourette
Matsui
McHugh
Meeks (NY)
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Payne
Pickering
Rangel
Regula
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Waxman
Wexler
Woolsey
Young (AK)

{time} 1312

Messrs. GALLEGLY, SWEENEY, KINGSTON and Mrs. EMERSON changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Goss).
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for an opportunity to
speak on behalf of a project very important to motorists, to commerce,
and to the well-being of millions of residents and visitors to
southwest Florida.
As a great number of my colleagues and their families know, there has
been a steady and dramatic increase in the population in the southwest
Florida area.

{time} 1315

This growth is indeed welcome. It is reflective of a robust economy
and a wonderful quality of life, but it has contributed to the serious
congestion of our only interstate, I-75.
We have requested funds that would widen the forgotten section of I-
75, as we refer to it. It is a section that serves our State university
and our international airport, to say nothing of the daily traffic of
commuters and visitors.
The current level of project funding contained in this act is very
helpful and we are grateful, but it does not allow for the full
solution to our congestion problem.
It is for this reason that I respectfully ask the chairman that this
issue be revisited during the conference committee for this
legislation.

[[Page H7856]]

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and
his support for his State and its needs, but financial resources, as
the gentleman knows, are indeed tight.
The committee, hopefully, may consider additional appropriations for
this project in the conference committee should additional funds be
made available to us at this time because I know of the great growth in
his State and the significance of this project. I appreciate the
gentleman bringing this to my attention and will continue to work with
him on it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
would like to thank him for that, for the opportunity to speak today
and for the extraordinary good work he is doing to get this bill
moving.
Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time, and I commend him for producing what I think is a fair
and balanced bill.
I know every area of the Nation is experiencing significant problems
with its transportation needs and that we would all like to see more
funds for transportation purposes. Wrestling with the realities that we
have with this recession and the war on terror, I think the chairman
needs to be very seriously commended.
I want to particularly single out and thank him for including some
funding for the Pineda Extension. This project is very, very important
for the proper evacuation in the event of hurricanes for many of our
coastal communities in the congressional district that I represent.
As we all can remember, Hurricane Floyd when it threatened the coast
of Florida, the east coast of Florida, precipitated one of the largest,
if not the largest, human evacuations in history where literally
millions of people had to migrate off the coast of Florida and move
inland. And one of the things that was recognized in that challenge was
that the State did not have enough east-west access corridors.
This important addition to the bill will help us in the State of
Florida address that need in a very, very critical area. I again want
to thank the chairman.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time remains on
either side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 9 minutes remaining,
and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick), who is a member of the subcommittee.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for
his chairmanship in having gone through our budget for the first time,
as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Olver), for his first time.
I do believe that we have a balanced budget before us. It is a good
budget with some modification as we go through the amendments today.
I first want to bring to the Members' attention the earned income tax
credit which in this bill allows $100 million for 45,000 people to be
looked at to see if they are in compliance in order to receive the
EITC.
We believe, and we will be offering an amendment later today to
reduce that to 25,000 people and to use 50 million of those tax dollars
to look at corporations and other high-wagers to see if they are in
compliance.
The earned income tax credit assists moderate and low-income
families. It provides for them revenues and monies they need for
college educations and other things that this budget does not apply. So
we hope that that $50 million will be adequate for the pilot program,
and we will hear more on that as we go on throughout the day.
Another is the Buy American provision that I have offered in this
bill. In my home State of Michigan over 400,000 people are out of work.
Many of the manufacturing jobs have gone offshore. I am told now that
many of the service jobs are going offshore and we have to do something
about that. This budget can do that and it can do better. We need the
Buy American language, and I hope that we can retain it in this budget.
Lastly, I think it is very important that we talk about Amtrak and
save its funding. Amtrak does a wonderful service in our country, the
eastern corridor, and across this country. I do not personally have the
Amtrak service I want in my district. I would like to see it expanded.
The number here for Amtrak is sorely underfunded. With those provisions
as we address our amendments, we hope that we can make it a better
bill.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield to the
gentleman from Wisconsin for that purpose?
Mr. OLVER. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 87,
noes 305, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 41, as follows:

[Roll No. 468]

AYES--87

Alexander
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
DeLauro
Doggett
Emanuel
Evans
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Markey
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rothman
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Scott (GA)
Snyder
Stenholm
Stupak
Tanner
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt

NOES--305

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)

[[Page H7857]]

Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

DeFazio

NOT VOTING--41

Clay
Davis, Jo Ann
DeGette
Delahunt
DeMint
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
English
Fattah
Gephardt
Graves
Hinojosa
Honda
Janklow
John
Kleczka
Kucinich
Majette
Matsui
McCotter
Nadler
Owens
Oxley
Payne
Pickering
Radanovich
Rangel
Regula
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Ryun (KS)
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Stark
Thornberry
Turner (TX)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Woolsey
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are informed that there are 2
minutes remaining on this vote.

{time} 1341

Mr. TAUZIN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Rothman), who is a member of the subcommittee.
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) the very kind and distinguished ranking
member, for yielding me this time. I also want to thank my chairman for
all of his cooperation and friendship and going out of his way to help
me and the people of my district on a number of different issues, along
with, of course, my ranking member, the staffs of my chairman and the
ranking member. By the way, I have so many things to talk about, but I
am only using 2 minutes in the interest of the group; so I will cut to
the chase.
There was an issue involved in a one-size-fits-all FAA regulation
that would have had a devastating effect on the people of northern New
Jersey. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, a bipartisan
agency, the bipartisan elected officials in New Jersey and all the
people of my region were adamant that Washington should not force a
solution that was wrong for us on them, and the chairman and his staff
bent over backwards along with the ranking member to accommodate a
reasonable commonsense solution to that problem, and I am extremely
grateful to the chairman and the ranking member for accommodating the
interests of the hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise
have been negatively affected.
I intend to support this bill. It is not perfect. I hope Amtrak gets
plussed-up in the conference, but by and large this is a bill that we
can all be proud of, and I thank my chairman again and my ranking
member for all their kindness and courtesies.

{time} 1345

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip and a member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman of the subcommittee and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), first of all let me
congratulate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) on his taking
the responsibilities of ranking member. He is doing an outstanding job
in that capacity.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few general comments. I will have some
possible amendments, which may be withdrawn, some of which may be
pressed. But I want to thank the committee and I want to thank the
chairman for pursuing what the Republican majority budget provided for
with respect to pay parity. I think that was appropriate and consistent
with our past policies. We have a lot of folks who are on the front
lines who we will recognize.
However, I want to raise some concerns. As the chairman knows, the
Reagan administration, the Bush administration, the Clinton
administration, and now the present Bush administration, as I
understand it, is for the project, although has not funded it. We have
been pursuing the creation of a campus for the Food and Drug
Administration which, of course, now has even more challenges dealing
with the integrity of the food and drug supply in light of terrorist
threats. But we have been trying to construct this campus, which will
save the Federal Government money.
The reason it will save the Federal Government money is now the FDA
is located around the Washington metropolitan area in 19 different
leased facilities, and, of course, they are for the most part very old
facilities and they are expensive facilities. GSA tells us it would be
cheaper to build at the site that has been agreed to, not in my
district, but in the State of Maryland. We have done some of those.
There is currently in the plan a project for $48 million. I have reason
to believe the Senate might include that.
Mr. Chairman, I am very hopeful that we will be able to include that
in the conference report. I am not going to offer an amendment on that
in the committee, but I really do believe that it is a very cost-
conscious effort to continue this project to completion, because, as I
say, it is not a partisan difference. As a matter of fact, the proposal
was made, as the gentleman knows, by the Reagan administration and a
Republican director of the FDA. But it is one that I think is very
important.
In addition, I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we have not included
in this legislation not only some of the money that has been talked
about in terms of Amtrak and transportation, but in particular the
election reform legislation that we passed. It was one of the few
pieces of legislation that we passed in an overwhelmingly bipartisan
fashion. The Speaker was very proud of that. On our side of the aisle
we were proud of it. The President in signing the bill indicated it was
a bipartisan success.
We pledged to fund that effort, and we imposed deadlines on the
States to accomplish certain things that were required to ensure access
and accuracy of voting in elections. The deadline for the
accomplishment of those objectives is 2006.
The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) has been extraordinarily
helpful and was a critical player in our initial funding. As the
chairman knows, the bill would authorize $1.5 billion additional. We
are $1 billion behind. There is $500 million in this bill. I appreciate
the chairman's including that. I know he has been supportive of this
effort.
But I will be working with the administration again. There is going
to be an amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings). I will speak on that. I am not sure that the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings) will press that. The problem, of course, is
where you take money from to get money for this objective. I think the
chairman has a very real problem in that regard.
I am pressing the administration, and I have talked to the gentleman
from Florida (Chairman Young) about this, to seek emergency funds from
the administration so that this project can be accomplished by the 2006
deadline. I would hope we could work on that.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the distinguished chairman of the full committee,
for the purpose of a colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Sweeney).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much
for yielding me time.

[[Page H7858]]

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I
want to thank him for participating in this colloquy with me today to
address a significant issue which was raised during the committee
consideration of this bill.
As the gentleman knows, when the committee marked up the Treasury-
Transportation bill in July, we directed the General Services
Administration to complete its review of MCI WorldCom's fitness to
serve as a Federal contractor. This directive resulted from revelations
that the company had overstated its profits by $11 billion and lacked
adequate internal controls.
Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the GSA announced the proposed
debarment of MCI WorldCom on July 31. Although the process took longer
than hoped and the committee was forced to take action to get GSA to do
its job, the GSA has now prohibited MCI WorldCom from receiving any new
Federal contracts. GSA has reached the only responsible conclusion
possible.
Mr. Chairman, it is my strong belief that the Federal Government must
condemn corporate malfeasance and provide strict oversight of Federal
contracting. GSA's proposed action to debar MCI from Federal
contracting is a step in the right direction, and I applaud their
efforts.
With the leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young),
this committee has ensured GSA performs its due diligence and has
protected the American taxpayers from a fraudulent company. I would
like to personally thank the gentleman for his support and assistance.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to
thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) for bringing this
important matter to the committee's attention. As overseers of GSA's
budget, I believe the committee acted in a responsible way and
responded to this issue appropriately.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I
thank the gentleman. As this process continues, GSA must remain
responsive and should provide regular detailed reports to the committee
on the status of the case.
Would the gentleman agree to work with me during the conference to
clarify the report language, if necessary, so that the committee can
continue its oversight of GSA actions on the MCI WorldCom debarment
proceedings and further Federal contracting actions?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) as we move towards a final
resolution of this issue, and will certainly work to clarify the report
language during conference as events dictate.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I will continue to
monitor the GSA's actions in this area as the Treasury-Transportation
measure moves to conference. If there is any backsliding by the agency,
I am confident the committee will be able to respond.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I hope the chairman
recognizes the authorizers' role in overseeing GSA in this and the
appropriators' role in this and will keep us in the loop, and will not
try to authorize without consultation with the authorizers.
Am I correct on this, or am I being rolled on this?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I did not really hear the
question.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, my question is although the
Committee on Appropriations has appropriations oversight, I would hope
we would work with the authorizing committee on GSA, which is the
Committee on Government Reform, which I chair, as we work towards
language on this.
We have spent a lot of time on these issues as well. The language of
the gentleman from New York was worked out and shared with us. I hope
this is not an attempt on the part of the appropriators to once again
override authorizing committees and try to accomplish what they could
not accomplish on the floor.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say
to my friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), that he is
absolutely right. It is essential that the Committee on Appropriations
and the authorizing committees work together as we deal with issues of
this type. The gentleman is exactly right.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in permitting me to speak on this debate.
Mr. Chairman, I find a certain amount of irony as we return to
unnecessary controversy on one of the most important bills that this
Congress will consider this year. The chairman of the subcommittee is
concerned about congestion around the Nation, and well he should be.
Yet the bill would cut back on people's alternatives to reduce
congestion by further squeezing Amtrak and gutting the popular
important bipartisan support for the enhancements program.
People need choices. I am going to speak later in the debate on the
enhancements program in support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), a bipartisan amendment to try to fix it.
Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to talk about the problems
with Amtrak which are going to be ruled out of order when offered.
I find it sad. There are some who dispute the notion that we should
be the only industrialized Nation in the world without a backbone of a
national rail transportation system. We have lavish subsidies for the
airline industry, which in its history of passenger transport has
produced a net profit of zero, zero; yet somehow, providing a little
support for Amtrak is deemed theologically unacceptable.
Well, Mr. Chairman, much of the blame for the problems of Amtrak is
that this Congress has refused to appropriate the money that Congress
itself has authorized. Yet Congress has interfered with the management
decisions of Amtrak, and, much like the mythical educational
performance in Houston, where they sort of in schools ``will'' children
to stay in school so they are not dropped out, that they somehow are
all going on to college, people have tried to will Amtrak to a
different type of performance than they are willing to pay for.
Luckily, there is broad bipartisan support in this country and in
this Congress to overrule this ill-conceived cutback in Amtrak. I am
convinced that ultimately through the process we will succeed. I hope
we can fix what we can on the floor to preserve the critical
enhancements program, and fight for a bill that the country deserves to
preserve the potential for a comprehensive rail transportation system.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, once again the Committee on
Appropriations, in the light of day, has voted to prohibit corporate
expatriates from enjoying more than $1 billion a year in Federal
Government contracts, and, once again, Mr. Chairman, in the dark of
night, the Committee on Rules, has cobbled together a rule which
rewards those corporations who run off to Bermuda to avoid paying
United States income taxes.
The American taxpayer has said tax fairness and tax equity matter,
but apparently not in this Congress. Corporate expatriates will drain
$5 billion from our Federal Treasury, and yet, in return, corporate
expatriates will win, time and again, lucrative Federal contracts to
build our nuclear facilities, guard our government buildings, provide
health care to our veterans, landscape the national parks, and even
money appropriated in this bill today, believe it or not, a
multimillion-dollar contract to help the IRS collect taxes.
We stay here and we pay our taxes while these corporations run off to
Bermuda to avoid them. They then turn around and get paid to help
collect money from us. If it was not September, most of us would come
to believe based upon this issue it was April Fool's Day.

[[Page H7859]]

Try, as an individual taxpayer announcing that your address is in
Bermuda and avoiding your share of personal income taxes, to find what
the result will be. I am astounded that after months and months of
discussing this issue, when we were promised a vote on the floor, we
are no closer to doing that now than we were before. Instead, the
Committee on Appropriations does what they are supposed to do, and the
Committee on Rules decides not to let the issue come to the floor.
If they are confident in their position, let the matter come to the
floor for an up-or-down vote. I guarantee you if it came to the floor,
there would be 300 votes to affirm what I have said in the last couple
of minutes.

{time} 1400

I hope that during this debate there will be others who continue to
bring this matter before us, and I hope that all of you on the other
side will stop protecting many of these financial traitors.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the passion of the gentleman who
just spoke and everyone else, but, of course, we have followed the
normal protocol. This is what is considered in this House an open rule
to give people the opportunity to bring up issues. But as the Chairman
and everyone else in this body knows, just because a bill is on the
floor, it does not mean that every topic can be offered on that bill.
We have to break our work into pieces. And some of the issues the
gentleman is talking about should properly be raised on other pieces of
legislation, not this one.
The Committee on Rules and its leadership has provided a very good,
very solid, open rule that provides Members the opportunity to make
fair comments and make fair amendments upon the proper topics of this
bill. And I would certainly hope that the gentleman would work with the
committees of proper jurisdiction for the changes that he wants to
make. But I do very much appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the efforts of the
Committee on Rules in helping us to make the progress and helping to
make sure that we have a controlled and proper debate on the issues
that are the proper subject of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair appreciates the gentleman's very thoughtful
statement.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers on general
debate, and I yield back the balance my time.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, just by way of brief closing, I indicated that I wanted
to express appreciation for the members of our staff that have worked
so diligently to bring this legislation to the floor: the chief clerk
of our subcommittee, Rich Efford, and the other clerks on the
committee, Cheryle Tucker, Kurt Dodd, Leigha Shaw, Walter Hearne, Ben
Nicholson, and from my office Kurt Conrad.
I do not want their efforts to go unnoted and unappreciated, and I
wanted to make sure that they appear in the Record next to the work
product that they have worked so diligently on. We could not accomplish
these things without them.
This is a good bill. I ask every Member of the House to support it.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
language weakening the United States' Cuban embargo policy by allowing
travel to Cuba and urge my colleagues also to oppose allowing travel to
Cuba.
The regime of Fidel Castro continues to prove to have no respect for
dissidents, for human rights, and cannot be trusted. This past March,
Castro carried out a sweeping crackdown on dissident leaders, rounding
up 75 and providing harsh prison sentences after charades of trials.
Further, Castro resumed executions with the execution of three men by
official firing squad. For those dissidents merely attempting to
exercise basic freedoms, punishments include forced exile,
interrogations, house arrest and searches, intimidation and aggression,
telephone bugging, eviction and loss of employment.
The fact remains: Cuba under the dictatorship of Fidel Castro is a
terrorist state, ruled by fear, and grossly violating the human rights
of dissidents. The Cuban regime remains on the Department of State list
of seven terrorist-sponsoring nations. United States policy should
never bend against the tide of oppression in Cuba or any country--we
must maintain a firm line. Our victory in the Cold War was due to
holding firmly to our core democratic values and principles and being
strong, not bending to communist ideology, torture, and oppression.
The House of Representatives should not vote to reward a terrorist
state with unrestricted travel--providing resources needed to sustain
the Castro regime. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment to
weaken the embargo against Cuba by allowing travel to Cuba.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, as we debate the FY04 Transportation,
Treasury Appropriations bill, I rise to express my concern for recent
actions undertaken by the Internal Revenue Service.
It is a fundamental tenet of fair tax administration that taxpayers
can rely on guidance and rules issued by the Internal Revenue Service.
Unfortunately, in its administration of the tax credit for coal-based
synthetic fuels, the IRS has breached this fundamental rule.
Congress enacted section 29 of the Internal Revenue Code to provide a
tax credit for the production of synthetic fuel. This tax credit was
created to encourage domestic energy production and it works. In my
home state, and coal producing states throughout the Southeast, the
credit has increased domestic coal production and kept open thin seam
mines. The coal-based synthetic fuels increases combustion efficiency
and reduce fuel costs for electricity consumers throughout the United
States.
Since 1995, the IRS has issued revenue rulings, revenue procedures
and over 80 private letter rulings that detail the processes that
qualify for producing synthetic fuel and the tests taxpayers should
utilize to demonstrate that the synthetic fuel they produced qualify
for the tax credit.
Taxpayers and recognized scientific experts met repeatedly with the
IRS as it developed the revenue rulings, revenue procedures and private
letter rulings. Taxpayers explained the processes they intended to use
to produce synthetic fuel and the tests that they would use to
demonstrate that synthetic fuel qualified for the tax credit. After
full opportunity to review the processes and the tests, the IRS issued
private letter rulings telling taxpayers that these processes and these
tests qualified.
Since 1995, taxpayers have been investing in synthetic fuel
production facilities designed to meet the tests that the IRS agreed
demonstrated that the synthetic fuel produced qualified for the tax
credit. In June of this year, the IRS decided that it was not sure that
the tests it had approved over the years were acceptable. The IRS told
taxpayers that it questioned the test results it had previously
approved because a single scientist the IRS hired attempted to perform
the tests using different methodologies. However, the IRS refuses to
tell taxpayers what test it is using and how it is different from the
tests it has approved in 80 private letter rulings.
In short, the IRS changed the test it told taxpayers to use and
refuses to tell taxpayers how it changed the test. Taxpayers no longer
know whether their synthetic fuel, including fuels produced in prior
years, qualifies for the tax credit. As a result, hundreds of millions
of dollars of investments are at risk. Many public and private
companies in all sectors of the economy are facing huge potential
economic losses. Some companies are facing bankruptcy because the IRS
is changing the rules after they made their investments.
Taxpayers worked in good faith with the IRS to design tests that
demonstrated that their facilities produced a qualified synthetic fuel.
Taxpayers invested in reliance on the rulings the IRS provided
approving those tests. The IRS should publish an announcement that it
will honor the rules under which taxpayers invested in synthetic fuels
facilities and that it will follow the rules the IRS published in
Revenue Procedures 2001-30 and 2001-34. The IRS must abide by the rules
it laid down for taxpayers.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by my colleague Chairman Quinn. From its inception,
Amtrak was expected to pursue conflicting goals. It was to provide a
national rail passenger service while simultaneously operating as a
commercial enterprise. Although, at this point I think that it is a
foregone conclusion that no one expects Amtrak will be profitable.
As mandated in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997,
which required Amtrak to achieve self-sufficiency by December 2002, the
rail system has received reduced appropriations funding each year.
However, due to inflation and a poor economy, operating costs continue
to rise. Many important infrastructure and equipment improvements have
been delayed or postponed due to the lack of funding. Rising operating
costs--declining revenue--this is a formula for failure.

[[Page H7860]]

We are now faced with the challenge of salvaging a vital link in our
national transportation system. To quote the Secretary of
Transportation Norm Mineta: ``Intercity passenger rail service is an
important part of the nation's transportation system.'' Some critics of
Amtrak insist that reforming Amtrak will save it. I disagree. Until
necessary improvements are made on the infrastructure and equipment,
the system cannot function efficiently.
We need to provide Amtrak with adequate funding.
In some areas the rail infrastructure is over 100 years old.
Repairing existing infrastructure to good condition and upgrading
equipment will ultimately lead to reduced operational costs. But, as
with most endeavors of this magnitude we cannot expect overnight
results. The process will take time.
Looking to the states that rely on rail service to stabilize Amtrak
is not the answer. My state of Maryland has been a strong supporter of
Amtrak as it is a critical part of the overall transportation
solution--especially in the congested Northeast corridor. The MARC
trains in Baltimore are operated under a contract with Amtrak. Many
Maryland communters depend on MARC service. But, we are not asking for
a free ride. Since 1990, Maryland has invested over $124 million in
state and federal funds to improve Amtrak owned facilities. I'm sure
that Maryland does not stand alone when we say that we cannot afford to
pay for the substantial needs of Amtrak.
Maintaining a sound, efficient rail system is a national concern. We
are ever vigilant in our efforts to get people to leave their cars at
home and use mass transit in order to each congestion and lower
emissions. Since 1971, Amtrak has sought to balance competing public
service and commercial objectives without the benefit of adequate
resources to fully deliver either. The government must provide the
necessary funding and oversight that is essential for a national
passenger rail system.
We've come a long way in transportation technology since Amtrak began
its service in 1971. However, because of the condition of current rail
infrastructure and stock this progress is far from evident. I think
that it is time for Congress to ``step up to the plate.'' We need and
deserve a national passenger rail system.
We must provide adequate funding for Amtrak.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R.
2989, the Transportation-Treasury-Independent Agencies Appropriations
Act for FY 2004.
First, I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for
including $20 million for the Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON)
facility in Houston, Texas.
Houston's four million residents are served by Bush Intercontinental
Airport, Houston Hobby Airport, and Ellington Field. Together they form
one of North America's largest public airport systems and position
Houston as the international gateway to the south central United
States.
Unfortunately, the current TRACON facility was constructed in the
late 1960's and is inadequate to meet the needs at these three
airports.
The facility is in a low lying area which floods often, disrupting
air traffic, and cannot be expanded to provide the airspace capacity
needed to achieve the full benefits of the additional runway capacity
expected to be online at Bush Intercontinental in spring 2004.
Expedited construction of the new TRACON is necessary to realize the
36 percent capacity increase identified in the FAA Operational
Evolution Plan (OEP). The current state of the Houston TRACON does not
fit its place as a major hub in a modern air traffic control system.
The $20 million included in this legislation is an important first
step that will help create a new facility in a timely manner. This
funding will help resolve an urgent air traffic control facility
problem for the greater Houston, Texas area.
I am also happy to see that, on top of the East End Rail Task Force
study on rail and mobility conditions completed in February 2003 and
the Harris County/Port of Houston's $600,000 ongoing county-wide study,
there is $1 million in the House Transportation Appropriations bill for
a Freight Rail Transportation Corridor and Urban Mobility Program for
Harris County.
I worked with my Texas colleague Tom DeLay on this issue, and am glad
that the appropriators saw fit to include this important project.
The goal is to expand the work of the East End study to the entire
rail network of Harris County in order to initiate a comprehensive
approach to rail system rationalization, addressing the regional issues
associated with train routing, rail traffic levels, yard operations,
and through-traffic versus local service to quantify the safety and
mobility impact they have on residents. Researchers on this project
will work with a public-private partnership to oversee the direction
and scope of work. The partnership will include public officials, the
Port of Houston, residents, and representatives of Union Pacific and
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroads.
A consensus approach is needed because a major freight rail and
mobility plan will take significant amounts of federal, local, and
private sources of investment to complete. Such freight rail
reorganization plans have been successfully done for LA-Long Beach, CA,
Reno, NV, and one was recently announced for Chicago, IL.
Again, Mr. Chairman, these are important projects for my area, and I
am glad to see that they were included in this important bill. I'd like
to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member of this committee for
their hard work.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 2989, Chairman Istook's Fiscal Year 2004 Transportation and
Treasury Appropriations bill. Chairman Istook has worked within the
framework he was provided to put forward a fair and balanced approach
to fund the Departments of Transportation and Treasury and other
Independent Agencies.
The Chairman's bill makes a strong commitment to our nation's highway
improvements by providing $33.8 billion, which is $6.1 billion above
last year's level.
Equally as important to New Jersey is Federal support for transit
operations. As such, I commend the Chairman for including $7.23 billion
for transit program spending, which is $52 million above last year's
level. I am especially thankful that this bill provides full funding
for New Jersey's top two transit priorities, the Newark Elizabeth Rail
Link and the Hudson Bergen Light Rail projects.
Notably, every year in New Jersey, nearly 4 million passengers ride
Amtrak trains. Each day, 109 Amtrak trains operate in New Jersey. In
addition, Amtrak provides all of the maintenance and locomotive power
for the 250 daily commuter trains that are operated by New Jersey
Transit for hundreds of thousands of daily rail commuters in my home
state, which is so densely populated and depends so much on trains and
buses to minimize traffic congestion and air pollution.
By sharing the same tracks and tunnels within the Northeast Corridor
with Amtrak, New Jersey has a strong interest in seeing a stable and
continuing Amtrak operation, with increased funding! That said, the
Chairman and the Congress have every right to demand necessary reforms
of Amtrak management, strict accountability, and reasonable labor
agreements.
To be clear, I feel it is absolutely essential that we do more to
support Amtrak while making sure that it follows the committee's
direction to carry out much needed reforms.
I want to again thank the Chairman for increasing Amtrak's funding
from its original mark.
In the transportation world, the issue of safety and its importance
can never be over emphasized. Thus, the more than $77 million included
for the National Safety Transportation Board, is well directed dollars.
On the Treasury side, this bill takes important steps in our nation's
continued war on terrorism. H.R. 2989 includes critical dollars ($57.5
million) for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Included in this
funding are dollars for the establishment of the Office of Terrorist
Financing and Financial Crimes, which will help root out the financial
infrastructures that support terrorist organizations and their
murderous ways.
H.R. 2989 also includes more than $228 million for the Financial
Management Service, which is responsible for the management of Federal
finances.
For all these reasons and more, I support the Chairman Istook's
Fiscal Year 2004 Transportation and Treasury Appropriations bill, and
urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I would have amended H.R. 2989, the
Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of
2004, to address concerns about an unfunded mandate and ensure
integrity in our voting system. However, this amendment was not in
order. My amendment would have given States a waiver from compliance
with the Help America Vote Act until it is fully funded at the
authorized level. States should not have to comply with an unfunded
mandate in 2006. Many of our states are facing serious budget crises,
and worry that if they are not first in line to receive the federal
matching funds the money will run out. If this happens, the local
taxpayers will be left holding the bill for compliance with the
unfunded HAVA mandate in 2006. My amendment would not require states to
comply with the HAVA mandate until it is fully funded at the level
authorized.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires, among other things, that
each precinct have at least one Direct Recording Electronic voting
system, or DRE. However, currently these machines do not have a
permanent, auditable and individually verifiable trail. Questions
remain about whether electronic voting

[[Page H7861]]

system software could be hacked into and election results tampered
with. Until DRE machines have a verifiable audit trail, we should not
spend federal tax dollars on unreliable machines. The Help America Vote
Act was motivated by electoral integrity--we must insure that the DRE
machines meet that goal before spending millions of dollars on them and
requiring states to use them in every precinct. At a cost of $4,000 to
5,000 per DRE, we can't afford to be wrong.
In fact, at a cost of thousands of dollars per machine, many rural
precincts will have only one voting machine available for voters, and
it will have to be a DRE according to the requirements of the Help
America Vote Act. If sparsely populated rural voters are forced to vote
on DRE machines that are susceptible to fraud, we risk mass
disenfranchisement of rural voters in small precincts. This
disenfranchisement will extend to disabled voters who use a DRE to
vote, which was hardly the intent behind the voting reform legislation.
Ensuring electoral integrity and preventing vote fraud is a high
priority for me. Although I was not able to offer my amendment today, I
intend to continue to work towards solutions to these problems.
Mr. ISTOOK. 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 in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those
amendments will be considered as read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 2989

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 Departments of
Transportation and Treasury and independent agencies for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, 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,
$93,577,000, of which not to exceed $2,212,000 shall be
available for the immediate Office of the Secretary; not to
exceed $841,000 shall be available for the immediate Office
of the Deputy Secretary; not to exceed $15,560,000 shall be
available for the Office of the General Counsel; not to
exceed $12,717,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy; not to exceed
$8,630,000 shall be available for the Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Budget and Programs; not to exceed $2,518,000
shall be available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Governmental Affairs; not to exceed $28,882,000 shall be
available for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Administration; not to exceed $1,982,000 shall be available
for the Office of Public Affairs; not to exceed $1,447,000
shall be available for the Office of the Executive
Secretariat; not to exceed $730,000 shall be available for
the Board of Contract Appeals; not to exceed $1,268,000 shall
be available for the Office of Small and Disadvantaged
Business Utilization; not to exceed $16,565,000 shall be
available for the Office of the Chief Information Officer;
and not to exceed $225,000 shall be available for the Office
of Intelligence and Security: Provided, That the Secretary of
Transportation is authorized to transfer funds appropriated
for any office of the Office of the Secretary to any other
office of the Office of the Secretary: Provided further, That
no appropriation for any office shall be increased or
decreased by more than 5 percent by all such transfers:
Provided further, That any change in funding greater than 5
percent shall be submitted for approval to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations: 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: Provided further, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, excluding fees
authorized in Public Law 107-71, there may be credited to
this appropriation up to $2,500,000 in funds received in user
fees: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in
this Act shall be available for the position of Assistant
Secretary for Public Affairs.

Office of Civil Rights

For necessary expenses of the Office of Civil Rights,
$8,569,000.

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, $8,336,000.

Working Capital Fund

Necessary expenses for operating costs and capital outlays
of the Working Capital Fund, not to exceed $116,715,000,
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 Working Capital Fund 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, 2005: Provided, That notwithstanding 49 U.S.C.
332, these funds may be used for business opportunities
related to any mode of transportation.

New Headquarters Building

For necessary expenses of the Department of
Transportation's new headquarters building and related
services, $45,000,000, to remain available until expended.

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, $7,532,000,000, of which
$6,000,000,000 shall be derived from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund, of which not to exceed $6,076,724,000 shall be
available for air traffic services program activities; not to
exceed $870,505,000 shall be available for aviation
regulation and certification program activities; not to
exceed $218,481,000 shall be available for research and
acquisition program activities; not to exceed $11,776,000
shall be available for commercial space transportation
program activities; not to exceed $49,783,000 shall be
available for financial services program activities; not to
exceed $75,367,000 shall be available for human resources
program activities; not to exceed $87,749,000 shall be
available for regional coordination program activities; not
to exceed $140,429,000 shall be available for staff offices;
and not to exceed $29,681,000 shall be available for
information services: Provided, That none of the funds in
this Act shall be available for the Federal Aviation
Administration to 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 $7,500,000
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 Working Capital Fund: Provided
further, That of the amount appropriated under this heading,
not to exceed $50,000 may be transferred to the Aircraft Loan
Purchase Guarantee Program:

[[Page H7862]]

Provided further, That not later than March 1, 2004, the
Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, shall
issue final regulations, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8335,
establishing an exemption process allowing individual air
traffic controllers to delay mandatory retirement until the
employee reaches no later than 61 years of age: Provided
further, That of the funds provided under this heading,
$4,000,000 is available only for recruitment, personnel
compensation and benefits, and related costs to raise the
level of operational air traffic control supervisors to the
level of 1,726: Provided further, That none of the funds in
this Act may be obligated or expended to execute or continue
to implement a memorandum of understanding or memorandum of
agreement (or any revisions thereto) with representatives of
any FAA bargaining unit unless such document is filed in a
central registry and catalogued in an automated, searchable
database under the executive direction of appropriate
management representatives at FAA headquarters: Provided
further, That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated
or expended for an employee of the Federal Aviation
Administration to purchase a store gift card or gift
certificate through use of a government-issued credit card.

Payments to Air Carriers

(airport and airway trust fund)

For necessary expenses to carry out the essential air
service program pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 41742(a), $63,000,000,
to be derived from the airport and airway trust fund and to
be available until expended.

Facilities and Equipment

(airport and airway trust fund)

For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for
acquisition, establishment, technical support services,
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, $2,900,000,000, of which
$2,479,158,800 shall remain available until September 30,
2006, and of which $420,841,200 shall 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 in the establishment and
modernization of air navigation facilities: Provided further,
That upon initial submission to the Congress of the fiscal
year 2005 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
2005 through 2009, 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 of the funds provided for
``In-plant NAS contract support services'', $7,000,000 is
only for contract audit services provided by the Defense
Contract Audit Agency: Provided further, That of the funds
provided under this heading, $20,000,000 is available only
for the Houston Area Air Traffic System: Provided further,
That none of the funds in this Act may be obligated or
expended to implement section 106 of H.R. 2115, as passed the
House of Representatives on June 12, 2003.

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,
$108,000,000, to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and to remain available until September 30, 2006:
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 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 49 U.S.C.
44706, $3,425,000,000, 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 $3,425,000,000 in
fiscal year 2004, notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 47117(g):
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, not more than $64,904,000 of funds limited under this
heading shall be obligated for administration and not less
than $20,000,000 shall be for the Small Community Air Service
Development Pilot Program.

General Provisions--Federal Aviation Administration

Sec. 101. 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. 102. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
compensate in excess of 350 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
2004.
Sec. 103. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for engineering work related to an additional runway
at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport.
Sec. 104. None of the funds in this Act shall be used to
pursue or adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport
sponsors to provide to the Federal Aviation Administration
without cost building construction, maintenance, utilities
and expenses, or space in airport sponsor-owned buildings for
services relating to air traffic control, air navigation, or
weather reporting: Provided, That the prohibition of funds in
this section does not apply to negotiations between the
agency and airport sponsors to achieve agreement on ``below-
market'' rates for these items or to grant assurances that
require airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the
FAA for air traffic control facilities.
Sec. 105. For an airport project that the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determines will add
critical airport capacity to the national air transportation
system, the Administrator is authorized to accept funds from
an airport sponsor, including entitlement funds provided
under the ``Grants-in-Aid for Airports'' program, for the FAA
to hire additional staff or obtain the services of
consultants: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized
to accept and utilize such funds only for the purpose of
facilitating the timely processing, review, and completion of
environmental activities associated with such project.
Sec. 106. None of the funds appropriated or limited by this
Act may be used to change weight restrictions or prior
permission rules at Teterboro Airport in Teterboro, New
Jersey.
Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds
appropriated for official travel by Federal departments and
agencies may be used by such departments and agencies, if
consistent with Office of Management and Budget circular A-
126 regarding official travel for Government personnel, to
participate in the fractional aircraft ownership pilot
program.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Limitation on Administrative Expenses

Necessary expenses for administration and operation of the
Federal Highway Administration, not to exceed $359,458,000,
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.

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 $33,385,000,000 for Federal-aid
highways and highway safety construction programs for fiscal
year 2004: Provided, That within the $33,385,000,000
obligation limitation on Federal-aid highways and highway
safety construction programs, not more than $462,500,000
shall be available for the implementation or execution of
programs for transportation research (sections 502, 503, 504,
506, 507, and 508 of title 23, United States Code, as
amended; section 5505 of title 49, United States Code, as
amended; and sections 5112 and 5204-5209 of Public Law 105-
178) for fiscal year 2004: Provided further, That this
limitation on transportation research programs shall not
apply to any authority previously made available for
obligation.

Federal-Aid Highways

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(highway trust fund)

For carrying out the provisions of title 23, United States
Code, that are attributable to Federal-aid highways,
including the National Scenic and Recreational Highway as

[[Page H7863]]

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, $34,000,000,000 or so much
thereof as may be available in and derived from the Highway
Trust Fund, to remain available until expended.

(rescission)

Of the unobligated balances of funds apportioned to each
state under the program authorized under sections 1101(a)(1),
1101(a)(2), and 1101(a)(3), 1101(a)(4), and 1101(a)(5) of
Public Law 105-178, as amended, $137,000,000 are rescinded.

Federal-Aid Highways

(highway trust fund)

For an additional amount for Federal-aid highways and
highway safety construction programs pursuant to title 23,
United States Code, $400,000,000, to be derived from the
Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account) and
to remain available until expended: Provided, That amounts
under this heading shall be distributed in the same manner as
if made available under 23 U.S.C. 110: Provided further, That
the amounts under this heading shall not be subject to, or
computed against, any obligation limitation or contract
authority set forth in this Act or any other Act: Provided
further, That, before such allocation and distribution are
made, $133,450,000 shall be retained for surface
transportation projects.

General Provisions--Federal Highway Administration

Sec. 110. (a) For fiscal year 2004, 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, 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) for section 201 of the Appalachian
Regional Development Act of 1965, and $2,000,000,000 for such
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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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 highway and highway
safety construction programs for future fiscal years.
Sec. 111. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
whenever an allocation is made of the sums authorized to be
appropriated for expenditure on the Federal lands highway
program, and whenever an apportionment is made of the sums
authorized to be appropriated for expenditure on the surface
transportation program, the congestion mitigation and air
quality improvement program, the National Highway System, the
Interstate maintenance program, the bridge program, the
Appalachian development highway system, and the minimum
guarantee program, the Secretary of Transportation shall
deduct a sum in such amount not to exceed 1.35 percent of all
sums so made available, as the Secretary determines necessary
to administer the provisions of law to be financed from
appropriations for the programs authorized under chapters 1
and 2 of title 23, United States Code, and to make transfers
in accordance with section 104(a)(1)(A)(ii) of title 23,
United States Code: Provided, That any deduction by the
Secretary of Transportation in accordance with this
subsection shall be deemed to be a deduction under section
104(a)(1)(A) of title 23, United States Code, and the sum so
deducted shall remain available until expended.
Sec. 112. 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. 113. Notwithstanding any other provision of law:
(1) Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 112
Stat. 191; 115 Stat. 871) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (42), by striking ``Fulton, Mississippi,''
the first time that it appears and all that follows to the
end of the paragraph and inserting ``Fulton, Mississippi.'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(45) The United States Route 78 Corridor from Memphis,
Tennessee, to Corridor X of the Appalachian development
highway system near Fulton, Mississippi, and Corridor X of
the Appalachian development highway system extending from
near Fulton, Mississippi, to near Birmingham, Alabama.''.
(2) Section 1105(e)(5) of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032; 115
Stat. 872) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``(A) In general.--The
portions'' and all that follows through the end of the first
sentence and inserting:

[[Page H7864]]

``(A) In general.--The portions of the routes referred to
in subsection (c)(1), subsection (c)(3) (relating solely to
the Kentucky Corridor), clauses (i), (ii), and (except with
respect to Georgetown County) (iii) of subsection (c)(5)(B),
subsection (c)(9), subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20),
subsection (c)(36), subsection (c)(37), subsection (c)(40),
subsection (c)(42), and subsection (c)(45) that are not a
part of the Interstate System are designated as future parts
of the Interstate System.''; and
(B) by adding the following at the end of subparagraph
(B)(i): ``The route referred to in subsection (c)(45) is
designated as Interstate Route I-22.''.
Sec. 114. None of the funds limited or made available in
this Act shall be available to carry out 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(2).
Sec. 115. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century--
(1) item number 230 is amended by striking ``Monroe County
transportation improvements on Long Pond Road, Pattonwood
Road, and Lyell road'' and inserting ``Route 531/Brockport-
Rochester Corridor in Monroe County, New York''.
(2) Item number 1149 is amended by striking ``Traffic
Mitigation Project on William Street and Losson Road in
Cheektowaga'' and inserting ``Study and implement mitigation
and diversion options for William Street and Broadway Street
in Cheektowaga, I-90 Corridor Study; Interchange 53 to
Interchange 49, PIN 552830 and Cheektowaga Rails to Trails,
PIN 575508''.
(3) Item number 476 is amended by striking ``Expand Perkins
Road in Baton Rouge'' and inserting ``Feasibility study,
design, and construction of a connector between Louisiana
Highway 1026 and I-12 in Livingston Parish''.
(4) Item 4 of the table contained in section 1602 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, relating to
construction of a bike path in Michigan, is amended by
striking ``between Mount Clemens and New Baltimore'' and
inserting ``for the Macomb Orchard Trail in Macomb County''.
Sec. 116. Intelligent Transportation Systems appropriations
made to the State of Wisconsin in Public Law 105-277, Public
Law 106-69, and Public Law 107-87 shall not be subject to the
limitations of Public Law 105-178, sec. 5208(d), 23 U.S.C.
sec. 502 (Notes).
Sec. 117. Notwithstanding Public Law 105-178, sec. 5208(d),
Intelligent Transportation Systems appropriations for--
(1) Wausau-Stevens Point-Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, in
Public Law 105-277 and Public Law 106-69 shall be available
for use in the counties of Ashland, Barron, Bayfield,
Burnett, Chippewa, Douglas, Iron, Lincoln, Marathon, Polk,
Portage, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor, Washburn, Wood, Clark,
Langlade, and Oneida; and
(2) the City of Superior and Douglas County, Wisconsin, in
Public Law 106-69 shall be available for use in the City of
Superior and northern Wisconsin.
Sec. 118. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for
the purpose of assisting in the development, construction and
financing of additional improvements to the Alameda Corridor,
including construction of a truck expressway or other
enhancements, the Secretary of Transportation shall modify
the loan agreement entered into with the Alameda Corridor
Transportation Authority pursuant to Public Law 104-208 to
revise the interest rate to equal the average yield, as of
the date of modification of the loan agreement, on marketable
Treasury securities of similar maturity to the expected
remaining average life of the loan: Provided, That
notwithstanding any other provision of law, such modification
shall be deemed to be eligible under section 184 of title 23,
United States Code, and shall be funded under section 188 of
title 23, United States Code: Provided further, That the
Secretary may revise the interest rate or modify other terms
of the existing loan agreement to the extent that the
marginal budgetary costs, if any, of such modifications do
not exceed $80,000,000 and are funded under section 188 of
title 23, United States Code.
Sec. 119. (a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Transportation shall enter into an agreement with the State
of Nevada, the State of Arizona, or both, to provide a method
of funding for construction of a Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge
from funds allocated for the Federal Lands Highway Program
under section 202(b) of title 23, United States Code.
(b) Methods of Funding.--
(1) The agreement entered into under subsection (a) shall
provide for funding in a manner consistent with the advance
construction and debt instrument financing procedures for
Federal-aid highways set forth in section 115 and 122 of
title 23, except that the funding source may include funds
made available under the Federal Lands Highway Program.
(2) Eligibility for funding under this subsection shall not
be construed as a commitment, guarantee, or obligation on the
part of the United States to provide for payment of principal
or interest of an eligible debt financing instrument as so
defined in section 122, nor create a right of a third party
against the United States for payment under an eligible debt
financing instrument. The agreement entered into pursuant to
subsection (a) shall make specific reference to this
provision of law.
(3) The provisions of this section do not limit the use of
other available funds for which the project referenced in
subsection (a) is eligible.

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Motor Carrier Safety

(limitation on administrative expenses)

(highway trust fund)

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 $236,753,000 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)

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out 49 U.S.C. 31102, 31106
and 31309, $190,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust
Fund and to remain available until expended: Provided, That
none of the funds in this Act shall be available for the
implementation or execution of programs the obligations for
which are in excess of $190,000,000 for ``Motor Carrier
Safety Grants'' and ``Information Systems''.

Border Enforcement Program

(highway trust fund)

For necessary expenses to continue the Border Enforcement
Program authorized under section 350 of the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002,
$47,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other
than the Mass Transit Account) and to remain available until
expended.

General Provisions--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sec. 130. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
whenever an allocation is made of the sums authorized to be
appropriated for expenditure on the Federal lands highway
program, and whenever an apportionment is made of the sums
authorized to be appropriated for expenditure on the surface
transportation program, the congestion mitigation and air
quality improvement program, the National Highway System, the
Interstate maintenance program, the bridge program, the
Appalachian development highway system, and the minimum
guarantee program, the Secretary of Transportation shall
deduct a sum in such amount not to exceed .90 percent of all
sums so made available, as the Secretary determines
necessary, to administer the provisions of law to be financed
from appropriations for motor carrier safety programs and
motor carrier safety research: Provided, That any deduction
by the Secretary of Transportation in accordance with this
subsection shall be deemed to be a deduction under section
104(a)(1)(B) of title 23, United States Code, and the sum so
deducted shall remain available until expended.
Sec. 131. None of the funds appropriated, limited, or made
available in this Act shall be used to implement or enforce
any provision of the Final Rule issued on April 16, 2003
(Docket No. FMCSA-97-2350) as it applies to operators of
utility service vehicles as defined in 49 CFR section 395.2.
Sec. 132. Funds appropriated or limited in this Act shall
be subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in section
350 of Public Law 107-87, including that the Secretary submit
a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
annually on the safety and security of transportation into
the United States by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers.

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, $206,178,000, of
which $171,110,000 shall remain available until September 30,
2006: Provided, That none of the funds appropriated by this
Act may be obligated or expended to plan, finalize, or
implement any rulemaking to add to section 575.104 of title
49 of the Code of Federal Regulations any requirement
pertaining to a grading standard that is different from the
three grading standards (treadwear, traction, and temperature
resistance) already in effect.

Operations and Research

(liquidation of contract authorization)

(limitation on obligations)

(highway trust fund)

For payment of obligations incurred in carrying out the
provisions of 23 U.S.C. 403, to remain available until
expended, $72,000,000, to be derived from the Highway Trust
Fund: Provided, That none of the funds in this Act shall be
available for the planning or execution of programs the total
obligations for which, in fiscal year 2004, 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

[[Page H7865]]

the National Driver Register under chapter 303 of title 49,
United States Code, $3,600,000, 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, and 410, to remain available until expended,
$225,000,000, 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 2004, are in excess of
$225,000,000 for programs authorized under 23 U.S.C. 402,
405, and 410, of which $165,000,000 shall be for ``Highway
Safety Programs'' under 23 U.S.C. 402, $20,000,000 shall be
for ``Occupant Protection Incentive Grants'' under 23 U.S.C.
405, and $40,000,000 shall be for ``Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Countermeasures Grants'' under 23 U.S.C. 410: 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
$8,150,000 of the funds made available for section 402, not
to exceed $1,000,000 of the funds made available for section
405, and not to exceed $2,000,000 of the funds made available
for section 410 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 $2,600,000
of the funds made available for section 157, and $2,600,000
of the funds made available for section 163, shall be
available to NHTSA for administering highway safety grants
under chapter 1 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.

General Provisions--National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Sec. 140. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
States may use funds provided in this Act under section 402
of title 23, United States Code, to produce and place highway
safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema,
and print media, and on the Internet in accordance with
guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation: Provided,
That any state that uses funds for such public service
messages shall submit to the Secretary and the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations a report describing and
assessing the effectiveness of the messages: Provided
further, That $10,000,000 of the funds allocated for
innovative seat belt projects under section 157 of title 23,
United States Code, and $12,000,000 of funds allocated under
section 163 of title 23, United States Code, shall be used as
directed by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administrator, to purchase advertising in broadcast media to
support the national mobilizations conducted in all fifty
states, aimed at increasing seat belt use and reducing
impaired driving: Provided further, That up to $2,000,000 of
the funds allocated under section 163 of title 23, United
States Code, shall be used by the Administrator to evaluate
the effectiveness of alcohol-impaired driving programs that
purchase advertising as provided by this section.
Sec. 141. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the purpose of enforcing compliance with 49 CFR
section 579.24, promulgated by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration in accordance with section 30166(m) of
title 49, United States Code, with respect to trailers rated
at 26,000 pounds or less gross vehicle weight.

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Safety and Operations

For necessary expenses of the Federal Railroad
Administration, not otherwise provided for, $130,922,000, of
which $11,712,000 shall remain available until expended.

Railroad Research and Development

For necessary expenses for railroad research and
development, $28,225,000, to remain available until expended.

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

(limitation on direct loans and loan guarantees)

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 2004.

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,
$28,250,000, to remain available until expended.

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

To enable the Secretary of Transportation to make grants to
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, $900,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2004, including
$400,000,000 for quarterly grants for operating expenses,
$373,000,000 for quarterly grants for capital expenses along
the Northeast Corridor Mainline, and $127,000,000 for
quarterly grants for general capital improvements: Provided,
That the Secretary of Transportation shall approve funding to
cover operating losses and a long-distance train of the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation only after receiving
and reviewing a grant request for each specific train route:
Provided further, That each such grant request shall be
accompanied by a detailed financial analysis and revenue
projection justifying the federal support to the Secretary's
satisfaction: Provided further, That the Secretary of
Transportation and the Amtrak Board of Directors shall ensure
that, of the amount made available under this heading,
sufficient sums are reserved to satisfy the contractual
obligations of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
for commuter and intercity passenger rail service: Provided
further, That within 60 days of enactment of this Act but not
later than October 1, 2003, Amtrak shall transmit to the
Secretary of Transportation and the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations a business plan for operating
and capital improvements to be funded in fiscal year 2004
under section 24104(a) of title 49, United States Code:
Provided further, That the business plan shall include a
description of the work to be funded, along with cost
estimates and an estimated timetable for completion of the
projects covered by this business plan: Provided further,
That not later than October 1, 2003 and each month
thereafter, Amtrak shall submit to the Secretary of
Transportation and the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations a supplemental report regarding the business
plan, which shall describe the work completed to date, any
changes to the business plan, and the reasons for such
changes: Provided further, That none of the funds in this Act
may be used for operating expenses and capital projects not
approved by the Secretary of Transportation nor on the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation's fiscal year 2004
business plan: Provided further, That none of the funds under
this heading may be obligated or expended until the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation agrees to continue abiding by
the provisions of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 11 of the
summary of conditions for the direct loan agreement of June
28, 2002, in the same manner as in effect on the date of
enactment of this Act.

General Provisions--Federal Railroad Administration

Sec. 150. To authorize the Surface Transportation Board to
direct the continued operation of certain commuter rail
passenger transportation operations in emergency situations,
and for other purposes:
(a) Section 11123 of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``failure of existing commuter rail
passenger transportation operations caused by a cessation of
service by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,''
after ``cessation of operations,'';
(B) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(C) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4)(C)
and inserting ``; or''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) in the case of a failure of existing freight or
commuter rail passenger transportation operations caused by a
cessation of service by the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation, direct the continuation of the operations and
dispatching, maintenance, and other necessary infrastructure
functions related to the operations.'';
(2) in subsection (b)(3)--
(A) by striking ``When'' and inserting ``(A) Except as
provided in subparagraph (B), when''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) In the case of a failure of existing freight or
commuter rail passenger transportation operations caused by a
cessation of service by the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation, the Board shall provide funding to fully
reimburse the directed service provider for its costs
associated with the activities directed under subsection (a),
including the payment of increased insurance premiums. The
Board shall order complete indemnification against any and
all claims associated with the provision of service to which
the directed rail carrier may be exposed.'';
(3) by adding the following new paragraph at the end of
subsection (c):
``(4) In the case of a failure of existing freight or
commuter rail passenger transportation operations caused by
cessation of service by the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation, the Board may not direct a rail carrier to
undertake activities under subsection (a) to continue such
operations unless--
``(A) the Board first affirmatively finds that the rail
carrier is operationally capable of conducting the directed
service in a safe and efficient manner; and
``(B) the funding for such directed service required by
subparagraph (B) of subsection (b)(3) is provided in advance
in appropriations Acts.''; and

[[Page H7866]]

(4) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(e) For purposes of this section, the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation and any entity providing commuter rail
passenger transportation shall be considered rail carriers
subject to the Board's jurisdiction.
``(f) For purposes of this section, the term `commuter rail
passenger transportation' has the meaning given that term in
section 24102(4).''.
(b) Section 24301(c) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``11123,'' after ``except for
sections''.

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Administrative Expenses

For necessary administrative expenses of the Federal
Transit Administration's programs, $14,500,000: Provided,
That no more than $72,500,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes: Provided further, That of the
funds available not to exceed $948,000 shall be available for
the Office of the Administrator; not to exceed $6,126,000
shall be available for the Office of Administration; not to
exceed $3,848,000 shall be available for the Office of the
Chief Counsel; not to exceed $1,067,000 shall be available
for the Office of Communication and Congressional Affairs;
not to exceed $7,303,000 shall be available for the Office of
Program Management; not to exceed $6,027,000 shall be
available for the Office of Budget and Policy; not to exceed
$4,328,000 shall be available for the Office of Demonstration
and Innovation; not to exceed $2,657,000 shall be available
for the Office of Civil Rights; not to exceed $3,732,000
shall be available for the Office of Planning; not to exceed
$17,697,000 shall be available for regional offices; and not
to exceed $16,567,000 shall be available for the central
account: Provided further, That the Administrator is
authorized to transfer funds appropriated for an office of
the Federal Transit Administration: Provided further, That no
appropriation for an office shall be increased or decreased
by more than 3 percent by all such transfers: Provided
further, That any change in funding greater than 3 percent
shall be submitted for approval to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That not to
exceed $1,000,000 shall be available for travel expenses:
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
$2,200,000 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,
$767,800,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $3,839,000,000 of budget authority shall be
available for these purposes: Provided further, That
notwithstanding section 3008 of Public Law 105-178,
$50,000,000 of the funds 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''.

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,
$24,200,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That no more than $122,000,000 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)),
$60,385,600 is available for metropolitan planning (49 U.S.C.
5303, 5304, and 5305), $12,614,400 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, $5,807,020,000 to remain
available until expended, and to be derived from the Mass
Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund: Provided, That
$3,071,200,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's formula grants account: Provided further,
That $97,800,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's transit planning and research account:
Provided further, That $58,000,000 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
$64,000,000 shall be paid to the Federal Transit
Administration's job access and reverse commute grants
program: Provided further, That $2,507,220,000 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, $599,280,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That no more than $3,106,500,000 of
budget authority shall be available for these purposes:
Provided further, That there shall be available for fixed
guideway modernization, $1,214,400,000; there shall be
available for the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase
of buses and related equipment and the construction of bus-
related facilities, $677,700,000; and there shall be
available for new fixed guideway systems $1,214,400,000, to
be available as follows:
Baltimore, MD, Central Light Rail Double Track Project,
$40,000,000;
BART San Francisco Airport (SFO), CA, Extension Project,
$100,000,000;
Boston, MA, Silver Line Phase III, $3,000,000;
Charlotte, NC, South Corridor Light Rail Project,
$4,000,000;
Chicago Transit Authority, IL, Douglas Branch
Reconstruction, $85,000,000;
Chicago, IL, Metra Commuter Rail Expansions and Extensions,
$52,000,000;
Chicago, IL, Ravenswood Reconstruction, $45,000,000;
Dallas, TX, North Central Light Rail Extension,
$30,161,283;
Denver, CO, Southeast Corridor LRT (T-REX), $80,000,000;
East Side Access Project, NY, Phase I, $70,000,000;
Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Tri-Rail Commuter Project, $18,410,000;
Las Vegas, NV, Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway, $15,000,000;
Los Angeles, CA, Eastside Light Rail Transit System,
$10,000,000;
Memphis, TN, Medical Center Rail Extension, $9,247,588;
Minneapolis, MN, Hiawatha Corridor Light Rail Transit
(LRT), $74,980,000;
New Orleans, LA, Canal Street Streetcar Project,
$23,921,373;
New York, Second Avenue Subway, $3,000,000;
Newark, NJ, Rail Link (NERL) MOS1, $22,566,022;
Northern, NJ, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (MOS2),
$100,000,000;
Phoenix, AZ, Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Transit
Project, $13,000,000;
Pittsburgh, PA, Stage II Light Rail Transit Reconstruction,
$32,243,422;
Portland, OR, Interstate MAX Light Rail Extension,
$77,500,000;
Raleigh, NC, Triangle Transit Authority Regional Rail
Project, $3,000,000;
Salt Lake City, UT, Medical Center LRT Extension,
$30,663,361;
San Diego, CA, Mission Valley East Light Rail Transit
Extension, $65,000,000;
San Diego, CA, Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project,
$48,000,000;
San Juan, PR, Tren Urbano Rapid Transit System,
$43,540,000;
Seattle, WA, Sound Transit Central Link Initial Segment,
$15,000,000;
Washington, DC/MD, Largo Extension, $65,000,000;
Washington, DC/VA, Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project,
$25,000,000;
Hawaii and Alaska Ferry Boats, $10,296,000;
Oversight set-aside, $12,144,000; and
San Francisco, CA, Muni Third Street Light Rail Project,
$10,000,000;

Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for the purpose of calculating the non-New Starts share
of the total project cost of both phases of San Francisco
Muni's Third Street Light Rail Transit project for fiscal
year 2004, the Secretary of Transportation shall include all
non-New Starts contributions made towards Phase 1 of the two-
phase project for engineering, final design and construction,
and also shall allow non-New Starts funds expended on one
element or phase of the project to be used to meet the non-
New Starts share requirement of any element or phase of the
project: Provided further, That none of the funds provided in
this Act for the San Francisco Muni's Third Street Light Rail
Transit Project shall be obligated if the Federal Transit
Administration determines that the project is found to be
``not recommended'' after evaluation and computation of
revised transportation system user benefit data.
Mr. ISTOOK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the remainder of the bill through page 51, line 10 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
Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there points of order?

Points of Order

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have three points of order, and I would
like to take them one at a time.

[[Page H7867]]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his points of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the provision
found on page 9 beginning on line 14 and ending on line 15. The phrase
``to be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and.'' This is
an unauthorized appropriations from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund
in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that my
colleague from Florida made this point of order, but in the event that
he did, I must insist that the point of order be applied to the entire
paragraph and not only to provisions within the paragraph to which the
gentleman from the authorizing committee objects.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is extended to the entire paragraph.
Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we would concede the point of order as
extended as the Chair has stated to the entire paragraph.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. That
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have a second point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the provision found on
page 12 beginning with the word ``for'' on line 12 through ``49 USC
44706'' on line 16 and again on page 12, line 22 beginning with the
words ``provided further'' through page 13, line 2. This would fund
administrative expenses of the Airport Improvement Program, AIP, and
the cost of the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program
from contract authority that is authorized only for airport grants, not
administrative expenses or other programs. It would also waive existing
law. Both the proviso and this related language are legislative in
nature and, therefore, in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again, I must insist that the
point of order be applied to the entire paragraph and not only to
provisions within the paragraph to which the gentleman from the
authorizing committee objects.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that it applies to the entire
paragraph, namely, from line 1 on page 12 through line 2 on page 13, to
that extent, applying to that entirety, we would concede the point of
order, but only to that extent.
The CHAIRMAN. Does anyone else wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the point of order is conceded and sustained and the
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have a third and final point of order I
would like to offer on behalf of myself and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of section 105
which begins on page 14, line 16 through page 15, line 2. That section
authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to accept funds from an
airport sponsor to expedite the environmental review process for
airport projects that would add critical airport capacity to the
National Air Transportation System. The conference report on H.R. 15
contains a provision that is similar but, in fact, broader in scope.
The language in H.R. 15 will allow the FAA to accept funds from an
airport sponsor in order to facilitate the timely processing, review
and completion of environmental activities associated with any airport
development project.
To avoid the confusion that could arise from the enactment of two
inconsistent provisions, I object to section 105 on the grounds that it
is legislative in nature and in violation of clause 2, rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we would concede this point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and
section 105 is stricken from the bill.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I have 15 points of order to the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, I make a point of order against the provision found
on page 17, lines 6 through 11. This provision would rescind $137
million in unobligated balances of Highway Contract Authority.
Under this provision, each State Department of Transportation would
lose funds from the Surface Transportation Program, the Congestion
Mitigation Air Quality Program, the National Highway System Program,
the Interstate Maintenance Program, and the Bridge Program. This will
reduce each State's ability to move funds from one category to another
within its obligation limitation and will be particularly harmful given
that States may soon need to use their unobligated balances to continue
their programs pending enactment of a long term reauthorization of
surface transportation programs. The creation and recision of contract
authority is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. This decision is legislative in
nature and in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, although the effect of the amendment,
unfortunately, is to add $137 million which we do not have in the
budget authority to the underlying bill, thereby complicating the
efforts to ultimately achieve a successful conference with the Senate,
nevertheless, we must concede that the point of order is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?

If not, the point of order is conceded and sustained, and that
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 110
which begins on page 18 and ends on page 23, line 15. Section 110
specifies the distribution of funds for the Federal-aid Highways
Program. I expect that this Congress will extend the existing highway
program for a period of time. If we do so, this provision will create
confusion and conflict and is unnecessary. This entire section is
legislative in nature, in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, although the effect of this point of order
would be to remove the distribution formula and leave us in limbo,
which we hope to ultimately correct, nevertheless, we must concede the
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Anyone wishing to be heard?
If not, the point of order is conceded and sustained, and section 110
is stricken from the bill.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against section 111
which begins on page 23, line 16 and ends on page 24, line 12. Section
111 increases the Federal Highway administrative takedown authorized in
23 USC 104(a) from one and one-sixth percent to 1.35 percent. It would
also waive existing law. This is legislative in nature, in violation of
clause 2 of rule XXI.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we unfortunately must concede the point of
order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and
section 111 is stricken from the bill.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the last two
provisos of section 118 on page 28, line 19 beginning with ``provided''
and through page 29, line 3.
Section 118 directs the Secretary of Transportation to modify a
specific loan agreement and to have the proposed loan modification
funded under the Transportation and Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act Program. By statute, eligibility for federally
guaranteed loans under the TIFIA program is determined by the Secretary
of Transportation in accordance with rigorous and selective criteria.
It also waives existing law. Waiving existing law is legislative in
nature and violates clause 2 of House rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member wish to be heard?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I feel the need to speak a little bit in
greater length because of the consequences of this point of order.
This point of order would strike the final two provisos in section
218 but leave intact the remainder of that section. Those provisos that
would be stricken would ensure that the loan refinancing of the Alameda
Corridor Transportation Authority are subsumed, that is, contained
within the

[[Page H7868]]

Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act and thereby would
limit the overall expense of this refinancing to $80 million.
The effect of the amendment is to increase, again, the cost of our
bill by upwards of $160 to $170 million in budget authority and a
similar number in outlays.
The reason the committee included section 118 as written is to ensure
that the refinancing of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority
can be funded through the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act Program and that the cost of that refinancing to the
Federal Government will not exceed $80 million.
If the point of order is sustained, the refinancing costs will no
longer be limited and it cannot be paid for from the TIFIA program. The
effect of the elimination of these provisos may cause the Congressional
Budget Office to increase their scoring of the bill by the $160 to $170
million. That would put the bill well over our 302(b) allocation.

{time} 1415

We have already had another point of order that pushed us above that
allocation. We cannot afford this change. The effect of sustaining the
point of order could be to make it impossible to do this refinancing
that is crucial in the Alameda corridor. So I would ask the gentleman
to consider the serious financial effect of his point of order and
consider withdrawing the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any other Members wish to be heard on the point of
order? If not, the Chair finds that this provision explicitly
supersedes existing law. The provision, therefore, constitutes
legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI. The point of order is
sustained, and section 118 is stricken from the bill.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law'' found on page 31, line
5. 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 any Member wish to be heard on the gentleman's
point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and that
language is stricken from the bill.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase
``to be derived from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass
Transit Account)'' on page 31, lines 19 through the word ``account'' on
line 21. This section appropriates $47 million from the Highway Trust
Fund for the border enforcement program. There is no current
authorization of a border enforcement program. This language clearly
constitutes an unauthorized appropriation in violation of clause 2 of
rule XXI of the rules of the House of Representatives.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member wishing to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again, I must insist that the
point of order be applied to the entire paragraph and not just to the
provision within the paragraph to which the gentleman from the
authorizing committee objects.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other Member wishing to be heard?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that the point of order is
correctly applied against the entire paragraph, namely, the text from
page 31, lines 14 through lines 21 to its entirety and not just to a
portion thereof, to that extent and only that extent we would concede
the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other Members wishing to be heard on the
point of order? The point of order is conceded and sustained, and the
paragraph is stricken from the bill.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against all of
section 130 which begins on page 31, line 24. This section authorizes
an administrative takedown that exceeds the one-third of 1 percent
administrative takedown authorized by section 104(a)(1)(B) of Title 23.
It also violates existing law. This increase is legislative in nature
in violation of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member wishing to be heard?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order against this
section.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and
section 130 is stricken from the bill.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law'' found on page 34, line
24. 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. Is there any Member wishing to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and that
language is stricken from the bill.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the two
provisos which begin on page 36, line 17 starting with the words
``provided further'' through page 37, line 5. These provisos of section
104 earmark the manner in which certain safety-related grants are to be
used by the States. These unauthorized earmarks reduce both the amount
of funding available to the States and the States' discretion in the
use of these funds. I object to these earmarks on the grounds that they
are unauthorized, in violation of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member wishing to be heard on this point
of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, despite the negative consequences, we
believe we must concede this point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and those
two provisos are stricken from the bill.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the proviso
that begins at the end of line 16 on page 45 through line 23. This
proviso purports to transfer $50 million provided by TEA for the clean
fuels bus formula grant program to the transit bus discretionary grant
program, where it is distributed not by the statutory formula
envisioned in TEA but rather by earmarks in report language. It also
waives existing law. This proviso is legislative in nature in violation
of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member wishing to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and that
proviso is stricken from the bill.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law'' found on page 46, line
25. 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 any Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we concede this point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained, and that
language is stricken from the bill.
Mr. PETRI. I have additional points of order, but they are starting
on page 51 which would that be in order at this point?
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman seek to raise a point of order on
page 50?
Mr. PETRI. No. Page 51, line 12 is my next point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The bill is read only through line 10 on page 51. Are
there any other points of order against provisions in his portion of
the bill? If not, are there any amendments?

Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Istook:
On page 6, line 9 of the bill, delete ``$6,000,000,000''
and insert in lieu thereof ``$4,043,000,000''.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple and straightforward
amendment. It lowers the amount for the Federal Aviation
Administration's operating budget that would be coming from the
Aviation Trust Fund, changing the amount that comes from the Aviation
Trust Fund from $6 billion to $4.043 billion. The remainder, however,
would remain appropriated, but from general revenue.
The amended figure is the amount that would be allowed under the
current aviation authorization if it were

[[Page H7869]]

to be extended until fiscal year 2004. The amount originally under the
bill, the $6 billion, was the amount proposed by the administration in
the President's budget.
The effect is that the funding in the bill for this purpose will
remain the same. It will remain $6 billion of overall funding. It is
just that the source will be slightly over $4 billion from the Aviation
Trust Fund and slightly under $2 billion in general revenue fund.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had raised an
objection to the higher Aviation Trust Fund figure. They had suggested
a potential point of order might lie against it as an unauthorized
appropriation. So we worked this out with the authorizers, and I know
of no objection to it.
This does not add funding to the bill. This does not take funding
from the bill. It only changes the mix of general fund and trust fund
dollars used to finance the FAA.
I ask for adoption of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member seeking time in opposition to the
amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Hoyer

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

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Hoyer:
Page 2, line 8, after the first dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $8,268,000)''.

Page 5, line 21, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $8,268,000)''.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment will be to
transfer $8.2 million from the construction fund for the transportation
building which we have cleared cannot be spent this year in 2004. It
will be spent in 2006, and we did not want to damage that building
because we are very strong supporters of that building, and put $8.26
million for the general aviation airports into the Washington
metropolitan area. I would like to speak about it and then have a
little discussion with the chairman and then perhaps take some action
and we can work on this later.
In the aftermath, Mr. Chairman, of the September 11 terrorist
attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration issued temporary flight
restrictions on the small aircraft of general aviation as part of its
efforts to make commercial air travel safer. Unfortunately, while those
restrictions were lifted for general aviation in the entire rest of the
country, small airports in the Washington metropolitan area have
continued to languish under binding restrictions of their operations.
These are private sector. This is not public. These are private
sector entrepreneurs, businessmen and -women who have invested their
dollars in the operations of these general aviation airports. In fact,
the only airports in the country that are closed or severely restricted
to incoming and outgoing general aviation are Reagan National Airport
and the three D.C. general aviation airports.
I might say that I offer this amendment on behalf of the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and others and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) is here. He can speak for himself. As a
result, these small airports, specifically College Park Airport,
Potomac Airfield, Washington Executive, and National, National is not
on the brink of financial collapse, obviously, because it is associated
with a large public airport. The other three airports, however, are not
in that situation. They survive or fail solely on the revenues from
their general aviation, and they are in dire straits. These airports
have been forced to nearly cease their operations, effectively
endangering the livelihood of their employees who have lost income and
jobs and airport owners who have lost longtime customers and almost all
of their revenue.
There is no doubt that we must stem the tide of economic decline for
general aviation. This industry is a proven integral part of the
Nation's economy, providing vital service and economic stability to
individual families, churches, hospitals, colleges, industry, small
businesses and communities.
Aviation transportation in Maryland is a $1.3 billion industry. My
amendment is, therefore, very simple. It will reimburse these general
aviation airports for the security costs incurred and revenue foregone
because of government restriction.
Let me say, I have had discussions with Sean O'Keefe, who is now the
administrator of NASA, but who was the deputy administrator of OMB. He
believes this is fair. Secretary Mineta testified before our
subcommittee that this was their proposal that this be done, and there
is legislation pending to accomplish that, but obviously it needs an
appropriation.
Mr. Chairman, I want to yield to the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) who represents the District of Columbia and
National Airport.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to thank the gentleman for
the leadership he has given to this issue to mitigate some of the
almost total losses of the airports in this district which handle
charter flights and commercial flights. This is the Nation's Capital.
One can imagine a major business destination without any charter
flights for almost 2 years.
What we are asking for is a pittance compared to what the losses have
been. Originally I think the amendment was $15 million. It is now $8.2
million.
I do want to indicate that these airports I think are three small
ones, in Maryland, perhaps Virginia, and there is, of course, the
larger one here in the District. They said whatever regulations, in
fact, that we come forward with they will meet. Instead they have been
closed. At the very least what we have got here is close to a taking.
We ought to compensate them somewhat for what they have done. We
compensated all the other airlines. There is no other commercial
aviation in the United States, indeed in the world, that is closed
today except in this region.
We ask for forbearance and for some compensation. That is all it
would be, some compensation.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her work and her
cosponsorship of this amendment and her comments.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend from
Maryland for taking leadership on this, and my colleague from the
District. I have asked the chairman of the subcommittee, I know he is
interested in this as well.
This is something that 9/11 shut these airports down. They are
actually very, very important to the Nation's security here in terms of
ingress and egress, and we have, I think, a national interest in
preserving these. As was stated before, it is just a pittance, but it
is important to keep them economically viable.
Let me ask the chairman of the committee can he work with us to make
sure that in conference this money is included if he is not comfortable
with where this money is coming from at this point.

{time} 1430

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the comments of each
of the gentlemen. As I believe everyone is aware, originally my mark as
chairman included funds for this purpose when it came out of the
subcommittee. Unfortunately, when other extremely large demands were
imposed upon the bill, including demand for Amtrak and other things,
this and many other worthwhile things had to be dropped out of the bill
in full committee in that process. Nevertheless, the underlying
equities, I think, are very much as the gentleman has stated.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hoyer was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)

[[Page H7870]]

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the chairman of the
subcommittee
Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman.
As I was mentioning, this and many other meritorious things,
unfortunately, had to be dropped out in full committee not because they
lacked merit but simply because of the funding restrictions.
As I have certainly told the gentleman from Maryland, the gentleman
from Virginia, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, I
remain committed to addressing this. I believe the equities are there.
Frankly, I believe the government is open to an inverse condemnation
litigation that would cost us even more. So it is something I do hope
we can accomplish in the conference process with the Senate.
I stated that previously, and originally had that intent and put that
in my original chairman's mark. So while I remain committed to that
objective, it is just that we had to balance this with the overall
figures in the ultimate House-Senate conference. But I most definitely
am committed to working with my colleagues towards the same goal.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for
his comments and would remind my colleagues that we have given billions
of dollars to the airlines, these are billion dollar corporations, as a
result of 9-11. These three little airports, plus National Airport, are
the only private business people so situated in the airline industry
who have not received compensation. And they, unlike the airlines per
se, are losing their entire investments because of their inability to
operate these airlines.
I appreciate the chairman's observations with respect to the equities
of the claim here. I also appreciate the observation of the chairman
and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia that we may be
subject to a lawsuit which we would lose because this is in fact an
effective taking of their property without due process. None of these
folks want to damage the security of this region or the White House or
the Capitol. They understand our concern. But we certainly need to
compensate them.
In light of the fact the chairman has indicated his willingness to
work with us to try to ensure the funding, I believe $8.2 million which
we have in here is the approximate amount for National, a larger sum,
and then a much smaller sum for the other three; and I believe that the
sum from which we have taken it will not in any way adversely affect
the Transportation Department's building going forward because of the
scheduling of those expenditures; but because the chairman has made
that representation, I will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at
this time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my good
friend, the gentleman from Maryland, as well as the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf); and I
know several of the Senators in this area are supporting this as well.
This is terribly important to our economy in the Washington region, but
also to the Nation's economy.
We have pretty much recovered on the surface of things from 9-11, at
least we have rebuilt the Pentagon, we are now functioning as well as
we can at National Airport in terms of commercial jets and we are
responding to national and international challenges. But general
aviation is in the same situation it was when it was closed as a result
of the tragedy of September 11, 2001. This is unfair. It is wrong. We
have to do something about it.
Outside the infrequent use of official government planes, general
aviation operations at National Airport are prohibited. There were more
than 60,000 business aviation flights a year at National Airport. It
was not the kind of mom and pop Cessnas and Piper Cubs that were
bringing visitors to Washington to tour the Capitol and the museums; it
was business executives, top government officials, and CEOs who need
their own aircraft and need the efficiency of an airport close to the
city to do their business.
This is hurting Washington's economy, and it is devastating a company
like Signature Flight Support, which is the sole provider of general
aviation services at National Airport. They were generating revenues of
$20 million a year. They had hundreds of employees. Those people are
out of a job. Signature Flight Support has lost about $3 million, $1
million a year, and it is hemorrhaging money every single day.
Under the terms of its lease, it is required to staff and operate
National Airport 24 hours a day, 7 days a week regardless of whether
there is any demand for its services. For 8 months, the Department of
Transportation worked with them. They said that they were going to be
able to open the airport, and it encouraged Signature to stay in
business. But then on July 19 of 2002, Secretary Mineta informed
airport officials that general aviation would remain closed
indefinitely for security reasons. They have lost too much money. They
have had to lay off too many people, and it is not fair to expect them
to maintain Federal Government planes when that is not their job. Their
job is to service all of general aviation, and we shouldn't be
preventing them from doing their job.
This has not gone unnoticed by the House, and I want to thank those
on the authorizing committee. There is a provision in the Aviation
Reauthorization Act that authorizes funds to help general aviation
activities that have been hurt by these security restrictions. With the
adoption of the Hoyer amendment, we would be able to fulfill the
legislation's intent and actually provide some very needed relief to
those businesses that are suffering through no fault of their own.
This is a Federal responsibility. We really ought to fund the Hoyer
amendment. We ought to get these businesses back on their feet. They
have a right to recover from 9-11 too.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman for his
leadership in this effort as well. He and I have worked very closely on
this issue and he has been very focused on National and the other three
airports.
It is certainly ironic that we are making efforts, I think
appropriate efforts, to fund infrastructure in Iraq; but we cannot
compensate business people who were damaged by 9-11 and who are almost
driven out of business at a very, as the chairman said, at a relatively
nominal sum. So I hope with the chairman's leadership we will be able
to do this in conference.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the
gentleman very much and would add one last word. This is not a security
threat. We know everybody that is on these planes, and they are the
last people that would engage in any kind of terrorism. It is a much
safer passenger list, I have to say, than the normal population that
gets on a commercial airline flight. We don't really know much about
them except what they might be carrying in their shoes or something.
This is not a security issue; it is an economic issue and an issue of
fairness. General aviation needs to be opened.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri:
Strike section 114 of the bill and redesignate subsequent
sections of the bill accordingly.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I am joined by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and several other Members in offering an
amendment that would strike section 114 of the bill.
This provision, as described in the committee report, ``discontinues
the mandatory 10 percent set-aside from the surface transportation
program for the transportation enhancement program.''
Mr. Chairman, this is wrong on many levels, and the provision should
be stricken from the bill. Over the last 12 years, enhancements have
become an appreciated and important part of our transportation program.
Though individual projects are not costly, enhancements nevertheless
pack a big punch in

[[Page H7871]]

terms of promoting economic growth and tourism. They fund bike paths
that are enjoyed by families on a Saturday morning. They complete
street-scape projects that revitalize the neighborhood. They improve
our quality of life and have become important to communities across our
country. All of them have a transportation-related purpose.
It has been said that we need to give State transportation
departments the flexibility to decide how to spend their money. Well,
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
which is known by the phrase AASHTO, support the amendment. They have
come to value the contributions of this program.
In reference to diversions, I would like to point out that nonhighway
recreational users contribute, according to the estimate of the
Treasury Department and the Transportation Department, up to $268
million a year in gas taxes to the highway trust fund. I trust that in
the last several decades recreational users still have contributed more
than they have received since we created this program.
It has been said that we need to eliminate the enhancements program
because we are billions short for covering our basic highway and bridge
needs. I am glad there is recognition of the need to invest in our
transportation systems, but I daresay that eliminating this $600
million program is not the answer to our funding needs. Finally,
Members should be aware that the President's reauthorization proposal,
which was just recently submitted, continues to dedicate funding for 10
enhancement programs.
While this amendment should pass on the merits of the program alone,
I must also say that it is wrong to use the appropriations process to,
in essence, rewrite the transportation program and allow funds now
dedicated for enhancements to be used for other purposes. This is more
appropriately the function of the authorizing committee.
In short, Mr. Chairman, State Departments of Transportation through
their organizations support this amendment; counties support the
amendment; cities support this amendment; environmental groups support
the amendment; AARP supports it; bike, architects, conservation and
historic conservation groups support it. Recreation and travel groups
support it. Even various health groups and the Paralyzed Veterans of
America have expressed support. And the list goes on. It is not a
State's rights issue. The States have spoken. They want to retain
dedicated funding for transportation enhancements.
Mr. Chairman, let us follow the lead of our President and continue
dedicated funding for transportation enhancements by passing this
amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we understand more
correctly what we are talking about here. We are talking about money
that comes from the fuel taxes. When we drive a car or we drive a
truck, we pay a fuel tax. Where does that money go? Right now, for
every $6 in fuel taxes paid, $1 never even goes back to highways
because it goes to mass transit funding.
That is one of the reasons that we have a $400 billion backlog in
road needs in this country. That is one of the reasons we have tens of
thousands of unsafe bridges. It is one of the reasons we have tens of
thousands of miles of roads that need improvement, that need to be
safer, that need wider shoulders or better dividing. It is one of the
reasons we lose billions of dollars each year in productivity because
we do not necessarily pick our priorities right.
It is not a question of whether it is nice and whether people say,
yes, we would like to have a program to build more bike trails and
pedestrian ways, and what has not been mentioned is that this money
also goes for things like transportation museums and so forth. Of
course people want that money. But if we ask them what is more
important to them, is it more important to have the enhancements or to
take care of the basics, this bill says that rather than having to take
10 percent, as the current standard requires, 10 percent of the surface
transportation dollars and put them into the transportation
enhancements, the pedestrian ways, the bike ways, the museums, they
must, they must do it right now, we say let them have a choice. Let
them work on improving safety first, if they say that is the highest
priority. For goodness sake, put the money where the priority is the
highest. Not just because people say, sure, I like this program, but is
it the most important thing in a Nation with a $400 billion backlog
because the highway trust fund has been decreasing.
Every year this program is taking $600 million paid for by drivers
and putting it into everything but roads through this transportation
enhancement program.

{time} 1445

Let the States have a choice. Let them decide for themselves where
their priorities are highest. I ask Members, they come to me and they
say they need funding for a road. If Members vote that they do not
think roads are their highest priority, do not ask for money for roads
if Members want to divert that money.
This provision is about options, letting people make priority
decisions. We should not try to dictate to the States from Washington,
D.C. that they cannot spend the money that drivers pay to relieve the
congestion drivers are experiencing, and they have to spend it on other
things. We should not be doing that.
We have spent billions of dollars already that our roads needed that
were mandated for these things. It is time to give communities a
choice, not a commandment. That is what the amendment is about. The
bill gives them a choice. The amendment says States do not have a say,
they must take the money paid by drivers and put it into things that do
not move as many people and do not move the goods and do not relieve
the congestion and do not improve safety. They are definitely nice
things to have, but when we have limited money, we have to make tough
decisions. We are tying to make the tough decisions.
I hope that every Member that thinks they have roads that are
important in their community will remember whether they voted to say
our communities should be able to address those needs, or Washington is
dictating and saying they have no say in the matter, States are
compelled to take 10 percent of their surface transportation dollars
and take them away from the people who paid at the pump for roads.
And do not tell me we need to adjust fuel taxes upward if we are not
using the money rightly that we get right now. If we are not using the
money for the intended purpose, if we are not honoring a trust fund
principle and using user fees properly, for goodness sake, do not be
asking to raise the fuel tax. There is some money paid by recreational
people. We have $50 million in an off-road fund already to pay for
trails. We have millions more in other provisions in this bill to pay
for rails-to-trails, to pay for pedestrian ways, to pay for bikeways.
We have some of those projects in this bill. There are some with merit;
but we should not be dictating to the States what they do with the
money their taxpayers pay, and it is coming back to them with a mandate
to divert it. I ask for the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the conference committee for both ISTEA and TEA-21,
I was totally immersed in developing the transportation enhancements
program and ensuring its long-term viability. As authorizers, we were
very specific about the 10 percent mandatory set-aside and feel that
section 114 of the fiscal year 2004 Transportation, Treasury and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Act changes the laws that this
House created. This constitutes a major legislative change in the
highway bill and is without question the wrong way to go.
The transportation enhancement program accounts for a mere 2 percent
of the overall funding of the highway program. Many people do not
realize this because while the funding amount may be small, the
benefits local communities receive make a tremendous impact on the
character and vitality of towns and villages across America.
Transportation enhancements have improved the health and environment
as well as the economic well-being of our communities by funding more
than

[[Page H7872]]

17,000 projects. These projects have ranged from restoring streetscapes
on local main streets to preserving landmark roads and bridges to
revitalizing old transportation facilities.
Transportation enhancements create an environment where cyclists and
pedestrians can safely coexist with motorists while also improving the
landscape of a community. Nationwide communities have enhancement
projects that they are very proud of. Whether a trail or a bike lane or
a streetscape enhancement or a pedestrian bridge, these small projects
are oftentimes how a community identifies itself and takes great pride
in these projects with tourists and visitors, and that produces
economic vitality. These projects also help to decrease congestion and
improve the quality of the air we breathe, further adding to the
quality of our life.
I could go on and on listing various groups that support
transportation enhancements and benefit from them. They range from
mayors and Governors and park directors to hikers and bikers and
farmers. My own State Department of Transportation has requested us to
make the set aside mandatory because of the tremendous benefits derived
from the program. To appreciate the value of the transportation
enhancements program, one needs only to imagine the pathways teaming
with strollers and rollerbladers and people biking to work. Picture the
historic transportation structures that have breathed life and vitality
into declining downtown areas.
Mr. Chairman, I included for the Record the remainder of my
statement, and urge strong support of the Petri-Olver enhancement
amendment.
The enhancement program has encouraged communities to come together
and craft a vision for revitalizing their downtown areas, for
constructing networks of pathways along creeks and rivers, and for
preserving the transportation history of this country.
This process builds support from a broad swath of interests,
including elected officials, business owners, walkers, bicyclists, fans
of historic preservation and neighbors. The Enhancement program serves
as a catalyst, leveraging more local investment, as one project builds
support for the next. Our investment in the Transportation Enhancement
program is modest, but the rewards are immeasurable. I urge strong
support of the Petri/Olver amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me start by commending the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Petri) for his leadership in presenting this amendment. I want to
point out and remind Members that this amendment has been cosponsored
by a bipartisan group from both sides of the aisle, including myself on
the Committee on Appropriations, several members from the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, and several Members who have no
connection with the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or
the Committee on Appropriations. This is truly a bipartisan amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike section 114
to preserve the enhancement program as it has been authorized and in
law for the last 12 years.
Make no mistake, a vote against this amendment would cripple the
extremely popular enhancement program. The transportation enhancement
program created in 1991 in the ISTEA bill was designed to help
communities expand transportation choices. Enhancement funds are used
to create alternative means of transportation such as bicycle trails
and pedestrian walkways which are directly associated with roadways.
Enhancements also include the renovation of streetscapes, scenic roads,
beautifications, and preservation and investment in the reuse of
historic transportation infrastructure that creates both jobs and
community amenities.
Congress in both ISTEA and the TEA-21 bill, and now the
administration in its transportation reauthorization proposal,
determined that a small portion, about 2 percent of our $30-plus
billion every year that goes into the highway program, should be used
for these kinds of projects. From 1998 to 2003, a total of $4 billion
was provided to the States for these enhancements, of which almost $3
billion had been obligated by the middle of this year.
But there is a more telling statistic: From 1971 to 1991, the 20
years before there was an authorized and overwhelmingly voted and
agreed to set-aside for enhancements, only $40 million was spent
nationwide on bike and pedestrian paths, by far the largest component
of the enhancement program. Yet under the authorized ISTEA and TEA-21
legislation, in those 12 years from 1991 until now, over $2.2 billion
out of a total of almost $300 billion for highway programs, only that
small amount has actually been allocated and directed in this manner
for such bike and pedestrian paths. This occurred largely because of
the guaranteed funding designated for enhancements over those two
authorization bills which, as I point out again, have been voted for,
established by the Congress and voted for by overwhelming numbers.
Without the guaranteed authorized set-aside, the program will perish.
The fact is Congress has set-asides for many transportation activities.
We have them for safety, for interstate maintenance, for bridges and
many other areas. These enhancements should be no different.
Enhancements are popular and a needed component of a balanced
transportation policy. Hundreds of Members in this body requested money
for enhancements, and a good many of those projects are included in
this very bill. In fact, the list includes such things as a Hot Springs
Bike Trail in Arkansas, Independence Biking Road Access in Kansas,
Mountain Bay Trail in Wisconsin, Riverfront Trail in Georgia, the Salk
Trail in Illinois, the Toledo Waterfront Redevelopment in Ohio, the
Anacostia Riverwalk in the District of Columbia, and the list goes on
and on. They include projects that have major social and economic
benefits and provide jobs, like the Union Station rehabilitation
project in Meridian, Mississippi, funded by enhancements that spurred
$10 million of private investment in the Depot District, and the
Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development has estimated that the River
Heritage Museum, funded by enhancements, will bring in $20 million to
the Paducah area over 5 years.
We should continue more than a decade of success and bipartisan
support for this very popular enhancement program. If Members support
the enhancement program and believe in a balanced transportation bill,
they will vote for the Petri amendment that so many other names have
been associated with, including my own, and I urge an aye vote on the
amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my support for the Petri-Olver
amendment. I support this amendment because nearly every community in
the Second Congressional District of Kentucky has benefited from
enhancement program funding.
During the August recess, I spoke with people who know the importance
of this funding. Everything from streetscaping to structural
rehabilitation to historic preservation has been helped due to the
availability of these funds. By keeping the mandatory 10 percent set-
aside, Kentuckians will see an enhanced quality of life and our
Nation's heritage will stay alive for this and future generations.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The issue at hand
is relatively simple. The transportation enhancement program is about
our communities and the enhancement and the empowerment of localities.
As a Member who has served on the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure for going on 27 years now, and a former chairman as well
as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Highways, I can recall that
this was somewhat of a radical proposal when we adopted it back in
1991.
Prior to that, Federal highway legislation was largely viewed as the
bastion of the States, highway contractors, asphalt, cement and steel
manufacturers. The enhancement program transcended those interests and
brought a relatively small portion of a State's annual Federal highway
apportionment directly to local communities for local community
projects. As I have said, a somewhat radical proposal perhaps in 1991,
but certainly not

[[Page H7873]]

today, which is why after this program has worked so well over these
past 12 years, it is odd that it is suddenly under attack.
Every Member of this body has a community where the lifestyle of its
people have been enhanced by this program, where people have been drawn
closer together and the old-fashioned American values are again
flourishing as a result of enhancement projects.
In Princeton, West Virginia, for example, the community is being
revitalized, partly as a result of a railroad museum partially funded
under this program. In Milton, West Virginia, a historic covered
bridge, cherished by the community, was rehabilitated under this
program. And throughout the State, rails-to-trails, bike and pedestrian
facilities, safety projects, and scenic beautification initiatives are
enhancing the quality of life.

{time} 1500

I am sure as we have already heard that all Members of this body have
similar projects in their districts, projects that serve local
communities, provide for families and children and which deliver so
much in the way of benefits for relatively small cost.
I say let us stay the course. Vote for the Petri-Olver amendment. If
changes are really needed to be made in this program, let us consider
them in the normal legislative process as part of the TEA-21
reauthorization rather than going through the back door approach taken
by the pending legislation.
So I urge support of the pending amendment.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I find no small amount of irony. Yesterday, we were
celebrating the accomplishments of that great American Lance Armstrong
for his prodigious bicycle accomplishments, and today we are moving to
gut the enhancements program that extends the benefits of cycling to
millions of Americans.
I heard the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee speak to a
couple of points. One, he talked about choice in transportation. Well,
the fact is today, under the enhancement programs, there is choice that
is available. States have the opportunity of flexing money in and out
of the enhancements program if that is their priority.
The fact is that this is a priority for people if they have the focus
of an enhancement program. The gentleman talked about safety. There is
less than 1 percent of the money spent on 7 percent of the trips that
are cycling and pedestrian, and they account for 13 percent of the
fatalities.
If the gentleman was concerned about safety, I would suggest that
maybe we would increase the funding in these enhancement programs.
These are programs where people have indicated they want choices.
There are national surveys that indicate, in fact, over half the
American public would put more money into bike and pedestrian
activities even if it meant less money for roads. The fact is, under
the bill that has been offered up, we do not have this either/or
situation. All we have to do in striking section 114 is maintain the
status quo and the integrity of the enhancements program. This is the
single most popular Federal aid highway program for the Federal
Government.
As chair of the Bikes Caucus, I can tell my colleagues that the
bicycle interests are a vital part of each and every one of your
communities. There are over 50 million American bicycle customers that
have 100 million bikes. These have 80 million people employed in this
industry in every one of our districts. They epitomize small town,
small business ownership.
But it speaks also to pedestrians, to handicapped. I am not at all
dismissive of issues of parks and museums and historic preservation.
Each Member has received an outstanding memorandum from the National
Trust for Historic Preservation that points out that this is the single
largest area for funding historic preservation-related activities. It
has been invaluable in mitigating the damage that transportation
projects can do to historic places.
Since I have been in Congress, I have been privileged to visit over
100 communities dealing with issues of things that make those
communities more livable. Every place we go, people focus in on the
programs that deal with the enhancements program.
It would be a tragedy at a time when the media is filled with reports
of the obesity epidemic among our children, when we have an energy
crisis, when we found just last week medical studies that talked about
communities that have the facilities that the enhancement program gives
are six pounds on average lighter and have lower blood pressure, that
this Congress in its first full day back after Labor Day would vote to
cut it.
This last few days there has been a marvelous coalition quietly
moving on Capitol Hill. Sadly, I think they have been almost too quiet
because they represent millions of Americans who care about historic
preservation, who care about fitness, who care about the revitalization
of central cities, retrofitting sprawling suburbs, helping our children
get to school safely, fighting the obesity epidemic.
They have visited every office, provided critical information about
how the enhancements funding has made a difference in every State of
the Union.
This enhancements program was born under a Republican administration
and a Democratic caucus. It has enjoyed broad bipartisan support ever
since.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Petri-Olver amendment to
retain the integrity of the enhancements program and make sure that our
communities are more livable and make our families safe, healthy, and
more economically secure.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I also rise in very strong support of this amendment.
The interstate highway system was established in the 1950s, and it has
served this country very well. The Congress is very proud of what it
has done. But transportation has evolved. We have other
responsibilities. We need to be concerned about the traffic congestion
that we are generating, the deteriorating air quality, the loss of open
space, and, as some other of our colleagues have said, an obesity
epidemic among our youth. This Enhancement Program is one of the most
popular aspects of our entire transportation program, because it
encourages communities and individuals to be creative, to take
initiative, to convert old, abandoned rail lines to trails.
Rails to Trails is exciting. It has given people other opportunities
when they might spend much of their weekend in an automobile to go
bicycling, jogging, walking along trails. It has done so much across
the country. And it is transportation oriented. But most importantly,
it is community oriented. That is key. That is really what this is
about. Communities have an opportunity to have some input into how the
billions of dollars in road projects are used, to enhance their quality
of life.
At one point, 90 percent of our Nation's schoolchildren walked to
school. Today, less than 10 percent do. Many have to take buses or rely
on their families or friends to drive, primarily because there are no
sidewalks or safe ways to get to school. Building sidewalks is one of
the many eligible activities for this Transportation Enhancement
Program. If we take away this component, we are going to weaken the
ability of local communities and neighborhoods to address their
priorities. I also think that we are going to lose an awful lot of
important opportunities to beautify our transportation corridors,
rehabilitate train stations and other transportation assets, provide
safe wildlife crossings, and protect our historic, our scenic, our
natural resources. We can do this all for about 1\1/2\ cents per
surface transportation dollar. It is important. It is a critical
element of a transportation program that is also concerned about
congestion, air quality, loss of open space.
Just one last thing. Many Members live in northern Virginia,
Alexandria and Arlington, for example. If we provided highways to
accommodate everybody that wants to drive from outside the Beltway to
the inner city of D.C., it would be all asphalt. There would not be any
neighborhoods. There would be no grass. What we have to do is to find
ways for public transportation to relieve our highways to give people
an incentive to ride a bicycle, to find whatever way they can get to
work in a way

[[Page H7874]]

that is healthy, that reduces the amount of congestion, and that
enhances our quality of life and the strength of our communities. This
program does all that. That is why the Petri-Olver amendment should
pass. It has many other sponsors, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) has done a great job on this. It is bipartisan. It is
important. Let us make sure it continues as part of our transportation
program.
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Committee on
Appropriations, and I think I am one of two members on our side who
voted to support this effort to restore this program the way that it
has existed for several years. I know it is probably not fashionable
for me to be up here talking in favor of this amendment, but I feel
strongly about it. I am a jogger. I have been a jogger for almost 30
years. I have taken full advantage of the Rails to Trails Program that
exists in my congressional district and other parts of Illinois. I
think it is a marvelous program. We have promoted around here a new
caucus that has been formed by the Members to get Members to exercise
more, to get Members to stay in shape. Part of the way that some of us
do it is disembark from the Rayburn Building and jog down the Mall. It
is not really a Rails to Trails, but it is a marvelous place to jog.
You see people jogging all over this part of the country. You see
people jogging along the parkway from Old Town all the way down to
where George Washington once lived. These are Rails to Trails. These
are opportunities for people that would not have existed without this
program. The last thing I want to do is to turn this program over to
the Governor of my State. Every State in the country has a deficit. I
guarantee you what these Governors will do is not turn this money into
Rails to Trails or other amenities or other enhancements. They will use
it to fund other things.
We have got a $5 billion debt in Illinois. We have got a Governor who
has been in office now 6 months, a new Governor, who has not been able
to figure out how to do that. But I guarantee you that if you hand him
a bag of money from the enhancements, from the Rails to Trails, he will
find other uses for it. As we are encouraging people all over the
country to exercise, to be fit, to eat right, to exercise and to do
things that will continue to make people healthy, there is no better
way to do it than to have this program. I am encouraging Members to
support this amendment. This is a good program. It is a program that
works. It is not broke.
I want to, too, mention what the gentleman from Oregon talked about,
the whole issue of obesity. There has been more written about obesity
in the last 6 months or so or last year. If we really want Americans to
be fit and healthy and get in good shape, the way to do it is to allow
for the enhancement program that has worked so well, that allows people
to get outdoors, to ride their bikes, to jog, to walk. What better way
to bring people in a community together. This program has been a
marvelous program. We should not change it. It is a program that works.
It is not broke. I encourage Members to support the amendment and
continue the fine program we have had.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record letters in support
of the amendment from the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials; the American Association of Retired People;
the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities,
the U.S. Conference of Mayors; and the Transportation Enhancements
Coalition.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials,
Washington, DC, September 3, 2003.
Dear Congressman: I am writing on behalf of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) to urge your support for an amendment sponsored by
Congressmen Thomas Petri and John Olver to strike language in
H.R. 2989, the FY 2004 Transportation, Treasury, and
Independent Agencies Appropriations bill, that eliminates
funding specifically dedicated for transportation
enhancements. The Petri-Olver amendment would strike Section
114 from the bill, restoring the Transportation Enhancements
(TE) Program set-aside first established in 1991 in the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
The TE Program is one of the most popular of the federal
transportation programs with over 17,000 projects in
communities located in almost every congressional district
across the country. Projects ranging from pedestrian, bike
and trail facilities to historic bridges and rehabilitated
train stations have significantly contributed to the quality
of life in these communities. AASHTO, which represents
transportation agencies in the fifty States, the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico, supports continuation of this
popular and worthy program.
Sincerely yours,
James C. Codell, III,
President
____

AARP,

Washington, DC, September 2, 2003.
Hon. Ernest Istook, Jr.,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and
Independent Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House
of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We urge you to restore the 10 percent
set aside from the Surface Transportation Program to fund
Transportation Enhancements. Transportation enhancement
projects help meet the mobility, health, and recreational
needs of mid-life and older persons.
AARP supports the development of pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure as part of a balanced transportation system.
Walking is the most common mode of travel for older persons
after the private vehicle. Community design that promotes
walking and bicycling is highly valued by mid-life and older
persons. In a recent AARP survey, 58 percent of persons age
45 and older rated having walking or bike trails nearby to be
an important community characteristic. Sidewalks and paths
designed for safe walking can help address the
disproportionate safety risk experienced by older
pedestrians. In 2001, persons age 70 and older were nine
percent of the population, but accounted for 18 percent of
all pedestrian fatalities.
AARP also seeks to encourage older Americans to be
physically active because of the many health benefits
exercise promotes, including helping to maintain independence
in later years. Research has shown that persons living in
communities with sidewalks are 28 percent more likely to be
engaged in regular physical activity than those in
communities without sidewalks.
We appreciate that the Subcommittee on Transportation,
Treasury and Independent Agencies allocation for FY 2004 will
require many difficult funding decisions. Nonetheless, we
respectfully urge you to restore the 10 percent set aside
from the Surface Transportation Program to fund
Transportation Enhancements.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me
or have your staff call Tim Gearan of our Federal Affairs
staff at 202-434-3800.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Naylor,
Director of Advocacy.
____

National Association of Counties, National League of
Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors,
September 3, 2003.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the nation's local
elected officials, we urge you to support Representative
Petri's amendment to fully restore dedicated funding for the
Transportation Enhancements (TE) program, during
consideration of the FY2004 Transportation and Treasury
appropriations bill.
The Transportation Enhancements program has been very
important to local governments by allowing them to undertake
alternatives beyond the traditional highway construction
projects. Over 17,000 local transportation projects have been
initiated as part of the TE program, and the results have
been significant, both in terms of increased mobility and the
economic development generated by the construction of these
facilities. TE projects have contributed to decreased
congestion and improvements in air quality in our nation's
cities and counties. Both ISTEA and TEA-21 were very specific
concerning the Transportation Enhancements program set aside
and local governments have been pleased to carry out the
intent of Congress concerning this program over the past 12
years.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Larry Naake,
Executive Director.
Donald J. Borut,
Executive Director.
Tom Cochran,
Executive Director.
____

Transportation

Enhancements Coalition,

Washington, DC, September 2, 2003.
Re Thursday, September 4 Vote--H.R. 2989.

Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of a broad partnership
of national organizations, we are writing to urge your
support for the restoration of dedicated funding for
Transportation Enhancements (TE) during House

[[Page H7875]]

action on H.R. 2989, the FY04 transportation and treasury
appropriations bill. Specifically, Section 114 of the
committee-passed bill eliminates the funding set-aside for
TE--a modest and very successful program established in the
1991 Federal surface transportation law. We respectfully ask
you to support the bipartisan effort, led by Reps. Tom Petri,
John Olver and others, that would strike Section 114 and
restore the Enhancements program when H.R. 2989 is considered
by the full House of Representatives.
Established in ``ISTEA'' and reauthorized with minor
adjustments in ``TEA-21,'' TE ensures that a small percentage
of our Federal gas tax dollars are reserved for small-scale,
community-initiated, locally selected transportation
projects. TE is the largest source of Federal funding for
pedestrian, bicycle and trail facilities. The program also
beautifies our transportation corridors, rehabilitates train
stations and other transportation assets, provides safe
wildlife crossings, and protects our historic, scenic, and
natural resources. We achieve all this for about one and a
half cents per surface transportation dollar.
TE projects are essential--they have been shown to promote
health, safety, economic development, tourism, energy
conservation, and community pride, all within the context of
our surface transportation system. Our Nation has benefited
from over 17,000 local transportation projects, in every
congressional district in the country. For countless
communities, TE remains the most popular program of the
Nation's surface transportation law.
The attached materials provide additional details on how TE
has benefited your state and district: a pie chart
summarizing how your State has divided its TE funds across
the program's 12 eligible activities; a similar pie chart for
the entire country; and a list of every TE project in your
State, sorted by county.
In places large and small, Americans are working to address
challenges such as growing traffic congestion, deteriorating
air quality, loss of open space and an obesity epidemic among
our youth. TE provides some of the solutions, and allows
local communities the opportunity to make transportation
investment decisions that will greatly enhance their quality
of life.
The record of success in this program is clear and
substantial--a small investment that produces considerable
results. Please support the bipartisan effort to preserve the
Transportation Enhancements program when H.R. 2989 is
considered on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Marianne Fowler, Sr. Vice President of Programs, Rails-
to-Trails Conservancy, Co-chair; Dan Costello, Senior
Program Associate, National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Co-chair; Bill Sawyer, Executive
Director, Adventure Cycling Association; Martha
Roskowski, Campaign Manager, America Bikes; Edward H.
Able, Jr., President and CEO, American Association of
Museums; Tobey Williamson, Federal Policy Program
Manager, American Farmland Trust; Celina Montorfano,
Director of Conservation Programs, American Hiking
Society; Paul Farmer, Executive Director, American
Planning Association; William W. Millar, President,
American Public Transportation Association;
Cara Woodson Welch, Director, Government Affairs,
American Society of Landscape Architects; Pam Gluck,
Executive Director, American Trails; Robert L. Lynch,
President and CEO, Americans for the Arts; Richard
Olken, Executive Director, Bikes Belong Coalition; Rich
Stolz, Coordinator, Transportation Equity Network,
Center for Community Change; Jacky Grimshaw, Vice
President for Policy, Center for Neighborhood
Technology; Dr. Margo Wootan, Director, Nutrition
Policy, Center for Science in the Public Interest;
Daniel Swartz, Executive Director, Children's
Environmental Health Network; Jim Campi, Policy and
Communications Director, Civil War Preservation Trust;
Robert Dewey, Vice President for Government Relations,
Defenders of Wildlife; John Balbus, Director,
Environmental Health, Environmental Defense; David
Hirsch, Director, Economics for the Earth Program,
Friends of the Earth; David M. Feehan, President,
International Downtown Association; Kalinda Mathis,
Executive Director, International Inline Skating
Association; Tim Blumenthal, Executive Director,
International Mountain Bicycling Association; Mele
Williams, Director of Government Relations, League of
American Bicyclists; Judy Corbett, Executive Director,
Local Government Commission; Jonathan Katz, President,
National Assembly of State Arts Agencies;
Patrick M. Libbey, Executive Director, National
Association of County and City Health Officials; Ross
Capon, Executive Director, National Association of
Railroad Passengers; Michael W. Duplechain, Director,
Government Relations, National Association of Service
and Conservation Corps; Bill Wilkinson, Executive
Director, National Center for Bicycling and Walking;
Karen Silberman, Executive Director, National Coalition
for Promoting Physical Activity; Nancy Schamu,
Executive Director, National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers; Laura Loomis, Director,
Visitor Experience Program, National Parks Conservation
Association; Barry Tindall, Director of Public Policy,
National Recreation and Park Association; John
Kostyack, Senior Legislative Counsel, National Wildlife
Federation;
Deron Lovaas, Deputy Director of Smart Growth and
Transportation, Natural Resources Defense Council;
Susan West Montgomery, President, Preservation Action;
Meg Maguire, President, Scenic America; Don Chen,
Executive Director, Smart Growth America; Lynne
Sebastian, President, Society for American Archaeology;
Kevin McCarty, Senior Director of Federal Policy,
Surface Transportation Policy Project; Randy Neufeld,
Chair, Thunderhead Alliance; William S. Norman,
President and CEO, Travel Industry Association of
America; Allen Front, Sr. Vice President for Federal
Affairs, Trust for Public Land.

Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise also in support of this bipartisan initiative
and commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) for offering it.
He came personally, at the invitation of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith), to central Texas last December and saw firsthand a variety of
our pressing transportation needs with highways and public
transportation, but also had a chance to see the important role that
enhancement projects play in our community.
Unfortunately, there are some in this Congress, in the State
transportation bureaucracies, and some of the trade associations and
lobby groups who think if it is not asphalt or buying something to put
asphalt on it is merely a transportation frill. In central Texas, we
certainly know that this is not true. Transportation enhancement
projects are, as the very name suggests, designed to enhance economic
development and to enhance the quality of our lives. In our community,
they have done both of those despite significant intransigence and
disinterest by the Texas Department of Transportation, which has put
one roadblock after another in front of our local enhancement
proposals.
In Austin, Texas, for example, we have Plaza Saltillo, which would
not exist were it not for enhancement funding.

{time} 1515

Many of us will gather there soon for the Diez y Seis celebration.
This has been an economic development magnet. It has had a multiplier
effect for small Hispanic businesses in the area, and now we are seeing
a number of developers, Hispanic and non-Hispanic, develop a wide range
of residential housing in this transportation corridor. This
enhancement project not only improves the quality of life for all in
the neighborhoods who celebrate this important Hispanic holiday, but it
has proven to be a key factor in the economic development of the East
Austin community.
It is certainly true in terms of the quality of our cycling and
pedestrian trails throughout central Texas. These trails enhance the
quality of life. They have also become, thanks originally to the work
of Lady Bird Johnson and now supplemented around Town Lake, the center
of Austin where people are coming to host conferences, conventions, and
business meetings. A real factor for many of our tech companies moving
downtown is the fact that we have trails people can enjoy jogging and
cycling on, and can bring their families to. Some of these trails,
frankly, have become on the weekends, and at key times in the early
morning and late afternoon, almost as congested as some of our
highways.
We do not have enough of these projects to meet the needs of a
growing community in terms of enhancing the quality of life or
enhancing economic development, and we need more. We have had
resistance at the State level already. If we turn it over entirely to
the States, there will not be a dime coming to provide this key
enhancement factor.
Looking at the data about transportation, there has been a
significant amount of work on the revision of TEA-21 focusing on
fairness and parity. The data suggests that about 7 percent of the
trips made in this country are

[[Page H7876]]

not by car or public transportation, but by people on two wheels, on a
bicycle, or walking. Yet, less than 1 percent of our transportation
dollars are being committed to trail-type projects for cyclists and
pedestrians. Now, that 1 percent will not be assured unless this Petri
amendment is adopted. We know employers can provide parking spaces, and
that many progressive employers are providing public transportation or
metro passes. However, for cyclists these days the only incentive is
strong legs and maybe a pat on the back. For a clean form of
transportation, we need to maintain this bare minimum amount of funding
under the enhancement program for cyclists to have a safe lane or trail
to travel.
Our colleague from Oregon mentioned my constituent Lance Armstrong,
and we were so pleased to honor him yesterday with a resolution. In his
book he writes: ``I've spent my life racing my bike, from the back
roads of Austin, Texas to the Champs-Elysees, and I always figured if I
died an untimely death, it would be because some rancher in his Dodge
4x4 rammed me head first into a ditch . . . Cyclists fight an ongoing
war with guys in big trucks, and so many vehicles have hit me so many
times, I've lost count . . . One minute you're pedaling along a
highway, and the next minute you're face down in the dirt.''
For Lance Armstrong, for the leadership of the Downtown Austin
Alliance and many people who have communicated from central Texas, let
us adopt the Petri amendment.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
I rise in strong support of this amendment to strike section 114 from
the fiscal year 2004 transportation appropriations bill, and I want to
thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), my committee leader,
for offering it, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Olver).
This is obesity USA right now. And in Texas along with obesity, we
have air pollution; and I believe that the enhancements funding,
although small compared to the highway funding, contributes in a major
way to building a healthy, active and community-based society. In the
Dallas-Fort Worth region, we see families and kids out riding, walking,
skating on the Katy Trail every weekend and often during the week. We
see people riding bicycles to the park and ride areas to get on the
DART area transportation system. The types of trails build a sense of
community. They promote physical fitness and increase property values.
Enhancements also promote safe ways for kids to get to school.
Studies show many more kids want to ride or walk to school, but there
is insufficient money to promote safe routes to school. And we see
overwhelming obesity in our young people now which leads us to have to
spend a great deal more money for health care later. If transportation
enhancement funds are cut, there will be virtually no incentives for
States and communities to continue to create balanced integrated
transportation systems. For more than 20 years through the
transportation enhancement program, communities across the Nation have
developed and implemented alternative forms of transportation that
promote livability, connectivity, and a better quality of life. The
vast majority of these projects are locally selected and are of
tremendous value to the communities. We need substantial highway
funding; but more importantly, we need a balanced transportation
system.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and restore
funding for enhancements that contribute to a higher quality of life,
personal health and livability in all of our communities.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in favor of the language in the
bill and against the amendment. I point out to the Members that the
Inspector General for the Department of Transportation, Kenneth Mead,
testified to our Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and
Independent Agencies appropriations that the highway trust fund has
shown a decline in revenues of about $18 billion less this year than
projections that were made originally in April of 2001, and as a result
of the declining revenue coming into the highway trust fund that
highway and transit programs will see continuing constraints on their
ability to improve mobility, safety, and economic growth unless taxes
are raised, a greater portion of the financing burden is shared by
State and local governments, or greater reliance is placed upon the
general fund to supplement highway trust fund receipts.
I strongly support the gentleman from Oklahoma's (Chairman Istook)
language in this bill because this simply allows Texans to run Texas.
Governor George W. Bush, when he ran for Governor originally, I had the
privilege of serving longer under Governor Bush than any other Governor
I served under in the 14 years I served in the Texas legislature, and
Governor Bush was elected Governor of Texas to let Texans run Texas.
The language in the bill simply allows each State to choose on their
own how to spend that revenue. The Nation today faces an ever-growing
national debt that has now exceeded $7 trillion, which is absolutely
inexcusable. We must pay it off. We face a growing national Federal
deficit that we must balance. We simply must balance our Federal
budget. I strongly support the gentleman from Oklahoma's (Chairman
Istook) constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.
In light of our deficits at the State and local level, in light of
deficits at the Federal level, in light of a declining highway trust
fund, I think it is only prudent to give the States the option to
choose how they will spend this 10 percent of these highway trust funds
on hike and bike trails, as they may choose to do in the State of
Oregon; or some other State may choose to decide to take some of that
10 percent and invest more of it into any other type of transportation
project that they believe will help move people and reduce travel time
and reduce congestion.
The bottom line is, I think, Mr. Chairman, this language that is in
the bill will allow every State to make those decisions on their own
through their State legislatures, through their State highway
commissions. I think that the genius of our system of government is
that it is built around the concept of letting each State make local
decisions on their own, and this language in the bill does that. I
strongly urge Members to vote against the amendment and support the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) in voting ``no'' on the
amendment and allowing Texans to run Texas and each State to make these
decisions on their own.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Ms. LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) to restore guaranteed funding
for the transportation enhancements program. With over 15,000 projects
receiving funding nationwide, it is very clear that the benefits of
this program have not been confined to any one district, State, or
region. These projects are very critical in establishing and in
maintaining livable communities.
In my district alone the transportation enhancements program has
funded nearly 30 projects over the last 12 years at a cost of about
$22.5 million, and these projects have provided a very big improvement
to the quality of life for many of my constituents and the residents of
the Bay Area as a whole, not to mention the thousands of tourists who
come through our region every month. The program has funded projects
ranging for something as simple as a bike locker at local BART stations
to pedestrian and streetscape improvements throughout Berkeley,
Oakland, San Leandro, and Fruitvale, to construction of the Oakland
section of the very ambitious 400-mile San Francisco Bay Trail project
that links 47 cities and nine Bay Area counties together.
Other projects include the acquisition of scenic shoreline in Oakland
for beautification and recreational purposes, the berthing and
preservation of several historic ships, the construction and upgrade of
the Berkeley train stop, the construction of bicycle underpasses along
the very busy I-80 freeway, as

[[Page H7877]]

well as a number of other landscaping and beautification projects
throughout my district.
Mr. Chairman, our constituents really value each and every one of
these projects, not only in my district but throughout our country, as
I mentioned earlier, which the transportation enhancement program has
really helped to pay for. And let me tell the Members that ever since
word got out that this House was considering removing the dedicated
funding for this program, I do not think that a day has gone by where I
have not received a phone call, e-mail, fax, or letter from
constituents which criticize this move. So we must make this bill
right. We must pass this amendment so that we can continue to fund the
construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, Rail to Trail
conversions, the acquisition and preservation of historic land, and a
host of other projects that have all contributed to the quality of life
in our neighborhoods and really for the increased safety which people
so deserve.
Once again, as I said earlier, these projects are so critical in
establishing livable communities.
Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Petri-Olver amendment
which would strike language in this bill that eliminates dedicated
funding for transportation enhancements. Transportation enhancement
funds may be used for fundamental economic development in tourist-
dependent communities, to ensure preservation of vital historic
resources. These resources then become a draw to the visiting public.
While many enhancement projects are small in size, they achieve
enormous benefits in terms of promoting economic growth and development
and developing historic tourism. The President has initiated a program
called Preserve America to encourage historic tourism. This program is
dependent on transportation enhancement funds.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, headed by my good
friend John Nau from Texas, has advised that we restore these funds in
order to ensure the goals of Preserve America. A ``yes'' vote on the
Petri-Olver amendment would help us do just that. So we are looking to
preserve America.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. OBESTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Petri-Olver
amendment. We are here today to discuss one of the cornerstones of
ISTEA and TEA-21 of our current transportation program, a cornerstone
that our current Secretary of Transportation not only supports, the
administration supports it, the bill to extend the life of TEA-21, but
our current Secretary of Transportation was chair of the Surface
Transportation Subcommittee in 1991 when we fashioned the enhancements
provisions of ISTEA. And what we did in 1991 was landmark legislation.
We had come to the end of the interstate era, and now the debate
focused on the future of transportation in America.

{time} 1530

What would be the face of transportation in the post-interstate era?
How would we best invest our dollars?
We assessed the quality of transportation and the quality of life in
America in a long series of hearings, some of which I conducted as
Chair of the Oversight Investigations Committee, as Chairman Mineta did
in the surface subcommittee, as the gentleman from Wisconsin
participated in, now the Chair of that subcommittee. And what we found
was that Americans wanted more out of their transportation experience
than simply getting from point A to point B. They wanted to use the
interstate system to get to their destination, but then to enjoy a
quality of life, to enjoy more of America's historic, archeological,
cultural and scenic treasures, and the way to do that was to open a new
vista within our transportation program, to use some of their dollars
that those very travelers and visitors have invested in the Highway
Trust Fund to improve and enhance the quality of life, projects that
would initiate from the community, from the grassroots up, projects
that had been proposed and undertaken, but frustrated because the
dollars were not there to do them over a period of the previous series
of transportation programs.
But those are highway programs. What we fashioned was a
transportation concept; not only highways and not only bridges, but
transportation. Part of that transportation experience is scenic
America, the quality of life, the issues the gentleman from Illinois
spoke about, of jogging and hiking, and bicycling, as the gentleman
from Oregon spoke to, and things that I enjoy as a cyclist.
But those issues come from the people. The choice of how to invest
those transportation dollars come from the people themselves, from all
throughout America. And you can see the upwelling of spirit that has
followed the issuance of this transportation appropriations bill, when
the enhancements community, a wide spectrum of Americans, rose up and
said, please, do not make this change.
There is a compact here between the citizens of America, between the
people who use our highways, our transit ways, our enhancement ways,
and our Federal Government and the States. State governments now have
opted into this program. They have become partners. Citizens have taken
control of their destiny and the quality of life that they want to see
in America. Enhancement programs makes that possible.
We can cite the thousands of projects, but what really counts is
those decisions that were made in each and every community to take a
piece of that Highway Trust Fund and invest it in the future of
America, in the quality of life in America, to enhance the life of
those who come after us. And that is what enhancements does. That is
what this program does. It is a citizens' bottoms-up investment in the
quality of life of our transportation program.
It is not enough just to roll over the highways and roll over the
bridges. It is more important to enhance the life of every community in
America, and that is what the enhancements program has given us the
opportunity to do.
Without the set-aside, it would not have happened. In the 20 years
before ISTEA we invested only $40 million in building bicycle
facilities across America. Since then we have invested $3.8 billion and
enhanced the quality of life in America. Pass the Petri amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Petri/Olver amendment to
strike Section 114 from the bill.
Section 114 is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to kill the
Transportation Enhancements Program initiated in 1991 under ISTEA and
continued in 1998 under TEA 21. This boldfaced attempt to kill one of
the most popular Department of Transportation programs ever enacted is
reckless and misguided, and should be soundly defeated.
Section 114 would eliminate the mandatory requirement that each State
use up to 10 percent of its Surface Transportation Program funding for
the Transportation Enhancement program. Under existing law, States must
use that 10 percent of STP funds for alternative transportation
projects such as bike and pedestrian trails, streetscape renovations,
rail-to-rail conversions, and other surface transportation-related
activities that contribute to the revitalization of communities and
local and regional economies.
Continuation of the existing Transportation Enhancements Program, as
enacted in ISTEA and continued in TEA 21, is supported by more than 70
national organizations that make up the Transportation Enhancements
Coalition. These include: The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials; National League of Cities; U.S. Conference of
Mayors, Institute of Transportation Engineers; League of American
Bicyclists; Rails to Trails Conservancy; and a wide variety of other
environmental, preservation and recreational organizations.
Transportation, like all human activity, affects our communities and
the environment. The Transportation Enhancements Program enables us to
balance transportation improvements with the need to protect the
environment and the character of our communities.
Although Section 114 does not make enhancements ineligible for
funding, it removes the requirement that 10 percent of STP funds must
be used for these purposes. It is clear that without the set-aside,
many State Highway Departments would shift money now going to
enhancements to larger traditional projects.

Before a set-aside was established in ISTEA in 1991, enhancements
were eligible

[[Page H7878]]

for funding, but States did not fund them. In the 20 years before 1991,
only $40 million was spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects. From
1991 through 2002, however, with the set-aside in place, over $2.2
billion was spent on bicycle and pedestrian projects, with 75 percent
of the funds coming from the Transportation Enhancements Program. The
total amount of funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects jumps to $3.8
billion for 8,526 projects nationwide when projects in the pipeline, as
well as completed projects, are included in the totals. For all types
of transportation enhancement projects nationwide, the grand total
programmed since 1991 is an impressive $8.4 billion for 17,920
projects, less than $500,000 per project nationwide. Clearly, these
kinds of results could not have been achieved in the absence of a
dedicated Transportation Enhancements Program.
The enhancement program requires less than 2 percent of the entire
program for surface transportation. This is a modest amount to spend on
these projects, which bring substantial transportation benefits and are
supported by a wide constituency.
Any Member who doubts the importance of the Transportation
Enhancements Program need only look at the projects completed in his or
her congressional district. If Section 114 is enacted, future
enhancement projects in your congressional district will clearly be
placed at risk. None of us should take that risk. I urge Members to
vote for the Petri/Olver amendment to strike Section 114.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Petri-Olver
amendment, which would restore the set-aside for the transportation
enhancements program.
Passed over a decade ago, when Congress recognized a serious
shortcoming in the Nation's transportation system, the Transportation
Enhancements program has ensured consistent funding for pedestrian- and
bicycle-friendly transportation projects. Large Federal highway budgets
over the past several decades were instrumental in creating an
integrated transportation network. The absence of serious intercity
transportation alternatives, however, increased reliance on cars,
resulting in gridlock, longer travel times, additional pollution, and
reduced quality of life. Federal transportation planners' preoccupation
with interstate highway construction and seeming neglect of local
challenges frustrated many mayors, especially in my area.
This is why the Transportation Enhancements program, which guaranteed
a portion of Federal highway aid would go to multi-use paths,
sidewalks, and bicycle lanes, is so important, and why the decision to
eliminate the guaranteed funding component of this program in this
year's transportation appropriations bill disappointed transportation
analysts, environmental and public health advocates, and state and
local leaders.
New York needs this funding. Although the State has spent $300
million on transportation enhancements since 1991, many of its needs
remain unmet. Indeed, New York could afford to fund less than 30
percent of proposals received in the past 3 years, ultimately opting to
use other Surface Transportation Program funds to pay for projects.
My own constituents are especially worried. Since the creation of the
Transportation Enhancements program, over $13 million has flowed to
municipalities in my district to construct river paths, renovate town
parks, refurbish scenic promenades, preserve historic sites, and
improve pedestrian safety. Between 2001 and 2003, only 16 percent of
the 74 eligible mid-Hudson projects received funding, a testament to
both the program's popularity and current funding constraints.
The benefits of the program are many and well known, but I would like
to mention a few:
(1) Quality-of-life. Over the past several decades, the car has
become the preferred method of movement, even for short distances. The
resulting congestion has made everything from commuting to work to
picking up groceries, genuine headaches. Multi-lane arterials now zig-
zag through formerly quiet neighborhoods, exposing residents to noise
pollution and threatening our children's safety. By financing
construction of bicycle and pedestrian paths, the Transportation
Enhancements program has provided individuals with serious
transportation alternatives that can cut traffic, reduce accidents with
cyclists and pedestrians, protect green spaces an create truly livable
communities.
(2) Environment. Our reliance on cars, which produce acid rain and
smog-forming chemicals, has harmed our environment and needlessly
compromised public health. Transportation is responsible for 50 percent
of all the air emissions that cause smog, which decreases lung capacity
and triggers asthma attacks. Over one million New Yorkers have asthma
and over 14 million State residents live in areas where smog levels
exceed the Federal Government's health standard. Full funding of the
Transportation Enhancements program would help to bring into compliance
the many New York metro areas that fail to meet ozone standards.
(3) Obesity. Finally, the Centers for Disease Control recently
identified obesity, particularly among children, as a top national
health risk. The absence of walking and bicycling opportunities has
played a major role in sky-rocketing obesity rates, which, according to
the CDC, equal or exceed 20 percent in 30 states. Obesity, which can
lead to heart disease, high blood pressure, and stroke, not only
carries a tremendous health toll but also steep economic consequences.
In 2001, indirect and direct economic costs were estimated at $117
billion. So, it is vital that opportunities to walk and bicycle grow
rather than diminish. Restoring the funding guarantee for the
Transportation Enhancements program is critical to making this happen.
Once again, I appreciate Congressman Olver and Congressman Petri's
leadership on this issue and encourage my colleagues to support this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Petri).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Petri) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Lewis of California

Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Lewis of California:
Under the heading ``Office of the Secretary, Salaries and
Expenses,'' strike ``not to exceed $225,000 shall be
available for the Office of Intelligence and Security'' and
insert ``not to exceed $2,000,000 shall be available for the
Office of Intelligence and Security'' and under the heading
``Office of the Chief Information Officer,'' strike
``$16,565,000'' and insert, ``14,565,000''.

Mr. LEWIS of California (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, the amendment at the desk is
an amendment that comes from the Secretary, Mr. Mineta. He essentially
is urging the House to move a $2 million amount from the administrative
funds to that piece of the work done in the Department of
Transportation that involves intelligence and security matters.
There is willingness to accept this amendment on the part of the
majority, as I understand it, and the minority. I will take no more of
our time if that is the case.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am willing
to accept the amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am happy to
accept the amendment as well.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. LoBiondo

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

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. LoBiondo:
Page 10, line 8, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000) (increased by
$2,000,000)''.

Mr. Lo BIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this amendment to
increase funding for the Federal Aviation Administration William J.
Hughes Technical Center located in Pomona, New Jersey. I understand
that the committee chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)
is prepared to accept the amendment. I would like to see if that is
still the case.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Lo BIONDO. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the amendment.
Mr. Lo BIONDO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to
thank the chairman very much. The Tech Center engages in matters of

[[Page H7879]]

aviation safety and security that impact the entire system.
Mr. Chairman, I had a second amendment that I had planned to offer
today which I will not be offering. This second amendment would have
restored funding for research and development. I have had conversations
with the chairman about this. I know that there are tremendous
pressures from the Aviation Trust Fund downturn as far as how these
dollars would be distributed, but I would like to ask the chairman to
please do everything he can in conference. This affects the Oklahoma
Technical Center as well as the one in Pomona, New Jersey. These are
dollars which would go to aviation safety and security.
Mr. Chairman, I hope the gentleman will work to help restore those
dollars in conference.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, we
will certainly work together in conference to do everything that it is
possible to do within the funds available.
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman
very much.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Waters

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

Amendment offered by Ms. Waters:
Page 15, after line 13, insert the following:
Sec. 108. (a) Review.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall conduct a review of the proposed project for
construction of a remote passenger check-in facility at Los
Angeles International Airport to determine whether the
project as designed will protect the safety and security of
air passengers and the general public.
(b) Report.--Upon completion of the review, the Secretary
shall transmit to Congress and the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration a report containing the
results of the review.
(c) Prohibition.--The Administrator shall not allow
construction of the proposed project until such time, if any,
as the Secretary has completed the review and determined that
the proposed project as designed will protect the safety and
security of air passengers and the general public and will
offer greater protection than is currently available at the
exiting facilities of Los Angeles International Airport.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, Los Angeles International Airport, which is
located in my congressional district, is the third largest airport in
the United States, with capacity to serve 78 million air passengers per
year. The operator of LAX has proposed a rather controversial airport
modernization project that would include the construction of a remote
passenger check-in facility. The details of this proposal and the
environmental impact report were released on July 9, 2003, and are now
open for public comment. There is a strong coalition in the district
opposed to this plan.
Supporters of the proposed project to construct a remote passenger
check-in facility claim that the facility is necessary to improve the
safety and security of LAX, and, they claim, to prevent terrorist
attacks at LAX. However, it is even more likely that the concentration
of passengers in a remote passenger check-in facility could actually
reduce the safety and security of LAX.
The Rand Corporation conducted a security study of the proposed
remote passenger check-in facility which was released May 14, 2003. The
study concluded that the proposed project would not significantly
improve the security of LAX. The study also suggested that
concentrating passengers in the remote passenger check-in facility
would make this facility the likely target of a terrorist attack. The
study even suggested that concentrating passengers in a remote
passenger check-in facility would exacerbate the effects of such an
attack.
Mr. Chairman, this idea is not only opposed by many of the homeowner
groups in the area, it is basically opposed by the coalition throughout
southern California who is trying to get LAX to move to a regional
response to passenger increase. The Rand study did conclude that
limiting the capacity of the airport would reduce the overall
vulnerability of LAX to terrorist attacks. However, this could be
accomplished by maintaining LAX at its existing capacity with no
additional airport construction projects.
My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to
review the proposed project to construct a remote passenger check-in
facility at LAX to determine whether the project, as designed, will
protect the safety and security of air passengers and the general
public. The amendment would also prohibit the construction of this
project until such time as the Secretary of Homeland Security has
completed the review and determined that the project will improve
protection of the safety and security of air passengers and the general
public.
We cannot afford to experiment with the safety and security of the
American people.
Mr. Chairman, we have gone through 9/11 and we have created Homeland
Security, and it seems to me that Homeland Security cannot be excluded
from the review of these so-called expansion projects or
reconfiguration projects, whatever name they come under, in the many
airports in this country, if in fact we are concerned about the
security of airports, and I know that we are, and I am certainly
concerned about LAX. It has been said more than once that LAX is a
target and that it is at risk.
We should not allow politicians to expand airports, to create
construction projects. We should not allow politicians to do this
without the benefit of the kind of review that will go even beyond what
FAA has been doing in the past and would include the considerations of
Homeland Security. Why did we develop a whole Department on Homeland
Security if we cannot include in it the review of these proposed
projects for reconfiguration and expansion by elected officials and
politicians in all of these local areas?
I know that my colleague on the other side of the aisle has reserved
a point of order, and I respect that; but I would just ask my
colleagues to find some way to work with me, to take a look at these
kinds of expansion or reconfiguration projects. Mine may be the one
that is being brought to you today, but this is going to happen all
over the country. What are these local city councils, what are the
mayors, what are the Governors, what are they doing? Are they expanding
construction in the name of politics, looking towards the next
election, or do we have really security factors built in to these kinds
of projects? I would ask you to find a way to work with me on this.

Point of Order

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of
order.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, first, of course, the amendment is not
germane to the bill. It relates to the Secretary of Homeland Security,
which is not within the jurisdiction of this legislation.
Further, the amendment proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore
violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states in pertinent part that an
amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if
changing existing law. This amendment gives affirmative direction, in
effect, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair accordingly.

{time} 1545

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Does any
Member wish to be heard on the point of order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment directly amends existing law. The
amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2
of rule XXI. The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not
in order.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

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

Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Tancredo:
Page 17, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $320,000,000)''.

[[Page H7880]]

Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $320,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $120,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $100,000,000)''.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would transfer $320 million
from Amtrak to the Federal Aid Highway Program, reducing Amtrak's total
appropriation to $580 million for this year. This amount, by the way,
is the original amount that the Transportation Appropriations bill
called for prior to the adoption of an amendment in full committee.
Mr. Chairman, Amtrak has posted staggering losses in recent years,
despite their continued promises to become self-sufficient. Time and
time again, however, those promises have been broken as Amtrak
continues to hemorrhage money and continues to come back to this body
with out-stretched hands.
Ironically, Mr. Chairman, Amtrak was originally established in 1971
as a, believe it or not, for-profit corporation by Congress. Over the
last 30 years though, Amtrak has never once turned a profit. It has,
however, racked up nearly $30 billion in operating losses and even
managed to receive a $2 billion tax credit in 1997. That is despite the
fact that the rail provider has never paid a penny in income tax.
Now, some of my friends who oppose this amendment will tell you that
the service provided by this inefficient monopoly is invaluable to the
traveling public, but the statistics do not bear that out. According to
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
for example, the percentage of Americans who walk to work every day is
roughly equal to the number that ride the train, about 5 percent.
In light of these statistics, one wonders as one political
commentator noted, if it makes as much sense for Congress to subsidize
Nike sneakers as it does for them to subsidize rail service.
Subsidies on some of the longest routes are so high, reaching about
$250 per passenger in some cases, that many times it would actually be
cheaper for the Federal Government to purchase plane tickets for
passengers than to subsidize the purchase of their train ticket.
Not surprisingly, Amtrak is back again asking Congress to bail them
out with yet one more $1 billion appropriation. And this is after the
beleaguered rail carrier promised Congress financial solvency just a
short time ago.
Mr. Chairman, the unhealthy relationship between Amtrak and the
Congress has become a seemingly endless cycle of empty promises and
bottomless government subsidies. This has to come to an end sometime.
We must shut off the spigot of Federal funds and require the States,
communities and organizations that purport to need Amtrak services, to
foot a larger share of the bill.
Remember also that during the chairman's opening remarks and then
subsequently through several responses, he has had two amendments that
have been offered, he has reiterated the need for more funding for our
highways. In fact, I think the figure he last used was a $400 billion
deficit. We are $400 billion shy of what we need to maintain our
highway systems and our bridges, $400 billion dollars. Now, I suggest
that this is a relatively easy decision for Members to make. What is
more important to their constituents?
Now, I recognize fully well that many Members here have worked for a
long time to bring home a chunk of money to their constituents to keep
this rail service subsidized, and I can say to them they have done a
wonderful job, $30 billion over 20 years. They have brought home plenty
of pork. It is not a matter that we should be worried about whether or
not more is necessary. I think they can be proud of the fact that they
have been able to do as well as they have done over the last 20 years,
but really this has to come to a stop. And when we have such pressing
needs as the chairman has laid out for us in the area of highways and
road construction and bridge repair, it seems to me to be a fairly easy
decision for us to make, to transfer the amount of money, the $320
million from Amtrak to Federal aid for highways.
Again, I want to reiterate the fact that what we are doing here is
simply taking the appropriation down to the same level that the
Committee on Appropriations, that the Transportation Appropriations
bill called for originally, and then it got plussed up when it got to
the full committee. But I think that the original amount was being very
generous to this entity, to Amtrak, a private corporation, after all,
that has simply had never had the ability to live up to the promises
that have been made.
We are in tight financial times. There are not dollars flowing into
the coffers of the government that can be distributed so liberally. So
I ask when that time occurs to make a decision about what is more
needy, vote for your highways and bridges and not for the Amtrak
subsidy. I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to speak against that amendment,
and I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn)
and the other 220 Members of the House of Representatives that sent a
letter to the Committee on Appropriations seeking full funding for
Amtrak. But the Republican leadership and this Bush administration do
not care what we, the people, think. Just like the reauthorization of
TEA-21, which would improve our crumbling transportation infrastructure
and put millions of people back to work, the issue concerning Amtrak
brings up a fundamental question as to where this Nation stands on
public transportation.
We have an opportunity to improve a system that serves our need for
passenger rail service, or we can let it fall apart and leave this
country's travellers and business with absolutely no alternative forms
of public transportation.
We could fund this Nation's entire passenger rail system for a year
with the money that we spend in just one week in Iraq. Let me repeat
that. We could fund this Nation's entire passenger rail system for a
year with the money we spend in just one week in Iraq. But I guess the
House leadership and the Republican administration have decided it is
more important to fund the needs of the Iraqi people than the citizens
right here in America. We continue to subsidize highways and aviation,
but when it comes to our passenger rail system, we refuse to provide
the money Amtrak needs to survive.
Last year alone, we provided $18 billion in direct funding to the
airline industry. Let me repeat that. Last year alone, we provided $18
billion in direct funding to the airline industry.
On November 12, 2001, I was in New York when American Airlines flight
587 crashed shortly after taking off from JFK Airport, creating a
national panic and shutting down the entire city. Fortunately for me
and many Members of Congress who ended up at Penn Station that day,
Amtrak was still running and returned us safely to Washington to deal
with this latest tragedy. I realized, once again, just how important
Amtrak is to the American people and how important it is for this
Nation to have alternative modes of transportation.
This issue is bigger than just transportation. This is about safety
and national security. Not only should we be giving Amtrak the money it
needs to continue to provide services, we should be providing security
money to upgrade their tracks and improve safety and security measures
in the entire rail system.
Some people think the solution to the problem is to privatize the
system. If we privatize, we would see the same thing we saw when we
deregulated the airlines. Only the lucrative routes will be maintained,
and routes in rural locations will be expensive and few.
Once again, we see the Bush administration's ``too little too late
policy.'' I am surprised they have not suggested a tax cut to solve
this problem. Instead, they are trying to take the money from the hard
working Amtrak employees, who day and night work to provide top quality
service to their passengers. These folks are trying to make a living
for their families, and they do not deserve the shabby treatment from
the President. It is time for

[[Page H7881]]

the Bush administration to step up to the plate and make a decision
about Amtrak based on what is best for the traveling public and not
what is best for the right wing of the Republican party and the bean
counters at OMB.
This is not about fiscal policy. This is about providing a safe and
reliable public transportation system that the citizens of this Nation
need and deserve. Let us stop this crisis now before it is too late.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to belabor the point here or take
extended amounts of time, but I feel compelled to rise and respond to
my friend from Colorado in this amendment because in just two speakers,
after the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), I will be offering an
amendment to increase the aid for Amtrak.
While we have an opportunity to discuss this, I would like to point
out that when we talk about money for rail passenger systems in this
country, many of us do not consider that to be pork, no matter what
kind of money we have brought back, to what kind of district, for what
kind of rail transportation, we do not consider that pork. When people
depend on that to get to work, to get to where they need to be, how
much money over any number of years is not considered pork to many of
us? So I need to disagree with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo) a little bit.
I think we have given Amtrak, I have said this so many times, just
enough money each year to make certain it fails, so that friends like
the gentleman and others want to know why it does not work, because we
have not funded it properly. The new president, David Gunn, has made
significant changes at Amtrak. He has talked with us on the
Subcommittee on Railroads. He has talked with the chairman of the
subcommittee for Appropriations, and I think it would be in our best
interest not to take money away but to give Mr. Gunn and others the
tools they need to get the job done correctly.
So I respectfully will oppose the gentleman's amendment, and in a few
short minutes offer an amendment to increase the funding.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment that has been
offered because this is ground that we have already been over. The bill
that is before us provides $900 million for fiscal 2004 for Amtrak, and
that, it turns out, is exactly what the President had recommended for
Amtrak for fiscal year 2004.
In fact, we are covering old ground because this was settled at an
earlier point. The Transportation Subcommittee had in fact made a
recommendation to full committee for the number which the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) has asked for. And it was one of those
provisions that was changed in order to bring it to the full Committee
on Appropriations in order to have enough votes to get that bill out of
the full Committee on Appropriations to bring it back to the $900
million level that the President had asked for. In fact, I should
remind Members that 220 Members of the House of Representatives had
petitioned the Committee on Appropriations asking that the full funding
requested by Amtrak should be provided for Amtrak and that was double
what is already here.
So this is replowing the old ground that we in the Committee on
Appropriations had to go through to bring this bill to the floor in the
first place and would be reversing that movement. I think that is
distinctly a wrong thing to do. Let me also point out that in regard to
the $900 million appropriation which is included in the bill before us,
and I am interested in the comment that my good friend, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Quinn) stated, the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Railroads of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has
made about providing Amtrak just enough so that it would fail, when Ken
Mead, the Department of Transportation's Inspector General was asked by
me as to what would be the result of the appropriations of $900
million, and I intend to support the idea of increasing that
appropriation farther down the road, but he sent a letter back to me,
and I will quote from that letter. He sent a letter on July 10 in
response to those questions about the impact of various funding levels.
In regard to the $900 million level which the gentleman from Colorado's
(Mr. Tancredo) amendment would reduce substantially, he said, ``Because
there would not be any funds remaining for other capital investments,
operational reliability likely would suffer. None of the backlog of
capital needs could be addressed at that funding level.''

{time} 1600

So that puts us a step backward on the process of funding Amtrak at a
level that would allow it to continue and continue safely as a provider
of passenger rail service for this Nation. So I would urge Members to
oppose this amendment by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I too oppose this amendment, and I concur with those
speakers who have spoken to that, and I will certainly support the
amendment of the distinguished gentleman from New York State (Mr.
Quinn).
We have really in this country the time has come to start looking at
our transportation systems. If we look at our airlines, if we look at
our airports and the entire air systems, if we look at our roads, if we
look at our ports, we are going to find that America is at least
competitive, if not ahead, of every other single country in the world.
If we look at our rail systems in the United States of America, we will
find we are behind almost every highly civilized country in the world,
the European countries, Japan and a lot of others.
We have for years and years and years not funded rail to the extent
that it is needed, and it is true that we fund it and it is true that
it is so-called subsidized, but the bottom line is that we are dealing
with tunnels going into Baltimore, built right after the Civil War,
into New York City, or most close to that, and we are simply not making
the improvements we have to make to get the speeds up to attract the
ridership.
In spite of that, we have more people riding the rails now from New
York City to Washington than are taking airlines from New York City to
Washington. We pour tremendous money into our other infrastructure and
into the upkeep costs of other forms of transportation.
Look at the air industry, for example. We pay, often locally and by
States, we pay for the airports, a huge expense which is out there, and
the FAA, we pay for the comptrollers. The Transportation Security
Agency primarily is aimed at that. It cost billions of dollars to do
all these things, much more than we are trying to put into rail, far
more than we have ever put into rail before.
The infrastructure is absolutely needed. Obviously we put a lot of
money into the concrete of our roads. We do get a return as far as gas
money is concerned. I drive from Wilmington, Delaware to here from time
to time. It is incredible how crowded those roads are, but it is also
incredible to see how crowded the trains are and how we could use more
trains.
So I will be the first to agree there need to be more efficiencies.
I would just say this to my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado.
I hope he will talk to David Gunn. I do not know if he talked to him or
not. He is the new CEO, relatively new, in the last couple of years at
Amtrak. He really has some good ideas. He really has some good
strategies in terms of how to make Amtrak, and I am not going to call
it profitable because I am not sure that is right, but to reduce the
subsidies which are necessary to provide this very important form of
transportation for at least portions of the United States of America,
obviously the eastern seaboard, the region around Los Angeles and
around Chicago and various other areas. I am not suggesting we need to
go across the country and go for 4 days, whatever it may be, but the
bottom line is this is an extraordinarily important mode of
transportation, and I think we need to sit down and recognize that and
do all that we can.
I implore the White House, this committee, the Senate and everybody
to try to do this. The Senate has spoken

[[Page H7882]]

to this, at least to a degree. They have raised their amount in
subcommittee which is looking at it to $1.34 billion; 218 Members, that
is a majority of this House, have signed a letter requesting the $1.8
billion. There are many people who recognize what we have to do.
I am, like everybody else, if there is fat there, sure, we want to
squeeze that out and we want an efficient system, but we need a good
rail system in America, and we cannot continue to underfund it so badly
that we cannot make the capital improvements and do the other things
which are necessary to keep it up. So I implore all of us to do this.
I do not know where these amendments are going, but obviously at some
point this is going to be in conference, and very important decisions
are going to be made about the future of rail in America, and I hope
when that happens that we put together a good plan that really works,
we listen to Mr. Quinn and others who are vitally interested in that.
I would encourage the defeat of the amendment. I would encourage
support of the Quinn amendment, and hopefully when we get to conference
we will really get the job done on rail in the United States of
America.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I thank the chairman for recognizing me and want to rise in
opposition to my good friend and classmate the gentleman from
Colorado's (Mr. Tancredo) amendment and preemptively rise in support of
my other good friend and State mate the gentleman from New York's (Mr.
Quinn) amendment that he will offer later on restoring full funding to
the Amtrak system.
In doing so, I want to point out that we have had this debate in
Congress for a decade at least, that it is almost unreasonable to
expect that this transportation appropriation bill is going to be the
bill, the vehicle in which we are going to be able to solve the many
problems that we have in Amtrak; but in doing so, I want to recognize
the diligence of my chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook)
who worked and strove diligently throughout this process. As we marked
up the bill in the subcommittee, the ranking member, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), pointed out that a number of us voted to
support this bill so we could push it along the process and get it into
the full committee and now on to the floor to talk about the
intricacies and the many problems facing Amtrak today.
I support the notion that we restored to $900 million a portion of
the White House's recommended portion of the funding but recognize that
we are woefully short and recognize that this is a vital national
interest with which we must soon address its needs, and in failing to
do so, we further put at risk the viability of a system that, as was
pointed out by a speaker before, served us ably and importantly and
critically at a time when the airline industry could not. It has served
us in the past when other means of transportation could not.
I want to go to the core of the Amtrak question, and that is the
northeast corridor, and say simply that it faces imminent threat in
terms of its reliability and utility, because as the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Quinn) points out, I believe this Congress has undertaken a
methodology in which we simply ensure its failure rather than its
success if we continue to defer investment, and we risk losing service
between Boston and Washington, which is at the hub of that core of
service, if any service disruptions in Amtrak are experienced.
The northeast corridor is critical to our Nation and it is the
heaviest traveled railroad in North America. It is not a simple luxury
for many people. In fact, 1,700 trains operate over some portion of the
Washington-to-Boston route each day in this Nation, providing people
the opportunity to work, providing people the opportunity to carry on
the business of this Nation and go to the places they need to go.
As the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out, the
northeast corridor carries more from New York to Washington each day
than both airlines in providing their shuttle service, combined, do.
Pretty critical service that it provides. It carries more than 35,000
people a day, the entire corridor, and the Northeast is the only area
in which Amtrak runs trains and owns tracks and I think provides us the
greatest opportunity to build from within that railroad's experience.
As it relates to the notion that this is somehow pork, I want to
point out to my good friend and others that this Congress has not been
hesitant to subsidize private entities like airlines, has not been
hesitant, as the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) pointed out, to
provide other infrastructure subsidies throughout the system, and that
to decide arbitrarily or subjectively that while Amtrak may not serve
portions of the Nation, it is therefore not in the national interest,
is simply wrong.
I want to again thank my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Quinn), and involve my support for his amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Tancredo) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

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

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
Page 5, line 21, after ``$45,000,000'' insert ``(decreased
by $45,000,000)''.
Page 68, line 11, after ``$1,628,739,000'' insert
``(decreased by $165,000,000)''.
Page 91, line 1, after ``$495,000,000'' insert ``(increased
by $232,000,000)''.
Page 108, line 23, after ``$35,914,000'' insert
``(decreased by $22,000,000)''.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an
amendment to H.R. 2989. This amendment increases the amount of funding
provided in this bill for election reform.
When the 107th Congress overwhelmingly passed the Help America Vote
Act, it made a commitment to the American public that we would restore
reliability to America's elections system. Last year, Congress grossly
underfunded its authorized commitment. Again, today, we are considering
a bill that provides less than 50 percent of the amount authorized. The
Help America Vote Act authorized more than $1 billion in funding for
fiscal year 2004. Yet this bill appropriates only $500 million.
In less than 6 months, Mr. Chairman, Americans will begin traveling
to the polls to vote in the Presidential primaries. The unfortunate
reality is that they will be returning, in many respects, to the same
system that failed them in many respects 3 years ago, simply because
Congress has not followed through with its financial commitment to
States, counties, and local governments.
The amendment I am offering today increases funding in the bill for
the implementation of the Help America Vote Act by $232 million. This
extra money for election reform funding today will improve local
election systems while offsetting the increase with funds that might
not be used for well over 2 years. This body has an opportunity to say
to Americans across the country that we are committed to election
reform. My amendment makes this commitment clear and takes us one step
closer to a day when Americans will walk away from the polls knowing
that their vote will not only be counted but will actually count. I
would urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment.
I would also like to take a point of personal privilege to thank the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney)
and the many Members who have supported the Help America Vote Act in
its present form, and assuredly all of us should bring ourselves to
want to do what is right by all of our constituents as it pertains to
voting.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman from Florida's
(Mr.

[[Page H7883]]

Hastings) amendment. I understand his concern with having more Federal
funds for voter reform and voting systems reform in the country. We
have the money of course in the bill, which frankly we have treated as
inviolate. We have not sought to diminish the amount or invade the
election reform dollars for the purpose of transportation or any other
function. However, if we open up that Pandora's box, I think we would
find a great many Members who would be interested in saying we need
transportation more than we need to be subsidizing some States that
have not reformed their system on their own.
The gentleman's amendment opens up that box. I am not trying to take
the money we have in the bill for election reform and move it out
elsewhere, but I think the money we have in the bill for the
modernization of the IRS, for Department of Transportation, and for the
National Archives should not be invaded to put money into the election
reform pot to be sent around to States.
With the funding provided in the bill already, Congress will have
appropriated $2 billion to date for reforming the election system in
this country. I am well aware it is not the same as the authorized
level, but $2 billion is still an enormous amount of money. Nearly 99
percent of that money has gone or will be going directly to the States
for the improvement of voting systems, including the purchase of up-to-
date, reliable ballot equipment; $650 million of that money has already
been obligated.
The gentleman, though, wants to accelerate that process. In doing so,
it eliminates the $45 million for the Department of Transportation
headquarters, reduces by $165 million the critical and already long-
overdue reform of the IRS information systems accounts so taxpayers can
get honest, accurate, timely, reliable information about their tax
status in this country, and the $22 million that he wants to pull out
of the National Archives with their important preservation of the
heritage of the country.
The Committee on Appropriations has decided to fund these programs at
the levels which we have after very careful consideration and working
closely with the authorizers.

{time} 1615

We have funded at the level that was mutually agreed upon. I have not
sought to invade that for transportation needs. Similarly, I would not
want to invade the other portions of this bill for the election reform.
I do not want that carefully crafted compromise to fall apart, as I
believe the gentleman's amendment would cause it to do.
I know that the gentleman offers the amendment in good faith in an
honest desire to improve more rapidly the election reform systems in
the country, but we should not be hampering the modernization efforts
of the other parts of government which are equally critical to every
taxpayer in the country.
So I appreciate the gentleman's effort, but I do oppose his
amendment.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
support the Hastings amendment that will provide much needed money for
election reform grants to states, which are to be used to update state
election systems and replace obsolete voting equipment.
After the 2000 presidential election cycle, many Americans felt
disenfranchised or even worse that their vote was not counted. These
lingering problems mostly affected minority and poor neighborhoods. In
response to the national outcry for reform, Congress overwhelmingly
passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) establishing minimum federal
standards for federal elections that include upgrading voting machines
and registration processes. Passage of the bill provided an opportunity
to reform outdated systems and show the American people and the world
that fair and just elections are important and possible.
The HAVA authorized more than $3 billion over five years to improve
our election systems, which includes improving voting technology.
However, the bill before us today only appropriates $500 million,
leaving states without resources to make critical systems updates for
the upcoming elections this year and in 2004. States deserve the
resources to make a real change. The amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Hastings goes a long way to make true election reform
a reality.
The Hastings amendment increase funding for the implementation of
HAVA by $232 million, which will be offset in accounts that do not need
the money, this fiscal year. This money will help restore confidence in
this country's election system.
Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons given for going to war in Iraq was
to bring democracy to Iraq. We also must do all we can in this country
to preserve the right to vote and provide the necessary funds to update
voting procedures in the United States. Voting is not just a right but
also a privilege. We must ensure that the voting mechanisms in America
are fair and just.
The Hastings amendment will help put us on the correct path. The
world will closely watch the next election to make sure our actions
speak louder than our words. Let this body act with integrity and
support the Hastings amendment and renew our commitment to establishing
federal standards for federal elections and voting an outlined in HAVA.
As such, I urge all of my colleagues to support this worthwhile
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) will be postponed.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Quinn

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

Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Quinn:
Page 39, line 1, strike ``$900,000,000'' and insert
``$1,712,000,000''.
Page 39, line 2, strike ``$400,000,000'' and insert
``$668,000,000''.
Page 39, lines 3 through 6, strike ``$373,000,000 for
quarterly grants for capital expenses along the Northeast
Corridor Mainline, and $127,000,000 for quarterly grants for
general capital improvements: Provided'' and insert
``$1,044,000,000 for quarterly grants for capital
improvements: Provided, That the Secretary shall not obligate
more than $544,000,000 for quarterly grants for general
capital improvements before October 1, 2004: Provided
further, That no payments of principal or interest shall be
collected during fiscal year 2004 for the direct loan made to
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation under section 502
of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of
1976 (45 U.S.C. 822): Provided further''.
Page 157, after line 2, insert the following new section:
Sec. 742. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act for the Department of the Treasury that
is not required to be appropriated or otherwise made
available by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 4
percent.

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma reserves a
point of order.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin this discussion by
commending subcommittee Chairman Istook for his diligence for bringing
this bill to the floor today. He and his committee have done their
level best with obviously limited resources that he was given to meet
tremendous transportation needs and infrastructure needs throughout the
country.
We need to build roads; there is no question about that. We need to
repair bridges. We need to expand the capacity of our airports, but I
do not believe that we can forget about our other major mode of
transportation and that is passenger rail service.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there is not enough money to go around.
In order to provide safe, efficient, and reliable passenger rail
service, Amtrak president David Gunn has said the company needs $1.8
billion next fiscal year. This bill appropriates only half of that.
In my opinion, this will simply continue to do what we have done
before, and I said it earlier this afternoon, we will provide Amtrak
with just enough money to make sure that it fails. In this case, Mr.
Chairman, I think with even worse results.
Our railroad subcommittee and the full Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure earlier this year passed an authorization of $2
billion. Following that, I organized and sent a letter with over 220
signatures to the appropriators asking for this same amount of money.

[[Page H7884]]

That bill coupled with our bonding proposal to develop high-speed
rail corridors would create the type of passenger rail network that
this country needs and has to have.
My amendment this afternoon would raise the level of funding for
Amtrak to $1.7 billion and forgive them the $100 million loan that they
received from the Department of Transportation 2 years ago. It would
provide Amtrak with the necessary capital and funding to make those
improvements along this popular northeast corridor that we have talked
about today as well as track and bridge repairs throughout its entire
system, not just the northeast corridor.
The Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee just yesterday
passed their version of this bill and included $1.3 billion for Amtrak.
While this is a step in the right direction, I believe even more needs
to be done.
Mr. Chairman, I am a firm believer that a national passenger rail
system has to be in place. I intend to work with the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) and the full committee chairman, the
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), to increase the funding for
Amtrak in the conference negotiations with the Senate.
Mr. Chairman, if these numbers hold that we see today, I will predict
disastrous consequences for passenger rail service next year as we know
it.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask a hypothetical question of
Members on my side of the aisle that next August when the meeting is
held in New York City I want to know who is going to answer the
questions when there is no Amtrak service provided to get to the city
and from the city and around the city.

Point of Order

Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I do make my point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill, therefore violating clause 2 of
rule XXI.
That rule states in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general
appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''
The amendment gives affirmative direction in effect, and I ask for a
ruling from the Chair.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, if he would yield to let me speak to this
for a couple of minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma may continue to
reserve his point of order.
Mr. ISTOOK. As long as my point of order is reserved, I have no
objection if the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) would like to
strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Point of order is reserved.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I do not
want to wear out my welcome.
I did speak to this just a few minutes ago, but there are a couple of
additional points. Obviously I agree with the amendment of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn). We are not going to win this
point. I understood the point of order of the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Istook) and notice he is a good friend and a good chairman and is
doing the best job he can with this particular bill, which is
difficult.
I just have to go back to what we are doing in transportation and
just ask everybody in leadership and everybody that is going to be
involved in the ultimate conference on this to really pay attention to
what is happening to rail service in the United States of America and
to other services in general.
I have already indicated in our airports, for example, that we have
the comptrollers, we have the TSA, and we have billions of dollars of
expenses; we put $15 billion, $15 billion, after 9-11 into
stabilization for our airline industry in this country. The request
here is $1.8 billion for a significant industry to allow them to do the
infrastructure which they would have to do in order to be able to carry
out a proper transportation system.
Let us look at what we have: not a single passenger rail system in
the world which operates in a profitable way. Countries with well-
developed rail systems with much smaller populations, such as Germany
and Japan, invest $3 billion to $4 billion, while we are asking for
$1.8 billion, $3 billion to $4 billion annually on passenger rail,
which is over 20 percent of their total transportation spending.
What happens to the roads there? The roads free up and people go with
the rail systems. That is what we want to do here in the United States
of America. I honestly believe if we give this a long-term approach,
with the capital improvements, with the maintenance which is necessary
running the systems where it should, and with the decisions for
efficiency where it is needed, that we will have a system of rail in
this country for which we can always be proud. But frankly, if we
continue to try to keep nickel and diming this operation by giving
them, say, $900 million when indeed they need twice that amount of
money to run this, unfortunately we will never get to that point.
We are not going to rescue this today. Unfortunately, we do not have
a large enough body of votes here to be able to do that necessarily.
But the bottom line is that at some point this Congress and this
administration need to sit down and make that decision, and hopefully
it will be a firm decision to make sure that rail is elevated so that
it is at the point where it is absolutely competitive with other
countries and other transportation systems in the United States of
America. I do hope that we will be able to do that, and I would suggest
that we would be best served if we did it, and the sooner the better.
So I am in support of the amendment, but also I am in support of
making sure we resolve this problem.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the last
word.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from New
York is recognized.
There was no objection.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle) for his remarks, and I deeply appreciate the position of
the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook). I realize that this is not
the place for this discussion, not only where the discussion should
take place but the decision made.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Quinn Amendment to
the Transportation Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004.
If we do not pass this amendment, Amtrak is guaranteed to close
because of lack of funding. Amtrak is a valuable resource to this
nation and to my home state of California. It carries millions of
passengers every year and employes thousands of workers. This nation is
not in the position to lose such a valuable resource. We must continue
to fund Amtrak and fund it 100 percent.
Last year Amtrak shut down because of lack of funding. This bill is
certain to close Amtrak's doors once again this year because it simply
provides $900 million in funding. That is not enough to keep Amtrak
operating. Amtrak needs $1.8 billion in survive.
Amtrak is a company that has not been fully funded since its creation
in 1970. We have never given this company the full resources that it
needs to survive and it is time to change this.
Amtrak provides a valuable resource to commuters and travelers all
over this nation, and yet it only absorbs 1 percent of the federal
transportation budget. 1 percent!
Amtrak last year covered nearly 65 percent of its own operating
costs. No rail system in the world is that self funded! It is a good
program and it must continue to keep its doors open.
We need more job creation right now, not job elimination. Amtrak
employs over 20,000 workers. If we allow it to close, what will happen
to these families? How will these families replace the loss of income
and the loss of benefits? Our economy simply isn't in the position to
keep closing doors on workers.
In California, 3.5 million people used Amtrak last year. That is 16
percent of its total ridership!
Amtrak employs over 4000 people in my state and represents over $100
million dollars in salaries. My state simply cannot afford to see
anymore job loss and it cannot afford to see any more families lose
their benefits.
We must think about the consequences of our actions today. We must
think about what the abandonment of our national rail system will do to
commuters, workers, and families in this nation. At a time when other
nations are expanding their intercity passengers rail systems, we
should not guarantee the shutdown of ours. At a time when Americans are
traveling more than ever, we cannot turnour backs on affordable
transportation. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?

[[Page H7885]]

There was no objection.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon

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

Amendment No. 9 offered by Ms. Hooley:
Page 2, line 8, after the first dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $500,000)''.
Page 83, line 7, after the first dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $500,000)''.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and
could go a long ways towards increasing the security of our States'
drivers licenses, which are the primary means of photo identification
in this country. These documents are too easily forged, counterfeited,
stolen, or improperly distributed. In fact, the Inspector General for
the Department of Transportation recently stated that a Maryland DMV
employee had pleaded guilty to falsifying driver licenses for 10
people. How many of these could have ended up in the hands of
terrorists or criminals seeking to steal the identity of law-abiding
citizens?
Drivers licenses are literally the keys to the country's security.
With a driver's license, when you show your identity, you can write a
check. When you show your driver's license, you can get on a plane;
when you show your driver's license, you can take a tour of the White
House. In Oregon, a local woman is serving an 11-year sentence in
prison because she was finally caught producing counterfeit drivers
licenses right out of her home.
State DMVs must do a better job of securing our primary piece of
identity, and this $500,000 in funding will allow the Secretary to
direct the Department of Transportation to study and present
recommendations on how we can better secure these crucial documents. I
believe this study should have three major goals.
Number one, the study should determine the best practices that States
can use to secure their drivers licenses from fraud and theft. Our
government has already conducted a great deal of research on security
measures such as biometrics and digital watermarks and other technology
that could increase the security of state-issued photo identification.
In fact, we think the technology is already there.
Second, the study should determine how best to encourage the States
to put these measures into place. I understand the issuance of license
and photo identification is the responsibility of the State, and I do
not want to infringe on that right. However, given the increasing
reliance on all levels of government and businesses on these documents,
I believe we must act to ensure that false documents are not used by
terrorists, criminals, or others who would normally be unable to obtain
these credentials.
Finally, the study should determine the approximate cost for States
to initiate these security features so we can determine the impact this
would have on State budgets and the feasibility of various approaches
from a cost perspective.
As a matter of national security, we must take steps to protect our
primary source of identification both to protect our homeland from
terrorist threats and to stem the growing tide of identity theft. This
amendment would provide the necessary knowledge to accomplish this
mission. The additional funding for the study is offset by a reduction
of $500,000 out of the administrative account of the Office of
Management and Budget. The CPO has scored this amendment as revenue
neutral.
Again, this bill deals with drivers licenses. It looks at the best
practices States can use to secure those drivers licenses, it looks at
how we encourage States to put this in place, and it determines a cost.
This is an antiterrorist amendment. This is an anti-identity theft
amendment. I urge my colleagues to protect our citizens and our
national security by supporting this important amendment.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
certainly appreciate the good intentions of the gentlewoman from
Oregon; however, I cannot support the amendment.
We already have, through the National Highway Safety program, a great
number of efforts with States regarding their drivers license programs.
There is funding already there. We do not need another $500,000 study.
In fact, a number of States have already adopted provisions. For
example, my State of Oklahoma has moved to biometric identifiers,
fingerprints, on that. Other States have acted through their
legislatures.
I think we would be behind the curve if we spent $500,000 of Federal
money on another study at this point. States are already doing this. We
already have money working with the States through appropriations in
this bill on their drivers license improvement programs. And
furthermore, we should not take money from the Office of Management and
Budget, which has already been cut by $14 million in this bill from the
fiscal year 2003 level.
So I think, frankly, that the amendment is behind what is already
going on in the country. It is good, but a study is not going to make
things happen any faster than they are already happening in the States,
and it will cost $500,000 of Federal money we do not need to be
spending. So I appreciate the efforts of the gentlewoman but rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon
(Ms. Hooley) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota:
Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $320,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $273,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.
Page 61, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,285,000)''.
Page 67, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $12,250,000)''.
Page 67, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $4,250,000)''.
Page 67, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
Page 84, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $28,790,000)''.
Page 85, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $276,675,000)''.

{time} 1630

Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It
increases funding for some incredibly important programs within this
bill. The amendment doubles funding for the Office of Terrorist
Financing and Financial Crimes, the tax counseling for the elderly
programs, low-income tax clinics, and the Office of National Drug
Control Policy. It also increases funding for the high-intensity drug
trafficking areas program. These increases are offset by restoring
funding for Amtrak to the level originally approved by the committee.
We have heard a lot about Amtrak today, and I support intercity rail
transit where it can be viable. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
Sweeney) said that the core of Amtrak was in the northeast corridor,
and I am confident with regional support that northeast corridor can
continue to thrive and be successful whatever we do at the national
level. And where we have even close to the population density of Europe
that makes sense, but there are too many lines where we are pouring
money in as fast as we can in areas that will never be viable. Given
the scarcity of our dollars, we should be focusing on things like high-
speed rail or roads or other forms of transportation which make more
sense.
The simple fact is that Federal subsidies to Amtrak are a poor
investment that offer little return. Having done

[[Page H7886]]

some research, if we look at the Sunset Limited line from Orlando to
Los Angeles, that costs $347; and I found 11 different flights that
cost less than the average per passenger loss that the Federal
Government subsidizes for that route. One of those flights was $232, so
this means that the Federal Government would save $115 per passenger if
it bought every Sunset passenger a round-trip plane ticket as opposed
to subsidizing the long-haul route one way.
We can say the same about the Pennsylvanian which has a $292 loss per
passenger to go from Philadelphia to Chicago; a plane ticket would cost
$135. We would save $157 per passenger. The list goes on and on.
Members do not need to be a CPA to understand that when Amtrak's rate
of return is twice that to pay for Amtrak as competing services, which
would get people there quicker, this is not where we ought to be
prioritizing Federal dollars.
If we look at the areas I am spending it in under my proposal, as
indicated during debate on the rule and general debates, the Office of
Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes is a new entity within the
Department of Treasury. Its purpose is to provide support to our
efforts to combat the funding of terrorism and other crimes committed
within the U.S. and abroad. We know that terrorism does not work unless
the terrorists have money, and so it is important that we do more to
deny those who wish to do us harm the means to carry out their
intentions.
My amendment would also double funding for two programs which provide
critical assistance to low-income and elderly Americans when they pay
their taxes. The Federal Tax Code is made up of four huge volumes that
are each thicker than the Bible. In fact, the Tax Code is over 7
million words long. These programs help people with a task that is far
too burdensome and they need more resources.
My amendment also increases funding for the Office of National Drug
Control Policy and the high-intensity drug trafficking program, two
vital elements in our Nation's war on drugs. The principal purpose of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy is to establish policies,
priorities, and objectives to reduce the illicit drug trade, drug-
related crime and drug-related health consequences. From enforcement of
our drug laws to treatment of individuals by the tragic effects of
substance abuse, this program plays a critical role in helping our
country fight this terrible problem. As a father of four, I believe the
importance of this work cannot be understated.
Finally, we need to do more to help States fight and win their local
war on drugs. In Minnesota, police have been battling the devastating
problem of methamphetamine production and use. They are in desperate
need of assistance.
The high-intensity drug trafficking program is a Federal program that
many of my colleagues know and respect. From Houston to Los Angeles to
the Appalachian region, from Hawaii to New England and throughout the
Midwest, this program has helped State and local official tailor highly
specialized solutions to unique areas of need. Drug use is a national
problem, and we need to fund national programs like the high-intensity
drug trafficking program to fight it. My amendment will deliver those
resources.
Mr. Chairman, the programs funded by my amendment will help the poor
and the elderly with the confusing task of filling out their taxes,
will help States battle illegal drug use, and help law enforcement
officials cut off the financial resources terrorists need before they
can act. These are broad, bipartisan programs and ones that every
Member should support. I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment
and fund these vital national priorities at the highest level possible.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the whipping boy today seems to be Amtrak on the part
of one group; and there is another group that feels that the number
that is there for Amtrak is totally inadequate. I am more a part of
that group.
The amendment which has been offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Kennedy) again reverses the action taken by the Committee on
Appropriations in full committee to provide the level of funding that
the President had asked for for Amtrak. I happen to believe that is
quite inadequate. The number that has been proposed now will strangle,
and, by the way, is specifically intended to strangle the very idea of
a national passenger rail system for America. I hope that will not be
the direction that we take here today.
The proposals for increases of funding where $320 million are used,
there are 6 of them, I guess, and each one has arguments that can be
made in favor of it, but the cost of doing that is to reduce the
funding for Amtrak to the point where it absolutely goes belly up. It
is the very end, and is intended to strangle the passenger rail system.
As I have pointed out before, the level of $900 million is what the
President requested. And even at that level, it is clear that it is not
possible to make any inroads in the years of deferred maintenance and
inadequate capital investment at Amtrak. The Inspector General for
Transportation had pointed that at that $900 million level, none of the
backlog of capital needs could be addressed at that funding level.
We have already heard that 220 Members of this House of
Representatives had written the Committee on Appropriations asking for
a higher number than the $900 million level. In fact, the number was
$1.8 billion which Amtrak asked for, which the new president of Amtrak
had asked for.
I just have to point out and remind Members that over the last 5
years Amtrak has received an average of $1.1 billion each year, and at
that level of funding they have not been able to keep up with capital
needs. They have had to defer important capital investments. They have
a backlog of $3.8 billion on infrastructure, $1.1 billion for fleet,
and $900 million for stations and facilities, so such a level would
make it impossible to do anything of significance in capital needs.
Again, the inspector general has estimated that Amtrak would need $1.5
billion annually for capital needs alone throughout the system.
The president of Amtrak, David Gunn, the new President and CEO, has
cut waste, reduced expenses, increased revenues, improved Amtrak's
operations, and he has said that he would need $1.4 billion to $1.8
billion each year to stabilize the system over the next 5 years. That
includes the funding for upgrading track and bridges and tunnels in the
northeast corridor, which is one piece of it which carries a huge
number of passengers, and runs somewhere fairly close to break even,
except for capital expenditures.
The fact here is the amendment is intended to terminate the idea of a
passenger rail system in this country. I hope we would not adopt this
amendment. I urge a no vote on this amendment.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I came to join the Amtrak debate. We have a great
amendment before us, proposed by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Kennedy). I think he is well-intended. It shows the depth we have sort
of sunk into when the debate on our national rail passenger service has
a Member come forward and say we are subsidizing $350 a ticket on a
losing route, which serves my area, and it would be better to put the
money on a drug rehabilitation program, for which I probably concur.
I did not come to speak in favor of the amendment, but I think there
is a lot of logic if we are going to throw money away on a losing
proposition on Amtrak the way it is currently constituted, it would be
better to put it on the proposal the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Kennedy) has brought forth.
First, let me say I am not an opponent to national passenger rail
service and increasing actually good service. What we have now is a
Soviet-style partial government operation of our national passenger
rail service. We have had reports for as long as I have served on the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on
Railroads, for some 11 years, we have got to reform Amtrak.
The problem is not Amtrak. The problem is right here: Congress.
Congress has failed to authorize a program under which we can provide
good national passenger long-distance service, a program under which we
can provide and catch up with the rest of the world in high-speed
service.

[[Page H7887]]

{time} 1645

Yes, we need to put the money into it. But do we want to put the
money into a losing proposition that we would be better off putting it
into a drug program? I heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).
He is very well intended, and he wants to up the amount to $1.8
billion. We just heard from the ranking member of the subcommittee that
they have been losing $1.1 billion. The facts are that Amtrak has lost,
as we heard, $1.1 billion in need of that subsidy in addition, but
below that their debt now exceeds $5 billion each year for the past 4
or 5 years. They have gone into debt, they have hocked the whole system
and even their real estate assets. So that the debt and the depth of
problems with Amtrak is far greater than what is brought here today.
Mr. Gunn is a great administrator, but he has to administrate the law
that Congress passed some 30 years ago to do everything as far as
passenger service and high-speed service and other activities that
Amtrak is involved in and nothing gets done well. So you can have the
best manager and if Congress does not make the changes necessary, it
will not run. He came to us at our subcommittee and said he needed $2
billion, first for 5 years, a total of $10 billion. Then he came back
and he said he needed $2 billion for 3 years, a total of $6 billion.
The maintenance backlog of Amtrak alone exceeds $6 billion. So if you
think you are fixing Amtrak by throwing more money at the problem, you
are wrong. It will not solve it because they are losing more than $2
billion a year if you add in the debt. Just their debt payment is a
quarter of a billion dollars a year. Plus, they have a retirement fund
obligation which exceeds $7 billion.
What we need to do is reorganize Amtrak, and Congress needs to
organize it so we have high-speed service and long-distance service.
And we do it right, we just do not throw money at the problem. I would
favor $60 billion towards national passenger rail service and high-
speed, or $100 billion, because we need that alternative. And in the
end, it is cost effective to concrete and cement and roads and other
alternatives that we are faced with. So it is cost effective, but who
wants to give Amtrak more responsibility for high-speed service?
The Acela program, we gave them billions, billions of dollars, and
they blew it. The contract is in litigation. They bought equipment that
does not fit the chassis, and it runs 82 to 83 miles per hour. Is that
high-speed service? Even under our national definition of high-speed
rail, it does not meet that criteria. Let us reform Amtrak and let us
solve the problem. Let us not throw money at the problem.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Kennedy of Minnesota
amendment. I have listened to this debate now for more than an hour. I
have certainly come to the conclusion that the fact of the matter is
that the Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 does not adequately fund the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation that we call Amtrak. As a
matter of fact, this bill provides $900 billion for continued
assistance to Amtrak.
Last year, Congress provided just over $1 billion to keep Amtrak
running through fiscal year 2003. Amtrak now estimates that it will
need $1.8 billion to maintain existing operations in fiscal year 2004.
The present bill before us is not sufficient to meet Amtrak's
contractual obligations for commuter and intercity passenger rail
service. If Amtrak is unable to continue its existing operations, many
commuter railroads that are dependent upon Amtrak operations would be
unable to continue to provide quality and reliable services to their
customers.
Amtrak is a major part of the economy of the city where I live. I
live in the city of Chicago, which we call the transportation capital
of the Nation. Amtrak operates more than 50 trains into and out of the
city of Chicago each and every day. These include an extensive network
of long-distance trains that provide service to the east and west
coasts, the Gulf of Mexico and Canada. Amtrak also operates dozens of
regional corridor trains to most major cities in the Midwest. Last
year, Amtrak carried two million passengers to or from Chicago. Nearly
600,000 more boarded Amtrak trains at other stations within Illinois.
Amtrak employs 2,075 individuals in Chicago. And of those employees,
897 were actually Chicago residents. In calendar year 2002, the total
wages of Amtrak employees living in the city of Chicago were
approximately $37.7 million. Should Amtrak not be able to continue its
operations, imagine the negative impact this would have on the people
of Chicago and the people who live in that region, the people who work
for Amtrak, and the thousands of people all over the country who look
to, expect and need Amtrak as their primary mode of transportation,
even to and from work every day.
I oppose this amendment because I think it goes in the wrong
direction, and I would certainly support the Olver amendment to
increase Amtrak funding by $500 million rather than cut it in any way,
shape, form or fashion.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question
is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Kennedy).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Kennedy) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Holt

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Holt:
Page 43, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 43, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.
Page 46, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 46, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Mr. HOLT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, today I am offering an amendment that would
help ensure adequate winter access to Yellowstone and Grand Teton
National Parks.
Yellowstone, America's premier park, is being loved to death, and
there are many Members here who are concerned about the effect of
vehicular pollution, traffic, on Yellowstone Park. In fact, precisely
half of the Members here recently voted to ban snow machines. This
amendment, that I have before the body at the moment, would do nothing
with the number or type of snowmobiles allowed in the park. It is not
unrelated. As I point out, half of the House voted to ban snowmobiles,
and all of those Members should support this amendment. Some, who voted
otherwise because there was insufficient alternative transportation
available, should also support this.
Since that discussion a few weeks ago, there is new information. The
Environmental Protection Agency, having done tests shows that the new
generation of snowmobiles approved for use in Yellowstone Park after
being promoted as cleaner and quieter, in fact, emit more pollution.
Said a spokesman for Yellowstone Park, ``We started all this in good
faith. We based our decision on the fact that the machines would
continue to be cleaner and quieter and the industry would work toward
that end.'' In fact, none of the new machines tested by the EPA meet
the park's standards. They are dirtier than before.
What I am trying to do is to see that we have adequate access to
Yellowstone Park whether my colleagues support snowmobiles or not.
There exists now some multipassenger vehicles for access in the snow,
over the snow, into the park. They range from the old-fashioned, and I
would say classy, red Bombardier vehicles to the newer models adapted
from Ford Econoline vans.

[[Page H7888]]

Just this year, the new prototype of snow coaches has been unveiled.
These new vehicles are environmentally friendly and can run on diesel,
gas, compressed natural gas or ethanol. And they include big windows
and a fabric top that folds back so passengers can get a good look
around. What is more, the vehicles can be lowered to accommodate
disabled individuals. This means that people who could not enjoy
Yellowstone Park's winter beauty before can now fully experience these
national treasures.
The Federal Transit Administration, in a private-public partnership
along with the Heart Corporation of Michigan, Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy
and the National Park Service have designed and developed this new
prototype. My amendment is intended to provide $2 million for the Park
Service to use 12 new coaches of this type.
As I said, this amendment, I believe, should be acceptable to
everyone. Anyone here in this body who voted to ban snowmobiles from
Yellowstone should support this. Anyone here who voted against the ban
on snowmobiles should also support this because it provides alternative
means of travel.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the committee consider approving this
transfer of funds within the Federal Transit Administration for this
important purpose in our major, premier national park.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the efforts of the gentleman
from New Jersey and his focus on this issue. I regret that I cannot
agree to the amendment, because I know he has devoted a lot of time to
it, but for a couple of reasons. One, of course, is that the National
Park Service customarily has its appropriations through the Interior
Department Appropriation bill. As much as some people may consider it
mass transit in Yellowstone, I do not think that fits the normal
definition of the work of the Federal Transit Administration. But I
look forward to working with the gentleman to learn more about the
issue and see what we might be able to improve on it and consider his
request in whatever is the appropriate committee.
I also feel compelled to point out, it has come to my attention, an
article reported today through the Los Angeles Times News Service, and
I will just read the first sentence of that particular article, which
says, ``A new generation of snowmobiles approved for use in Yellowstone
National Park after being promoted as cleaner and quieter, emit more
pollution than models produced 2 years ago, according to test data from
the Environmental Protection Agency.'' I do not know on the particular
vehicles that the gentleman is promoting whether they are actually
covered by this particular study or not, maybe they are, maybe they are
not. But I do not know the ramifications of it all, and I certainly
would not want to be shifting around within a bill that has such tight
funding as we have, $2 million to go out of the general transportation
purposes and into a specialty use in Yellowstone National Park,
although I think that is a good question for the Interior Committee.
But I am interested in learning more, working with the gentleman, and
I think the whole House needs to consider his interest. But I cannot
agree to support the amendment, unfortunately.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISTOOK. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. It is precisely because those single-passenger and dual-
passenger vehicles to which the chairman refers do not meet the
environmental guidelines of the National Park Service that the Transit
Administration and others have developed these multipassenger vehicles
which do emit less pollution per passenger, per recreation enthusiast.
So, in fact, they would be a substitute.
With regard to the point that this would be used in Yellowstone Park,
yes, indeed they would. In fact, all mass transit is used somewhere,
where people are, where people want to travel, and that is an
appropriate use of, I think, the Transit funds. But with the chairman's
assurance that we can continue this discussion, I would be pleased to
withdraw my amendment at this time.
Mr. ISTOOK. I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the amendment is
withdrawn.
There was no objection.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Olver

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

Amendment offered by Mr. Olver:
Page 39, line 10, insert before the colon the following:
: Provided further, That, in addition to the amounts
otherwise provided under this heading, for grants to the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation, $500,000,000:
Provided further, That, in the case of taxpayers with
adjusted gross income in excess of $1,000,000 for the tax
year beginning in 2003, the amount of tax reduction resulting
from enactment of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-27) shall be reduced
by 2.8 percent.

{time} 1700

Mr. OLVER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I wish to reserve a point of order against
the amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is one of those that proposes
to add $500 million or nearly that sum of money, in my case exactly
$500 million, to this legislation for Amtrak and would bring their
total funding to $1.4 billion. The amendment does this by reducing the
size of the tax cut for those earning more than $1 million of taxable
income by less than 3 percent, from an average of $88,000 to an average
of $85,500 or about $2,500 on average, which represents less than 3
percent of the size of that tax reduction.
The chairman has already reserved a point of order, and I would like
to just point out that I would have supported the amendment being
offered by the gentleman from New York, who is the chairman of the
Railroads Subcommittee of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, had it not been for the way the offsets come.
So here we are with a substantial number of people, and it probably
comes to all of those 220 Members, both Republicans and Democrats, a
good smattering of both parties, who sent a letter to appropriators
asking for support for requests of $1.8 billion for Amtrak; and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) and I in two different ways have
offsets that neither he could support mine nor could I support his, but
it goes to show that there is a substantial number of people who really
do believe in the concept of a national passenger rail system, and that
is not what we are going to have in the direction that we are going.
I just want to comment also that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman
Mica) of the Subcommittee on Aviation has indicated, and I think this
is what I heard, that he thinks it would be appropriate to do perhaps
as much as a $90 billion program on high-speed rail, and I am a
supporter of high-speed rail as well and will probably if we get the
opportunity vote for that because high-speed rail in appropriate places
is something that might well be done. But high-speed rail is never
going to be a substitute for a national passenger rail system. That is
not possible under high-speed rail, and I would point out that if we
are talking about doing $90 billion in capital funding for a high-speed
rail system, which under circumstances I certainly will support, we are
now talking about instead being unable to provide merely the $1.5
billion per year which the transportation IG, Ken Mead, says is
necessary to make our present effort at a national passenger rail
system function.
So we have to keep in mind that we are talking about a huge sum of
money for doing some high-speed rail when we cannot even figure out how
to do a national passenger rail system which would on a per-year basis
cost no more than 10 percent of what is being proposed for a high-speed
rail program, a set of initiatives that will not come anywhere close to
providing for such a national passenger rail system.
My amendment, with the increase to $1.4 billion a year, would provide
money so that Amtrak can begin to

[[Page H7889]]

tackle the years of deferred maintenance and inadequate capital
investment that has been the history of Amtrak for quite a number of
years, and I would just point out that no large private or public
intercity passenger rail system in the world has been profitable or
been able to survive without substantial public subsidy. When national
governors no longer want to support such intercity rail service, the
rail service disappears; and Amtrak was created because private
companies were unable to make a profit on passenger rail. And if we
believe in a national passenger rail system, then we are going to have
to start by dealing with a national passenger rail system.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I had not planned to talk, but since my name was brought up in the
debate in some comments about my comments, I thought it was important
to respond.
First, again, I view myself as a strong advocate of national
passenger rail system; but we need a system that makes sense, a system
that serves areas that need to be served and require the service, and
if we want to have losing routes across the country, there is no
problem. We subsidize aviation. We subsidize roads. We subsidize every
form of transportation. Let us have a transparent subsidization. Let us
subsidize the transportation at the lowest possible cost to the
taxpayer, and let us also bring in partners from those areas who want
the service. If they want service and they want to subsidize it $350 a
ticket, God bless them. They should have that service, and if they are
willing to pay for part of that, maybe we will pay part of it too.
But we have to look at, for one thing, the taxpayers' pocketbook
here. The fact is, again, I do not know how to make this any clearer to
my colleagues, Amtrak was given by Congress the mandate to run national
passenger service. They have had that mandate. They have gotten into
high-speed service. Can we tell the finances of Amtrak? I would venture
to say if we looked at the Enron report and Enron loss-of-investor
money, we are talking about losses of taxpayers' billions of dollars,
five point X billion dollars in the last 5, 6 years that they have
lost, we cannot tell the finances. This committee cannot tell us the
finances. I just asked the staff for information about the finances of
Amtrak.
So I have identified the problem. The problem is Congress, because we
have failed to put together a plan to provide national passenger
service that makes sense. We have failed to put together corridors for
high-speed service.
The question comes to us should we give Amtrak more money, and if we
give them $1.4 billion, can they do the job? If we give them $1.8
billion, can they do the job? Two billion dollars, can they do the job?
It is ``no,'' by any stretch of financial accounting. Just add it up.
Their deferred maintenance is over $5 billion. What are we going to do
in this, a couple hundred million dollars at most? Their debt is a
quarter of a billion, plus they have been hocking the family jewels to
keep this thing operating. So the problem is us.
I do not mind a high-speed corridor that makes sense. Honest to
goodness, and I know a lot of people here are lawyers and we have got
politicians and they cannot figure it out, but a route from Washington
to New York that truly went high speed, 125 miles an hour as defined by
law or whatever we have, that got people there in less than 2 hours, my
goodness, even the people from Wall Street have said that is a winner.
That will make money. They cannot figure that out in Washington. They
want subsidization of a Soviet-style passenger service and impose it in
a high-speed corridor. Does that make sense?
Yes, these projects can make sense if we look at them from a business
standpoint or a taxpayer standpoint as to how we are spending the
money. So let us take a deep breath. We are not going to solve Amtrak's
problem with $1.1 billion, with $1.4 billion, or with $2.4 billion; and
I guarantee the Members, and I have got all the reports from the last
several years, we will be back here again with the same debate no
matter how much money we give them today if we do not solve the basic
fundamental organizational, administrative problems and service
problems that Amtrak is facing. So that is the story, the long and the
short of it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment, and it
follows the discussion and my support for preserving dedicated funding
for transportation enhancements with goals to ensuring that community-
based projects are supported at the local level. And the reason why I
tie the two together in our support for Amtrak is that all these
projects point to the public responsibility for transportation. We know
that on the floor of the House today we are not debating the
involvement of the public sector. We want to be efficient. We want to
be responsible as it relates to Federal dollars; but when we discuss
matters on the floor of the House, we are suggesting what the public
and Federal roles should be.
It is well known that transportation itself is a public entity and
responsibility, whether it goes to fixing our freeways and highways and
bypasses and bridges, which we all realize is an important component of
now the Committee on Homeland Security, a committee on which I serve.
Then we cannot doubt the fact that all aspects of transportation,
whether it is trucking or when it is utilization of our highways and
freeways by cars, of individuals who travel over Federal roadways,
whether or not it is the airlines or whether or not it is the train
system, if it is localized, it is controlled by local entities. But
Amtrak happens to be a system that travels interstate. I cannot
imagine, on the basis of jobs, on the basis of transportation, and on
the basis of security that we would not want to be responsible in
funding Amtrak.
I realize that these are difficult questions. I will be on the floor
shortly with a very difficult question. But the question should be
answered in favor of the people. I believe my amendment should be
answered in favor of the people who have voiced their opinions. Amtrak
has a constituency that in many instances cannot do without it.
I happen to be some distance away from the eastern corridor, but I
can assure the Members that in Texas, the Texas 21 organization that
has any number of Texas transit organizations involved happens to have
a very favorable position on Amtrak and the need for passenger travel.
In fact, in Texas, where we are very far away in our different cities
and hamlets and counties because we are a very big State, sometimes
rail travel may be the only vehicle. It does not mean in any way that
we intend to diminish our very able intra, which is now interstate,
airlines or locally based airlines.
I happen to think the world of Southwest Airlines that was based
initially on travel within our State, but I believe they could be
complementary to the extent that we can find an effective and efficient
way to ensure that Amtrak uses Federal dollars correctly but that we do
not sacrifice the needs of the public because we are not willing to
participate in our responsibility.
I think this is a reasonable approach. This is where we should be
debating this question. The resources are resources that we can find,
Mr. Chairman, simply by repealing the President's tax cut and investing
in the infrastructure of this country. We already realize that
infrastructure is crumbling, as evidenced by the very serious blackout
that we had just a couple of weeks ago. That is infrastructure. Public
transit is infrastructure. And it would make a lot of sense to reinvest
in infrastructure.
I support this amendment, and I would hope my colleagues would find a
way to err on the side of supporting passenger travel by rail.

{time} 1715

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Olver amendment. Let me
talk about my home State of Connecticut, where Amtrak service is a
vital component of daily life, as it is to thousands of cities and
towns. The same is true all along the East Coast.
Over 1 million Connecticut citizens rely on Amtrak annually; 411,000
in my hometown of New Haven. People rely on Amtrak to commute to work
to New York City. They rely on Amtrak to

[[Page H7890]]

bring commerce and tourism into cities without a commuter airline
service.
In the Northeast, people travel Amtrak because it quite simply is the
most convenient and time-efficient method of traveling from city to
city, alleviating heavy rush-hour traffic which is faced by so many
commuters today. In doing so, it is a major contributor in reducing
emissions that contribute to respiratory illnesses like asthma, and it
helps to keep the air clean and our children healthy.
If you have ever been on the I-95 corridor, you will know that it
does not make any difference what time of day you are traveling that
road by car, it is always jammed. For us, being able to alleviate some
of that problem by putting people on trains would be well worth an
investment.
Amtrak means jobs as well. Nearly 700 employees are in Connecticut.
Amtrak owns and operates a rail yard in New Haven, Connecticut where
maintenance and equipment repair take place. Given the continual
underfunding of Amtrak, over 100 cars in the fleet remain sidelined
waiting for repair due to inadequate capital.
Deferred maintenance on all Amtrak locomotives and passenger cars has
reduced reliability, revenue, and raised costs, further hindering
overall financial performance.
I speak from experience as a dedicated Amtrak traveler. For 13 years
I have frequently commuted between Connecticut and Washington, D.C.
Amtrak represents the best of what public transportation has to offer:
convenience, comfort and efficiency.
Sadly, though, for over 3 decades, funding for America's passenger
railroad has barely been enough to keep the system operating on a year-
to-year basis, which prevents it from meeting its longer-term public
service mission, not to mention its capital obligations.
Mr. Chairman, this country and its transportation system was created
and its vision was a bold and daring vision, where people invested in
infrastructure and made it possible for people to go from coast to
coast, from city to city, by rail, to transmit goods by rail, and it
was visionary on the part of those who invested in that effort.
That needs to happen with this institution. It needs to be visionary
in understanding what the infrastructure needs are with regard to rail
travel. Pruning or eliminating the long-distance network will not make
Amtrak profitable. Failure to provide the necessary funds will not only
mean the suspension of Amtrak service in the busy northeast corridor,
but the likely permanent loss of its long-distance trains. It will not
only strand thousands of commuters around the Nation, it will also mean
the loss of production, the loss of millions of dollars for communities
and companies in the areas it services. That simply is unacceptable. It
should be unacceptable. We need to embark on that bold vision that
those folks of yesteryear had in putting in the dollars needed for rail
travel and its maintenance.
Support Amtrak and vote for the Olver amendment.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the distinguished ranking member's
amendment for a critical part of the Nation's transportation
infrastructure. There are so many ways in which one could look at the
preservation of Amtrak in terms of national interests. I would like to
talk first about one of those, and that is on security.
After September 11, we learned very clearly on that fateful day, and
my district sits right across from midtown Manhattan, that it was the
redundancy of different transportation modes when everything else was
shut down that ultimately allowed people to escape from that tragedy,
because we had a redundancy of transportation modes.
We saw that again very recently again in the blackout; that but for
the redundancy of transportation modes, people would not have been able
to get home and to be safe.
So, at a time in which corporate America looks to have redundancy in
their corporate headquarters and operations, we as a government should
be looking at how do we have a redundancy of transportation modes in
order to ensure the vitality of our country and the safety of its
citizens. Amtrak is one of those elements of that vitality and of that
redundancy, and we need to ensure that it is preserved.
Now, under the appropriations bill that is before the House, if it
were to become law, in essence that would result in the immediate
shutdown of Amtrak, which would be catastrophic for rail passengers
that rely on Amtrak's operation in the northeast corridor, as well as
those passengers who use Amtrak for long-distance intercity travel. The
Nation faced that prospect during the summer of 2002, and it was
narrowly averted by a Federal loan and supplemental appropriation. We
do not need to suffer such a needless transportation crisis again.
The long-term effects of Amtrak's demise would be just as severe. The
States and municipalities who benefit, for example, the northeast
corridor service, would have to scramble to replace it at a time when
those States are in fiscal distress. The communities only served by
Amtrak's long-distance trains would lose service altogether, with no
realistic chance of that service's restoration.
Put simply, the shutdown of Amtrak is something that cannot be
allowed to happen, and the way that this bill funds Amtrak clearly
would lead to that reality if it became law with this appropriation.
Now, in addition to security and having different modes of
transportation to get people to their destinations in a time of
heightened security concerns, we also look at, as we are trying to
languish with coming up with a highway bill, a major transportation
bill, the toll that the lack of such rail passenger service would have
on our highways, on our bridges, on our roads. The consequences would
be enormous. That is not factored into the value that Amtrak provides
us; the commerce that takes place by those who travel through passenger
rail, to be able to conduct commerce and research and development as
those companies along the northeast corridor participate throughout the
corridor and visit and do business; for those in the financial services
community; and the consequence on the environment as well from adding
all of those other forms of transportation that would have to take the
place of passenger rail, the more cars, and that which is produced
through Amtrak that may in fact have to be carried by trucking.
So, ultimately, this has a series of effects on the Nation's economy,
on the Nation's security, on the environment and the quality of life
for people who are served by Amtrak.
Mr. Chairman, we have those Members who just simply do not understand
that this is as crucial as subsidies are to agricultural parts of the
country, as dams may be to some parts of the country. This is crucial
to significant elements of the country for its security, for its
transportation needs, for its commerce, for its environment.
That is why the gentleman's amendment makes eminent sense. He moves
an amount just sufficient to keep Amtrak alive in doing so, and he does
so by taking from those who already have so much and who were given so
much more, taking a small amount to ensure that the many who need this
transportation service can achieve it.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CULBERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to put into the Record, since we
are having this Amtrak debate, a couple of facts relating to the
service of Amtrak, and I will be very brief.
Amtrak's long-distance service record, just one example: From Boston
to Albany, in 1936 the B&M Minuteman, it took 4 hours 50 minutes to go
from Boston to Albany. That is before Amtrak. In 2003, Amtrak Lakeshore
Limited goes from Boston to Albany in 5 hours.
Then I just wanted to also make certain that we have in this debate,
we talked about subsidizing the losses. This is the Amtrak Reform
Council, which we put in place in 1997 I believe it was, to look at
reforming Amtrak, coming up with a proposal, which has so far been
ignored, for restructuring the five routes with the most losses and the
amount estimated per rider

[[Page H7891]]

loss: From Los Angeles to Chicago is a $236.76 subsidy, a loss; from
Chicago to New York we lose $244.69 per passenger; from San Antonio to
Chicago, we lose $258.25; from Chicago to Philadelphia, we only lost
$292.34 cents; and from Los Angeles to Orlando, to serve my area, we
only lose $347.45.
I thought that would be appropriate to read into the Record at this
time.

Point of Order

The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oklahoma insist on his point of
order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I do insist upon my point of order, because
the amendment proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation in an appropriation bill, therefore violating clause 2 of
rule XXI. The amendment modifies existing powers and duties.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to speak on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment indirectly amends existing law.
The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause
2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed in the following order: The amendment offered by Mr. Petri of
Wisconsin; Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Tancredo of Colorado;
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida; Amendment No. 9
offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon; and the amendment offered by Mr.
Kennedy of Minnesota.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Petri

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

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 327,
noes 90, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 469]

AYES--327

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chocola
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crane
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefley
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--90

Aderholt
Akin
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Cannon
Cantor
Chabot
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
DeMint
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Goss
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Kolbe
Lewis (CA)
Manzullo
McKeon
Miller (FL)
Murphy
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pombo
Putnam
Rehberg
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Vitter
Weldon (FL)
Wicker
Wilson (SC)

NOT VOTING--17

DeGette
Gephardt
Janklow
John
Kucinich
Linder
Mollohan
Myrick
Payne
Pickering
Rangel
Regula
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Waxman
Woolsey
Young (AK)

{time} 1749

Mr. BONILLA, Mrs. EMERSON, and Messrs. MURPHY, COX, and BURTON of
Indiana changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GIBBONS, FORBES, ALEXANDER, BURR, and BALLANCE changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the remainder of
this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Tancredo

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 25 offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Tancredo) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 90,
noes 322, not voting 22, as follows:

[[Page H7892]]

[Roll No. 470]

AYES--90

Aderholt
Akin
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Collins
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Duncan
Everett
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Gingrey
Goss
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hostettler
Hunter
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Lewis (KY)
Linder
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Northup
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pombo
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Toomey
Vitter
Wamp
Wicker
Wilson (SC)

NOES--322

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Rahall
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--22

DeGette
Eshoo
Feeney
Gephardt
Janklow
John
Kucinich
Lipinski
Lynch
Mollohan
Myrick
Payne
Pickering
Rangel
Regula
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Sessions
Tiahrt
Waxman
Woolsey
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1757

Mr. GINGREY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 470 had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 471]

AYES--186

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Beauprez
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Duncan
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Foley
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kline
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Ramstad
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Shaw
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Wu
Wynn

NOES--228

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boucher
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardin
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doolittle
Dreier
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons

[[Page H7893]]

Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Musgrave
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--20

Berman
Cannon
DeGette
Ford
Gephardt
Janklow
John
Kucinich
Mollohan
Myrick
Payne
Pickering
Rangel
Regula
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Watson
Waxman
Woolsey
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on this
vote.

{time} 1805

Mr. LARSON of Connecticut changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. DOGGETT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Ms. Hooley of Oregon

The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,
noes 203, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 472]

AYES--213

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Bell
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Carter
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Renzi
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wu
Wynn

NOES--203

Aderholt
Akin
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCotter
McCrery
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rehberg
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Upton
Vitter
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--18

Berman
Cannon
DeGette
Gephardt
Janklow
John
Kucinich
Mollohan
Myrick
Payne
Pickering
Rangel
Regula
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Waxman
Woolsey
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.

{time} 1813

Mr. DUNCAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. TANCREDO and Mr. ROYCE changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

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

Recorded Vote

The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded. A recorded vote was
ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.

[[Page H7894]]

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 89,
noes 325, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 473]

AYES--89

Akin
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Blackburn
Brady (TX)
Burgess
Burr
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Collins
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Culberson
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Everett
Flake
Fletcher
Franks (AZ)
Gingrey
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hostettler
Hunter
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kline
Lewis (KY)
Linder
McCotter
McCrery
McIntyre
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Northup
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pombo
Ramstad
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (MS)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Wicker
Wilson (SC)

NOES--325

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Bass
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burns
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Houghton
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--20

Berman
Cannon
DeGette
Gephardt
Gordon
Granger
Janklow
John
Kucinich
Mollohan
Myrick
Payne
Pickering
Rangel
Regula
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Waxman
Woolsey
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1821

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments to this portion of
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, $17,000,000, to remain
available until expended: Provided, That no more than
$85,000,000 of budget authority shall be available for these
purposes: Provided further, That up to $200,000 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

The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica) rise?
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order on this
section.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the phrase,
in quotes, Notwithstanding section 3037(l)(3) of Public Law 105-178, as
amended, end quotes, beginning on page 51, line 12. This phrase waives
the statutory distribution of funds specified in TEA-21 for the job
access and reverse commute grants program. In doing so it makes
possible report language earmarking of projects that under section
3037(g) of TEA-21 must be selected on a competitive basis.
In addition, it negates the formula allocation of the program based
on community size as is required by section 3037(l)(3) of TEA-21. This
blanket waiver is legislative in nature and in violation of rule XXI.
The CHAIRMAN. Do any Members wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, we would concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is conceded and sustained. The cited
language is stricken from the bill.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

General Provisions--Federal Transit Authority

Sec. 160. 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. 161. 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, 2006, and other recoveries, shall
be made available for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
Sec. 162. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any
funds appropriated before October 1, 2003, 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. 163. None of the funds in this Act shall be made
available for the design, construction, or maintenance of any
segment of a light rail system in Houston that has not been
specifically approved by a majority of the participating
voters in the Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority service
area in a referendum.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

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

Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
Beginning on page 52, strike line 22 and all that follows
through page 53, line 2.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for
indulging us on what I believe is a point that can be embraced by all
of my friends and colleagues and Members of this body on both sides of
the aisle. It is a simple point, Mr. Chairman, that we are asking for,
and I

[[Page H7895]]

might in this very costly bill which I happen to support, let me
suggest to my colleagues that I am not asking for any money nor am I
asking for any Member to intrude in local matters.
In fact, this has to do with the Houston rail system that many
Members who have been here for a period of years have had the pleasure
of hearing debated over a long, extended time frame.
I could have come to the floor of the House of Representatives and
offered an amendment to change the framework which has been established
in the local community. Right now we have a plan that will be put on a
November 4, 2003 ballot, an election plan, that indicates that the
first stage of building a rail in Houston would be 22 miles.
I could have offered an amendment to suggest to instruct my local
authority to have it be 39 miles. But I prefer, Mr. Chairman, to go to
my local authority and engage in debate and discourse and work it
through the community. Why is that? Because the local Metro board has
proceeded through the community and engaged all of the voters on a very
simple question, the question of whether or not we will have rail in
Houston, Texas, and whether or not we will secure or attempt to secure
Federal funding.

{time} 1830

All of what has occurred over the last year should be a compliment
and a tribute to local involvement. The Houston Metro Board, chaired by
Arthur Schecter, has held a number of hearings throughout the
community. They have held a number of board meetings of which they have
voted on a 72-mile program for the Houston/Harris County area.
Again, let me emphasize to my colleagues, I ask you for nothing but
to remove the language that is a limitation that suggests that no
action can be taken unless Houston/Harris County has a referendum. Mr.
Chairman, we have already agreed to have a referendum. There is a time
certain and a date certain upon which that referendum will be held,
November 4, 2003.
The chairman of the committee, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Schecter, said
the entire community must address this issue now, that is transit. The
community can no longer afford to be divided. Chairman Schecter stated
that other areas in the Nation are making significant strides in
transit development and we must do the same. He noted that by the way
of a resolution, 99-105, the Metro Board adopted a 21st century, high-
capacity transit vision which provided a conceptual framework of
development of high-capacity transit in our major travel corridors.
In addition, we will have a specific and direct ballot issue on the
November election. I would also like to say that the Houston
Partnership, our chamber has just yesterday agreed to be supportive of
this effort and reiterated that we will have a referendum. All I am
asking my colleagues to do is to eliminate the redundant language in
this legislation, section 163, that has no basis in purpose. It is not
instructive because we have already agreed by board authority, by
ordinance, the requirement to have a referendum. All this does is
confuse both Members of Congress and agencies that will ultimately have
to interpret this language and try to understand what they were saying
in Houston, Texas. Are we divided, are we confused, and that is not the
case. The voters of Houston/Harris County in the State of Texas will
have the authority of going forward at that time.
There was a point made at one of the board meetings, Mr. Chairman,
where there was an issue regarding when the referendum would be held,
whether there was a rush to have a referendum. It was responded to by
the very proponent that there is no Federal requirement causing Metro
to rush toward a referendum. By the very same token, there is no
Federal requirement for language to be in this appropriations bill
dealing with a local issue such as the Houston Metro plan. There is no
Federal requirement to have language instructing us to have a
referendum when we have already decided to do so. Again, my colleagues,
I have come not to ask for more money. I hope that we will get in a
posture to do so. I have come not to implode the decisions of the local
community because I will choose, as many of my colleagues will choose
to do, to work locally with the mayor, the county government, the Metro
Board and the business community on that issue as well as the citizens
of that area.
I would simply say that I would ask my amendment to be accepted by my
colleagues because of the necessity of this legislation.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Houston and her
arguments. However, I rise in opposition to the amendment. If a
referendum is scheduled in Harris County, then if the voters in Harris
County approve it, they have satisfied the requirements of the language
in the bill. However, if we remove the language in the bill and the
voters say no, then they are not protected from anyone seeking to do an
end run. The language in the bill merely assures that the will of the
voters will prevail. If the voters have a referendum and the referendum
says yes, they have satisfied the conditions in the bill, and there is
no limitation. However, if the voters have a referendum and they say
no, then all that the language in the bill does is to give meaning to
what the voters said and to give assurance that the will of the people
will prevail.
I oppose the amendment by the gentlewoman from Texas and ask that it
be defeated.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I understand
why the proponent of the amendment has offered it. Most of the proposed
rail in Houston would be built in her district to the exclusion of most
of the suburbs and the rest of the region participating in the rail
system. So this is a very controversial issue, and this bill tries to
make sure that the people on the local level will have a voice in what
will be proposed and ultimately will ask for Federal funds.
Section 163 of this bill actually prohibits Houston Metro from using
funds to build a light rail system until a specific plan is approved in
a local referendum. After all, the city's people will bear the brunt of
the multi-billion-dollar price tag, so they should have a say in
whether the project moves forward.
This is a huge financial burden for the people of the Houston area,
many of whom I represent. The project's ultimate usefulness is still
uncertain. That is why the Transportation Appropriations bills for each
of the last 4 years, which this amendment's author voted for, have
included similar provisions to guarantee affected residents the right
to have their voice heard in this matter. It is also why the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Culberson) and I worked closely with officials at
Houston Metro when we were writing this provision to give Metro
flexibility should the voters approve the light rail project.
The referendum that we are talking about is scheduled for this
November, and the current proposal on the ballot begs many questions.
For instance, if, as studies conclude, new jobs and people are moving
in droves to the Houston suburbs, why would we spend billions of
dollars on a centralized, downtown rail system? Is a multi-billion-
dollar light rail system the best use of our resources when studies
conclude that new roads, highway lanes and busing systems have been
less costly and more effective than light rail around the country? With
an ever-sprawling population, will light rail be convenient enough to
attract commuters?
And finally, an important question Metro has not answered yet, how
does a massively expensive light rail system, accounting for a small
fraction of area trips, fit into Houston's long-term 100 percent
mobility plan?
I do not have all the answers, but neither does the author of the
amendment. Patience has been our policy for 4 years, and I think it
makes sense for another 2 months.
Vote ``no'' on the amendment and make sure that the people of Houston
have their voices heard.
Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask what I think is a very fair question. Why
is the Federal Government telling the city of Houston that it has to
have yet another referendum on rail in order to get Federal rail
funding that has been offered without any type of election to

[[Page H7896]]

every other major American city? We have already had one referendum in
Houston on rail, and we are going to have another in November as
mandated by Texas State law. There is simply no need whatsoever to have
similar language included in this Transportation Appropriations bill we
are considering here today. So I am rising in support of this amendment
which strikes that language.
Why is it necessary to continue to single out the city of Houston on
rail funding issues in Federal legislation? It makes absolutely no
sense. I think it is a travesty that anyone would go out of his way to
add language to the Appropriations bill that specifically targets
Houston and try once again to deny our community the Federal funding it
desperately needs to break the gridlock. What happened to the concept
of local control that we hear the Republicans so often trumpet as their
greatest cause in life?
In the end, this amendment is not about whether or not you support
rail. It is about local control. Let us give the city of Houston the
local control it deserves to determine its own course just as we give
every other city in the United States that right. The language in this
bill is unnecessary and solely designed to impede the enormous efforts
made by Houston community leaders to get light rail working for the
city of Houston. Enough is enough. The referendum is on the November
ballot, and I believe it will pass. It is time to stop playing games
with the very real problems of one of our country's largest cities and
let Houston get on with business, unencumbered by Federal interference.
Mr. Chairman, as we pass this Transportation Appropriations bill, let
us be serious about local control. Let us be serious about allowing
American cities like Houston to find real transportation solutions.
Stand up for local control of our cities and vote for this important
amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BELL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
comment. I might share with his point of view on local control to
reemphasize that this is not a plan that is district-based. It is a
plan that crosses a multitude of congressional districts, though we are
not the prime arbiter of how the plan is to be designed. This goes into
counties beyond Harris County. It includes Fort Bend. The small city
representatives on the board were enthusiastic about the 72.8-mile plan
and as well the Greater Houston Partnership, which is our chamber,
voted on September 3, 2003, to acknowledge that the plan that will be
on the ballot includes local and express bus service, buses, new
transit centers, additional park and rides and other bus-related
facilities and 72.8 miles of rail projects as delineated on a map
attached to the resolution, a very expansive, if you will, effort by
our community.
I think this impacts all of us and the decision should be left to
those of whom will be impacted.
Mr. BELL. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. It is
all about local control. If we are going to be serious about being in
favor of local control, then this amendment definitely deserves a
``yes'' vote.
Mr. CULBERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to join the chairman and our majority leader in
opposition to this amendment because the language in the Appropriations
bill, which this amendment would strike, simply guarantees the people
of Houston the opportunity not only to vote and approve any rail system
in Houston, but this language also assures the people of Houston that
they will be told on the ballot where specifically the rail lines would
be built.
I worked this language, developed and wrote this language in careful
cooperation with the Metro authorities. Metro's representative here in
Washington signed off and approved of this language. They were
comfortable with it. I did it in careful consultation with them.
Indeed, State law in Texas does require an election for bonding
authority, but State law in Texas has no requirements, there are no
guidelines in Texas law on what the ballot should look like. So this
Federal language is an essential part of the equation in Houston for
voters in Houston to have a good, clear understanding of not only how
much this rail line is going to cost us as taxpayers, but, more
importantly, where it is going to be built.
The language in the bill is very reasonable, and as the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has said, it is an essential, we think,
first step for, frankly, any transit system anywhere in the country to
be able to move forward with a plan that would cost billions of
dollars. In fact, this rail system in Houston will ultimately cost, if
the voters approve it this November, $5.8 billion. That would make this
rail system in Houston the Nation's second most expensive
transportation project, second only to the Big Dig, the tunnel project
in Boston.
The amendment would seek to strike language which would give the
taxpayers of Houston the right to approve by majority vote this rail
project. The amendment would strike the right of the people of Houston
to see where, specifically, the rail lines are going to be built. I
would urge, as the majority leader and the chairman have done, the
Members to vote against the amendment. This is not the place to debate
the merits of this rail line.
I note that the author of the amendment, the gentlewoman from Texas,
has expressed her support for this rail line. I would welcome an
opportunity and, in fact, invite her to debate me in Houston on the
merits of this rail plan.
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, the gentleman made a point of
cost and made a point that this amendment would strike the referendum.
Let me correct the record. The community board, Metro Board, has voted
to have a duly authorized election and referendum on November 4, 2003.
This is redundant and unnecessary, and we have collaborated in Houston,
as my good colleague and friend knows, where we have even generated the
support of the Partnership, we have given the voters a chance to make
their own decision, and I invite my friends on the other side of the
aisle to vote for local emphasis and local impact and local decision.
Mr. CULBERSON. If I could, reclaiming my time, this is not the place
to debate the merits of this plan. Would the gentlewoman debate me in
Houston on the merits of this plan?
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think that we will have that opportunity
as the election proceeds.
Mr. CULBERSON. I look forward to that opportunity.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I will be happy to debate in the course of
the election, in the forums of my choosing.
Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time, this language was worked out with
the assistance and cooperation of Metro. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' against the amendment to guarantee Houston voters the right to
approve this plan.

{time} 1845

Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of this amendment that has been
put forth by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). This
amendment would provide the citizens of Houston the opportunity to
decide their fate regarding the construction of light rail. This is
something that is local. It is something that makes a difference to
Houston. We ought to be making those decisions for ourselves. For far
too long this Congress has arbitrarily revoked the rights of
Houstonians to make significant infrastructure decisions. Quite
frequently I have heard many of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle rise in support of allowing significant decisions which affect
localities to be made at the local level. Communities should have the
opportunity to determine what is in their best interests.
Houston is a city which is rapidly growing. It is spliting at the
seams because of lack of necessary infrastructure. The citizens of
Houston have attempted for years to build light rail, but they have
been stymied at almost every attempt. And as a member of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, I certainly recognize the
importance of having multiple modes

[[Page H7897]]

of transportation available to metropolitan areas.
Houston now suffers some of the worst highway congestion in the
Nation. The average commute for Houstonians is over an hour. Mr.
Chairman, Congress should not and must not be in the business of
micromanaging the politics of localities. The city of Houston has asked
for and they should receive the same treatment as any other
metropolitan areas that have been granted access to Federal funds for
light rail. Let us do what is right for Houston. Interestingly enough,
they have reached across party lines; they have reached out across
ideological lines. They came together in a compromise that is putting
this issue on the ballot on November 4. They have done an extraordinary
effort to do what is right for themselves, and all we are asking for is
that we leave them alone and let them make the decisions for Houston.
Let us do what is right for Houston. And I do urge a ``yes'' vote for
this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I understand Houston is a very special
place, but is there some reason why it is so special that it is
apparently the only city in the entire 50 States, in the entire United
States, that has been singled out for this special treatment?
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, that is what we understand. We also
understand it is the single largest city that does not have this kind
of infrastructure that the citizens themselves have chosen to put into
place and definitely want to have.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, there is a group down, I think, in San
Antonio but they are just against all public transportation. They have
an ideological commitment that they do not believe in public anything,
I think; but they certainly do not believe in public transportation or
public rail transportation. They are just against it as a matter of
principle. If we had one of these extremist groups come in, could they
use this as a precedent to apply to Beaumont and to Austin and to other
cities across Texas and across the United States?
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I imagine when a precedent is set, it
could be used in other places. It would be the wrong direction for us
to go in for this.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, we have had a referendum in the city of
Austin; and by about a percentage point, a 1 percent point, the idea of
a light rail system was defeated, and I am actually interested in
seeing what the citizens of Austin think if this issue comes up again;
but we do not have any Federal law requirement telling us if we do not
approve it again that we will never be eligible for Federal funds, and
in fact, we have some Federal planning funds that are in the
transportation authorization this last time, and I expect there is a
good chance they will be in there again. But this would be the kind of
precedent that could restrict people who want public transportation who
do not agree with these right wing ideologues and extremists that are
against all public transportation. This would be a precedent where they
could come in and interfere with the people in my district.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we truly do not want to restrict the
rights or interests of a community to be able to choose for themselves
what they want, and in this case Houston has said let us bring it to
the people on November 4. They have the referendum set. They are going
to speak. They want to do for themselves what they can do and then
reach out to the Federal Government for the assistance that is there
for other communities. We do not want the kind of precedent that the
gentleman is speaking about set.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, if I understand the history of this, this
would not be the first time that a Federal-elected official had
interfered in the desire of the people of Houston, the support of the
business community in Houston to get public transportation; but it
would be the first time that instead of just one individual going down
and interfering in it, it was written into Federal law where the full
force and effect of Federal law would interfere with the will of the
people of Houston.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we do not want any Federal officials
impacting. We want to reach out and make sure the people of Houston
have their own say in this matter.
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I understand my colleague from Houston's strong
advocacy for light rail, but I am afraid that at this late date this
amendment is at best immaterial and perhaps, I think, undermines the
voices of the voters in our Houston region. Today on the House floor we
are rehashing a delegation disagreement about the need for a referendum
that has been really rendered moot. As we speak, a referendum on light
rail is being held, scheduled for just a few weeks from now. For more
than a year, the community has undergone and continues a detailed and
highly public debate about the scope and the merits of light rail for
the Houston region. Seemingly every corner in every neighborhood and
every party interested in this issue has offered input, and soon an
informed electorate will head to the polls to make their voices known
about this issue.
Who in our region would dispute that this has been a healthy debate
on an important issue that will impact the region for decades to come?
It has been a welcomed debate based solely because of existing language
in Federal law. But under this amendment today, what we will tell
Houston voters is, if they approve light rail, it can go forward. If
they reject light rail, it can go forward as well. We have made this
referendum meaningless. On the eve of this election to attempt to
nullify or dismiss this very healthy public referendum it will have the
effect of disenfranchising tens of thousands of Houston area voters who
simply wish to have their voices heard. Let us trust the voters. We
certainly have the choice of who should represent them in Congress. We
need to let the referendum go forward and let it matter. The voters
deserve no less.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
First of all, let me say to all of our colleagues, we are almost
going to hear from every Member who represents a section of Harris
County and the city of Houston. As we can tell, there is difference of
opinion, but there is also some misinformation. Let me correct what has
been said. There is a referendum on the ballot for November. No matter
what we do today, there will be a referendum on the ballot. The ballot
language may be changed in a couple of weeks, but the issue of bonds
under State law is what our local Metro board has to do. They have to
have a referendum. And that referendum will be about a plan, at least
the first installment, we hope, of a plan that will really bring more
light rail to Houston.
It will serve more than what is already planned. We already have a
7.5 mile segment that is built with local money because of the original
amendment in this bill that serves from downtown out to our football
stadium and the Astrodome and serves the medical center and Rice
University and lots of areas in between; but to serve areas in my
district, we have to have a referendum. To serve northside and east end
of Houston, we have to have a referendum, and that is why we do not
need this language in the bill.
It is important that Houston is the only city in the country that has
been held to this higher standard. Granted, the amendment that is in
the bill by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson) is better than the
original language, but we are still spelling out that they have to put
the projects in the referendum. We do not do that for any other city,
in fact, cities that are much smaller than the fourth largest city in
the country. That is why it is unfair to do this. I was an opponent of
heavy rail because I think in Houston we are so geographically diverse,
and for years as a legislator I opposed it; but I watched how other
cities in the country have used light rail, and it hurts me as a
Houstonian to say that even the city of Dallas is successfully using
light rail and Federal dollars to expand without jumping through the
hoops that we would require them to do if the original language in this
bill is done.

[[Page H7898]]

That is why I rise in support of the gentlewoman from Texas's (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) amendment. Again, two of those lines that are on the
ballot that will be approved come to my area. They are not all in
district 18. They serve an area near east end.
I represent a district that is very urban and also suburban; so I
realize we need light rail along with lots of highway construction; and
for years it have been known that I love to build highways, but I also
know we cannot build them fast enough in Houston to solve the problems
of transit any more than Dallas could, any more than any other part of
the country, any other urban area in the country can do it. That is why
we need to take all the language out of the bill and let the
Houstonians and the people who are in that metro area pass this bond
election in November and expand the light rail with Federal funding
like many cities that are much smaller than us.
Unfortunately, this legislation prohibits the use of Federal funds
for planning, designing and building this light rail unless it is
itemized in there. And as much as I would like to see my two projects
in my area itemized, the city of Houston or any city does not list in
their bond what water projects they are going to do. They are going to
do as many as they can because they need to have that local
flexibility. But I will tell the Members what, if Metro does not do the
plan that they have, I would be the first one back up here to say wait
a minute, they fooled the voters of Houston and they will be punished
for that. They should not do that.
Do not hold the city of Houston and my constituents to a higher
standard than we hold Dallas, than we hold any other city in the
country, including many that are much smaller. We have a referendum
plan. The voters will make that decision this November, and let us let
the voters make that decision with their Federal tax dollars to help
with light rail, and that is why I support the Jackson-Lee amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, having
been a former State senator, for the clarification of State law. I
think that is extremely important. And I want to just hold up for my
colleagues the minutes of Metro board over the last 30 days which
affirm the very points that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) has
made. They voted an overall plan that is 72.8 miles. Ultimately, the
segments will have to be bonded. That requires an election. Those miles
will be designed to go into urban and suburban and even somewhat rural
areas because that is the configuration and the geography of the
Houston/Harris County metroplex area. My good friends that are here
will have the opportunity to have light rail in their respective
communities. In fact, the small city representatives on the board that
represent the Fort Bend area, for example, are enthusiastic about a
rail system that would come to a city like Sugarland. But the point is
that the board did vote to have a referendum, and it is not necessary
to be in this bill.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlewoman's
amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think this Congress really should leave
local decisions with local communities. We really should not try to run
Houston as if we were the City Council for Houston or the Houston Metro
Authority. That would put Houston in the same unenviable position that
our own capital city where this body sits is in, and that would be
inappropriate.
The Texas Metro Board has already held the public hearings that are
necessary under the law. Furthermore, the referendum required by the
language of section 163 has already been scheduled for November 4. So
section 163 is clearly unnecessary. The referendum is already scheduled
for the entire Houston area. I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the
Jackson-Lee amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OLVER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank
the ranking member very much for his ability to dissect the language.
And I want to make the point that this is not, though it may seem,
likely a discussion of those who are for or against rail.

{time} 1900

That is not the debate here. I would not draw my colleagues into that
kind of personalized debate.
The test is simply, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver)
has indicated: The local governing authorities, including Harris
County, the City of Houston, led by Mayor Lee P. Brown, our civic
community, the partnership, the actual Metro board that has
representatives of county government, city government, and small
surrounding cities, have already acted, and their act is that we will
have a referendum on November 4, 2003, and subsequently will have other
referendums as the light rail would be expanded, if approved by the
voters.
What we are suggesting, as my good friend from Austin said, we are
the only city in this Nation where this intrusive language, this really
restrictive language that has no basis in fact or substance, it is
redundant, repetitious and unnecessary, what we are suggesting to my
friends and colleagues, I cannot imagine why both ends of the spectrum
could not support eliminating this language, particularly when we all
have some respect for the 10th amendment, which really suggests that
there are certain items that should be left to the States and local
communities. That is all we are asking to do, is simply strike this
language.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, as a former elected official at the local level and
knowing the importance of joint powers of authority, I rise to support
the Jackson-Lee amendment.
I cannot understand why Houston should be held to a higher standard
than any other city in this Nation. As a senior member on the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, I am cognizant of the fact that
light rail is the driving force in cities across this country. It is
important that light rail becomes part of the Houston intermodal
transportation because of the rapid increase in population in Houston.
So we should not leave the fate of the Houston light rail system to
the Houstonians and the stakeholders of Harris County? The people of
Houston have been fighting for years to develop a light rail system
that will help to reduce traffic congestion. We know the importance of
reducing congestion now, and this is one of the reasons in the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure we are fighting to try
to bring about light rail, because of the congestion and to maximize
regional mobility and ensure adequate funding for transportation
improvements to maintain Houston's status as an attractive place to
live.
It is important that we look at cities like Houston in trying to move
the congestion by bringing on light rail. This is why the Texas Metro
Board has held public hearings to obtain the input of the voting public
of Harris County in Houston, Texas. A referendum will be held on
November 4, 2004, to cover the entire Houston Metropolitan Transit
Authority service area.
Mr. Chairman, it is just absolutely unconscionable that one would try
to circumvent Houston local authorities from having the authority to
control their own fate in terms of light rail. I am adamant about this
particular amendment, trying to be hijacked. I support the Jackson-Lee
amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the
gentlewoman, and I appreciate very much, having come from local
government, her leadership in local government; as a local elected
official, has she had the experience of having the long arm of the
Federal Government intrude upon decisions made by either her local
boards, if these decisions, of course, were with the input and the
impact of a local community? Is that the way that local government
chooses to operate, by having the long arm of the Federal Government
instruct how to be

[[Page H7899]]

constructive and positive in maybe transit issues or water issues or
whatever issues might be relevant at that time?
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to the
contrary, local governments have tried to ensure and to maintain their
local control, thereby not asking the Federal Government to intrude at
all. In my experience as a mayor of a city, I know firsthand how joint
powers of authority work independent of Federal Government, and this is
the way it should be in Houston, as it is in other cities around the
country.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would
yield further, I hope this amendment will be supported by my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle, because I restate the fact that I have come
to do nothing more than to strike language. I am not asking for money,
I am not asking to add any language.
I could have come here with an amendment responding to neighborhoods
crying for light rail. Why is not Acres Home not more expanded with the
light rail? Why is it not more in our rural areas or suburban areas at
this point, because it is geared to going there? Why is Northeast not
included at this time? What is the status of Harrisburg?
All of those issues we are going to work on locally. I do not intend
to give up on them, but I believe we will do that locally with Members
of Congress, county governments, city government, the business
community and, of course, the voters.
My point here, listening to the gentlewoman, appears to be
reinforced, that what we are doing with this language, the only city in
the Nation, is undermining what the local officials have done. And as I
understand what the gentlewoman has just suggested, that is clearly an
intrusion that is not welcomed by local government that works so very
hard.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I hope that out of her, if you
will, solicitation, that we will be able to have our colleagues
supporting us on both sides of the aisle. The Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure has been very, very receptive and
warm to our needs in Houston, and the Committee on Appropriations. The
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and, of course, the chairman,
have been very welcoming to the mobility needs we have had.
I would simply say, being supportive of local needs, I have supported
roads and toll roads, as have my other colleagues. But yet when it
comes to light rail, we allow this to be so divisive. This language
should be stricken, we should never see it again, and we should stop
this decisive debate on the floor of the House when the community has
actually come together.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hayes) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dreier, 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. 2989) making
appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Treasury, and
independent agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________